Bush threatens veto in ports row [Archive] - Big Big Forums

excuseme

02-22-2006, 06:33 AM

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4737940.stm

Bush threatens veto in ports row
US President George W Bush says he will veto any law blocking a deal giving an Arab company control of six US ports.

The threat came as Bill Frist, leader of the Republican Party in the Senate, said he would move a blocking law if the government did not delay the deal.

The issue has developed into a very serious political standoff between Mr Bush and senior Republicans, the BBC's Justin Webb reports.

The administration is to brief a Senate committee on the deal on Wednesday.

Administration officials will address an unusual session of the Senate Armed Services Committee on the planned takeover, which would put six of the largest ports in the hands of Dubai Ports World of the United Arab Emirates.

The ports are New York, New Jersey, Philadelphia, Baltimore, New Orleans and Miami.

Critics say this would make the US more vulnerable to terrorism.

The ports are currently run by British ports and shipping firm P&O, which has agreed a $6.8bn (£3.9bn) takeover by DP World.

'Terrible signal'

President Bush said that the government had looked at the issue carefully and that he believed the deal should go ahead.

He called on opponents to explain why they opposed a Middle Eastern firm taking over when they did not oppose a British company being in control.

"I am trying to conduct foreign policy now by saying to the people of the world, 'We'll treat you fairly'," he said.

"It would send a terrible signal to friends and allies not to let this transaction go through," he told reporters.

Senator Frist, the majority leader in the Senate, said the deal "should be put on hold until the administration conducts a more extensive review of this matter".

It would send a terrible signal to friends and allies not to let this transaction go through
President Bush

If it did not call a delay, he said he would introduce legislation to ensure the postponement.

Sen Frist is the most senior Republican and the most senior figure in the Senate to oppose the deal.

Senior Republicans believe Mr Bush should have paid more attention to the way the deal would be perceived in the US, our correspondent says.

Security risk

However, the deal has alarmed lawmakers from both parties.

Critics fear an increased risk of terrorist attacks, pointing out that the UAE was the home of two of the hijackers involved in the 11 September 2001 attacks.

Democratic Sen Charles Schumer of New York said: "This company is coming out of a country that has had a strong al-Qaeda presence.

"In this post 9/11 world, we cannot consider approving this contract until a much more thorough investigation takes place on this security matter."

The administration has rejected the concerns, saying the deal was thoroughly vetted.

Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said: "Nothing changes with respect to security under the contract. The Coast Guard is in charge of security, not the corporation.

"We all deal with the UAE on a regular basis. It's a country that's been involved in the global war on terror."

P&O and DP World say they are confident the deal will go ahead, the latter insisting that security was "at the forefront" of its business.
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/americas/4737940.stm

Published: 2006/02/22 01:58:23 GMT

JKATHERINE

02-22-2006, 06:56 AM

He's got to be the biggest dumbass I've ever seen in my entire life. WHAT about this makes sense?

Jolie Rouge

02-22-2006, 07:17 AM

Bush Says Ports Deal Will Stand
By TED BRIDIS, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - Lawmakers determined to capsize the pending sale of shipping operations at six major U.S. seaports to a state-owned business in the United Arab Emirates said President Bush's surprise veto threat won't deter them.

Bush on Tuesday brushed aside objections by leaders in the Senate and House that the $6.8 billion sale could raise risks of terrorism at American ports. In a forceful defense of his administration's earlier approval of the deal, he pledged to veto any bill Congress might approve to block the agreement.

The sale's harshest critics were not appeased.

"I will fight harder than ever for this legislation, and if it is vetoed I will fight as hard as I can to override it," said Rep. Pete King, R-N.Y., chairman of the Homeland Security Committee. King and Democratic Sen. Charles Schumer of New York said they will introduce emergency legislation to suspend the ports deal.

Another Democrat, Sen. Bob Menendez of New Jersey, urged his colleagues to force Bush to wield his veto, which Bush — in his sixth year in office — has never done. "We should really test the resolve of the president on this one because what we're really doing is securing the safety of our people."

The White House and supporters planned a renewed campaign this week to reassure the public the sale was safe. Senior officials were expected to explain at a press conference Wednesday what persuaded them to approve the deal, the first-ever sale involving U.S. port operations to a foreign, state-owned company.

The sale — set to be completed in early March — would put Dubai Ports in charge of major shipping operations in New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia. "If there was any chance that this transaction would jeopardize the security of the United States, it would not go forward," Bush said.

Defending his decision, Bush responded to a chorus of objections this week in Congress over potential security concerns in the sale of London-based Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co.

Bush's veto threat sought to quiet a political storm that has united Republican governors and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist of Tennessee with liberal Democrats, including New York Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Schumer.

To assuage concerns, the administration disclosed some assurances it negotiated with Dubai Ports. It required mandatory participation in U.S. security programs to stop smuggling and detect illegal shipments of nuclear materials; roughly 33 other port companies participate in these voluntarily. The Coast Guard also said it was nearly finished inspecting Dubai Ports' facilities in the United States.

A senior Homeland Security official, Stewart Baker, said U.S. intelligence agencies were consulted "very early on to actually look at vulnerabilities and threats."

Frist said Tuesday, before Bush's comments, that he would introduce legislation to put the sale on hold if the White House did not delay the takeover. He said the deal raised "serious questions regarding the safety and security of our homeland.

House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., asked the president for a moratorium on the sale until it could be studied further. "We must not allow the possibility of compromising our national security due to lack of review or oversight by the federal government," Hastert said.

Maryland's Republican Gov. Robert Ehrlich, during a tour of Baltimore's port, called the deal an "overly secretive process at the federal level."

Bush took the rare step of calling reporters to his conference room on Air Force One after returning from a speech in Colorado. He also stopped to talk before television cameras after he returned to the White House.

"I can understand why some in Congress have raised questions about whether or not our country will be less secure as a result of this transaction," the president said. "But they need to know that our government has looked at this issue and looked at it carefully."

A senior executive from Dubai Ports World pledged the company would agree to whatever security precautions the U.S. government demanded to salvage the deal. Chief operating officer Edward "Ted" H. Bilkey promised Dubai Ports "will fully cooperate in putting into place whatever is necessary to protect the terminals."

Bilkey traveled to Washington in an effort to defuse the growing controversy.

Bush said protesting lawmakers should understand that if "they pass a law, I'll deal with it with a veto."

Lawmakers from both parties have noted that some of the Sept. 11 hijackers used the United Arab Emirates as an operational and financial base. In addition, critics contend the UAE was an important transfer point for shipments of smuggled nuclear components sent to Iran, North Korea and Libya by a Pakistani scientist.

Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, and Rep. Jane Harman, D-Calif., said they would introduce a "joint resolution of disapproval" when they returned to Washington next week. Collins heads the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, and Harman is the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee.

Bush's veto threat didn't stop local efforts to block the deal. New Jersey's governor, Jon S. Corzine, said the state will file lawsuits in federal and state courts opposing the agreement. Corzine, a Democrat, cited a "deep, deep feeling that this is the wrong direction for our nation to take."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060222/ap_on_.../ports_security

Jolie Rouge

02-22-2006, 07:18 AM

Any port in the terrorist storm
Feb 20, 2006
by Cal Thomas

On Sunday, the Australian government issued the following alert to its citizens: "We advise you to exercise a high degree of caution in the United Arab Emirates because of the high threat of terrorist attack. We continue to receive reports that terrorists are planning attacks against Western interests in the United Arab Emirates (UAE). Commercial and public areas frequented by foreigners are possible terrorist targets."

The United States has approved a business deal that would turn over the operation of six major American ports to a company that is owned by the UAE, the very country Australians are to be wary of visiting. The obvious question is: If it is dangerous for an Australian to travel to the UAE because of terrorism, isn't it even more dangerous for a company owned by UAE to own the rights to American ports where terror might be directly, or indirectly, imported?

There have been some dumb decisions since the United States was attacked on Sept. 11, 2001, including the "welcoming" of radical Muslim groups, mosques and schools that seek by their preaching and teaching to influence U.S. foreign policy and undermine the nation. But the decision to sell port operations in New York, Newark-Port Elizabeth, Baltimore, Miami, Philadelphia and New Orleans to a company owned by the UAE may be the dumbest of all.

Security experts have repeatedly said American ports are poorly protected. Each year, approximately 9 million cargo containers enter the United States through its ports. Repeated calls to improve port security have mostly gone unheeded.

In supporting the sale decision by a little-known interagency panel called the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), the Bush administration dismissed security risk concerns. National Security Council spokesman Frederick Jones said the sale of the ports for $6.8 billion to Dubai Ports World was "rigorously reviewed" by CFIUS, which, he said, considers security threats when foreign companies seek to buy or invest in American industry. Apparently money talked more than common sense.

In a rare display of bipartisanship, congressional Republicans and Democrats are forging an alliance to reverse the decision. Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, has announced plans for her Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs to hold hearings. Sens. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., and Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J. - both members of Collins' committee - have raised concerns. New York's Democratic senators, Charles Schumer and Hillary Clinton have also objected to the sale. Clinton and Sen. Robert Menendez, D-N.J., expect to offer a bill to ban companies owned or controlled by foreign governments from acquiring U.S. port operations.

In the House, Reps. Chris Shays, R-Conn.; Mark Foley, R-Fla.; and Vito Fossella, R.-N.Y., are among those who want to know more about the sale. In a House speech, Foley said, "The potential threat to our country is not imagined, it is real."

The UAE was used as a financial and operational base by some of the 9/11 hijackers. A New York Times editorial said the sale takes the Bush administration's "laxness to a new level."

Members of Congress may wish to consider that the UAE was an important transfer point for shipments of smuggled nuclear components bound for Iran, North Korea and Libya by a Pakistani scientist, Abdul Qadeer Khan. The UAE was one of only three countries to recognize the Taliban as Afghanistan's legitimate government before the U.S. invasion toppled it.

The Department of Homeland Security says it is legally impossible under CFIUS rules to reconsider approval of the sale without evidence the Dubai company gave false information or withheld vital details from U.S. officials. Congress should change that law.

Last year, Congress overwhelmingly recommended against the Bush administration granting permission to a Chinese company to purchase the U.S. oil services company UNOCAL. Six years ago, when a Chinese company took control of the Panama Canal from the United States, retired U.S. Admiral and former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Thomas H. Moorer warned of a "nuclear Pearl Harbor."

Congress must stop this sale of American ports to foreign interests and, in an era of terrorism, prevent any more potential terrorist targets from falling into the hands of those who wish to destroy us.

http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/ca.../20/187197.html (http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/calthomas/2006/02/20/187197.html)

Jolie Rouge

02-22-2006, 07:19 AM

A Harriet Miers moment

(Washington, D.C.): The federal bureaucracy has made a strategic mistake that threatens to cost the President dearly. The question is not whether the ill-advised decision taken last week by the secretive Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (known by its acronym, CFIUS, pronounced syphius) will be undone. Rather, the question is: By whom -- and at what political cost to Mr. Bush?

The DP World Deal

In the latest of a series of approvals of questionable foreign takeovers of American interests, CFIUS has given the green light to a company owned by the United Arab Emirates (UAE) to acquire contracts to manage port facilities in New York, Newark, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Miami and New Orleans. The company, Dubai Ports World, would do so by purchasing a British concern, Peninsula and Oriental Steam Navigation Company ("P and O").

Experts have long identified America's sea ports as weak links in the chain of our homeland security. With their proximity to major U.S. population centers, expensive infrastructure vital to the regional and, in many cases, national economy and their throughput of large quantities of poorly monitored cargo, they are prime targets for terror.

As a result, a case can be made that it is a mistake to have foreign entities responsible for any aspect of such ports, including the management of their docks, stevedore operations and terminals. After all, that duty affords abundant opportunities to insinuate personnel and/or shipping containers that can pose a threat to this country. Even though the company in question may not be directly responsible for port security, at least some of their employees have to be read in on the relevant plans, potentially compromising the latter irreparably.

At least the previous foreign contractors were from Britain, a country that was on our side before September 11, 2001. The same cannot be said of the United Arab Emirates, whose territory was used for most of the planning and financing of the 9/11 attacks. While the UAE's government is currently depicted as a friend and ally in the so-called war on terror, its country remains awash with Islamofascist recruiters and adherents -- people all too willing to exploit any new opportunity to do us harm.

New Grounds for Disapproval

Since a column raising an alarm about CFIUS' decision appeared in this space last week, three new factors have come to light that compound the strategic folly of the UAE deal:

First, in addition to the six affected ports mentioned above, two others would also have part of their operations managed by DP World -- on behalf of none other than the U.S. Army. Under a newly extended contract, the owner of P and O will manage the movement of heavy armor, helicopters and other military materiel through the Texas seaports of Beaumont and Corpus Christie. How much would our enemies like to be able to sabotage such shipments?

Second, while advocates of the stealthy CFIUS decision-making process point to the involvement of the Defense Department in its DP World decision, it is unclear at what level this bizarre proposition was reviewed in the Pentagon. Many top jobs remain unfilled by presidential appointees. Past experience suggests the job may have fallen to lower-level career bureaucrats who give priority to maintaining good relations with their foreign "clients," like the UAE.

Then, there is the matter of financing the DP World takeover of Peninsula and Oriental. The UAE evidently intends to raise nearly all of the $6.8 billion price for P and O on international capital markets. It must be asked: Who will the foreign investors be, and might they have malign intentions towards the U.S.? If American sources of capital are being sought, will the possible danger this transaction may create for this country be properly disclosed? For that matter, will the underwriters, Barclays and Deutchebank, reveal to prospective funders the real risk that the deal will ultimately fall through?

In fact, that seems virtually certain now that talk radio, the blogosphere and the public have become aware of -- and white hot about -- this transaction. Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle and of Capitol Hill have made known their determination to prevent the transfer of control of U.S. ports to the UAE. In particular, Democrats like Hillary Clinton and Charles Schumer have been quick to seize on this issue as an opportunity to burnish their national security credentials at the expense of President Bush and his party.

The Bottom Line

So, the question recurs: How long will it take before Mr. Bush cuts his losses?

This could be accomplished in one of three ways: He could reverse the decision himself (perhaps by directing CFIUS to reconsider its initial recommendation). He could encourage and sign into law legislation barring foreign ownership or management of U.S. port facilities (akin to the rules governing other critical infrastructure). Or he could quietly encourage the UAE to do as Communist China did last year with respect to the Unocal purchase -- withdraw the offer itself, sparing the country in question (and its friends here) the embarrassment of having its behavior carefully scrutinized and its offer spurned in a high-profile way.

Call it a Harriet Meirs moment. Politics being the art of the possible, it is time to recognize that the Dubai Ports World deal is neither strategically sensible nor politically doable. It is time to pull the plug, and to reform the secretive interagency CFIUS process that allowed this fiasco in the first place.

http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/ind...rs&code=06-D_09 (http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/index.jsp?section=papers&code=06-D_09)

Rep. Peter King : "By having a company right out of the heartland of al-Qaida managing those ports without being properly cleared or investigated, to me is madness." http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/2/20/120409.shtml

King also responded to Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff's defense that the government typically builds in "certain conditions or requirements that the company has to agree to make sure we address the national security concerns." The House Homeland Security Committee chairman said that, despite Chertoff's explanation on ABC's "This Week," he still has strong concerns about the inquiry. "When I talk to the people actually involved in the process, it was very cursory, it was very superficial," King said.

He said he found out about the purchase, which transfers operations at ports in New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia to the Persian Gulf company, last Tuesday in meetings with senior Bush administration officials. "As I understand it, the whole process took only 20 to 25 days," he said of the transaction. "There's no way you can do a complete analysis in 20 to 25 days and that includes financial analysis."

Jolie Rouge

02-22-2006, 07:30 AM

You can read more where it was posted in the "Have You Seen These Men" thread http://forums.bigbigsavings.com/showthread.php3?t=501446 from last week when this story was just breaking

LillyMoon

02-22-2006, 07:31 AM

S%$# For Brains! :mad: Let the impeachment proceedings begin!!!! I live all too close to one of the ports mentioned + a nuclear power plant. :eek: etc etc etc .......Its all about the oil money family friendship with the arab royals dating back to ww2. !

TexasGal

02-22-2006, 09:03 AM

Bush unaware of port deal until after approval
White House: President only learned recently of handover to Arab firm

BREAKING NEWS

Updated: 10:43 a.m. ET Feb. 22, 2006

WASHINGTON - President Bush was unaware of the pending sale of shipping operations at six major U.S. seaports to a state-owned business in the United Arab Emirates until the deal already had been approved by his administration, the White House said Wednesday.

Defending the deal anew, the administration also said that it should have briefed Congress sooner about the transaction, which has triggered a major political backlash among both Republicans and Democrats.

Bush on Tuesday brushed aside objections by leaders in the Senate and House that the $6.8 billion sale could raise risks of terrorism at American ports. In a forceful defense of his administration’s earlier approval of the deal, he pledged to veto any bill Congress might approve to block the agreement.

The sale’s harshest critics were not appeased by the president's threat.

“I will fight harder than ever for this legislation, and if it is vetoed I will fight as hard as I can to override it,” said Rep. Pete King, R-N.Y., chairman of the Homeland Security Committee. King and Democratic Sen. Charles Schumer of New York said they will introduce emergency legislation to suspend the ports deal.

Another Democrat, Sen. Bob Menendez of New Jersey, urged his colleagues to force Bush to wield his veto, which Bush — in his sixth year in office — has never done. “We should really test the resolve of the president on this one because what we’re really doing is securing the safety of our people.”

Administration steps up pressure
The White House and supporters planned a renewed campaign this week to reassure the public the sale was safe. Senior officials were expected to explain at a press conference Wednesday what persuaded them to approve the deal, the first-ever sale involving U.S. port operations to a foreign, state-owned company.

The sale — set to be completed in early March — would put Dubai Ports in charge of major shipping operations in New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia. “If there was any chance that this transaction would jeopardize the security of the United States, it would not go forward,” Bush said.

Defending his decision, Bush responded to a chorus of objections this week in Congress over potential security concerns in the sale of London-based Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co.

Bush’s veto threat sought to quiet a political storm that has united Republican governors and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist of Tennessee with liberal Democrats, including New York Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Schumer.

To assuage concerns, the administration disclosed some assurances it negotiated with Dubai Ports. It required mandatory participation in U.S. security programs to stop smuggling and detect illegal shipments of nuclear materials; roughly 33 other port companies participate in these voluntarily. The Coast Guard also said it was nearly finished inspecting Dubai Ports’ facilities in the United States.

A senior Homeland Security official, Stewart Baker, said U.S. intelligence agencies were consulted “very early on to actually look at vulnerabilities and threats.”

Frist cites ‘serious questions’
Frist said Tuesday, before Bush’s comments, that he would introduce legislation to put the sale on hold if the White House did not delay the takeover. He said the deal raised “serious questions regarding the safety and security of our homeland.

House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., asked the president for a moratorium on the sale until it could be studied further. “We must not allow the possibility of compromising our national security due to lack of review or oversight by the federal government,” Hastert said.

Maryland’s Republican Gov. Robert Ehrlich, during a tour of Baltimore’s port, called the deal an “overly secretive process at the federal level.”

Bush took the rare step of calling reporters to his conference room on Air Force One after returning from a speech in Colorado. He also stopped to talk before television cameras after he returned to the White House.

“I can understand why some in Congress have raised questions about whether or not our country will be less secure as a result of this transaction,” the president said. “But they need to know that our government has looked at this issue and looked at it carefully.”

Assurances from port operator
A senior executive from Dubai Ports World pledged the company would agree to whatever security precautions the U.S. government demanded to salvage the deal. Chief operating officer Edward “Ted” H. Bilkey promised Dubai Ports “will fully cooperate in putting into place whatever is necessary to protect the terminals.”

Bilkey traveled to Washington in an effort to defuse the growing controversy.

Bush said protesting lawmakers should understand that if “they pass a law, I’ll deal with it with a veto.”

Lawmakers from both parties have noted that some of the Sept. 11 hijackers used the United Arab Emirates as an operational and financial base. In addition, critics contend the UAE was an important transfer point for shipments of smuggled nuclear components sent to Iran, North Korea and Libya by a Pakistani scientist.

Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, and Rep. Jane Harman, D-Calif., said they would introduce a “joint resolution of disapproval” when they returned to Washington next week. Collins heads the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, and Harman is the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee.

Bush’s veto threat didn’t stop local efforts to block the deal. New Jersey’s governor, Jon S. Corzine, said the state will file lawsuits in federal and state courts opposing the agreement. Corzine, a Democrat, cited a “deep, deep feeling that this is the wrong direction for our nation to take.”

© 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/11494815/

excuseme

02-22-2006, 09:25 AM

"Bush unaware"

Why is this always coming up?

Jolie Rouge

02-22-2006, 09:57 AM

Ports of Politics
How to sound like a hawk without being one.
Wednesday, February 22, 2006 12:01 a.m. EST

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist is the latest Republican to broadcast his "independence" from President Bush on homeland security, yesterday joining Senator Lindsey Graham, Representative Peter King and numerous state politicians in calling on the Administration to stop a deal that would allow a United Arab Emirates company to manage six major U.S. ports.

The Democrats are also piling on, and we'll speak to that in a moment, but this behavior of Republicans strikes us as peculiar coming from people who claim to support the war on terror. Mr. Graham told Fox News that the Administration's decision allowing the state-owned Dubai Ports World to run commercial operations at U.S. ports was "tone deaf politically." The voluble Senator said this is no time "to outsource major port security to a foreign-based company" and that "most Americans are scratching their heads wondering, 'Why this company, from this region, now?' "

Some of us are scratching our heads all right, but we're wondering why Mr. Graham and others believe Dubai Ports World has been insufficiently vetted for the task at hand. So far, none of the critics have provided any evidence that the Administration hasn't done its due diligence. The deal has been blessed by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, a multiagency panel that includes representatives from the departments of Treasury, Defense and Homeland Security.

Yes, some of the 9/11 hijackers were UAE citizens. But then the London subway bombings last year were perpetrated by citizens of Britain, home to the company (P&O) that currently manages the ports that Dubai Ports World would take over. Which tells us three things: First, this work is already being outsourced to "a foreign-based company"; second, discriminating against a Mideast company offers no security guarantees because attacks are sometimes homegrown; and third, Mr. Graham likes to talk first and ask questions later.

Besides, the notion that the Bush Administration is farming out port "security" to hostile Arab nations is alarmist nonsense. Dubai Ports World would be managing the commercial activities of these U.S. ports, not securing them. There's a difference. Port security falls to Coast Guard and U.S. Customs officials. "Nothing changes with respect to security under the contract," Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said yesterday. "The Coast Guard is in charge of security, not the corporation."

In a telephone interview yesterday, Kristie Clemens of U.S. Customs and Border Protection elaborated that "Customs and Border Protection has the sole responsibility for the cargo processing and cargo security, incoming and outgoing. The port authority sets the guidelines for the entire port, and port operators have to follow those guidelines." Again, nothing in the pending deal would affect that arrangement.

The timing of this sudden uproar is also a tad suspicious. A bidding war for the British-owned P&O has been going on since last autumn, and the P&O board accepted Dubai's latest offer last month. The story only blew up last week, as a Florida firm that is a partner with P&O in Miami, Continental Stevedoring and Terminals Inc., filed a suit to block the purchase. Miami's mayor also sent a letter of protest to Mr. Bush. It wouldn't be the first time if certain politicians were acting here on behalf of private American commercial interests.
Critics also forget, or conveniently ignore, that the UAE government has been among the most helpful Arab countries in the war on terror. It was one of the first countries to join the U.S. container security initiative, which seeks to inspect cargo in foreign ports. The UAE has assisted in training security forces in Iraq, and at home it has worked hard to stem terrorist financing and WMD proliferation. UAE leaders are as much an al Qaeda target as Tony Blair.

As for the Democrats, we suppose this is a two-fer: They have a rare opportunity to get to the right of the GOP on national security, and they can play to their union, anti-foreign investment base as well. At a news conference in front of New York harbor, Senator Chuck Schumer said allowing the Arab company to manage ports "is a homeland security accident waiting to happen." Hillary Clinton is also along for this political ride.
So the same Democrats who lecture that the war on terror is really a battle for "hearts and minds" now apparently favor bald discrimination against even friendly Arabs investing in the U.S.? Guantanamo must be closed because it's terrible PR, wiretapping al Qaeda in the U.S. is illegal, and the U.S. needs to withdraw from Iraq, but these Democratic superhawks simply will not allow Arabs to be put in charge of American longshoremen. That's all sure to play well on al Jazeera.

Yesterday Mr. Bush defended his decision to allow the investment to go ahead, and he threatened what would be his first veto if Congress tries to block it. We hope this time he means it.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110007999

Jolie Rouge

02-22-2006, 10:01 AM

....but we're wondering why Mr. Graham and others believe Dubai Ports World has been insufficiently vetted for the task at hand. So far, none of the critics have provided any evidence that the Administration hasn't done its due diligence.

Ports cause a storm

Contract that would turn over 6 U.S. ports to Arab control spurs bipartisan outrage and demand for review
STAFF AND WIRE REPORTS
February 20, 2006

The debate over an Arab company's takeover of operations at six major American ports heightened yesterday with Rep. Peter King declaring that U.S. terms for approving the deal are insufficient to guard against terrorists and with Sen. Charles Schumer and family members of Sept. 11 victims urging President George W. Bush to intervene to block the port security contract.

"The immediate goal is at least to freeze the contract and look into it more carefully ... " King (R-Seaford) said of the deal involving Dubai Ports World of the United Arab Emirates. "It's a company coming out of a country which has a history of al-Qaida presence and from my analysis so far, there was never a serious investigation into this company."

King also responded to Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff's defense that the government typically builds in "certain conditions or requirements that the company has to agree to make sure we address the national security concerns." The House Homeland Security Committee chairman said that, despite Chertoff's explanation on ABC's "This Week," he still has strong concerns about the inquiry. "When I talk to the people actually involved in the process, it was very cursory, it was very superficial," King said.

He said he found out about the purchase, which transfers operations at ports in New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia to the Persian Gulf company, last Tuesday in meetings with senior Bush administration officials. "As I understand it, the whole process took only 20 to 25 days," he said of the transaction. "There's no way you can do a complete analysis in 20 to 25 days and that includes financial analysis."

He added, "I will do anything, including holding hearings, to stop this."

In Manhattan yesterday, Schumer, joined by family members of Sept. 11 victims on a pier on New York Harbor, called for Bush to "override the agreement and conduct a special investigation into the matter."

He told a news conference, "This is a deal that was approved in the dark of night and needs to see the light of day."

The New York Democrat said the Committee on Foreign Investment, which approved the $6.8-billion agreement, had "proven itself unreliable" on issues of national security.

Speaking with Schumer, Peter Gadiel, of Kent, Conn., whose son James was killed in the World Trade Center attack, said he was deeply disturbed by the ports deal. "I'm a lifelong Republican and I think the president's gone insane," said Gadiel, director of a group called 9/11 Families for a Secure America.

Other lawmakers also question the sale. "It's unbelievably tone deaf politically at this point in our history," Sen. Lindsay Graham (R-S.C.) said on "Fox News Sunday." "Most Americans are scratching their heads, wondering why this company, from this region, now," Graham said.

Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) on CBS' "Face the Nation," said, "It is ridiculous to say you're taking secret steps to make sure that it's OK for a nation that had ties to 9/11, take over part of our port operations in many of our largest ports. This has to stop."

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice told Arab journalists Friday that it was "the considered opinion of the U.S. government that this can go forward."

She pledged to work with Congress because "perhaps people will need better explanation and will need to understand some of the process that we have gone through."

Staff writer Bryan Virasami contributed to this story.

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/ny-usport20,0,260189.story?coll=ny-top-headlines

And there's this: http://www.nytimes.com/glogin?URI=http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/22/politics/22port.html&OQ=_rQ3D1Q26pagewantedQ3D2&OP=1901e766Q2FQ2Ae(Q25Q2AQ3D_Uq9__iVQ2AVQ3CQ3CgQ2A Q3CVQ2AVVQ2Ah_G.i.UqQ2AVVh_9iRQ3EiNG

The administration's review of the deal was conducted by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, a body that was created in 1975 to review foreign investments in the country that could affect national security. Under that review, officials from the Defense, State, Commerce and Transportation Departments, along with the National Security Council and other agencies, were charged with raising questions and passing judgment. They found no problems to warrant the next stage of review, a 45-day investigation with results reported to the president for a final decision.

However, a 1993 amendment to the law stipulates that such an investigation is mandatory when the acquiring company is controlled by or acting on behalf of a foreign government. Administration officials said they conducted additional inquires because of the ties to the United Arab Emirates, but they could not say why a 45-day investigation did not occur.

Jolie Rouge

02-22-2006, 10:06 AM

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld acknowledged in his press briefing yesterday that he only learned of the deal over the weekend.

http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2006/tr20060221-12543.html

SEC. RUMSFELD: There were Defense Department and -- I think as I said, there were six departments that were involved in the process in one way or another, and the Defense Department was one of them. The lead was the Department of Homeland Security.
Q Are you confident that any problems with security -- from what you know, are you confident that any problems with security would not be greater with a UAE company running this than an American company?

SEC. RUMSFELD: I am reluctant to make judgments based on the minimal amount of information I have, because I just heard about this over the weekend.

The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States has been little more than rubber stamp on sensitive foreign acquisitions since its founding. Frank Gaffney of the Center for Security Policy, who has followed the panel's dealings extensively, pointed out: http://www.nysun.com/article/27663

This is not the first time this interagency panel - called the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States - has made an astounding call about the transfer of control of strategically sensitive U.S. assets to questionable purchasers. In fact, as of last summer, CFIUS had, since its creation in 1988, formally rejected only one of 1,530 transactions submitted for its review.

Such a record is hardly surprising given that the committee is chaired by the Treasury Department, whose institutional responsibilities include promoting foreign investment in the United States. Treasury has rarely seen a foreign purchase of American assets that it did not like. And this bias on the part of the chairman of CFIUS has consistently skewed the results of the panel's deliberations in favor of approving deals, even those opposed by other, more national security-minded departments. Thanks to the secrecy with which CFIUS operates, it is not clear at this writing whether any such objection was heard with respect to the idea of contracting out management of six of our country's most important ports to a UAE company.

Moreover, it's not clear who exactly reviewed the approval at the Pentagon and Homeland Security. Gaffney observes, "Past experience suggests the job may have fallen to lower-level career bureaucrats who give priority to maintaining good relations with their foreign 'clients,' like the UAE."

Jolie Rouge

02-22-2006, 10:18 AM

Yes, some of the 9/11 hijackers were UAE citizens. But then the London subway bombings last year were perpetrated by citizens of Britain, home to the company (P&O) that currently manages the ports that Dubai Ports World would take over. Which tells us three things: First, this work is already being outsourced to "a foreign-based company"; second, discriminating against a Mideast company offers no security guarantees because attacks are sometimes homegrown; and third, Mr. Graham likes to talk first and ask questions later.

First, the deal will outsource port operations not just to any "foreign-based company"--but to a state-owned entity based in a known transit point for al Qaeda operatives and a key transfer point for shipments of smuggled nuclear components sent to Iran, North Korea and Libya. Second, of course, there's no such thing as a perfect defense. Should we never subject any Mideast companies or individuals to heightened scrutiny because it would offer "no security guarantees?"

Can the Journal editorial board be that dense? Well, this is the open-borders editorial board that routinely misstates immigration law, resorts to pathetic ad hominem attacks on immigration enforcement advocates, and believes that since we can't deport all illegal aliens in the country, we shouldn't deport any and just amnestize them all instead.

Continuing from the same article :

Besides, the notion that the Bush Administration is farming out port "security" to hostile Arab nations is alarmist nonsense. Dubai Ports World would be managing the commercial activities of these U.S. ports, not securing them. There's a difference. Port security falls to Coast Guard and U.S. Customs officials. "Nothing changes with respect to security under the contract," Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said yesterday. "The Coast Guard is in charge of security, not the corporation."

Missing. The. Point. The issue is not whether day-to-day, on-the-ground conditions at the ports would change. They presumably wouldn't. The issues are whether we should grant the demonstrably unreliable UAE access to sensitive information and management plans about our key U.S ports, which are plenty insecure enough without adding new risks, and whether the decision process was thorough and free from conflicts of interest.

The Journal and the Bush administration make no persuasive case that it was.

As for the Democrats, we suppose this is a two-fer: They have a rare opportunity to get to the right of the GOP on national security, and they can play to their union, anti-foreign investment base as well. At a news conference in front of New York harbor, Senator Chuck Schumer said allowing the Arab company to manage ports "is a homeland security accident waiting to happen." Hillary Clinton is also along for this political ride.
So the same Democrats who lecture that the war on terror is really a battle for "hearts and minds" now apparently favor bald discrimination against even friendly Arabs investing in the U.S.? Guantanamo must be closed because it's terrible PR, wiretapping al Qaeda in the U.S. is illegal, and the U.S. needs to withdraw from Iraq, but these Democratic superhawks simply will not allow Arabs to be put in charge of American longshoremen. That's all sure to play well on al Jazeera.

On the hypocrisy of the Democrats, I completely concur with the Journal. See my column: They are all profilers now. http://jewishworldreview.com/michelle/malkin022206.php3

But that's about the only thing I agree with in the piece.

It's time to get heads out of the sand and stop drinking the Kool-Aid: In a post-9/11 world, the first-ever sale involving U.S. port operations to a foreign, state-owned company demands much more than a business-as-usual rubber stamp. Outside the Beltway, this is gob-smackingly obvious.

James Lileks speaks for many: http://www.lileks.com/screedblog/06/02222406.html#whatthehell

We’re told we’re at war, and we reach back for the wartime memories we all saw in the movies and read in the novels: Yanks walking along fences with a dog, rifle on the shoulder, searchlight playing on the ground, stealthy foes ever at the perimeter. It was never that tight, of course; it was never that dramatic. But there were the constant imprecations to be vigilant, because peril lurked. That would have been undercut, perhaps, if the Roosevelt Administration had given port control to Franco.
Well, not the best analogy, perhaps. But the specifics don’t matter; arguments about the specific nature of the Dubai Ports World organization’s global reach and responsible track records don’t matter. Because it feels immediately, instinctively wrong to nearly every American, and that isn’t something that can be argued away with charts or glossy brochures. It just doesn’t sit well. Period. It’s one thing for an Administration to misjudge how a particular decision will be received; it’s another entirely to misjudge an issue that cuts to the core of the Administration’s core strength. That’s where you slap yourself on the forehead in the style of those lamenting the failure to request a V-8 in a timely fashion. Doesn’t matter whether it was a deal struck between the previous administrators and the UAE; that’s not how the issue will be seen. And it certainly doesn’t matter once the President gets all stern on the topic and insists he’ll veto any attempt to keep the deal from going through. At that point, millions of previously resolute supporters stand there with their mouths open, uttering a soft confused moan of disbelief.

The White House isn't merely tone-deaf on this matter. It is stone-blind.

Jolie Rouge

02-22-2006, 10:21 AM

They are all profilers now
By Michelle Malkin

http://jewishworldreview.com/michelle/malkin022206.php3

For the past several years, I've been condemned as an "extremist" for advocating nationality profiling — unapologetically applying stricter scrutiny to terror-sponsoring and terror-sympathizing countries in our entrance, immigration, and security policies.

Now, mirabile dictum, some of the same Democrats who have routinely lambasted such profiling are rushing to the floors of Congress and in front of TV cameras espousing these very same policies. The impetus: the White House's boneheaded insistence on ramming through a $7 billion deal giving United Arab Emirates-owned Dubai Ports World control over significant operations at six major American ports in New York, New Jersey, New Orleans, Baltimore, Philadelphia and Miami.

Make no mistake. I stand with critics on both sides of the aisle who want to stop the secretive deal transferring operations of our ports to the UAE — a Middle Eastern government with a spotty record of fighting terrorist plots and terrorist financing. The issue is not whether day-to-day, on-the-ground conditions at the ports would change. The issues are whether we should grant the demonstrably unreliable UAE access to sensitive information and management plans about our key U.S ports, which are plenty insecure enough without adding new risks, and whether the decision process was thorough and free from conflicts of interest.

From every angle — political, safety, and sovereignty-wise--Dubai Ports World's business transaction (made possible by an unprecedented $3.5 billion Islamic financing instrument called a "sukuk" that upholds sharia law) looks bad and smells worse.

But there is a teachable moment here that shouldn't be missed. The tone-deafness of the White House is bad. The craven political opportunism of the Democrats is worse.

6-foot-5, 255-pound former college football player (Xavier University in Cincinnati), running against his party's record.

Listen to Sen. Evan Bayh, Indiana Democrat: "I think we've got to look into this company. I think we've got to ensure ourselves that the American people's national-security interests are going to be protected. And frankly, I think the threshold ought to be a little higher for a foreign firm."

And Sen. Barbara Boxer, California Democrat: "It is ridiculous to say you're taking secret steps to make sure that it's OK for a nation that had ties to 9/11, (to) take over part of our port operations in many of our largest ports. This has to stop."

And Sen. Hillary Clinton, New York Democrat: "Our port security is too important to place in the hands of foreign governments. I will be working with [New Jersey] Senator [Robert] Menendez to introduce legislation that will prohibit the sale of ports to foreign governments."

And Sen. Charles Schumer, New York Democrat, who said the Dubai company's involvement "is enough to raise a flag - at least to do a thorough review, at minimum."

I wish these politicians luck in their quest to block the UAE transfer, shed light on the process led by the shadowy Committee on Foreign Investment in the U.S., and join with congressional Republicans to put American security interests first. But as they attempt to do their best Pat Buchanan impressions, let's not forget: It was Democrats who tried to block Bush administration efforts to impose common-sense citizenship requirements on airport security workers in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks.

It was Democrats who attacked the Bush Justice Department after the September 11 attacks for fingerprinting young male temporary visa holders traveling from terror-sponsoring and terror-friendly nations; temporarily detaining asylum seekers from high-risk countries for background screening; and sending undercover agents to investigate mosques suspected of supporting terrorism.

It was Democrats who secretly attempted to remove funding for the National Security Exit-Entry Registration System — the Justice Department program that helped nabbed at least 330 known foreign criminals, 15 illegal-alien felons, and three known terrorists who attempted to enter the country.

And just one week ago, it was failed Democratic presidential candidate Al Gore who was in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, attacking the Bush administration's profiling and immigration enforcement against illegal aliens from terror-friendly countries as "terrible abuses."

Perhaps the UAE will be hiring Gore to condemn the "abusive" practices now being championed by his fire-breathing extremist Democrat colleagues?

After all, they are all red flag-raising, threshold-hiking, thorough review-espousing, foreign ownership-banning profilers now.

excuseme

02-22-2006, 10:45 AM

Looks like these people are good friends of Bush like the Saudi's are:

http://www.dpiterminals.com/fullnews.asp?NewsID=39

DP WORLD EXECUTIVE NOMINATED FOR PRESITIGOUS US GOVT POSITION

Dubai, 24 January 2006: - Global ports operator DP World today welcomed news that one of its senior executives, Dave Sanborn, has been nominated by US President George W. Bush to serve as Maritime Administrator a key transportation appointment reporting directly to Norman Mineta the Secretary of Transportation and Cabinet Member.

The White House has issued a statement from Washington DC announcing the nomination. The confirmation process will begin in February.

Mr Sanborn currently holds the position of Director of Operations for Europe and Latin America for the Dubai-based company

Mohammed Sharaf, CEO, DP World said:
“While we are sorry to lose such an experienced and capable executive, it is exactly those qualities that will make Dave an effective administrator for MarAd. We are proud of Dave’s selection and pleased that the Bush Administration found such a capable executive. We wish him all the best in his new role.”

Ted Bilkey, Chief Operating Officer, DP World said:
“Dave’s decades of experience in markets around the world, together with his passion for the industry and commitment to its development, will allow him to make a positive contribution to the work of the Maritime Administration. We wish him well for the future.”

Mr Sanborn, a graduate of The United States Merchant Maritime Academy, joined DP World in 2005. He previously held senior roles with shipping lines CMA-CGM (Americas), APL Ltd and Sea-Land and has been based, besides the US, in Brazil, Europe, Hong Kong and Dubai during his career. He has also served in the US Naval Reserve.

Mr Sanborn is due to take up his new role based in Washington DC later in 2006.

-- ENDS --

For further information please contact:

Bell Pottinger Communications

Dubai:
Tom Mollo
+9714 367 2256 +9715 0550 4203
[email protected]

London:
Dan de Belder
+44 207 861 3232
[email protected]

Notes for the editor:

DP World is a leading global port operator with a portfolio of operations in Asia, Australia, Europe, Latin America, and the Middle East. The company has 22 container terminals in 15 countries.

DP World is the result of the integration of Dubai Ports Authority (“DPA”) and DPI Terminals (“DPI”) in September 2005. This new entity continues the tremendous success of the DPA and DPI businesses, which have been at the forefront of Dubai's extraordinary transformation into one of the world's leading trade and commerce hubs.

DP World manages the commercial and operational aspects of the port network, formerly developed and managed by DPA and DPI.

In 2005, the terminals operated by DP World handled an estimated 13 million TEU which include ports on five continents from the Americas to Asia.

DP World's unique cross-sector expertise offers solutions in all aspects of port operations, ultimately driving efficiency and financial returns for port users. DP World will continue to provide the same high level of service that customers have come to expect. DP World continues to provide a superior level of service to shipping lines at its flagship domestic operations of Port Rashid and Jebel Ali which has been voted “Best Seaport in the Middle East” for 10 consecutive years. Dubai is ranked as the 10th largest port operation in the world and DP World is the 7th largest global operator.

There are a number of significant projects in the pipeline that will strengthen the DP World network, including developments in Asia, Europe, and the Middle East. In February 2005 an agreement with the Cochin Port Trust (CoPT) was signed to construct, develop and operate an international container transshipment terminal at Vallarpadam, Kochi, India. It is the largest single operator container terminal currently planned in India and the first in the country to operate in a special economic zone. The new terminal will make Kochi a key centre in the shipping world reducing India’s dependence on foreign ports to handle transshipment.

One cornerstone project, which underlines DP World’s position as a major player in Asia, is the development of Pusan Newport, South Korea. DP World has a 39.55% interest in and management contract for this 9-berth facility, which has a capacity of 5.5 million TEU. The first phase of this development was opened in January 2006.

In March 2005, DP World was awarded a 30 year concession to develop and operate the container terminal at the Port of Fujairah, in the UAE. This was followed in July 2005 by the awarding of a management contract for Mina Zayed Port, Abu Dhabi. These concessions will enable DP World to streamline operations at the major container facilities of the UAE, and further increase the choices available to its customers. In June 2005 DP World was short listed as preferred bidder to operate the container terminal at the Port of Aden.

In November 2005 DP World also announced agreements to develop new container terminals at Yarimca, Turkey and Qingdao, China.

On 29 November 2005, DP World announced the terms of a recommended cash offer to acquire all of the issued and to be issued Deferred Stock of the P&O Group. When completed, this deal will make DP World a top three global port operator.

DP World also has interests in logistics businesses in Hong Kong and China, notably ATL, the market leading logistics operator based at Kwai Chung, Hong Kong.

excuseme

02-22-2006, 10:46 AM

http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/393375p-333478c.html

W aides' biz ties to Arab firm

BY MICHAEL McAULIFF
DAILY NEWS WASHINGTON BUREAU

Breaking news update: Bush shrugs off objections to port deal

WASHINGTON - The Dubai firm that won Bush administration backing to run six U.S. ports has at least two ties to the White House.

One is Treasury Secretary John Snow, whose agency heads the federal panel that signed off on the $6.8 billion sale of an English company to government-owned Dubai Ports World - giving it control of Manhattan's cruise ship terminal and Newark's container port.

Snow was chairman of the CSX rail firm that sold its own international port operations to DP World for $1.15 billion in 2004, the year after Snow left for President Bush's cabinet.

The other connection is David Sanborn, who runs DP World's European and Latin American operations and was tapped by Bush last month to head the U.S. Maritime Administration.

The ties raised more concerns about the decision to give port control to a company owned by a nation linked to the 9/11 hijackers.

"The more you look at this deal, the more the deal is called into question," said Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), who said the deal was rubber-stamped in advance - even before DP World formally agreed to buy London's P&O port company.

Besides operations in New York and Jersey, Dubai would also run port facilities in Philadelphia, New Orleans, Baltimore and Miami.

The political fallout over the deal only grows.

"It's particularly troubling that the United States would turn over its port security not only to a foreign company, but a state-owned one," said western New York's Rep. Tom Reynolds, chairman of the National Republican Campaign Committee. Reynolds is responsible for helping Republicans keep their majority in the House.

Snow's Treasury Department runs the Committee on Foreign Investment in the U.S., which includes 11 other agencies.

"It always raises flags" when administration officials have ties to a firm, Rep. Vito Fossella (R-S.I.) said, but insisted that stopping the deal was more important.

The Daily News has learned that lawmakers also want to know if a detailed 45-day probe should have been conducted instead of one that lasted no more than 25 days.

According to a 1993 congressional measure, the longer review is mandated when the company is owned by a foreign government and the purchase "could result in control of a person engaged in interstate commerce in the U.S. that could affect the national security of the U.S."

Congressional sources said the President has until March 2 to trigger that harder look.

"The most important thing is for someone to explain how this is consistent with our national security," Fossella said.

Originally published on February 21, 2006

mesue

02-22-2006, 01:34 PM

As someone who was just called anti-American by some people here because I happen to believe that even our so called enemys should be afforded the POWs rights of the Genva Convention, the America I grew up in believed this too.

I can't help but just laugh @ the shock and awe displayed by some here over this.

I along with many others here I'm sure, am not surprised, we saw things like this coming a long time ago. Bush has always been a company man, any miner's wife or child will tell you, that's no compliment.

Bush has sold you out to the highest bidder, just like most of the Presidents before him. Dont look to the democrats or the republicans in the Congress and the Senate to help you, IMO the majority were bought and paid for long ago, they are owned and they will vote the way their told to. Oh they will have meetings and news conferences to make you think they are doing something, but in the end this sale will happen and most of you will vote for them all again.

How many of you have said the Bush Administration is tough on terrorism and now he is demanding that we support this sale to a company that has ties to terrorists? Too funny, painful for us all but funny nonetheless.

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_8179.shtm
President Bush _ and hurray for him _ elected to fight back. He called it "a legitimate deal that will not jeopardize the security of the country." And made this excellent point: "I am trying to conduct foreign policy now by saying to the people of the world, 'We'll treat you fairly.' "

ang in NC

02-22-2006, 02:11 PM

I may get flamed here. But he knows he can't get reelected next time so he is going to do what ever. Shame on you Mr President!!

mesue

02-22-2006, 02:48 PM

Well I happen to agree with you ang in NC and I'm afraid its only going to get worse as time goes on.

Jolie Rouge

02-22-2006, 03:00 PM

Ok - you guys have to pick one : Bush is a mindless; clueless rube who has no idea what is going ..... ( the evil members of his adminitration pushed this past his nose )
or he is the evil dictator selling the US piecemill ?

:rolleyes:

mesue

02-22-2006, 03:53 PM

tngirl

02-22-2006, 04:24 PM

First, we are not the ones doing the selling, the British company that holds the leases is. Second, the UAE company is not buying ports, they are buying the leases to berths. There is a difference here.

Also, they will have no control over how the ports are run, that stays the same as now and with American longshoremen. The security will still be controlled by the Port Authority and by the US Coast guard. Even though the UAE has questionable ties with some terrorists, we are talking about a company, not a country. And why would they pay out 8 million to bomb us when they could do it basically for free just by sending in a container with a bomb to any port in our country. One of the issues that I have with the Bush administration is our Homeland Security and the "holes" out there. Right now, containers are suppose to be checked 100%, but they aren't. It would be so easy for a threat to make it through our ports right now without the "ownership" of any port/berth being transferred.

I will admit that this turn of events is a bit nerve racking to say the least. But I also think there is a lot of miscommunication out there that is causing a lot of fear and confusion. There was a department set up to handle these kind of deals and they have said it was okay. It did not come across the President's desk until after they concluded their findings and decisions. For everyone to jump on the band wagon without the complete story is really rather useless. I do not want to hear the sensationalized story, just the truth. But right now the media is jockeying for ratings and scoops and politicians (all sides) are jockeying for political position. If everyone would stop the hoopla and give out ALL the FACTS, we would all be better off.

mesue

02-22-2006, 07:41 PM

Chiizii

02-22-2006, 07:57 PM

I agree that there is a lot of miscommunication and a lack of understanding that is associated with this issue.
There are Americans that are on the Management Team for NSCSA. The ports will be operated by local people. It is a darn shame that for the last four years that there is not a American company that can take over the management of the leases to the berths as efficiently as NSCSA.

Too much sitting on hands and not enough brainstorming once again.

tngirl

02-22-2006, 08:09 PM

Jolie Rouge

02-22-2006, 08:54 PM

Who do you think he is Jolie? Is he doing what the George W. Bush you voted for would do?

Better him then Kerry or Gore ....

and I'll still hunt with Cheney before I take a ride with a Kennedy !

Jolie Rouge

02-22-2006, 09:47 PM

White House scrambles to save UAE port deal

WASHINGTON (AFP) - The White House is scrambling to rescue a deal giving a state-run Arab firm control of operations at six major US ports and to limit the political fallout from the controversial arrangement.

US President George W. Bush did not know about the agreement until "the last several days," after it was completed, because questions about security "didn't rise to the presidential level," said spokesman Scott McClellan.

But "the counterterrorism experts looked at it. The intelligence community did an assessment to make sure that there was no national security threat," McClellan told reporters.

Unless US lawmakers prevent it, Dubai Ports World's acquisition of the British firm which currently manages the ports is to be finalized on March 2. Ports affected by the deal are in New York, New Jersey, Miami, Baltimore, New Orleans and Philadelphia.

The president has vowed to veto any legislation stalling the agreement, which congressional critics charge would hand sensitive seaport activities to a country with a spotty record on battling terrorism.

Republican Representative Sue Myrick summed up the opposition with a curt letter to Bush on her Internet site: "Dear Mr President. In regards to selling American ports to the United Arab Emirates, not just NO -- but HELL NO!"

One Republican congressional aide, who requested anonymity, said the White House should have realized that the agreement raised uncomfortable questions about national security -- a key issue ahead of November legislative elections.

Ted Bilkey, chief operating officer of Dubai Ports, branded concerns that his company would help terrorists enter the United States as "nonsense." "Security comes under the purveyance of the Coast Guard, the Homeland Security, customs, the local police forces. We implement their instructions," Bilkey, a US citizen, told CNN.

McClellan acknowledged that the administration should have done a better job of briefing the US Congress, where opposition Democrats and Bush's Republicans have closed ranks against the agreement. "Despite the significant number of transactions that go through this (vetting) process each year, this is one where we probably should have consulted with, or briefed Congress on, sooner" said McClellan.

The White House has been surprised and stung by lawmakers' opposition to the 6.8 billion dollar agreement, which may face congressional hearings and even lawsuits to block it despite Bush's aggressive effort to save it. "The president believes it is the right thing to do. We shouldn't be holding a Middle Eastern company to a different standard than a British company," said McClellan, who said halting the deal would send "a terrible message."

"The United Arab Emirates is a strong partner in the war on terrorism. We work very closely with them," with military-to-military cooperation, intelligence sharing, and targeting terrorism funds, the spokesman said.

US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, in Riyadh as part of a visit to the Middle East, also defended the deal: "If it meets the ... security standard that we need to meet, then it ought to go through. And that should be the case if it is from Great Britain or if it is from Germany or if it is from the UAE."

McClellan also denied suggestions of a conflict of interest tied to Bush's nominee to run the US Transportation Department's Maritime Administration, David Sanborn, a former executive of Dubai Ports World. "He was nominated to run the Maritime Administration because of his experience and expertise," McClellan said. "My understanding is also is that he has assured us that he was not involved in the negotiations to purchase this British company."

If Bush vetoed legislation upsetting the deal, it would be the first time since he took office in January 2001 that he used that presidential prerogative -- and it might lead the US Congress to override him.

Democratic Senator Robert Menendez of New Jersey said he believed the Senate would be able to muster the 67 votes needed to override a Bush veto, while Republican leaders in the Senate and House of Representatives have also called for freezing the agreement.

02/22/2006 21:30

http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/news/story.jsp?floc=ne-us-12-l14&flok=FF-AFP-ustop&idq=/ff/story/7000%2F20060222%2F2135000002.htm&sc=ustop

Jolie Rouge

02-22-2006, 09:50 PM

Arab Co., White House Had Secret Agreement

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Bush administration secretly required a company in the United Arab Emirates to cooperate with future U.S. investigations before approving its takeover of operations at six American ports, according to documents obtained by The Associated Press. It chose not to impose other, routine restrictions.

As part of the $6.8 billion purchase, state-owned Dubai Ports World agreed to reveal records on demand about ``foreign operational direction'' of its business at U.S. ports, the documents said. Those records broadly include details about the design, maintenance or operation of ports and equipment.

The administration did not require Dubai Ports to keep copies of business records on U.S. soil, where they would be subject to court orders. It also did not require the company to designate an American citizen to accommodate U.S. government requests. Outside legal experts said such obligations are routinely attached to U.S. approvals of foreign sales in other industries. ``They're not lax but they're not draconian,'' said James Lewis, a former U.S. official who worked on such agreements. If officials had predicted the firestorm of criticism over the deal, Lewis said, ``they might have made them sound harder.''

The conditions involving the sale of London-based Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co. were detailed in U.S. documents marked ``confidential.'' Such records are regularly guarded as trade secrets, and it is highly unusual for them to be made public.

The concessions - described previously by the Homeland Security Department as unprecedented among maritime companies - reflect the close relationship between the United States and the United Arab Emirates.

The revelations about the negotiated conditions came as the White House acknowledged President Bush was unaware of the pending sale until the deal had already been approved by his administration.

Bush on Tuesday brushed aside objections by leaders in the Senate and House. He pledged to veto any bill Congress might approve to block the agreement, but some lawmakers said they still were determined to capsize it.

Dubai Port's top American executive, chief operating officer Edward H. Bilkey, said the company will do whatever the Bush administration asks to enhance shipping security and ensure the sale goes through. Bilkey said Wednesday he will work in Washington to persuade skeptical lawmakers they should endorse the deal; Senate oversight hearings already are scheduled. ``We're disappointed,'' Bilkey told the AP in an interview. ``We're going to do our best to persuade them that they jumped the gun. The UAE is a very solid friend, as President Bush has said.''

Under the deal, the government asked Dubai Ports to operate American seaports with existing U.S. managers ``to the extent possible.'' It promised to take ``all reasonable steps'' to assist the Homeland Security Department, and it pledged to continue participating in security programs to stop smuggling and detect illegal shipments of nuclear materials.

The administration required Dubai Ports to designate an executive to handle requests from the U.S. government, but it did not specify this person's citizenship.

It said Dubai Ports must retain paperwork ``in the normal course of business'' but did not specify a time period or require corporate records to be housed in the United States. Outside experts familiar with such agreements said such provisions are routine in other cases.

Bush faces a potential rebellion from leaders of his own party, as well as a fight from Democrats, over the sale. It puts Dubai Ports in charge of major terminal operations in New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia.

Senate and House leaders urged the president to delay the takeover, which is set to be finalized in early March. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist of Tennessee said the deal raised ``serious questions regarding the safety and security of our homeland.'' House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., asked the president for a moratorium on the sale until it could be studied further.

In Saudi Arabia, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said the agreement was thoroughly vetted. ``We have to maintain a principle that it doesn't matter where in the world one of these purchases is coming from,'' Rice said Wednesday. She described the United Arab Emirates as ``a good partner in the war on terrorism.''

Bush personally defended the agreement on Tuesday, but the White House said he did not know about it until recently. The AP first reported the U.S. approval of the sale to Dubai Ports on Feb. 11, and many members of Congress have said they learned about it from the AP. ``I think somebody dropped the ball,'' said Rep. Vito Fossella, R-N.Y. ``Information should have flowed more freely and more quickly up into the White House. I think it has been mishandled in terms of coming forward with adequate information.''

At the White House, spokesman Scott McClellan said Bush learned about the deal ``over the last several days,'' as congressional criticism escalated. McClellan said it did not rise to the presidential level, but went through a government review and was determined not to pose a threat.

McClellan said Bush afterward asked the head of every U.S. department involved in approving the sale whether there were security concerns. ``Each and every one expressed that they were comfortable with this transaction going forward,'' he said.

Commerce Secretary Carlos Guiterrez told the AP the administration was being thoughtful and deliberate approving the sale. ``We are not reacting emotionally,'' Guiterrez said in an interview Wednesday. ``That's what I believe our partners from around the world would like to see from us is that we be thoughtful. That we be deliberate. That we understand issues before we make a decision.''

Associated Press writers Jeanine Aversa in Washington, Anne Gearan in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, and John Christoffersen in Danbury, Conn., contributed to this report.

http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/news/story.jsp?floc=FF-APO-1151&idq=/ff/story/0001%2F20060222%2F2119696195.htm&sc=1151

02/22/06 21:19

mesue

02-23-2006, 05:57 AM

Thank you for the history lesson, but I know about the UAE. That does not change the fact that there is a lot of miscommunication going on. I am saving my judgement on this issue until I know the FACTS instead of the misleading press that this is receiving. When the media and politicians are spouting "control of 6 major ports" it tends to leave one believing that they are going to be controlling security and who and what comes into our ports. This is not the case.
They recognized the Taliban as the legitimate governent of Afghanistan (a fact), most countries refused to that.
I agree you can't trust the corporate owned media but facts are facts. How much control these people will have I am unsure about? Any control at all I consider a security risk.

mesue

02-23-2006, 06:01 AM

US President George W. Bush did not know about the agreement until "the last several days," after it was completed, because questions about security "didn't rise to the presidential level," said spokesman Scott McClellan.

I love how they keep mentioning he did not know, seriously is that supposed to make us feel better about this?

katgirl3

02-23-2006, 02:28 PM

YNKYH8R

02-23-2006, 06:15 PM

Unfortunately I've become more and more cynical over the last 6 months with regards to this administration, the war in Iraq, domestic spying and now this. In some ways I don;t agree with what is going on...and then again I don't care. Bush wants to sell off the rights to ports to foreginers...go ahead. Bush wants to hand over responsibility to the middel east...whatever. Will any of this bring about a terrorist attack....I'm not losing any sleep. This country is being dragged down in so many ways it's sickening.
We can only hope that Bush will hunting with Cheney and neither of them will use bird shot. We can only hope that the next two years will bring about the end of everything around us. And if not...it will make for some interesting entertainment.

stresseater

02-23-2006, 08:25 PM

Bush wants to sell off the rights to ports to foreginers...go ahead. Bush isn't selling anything.... Clinton sold the rights to the europeans. They are selling those rights.

Bush wants to hand over responsibility to the middel east...whatever. That has always been the plan, it's thier country we are just there to help them get it back from the tyrants.

Bliss

02-23-2006, 08:35 PM

Chiizii

02-23-2006, 08:58 PM

Looks like the Dubai Ports World offers to delay part of the deal...

I guess the mob mentality is starting to chase these people away.

Jolie Rouge

02-23-2006, 09:20 PM

UAE Company Agrees to Delay Ports Takeover
By LIZ SIDOTI, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - A United Arab Emirates company offered Thursday to delay part of its $6.8 billion takeover of most operations at six U.S. ports to give the Bush administration more time to convince skeptical lawmakers the deal poses no security risks.

The surprise announcement relieves some pressure from a standoff between President Bush and the Republican-controlled Congress, which has threatened to block the deal because of the UAE's purported ties to terrorism.

Under the offer coordinated with the White House, Dubai Ports World said it will agree not to exercise control or influence the management over U.S. ports pending further talks with the Bush administration and Congress. It did not indicate how long it will wait for these discussions to take place.

The company said it will move forward with other parts of the deal affecting the rest of the world.

"It is not only unreasonable but also impractical to suggest that the closing of this entire global transaction should be delayed," Dubai Ports said in a statement.

"The reaction in the United States has occurred in no other country in the world," the company's chief operating officer, Ted Bilkey, said in a statement. "We need to understand the concerns of the people in the U.S. who are worried about this transaction and make sure that they are addressed to the benefit of all parties. Security is everybody's business."

The announcement came as the political furor persisted over the deal, which was supposed to be completed in early March. Concerned about national security implications, Democrats pushed Thursday for a new 45-day investigation into the business transaction.

The delay did not appease some of the deal's harshest critics.

"If the president were to voluntarily institute the review and delay the contract that would obviate the need for our legislation, but a simple cooling-off period will not allay our concerns," said Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/ports_security;_ylt=ArYQac4jsFOUsYDIeqAyx8Os0NUE;_ ylu=X3oDMTA2Z2szazkxBHNlYwN0bQ--

Jolie Rouge

02-23-2006, 09:23 PM

Rice, UAE Officials Discuss Terrorism
Thu Feb 23, 7:30 PM ET

WASHINGTON - As controversy raged over the United Arab Emirates' terrorism record, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice met Thursday with UAE officials in Abu Dhabi and discussed ways to improve U.S.-UAE cooperation in combatting terrorism. "The UAE reaffirmed its stance against terrorism and its commitment to continue to support and cooperate with the international community in this endeavor," the two countries said in a joint statement released by the State Department.

The uproar in Washington concerns a contract the Bush administration gave to a UAE government-owned business — Dubai Ports World — to run significant operations at six of the nation's largest seaports: Baltimore, Philadelphia, Miami, New Orleans, Houston, and Newark, N.J.

Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., the senior Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee, had suggested the UAE could not be trusted to fight terrorism because of its past backing for the Taliban and its role in facilitating flows of financial support for al-Qaida.

A State Department official said he was not aware of anything in Rice's discussions with UAE Vice President Sheik Mohammed bin Rashid that would affect the ongoing battle in Washington over the ports deal.

The official asked not to be identified because he was not authorized to speak on the record. Rice's discussions also touched on U.S.-UAE free trade negotiations, the joint statement said. It noted that the UAE is the third largest trading partner of the United States in the Middle East.

Rice stopped in Abu Dhabi after visits to Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Lebanon.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060224/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/rice_uae_1;_ylt=ApGnIbWK4s8brcpfzrL28VEGw_IE;_ylu= X3oDMTA2ZGZwam4yBHNlYwNmYw--

UAE Gave $100 Million for Katrina Relief
By TED BRIDIS, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - Weeks before one of its companies sought U.S. approval for its ports deal, the United Arab Emirates contributed $100 million to help victims of Hurricane Katrina, officials confirmed Thursday.

The Bush administration said the money it received from the United Arab Emirates was nearly four times as much as it received from all other countries combined. Other countries, including some in the Middle East, also pledged large contributions but have not yet sent the money.

The White House said the $100 million for storm victims demonstrates the close relationship between the two governments now caught in a firestorm over the potential security risks of state-owned Dubai Ports World running operations at six major U.S. ports.

The money from the United Arab Emirates was previously described by the State Department only as a "very large" contribution. The White House said so far it has received $126 million in international donations, including the UAE money.

The administration said there was no connection between the request for U.S. approval of the $6.8 billion ports deal and the UAE contribution. It disclosed details about the donation to support President Bush's description of the nations as important allies. "There was no connection between the two events," said Adam Ereli, the deputy State Department spokesman.

Robert Kimmitt, deputy secretary at the Treasury Department, told senators Thursday that Dubai Ports World first approached U.S. officials Oct. 17 to discuss a proposed purchase of London-based Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co., which runs significant operations at six large U.S. ports.

Kimmitt said the company informally approached Treasury officials to discuss preliminary stages of the purchase. A formal review of the proposed sale started on Dec. 16, Kimmitt told the Senate Armed Services Committee.

The United Arab Emirates sent its $100 million Katrina donation on Sept. 21 using an electronic transfer to an account at the State Department, the White House said. Two-thirds of the money was given to the Federal Emergency Management Agency to help coordinate aid to 100,000 families. The rest was sent to the Education Department to help rebuild schools and universities near New Orleans that were damaged by the storm.

The United Arab Emirates has long-standing ties to the Bush family. Records show the UAE and one of its sheikhs contributed at least $1 million before 1995 to the Bush Library Foundation, which established the George Bush Presidential Library in College Station, Texas. The executive chairman of Dubai Ports World, Ahmed bin Sulayem, is not listed among donors.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060224/ap_on_go_pr_wh/ports_security_katrina;_ylt=AouL9tpOM0FQ9QLRFnRf8U QGw_IE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3OXIzMDMzBHNlYwM3MDM-

Jolie Rouge

02-23-2006, 09:25 PM

Difficult to Discern Who Runs U.S. Ports
By LESLIE MILLER, Associated Press Writer
Thu Feb 23, 3:38 PM ET

WASHINGTON - Who's in charge of security at U.S. seaports? There's no simple answer to that question — a critical part of the debate over the takeover of major port operations by a United Arab Emirates company

All seaports are different and the biggest ones are complex. Responsibility for security is spread among government agencies: the Coast Guard, Customs and Border Protection, terminal operators and state and local port authorities.

The Homeland Security Department said over a year ago that confusion about responsibility had delayed a cargo security plan.

"During the two years since DHS was established, this has frequently led to questions of 'who's in charge?'" said a draft of the plan, released in December 2004.

Even now, said Sen. Daniel Inouye (news, bio, voting record), D-Hawaii, the Bush administration doesn't take port security seriously.

"It has consistently submitted inadequate funding requests and has routinely missed critical security deadlines that were required by law," he said.

The administration says it has strengthened port security since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, pointing to increased funding and new security technology.

Customs and Border Protection oversees the cargo that arrives in more than 20,000 shipping containers that pass through U.S. ports daily.

The Coast Guard approves security plans for 10,000 ships and 5,000 port facilities. Since July 1, 2004, the Coast Guard has been responsible for making sure those plans are carried out.

The nation's larger ports have dozens of separate facilities within them, including oil refineries, warehouses, fuel farms, power plants and factories.

The terminal operator is responsible for security at its own terminal and the area within the port where cargo is loaded, unloaded or transferred, according to the Homeland Security Department.

UAE-based Dubai Ports World would operate some of the terminals at a half-dozen of the nation's largest seaports: Baltimore, Philadelphia, Miami, New Orleans, Houston, and Newark, N.J.

"They're required to have a security plan," said Dennis Murphy, former Customs port director at the Port of Norfolk and former Homeland Security spokesman.

The plan has to include security measures such as lighting, fencing, locks and background checks on employees, he said.

"They have to know who the people are who they're hiring," Murphy said.

A fact sheet from the Homeland Security Department said that the "people working on the docks" and security personnel would not change under the pending deal.

Murphy said the entire supply chain is scrutinized by a number of people — including the buyer, the seller and the shipper along with federal officials — who want to make sure cargo moves where it's supposed to move.

"It's an elaborate ballet of information and machinery," he said. "You don't mess around. If you divert a container here and there, there are investigators who will crawl all over your personal life if they think anything is hinky."

Many port security initiatives since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks have been the result of laws passed by Congress.

It was the National Maritime Transportation Security Act, passed in November 2002, that put the Coast Guard in charge of tightening port security.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=2629&ncid=2629&e=41&u=/ap/20060223/ap_on_go_ot/ports_who_s_in_charge_2

___

On the Net:

U.S. Coast Guard: http://www.uscg.mil

Homeland Security Department: http://www.dhs.gov

adorkablex

02-23-2006, 09:30 PM

I'm glad they're putting it on hold for a while until lawmakers can go over it.

I'm glad they donated so much $ to hurricane relief efforts, but the timing seems sort of suspect. Sort of like what Bill Campbell is on trial for here in Atlanta. Seems kind of like a bribe.

Jolie Rouge

02-23-2006, 09:39 PM

adorkablex

02-23-2006, 09:43 PM

Not a bribe ... they wanted the Port of New Orleans in good condition when they buy it. They need the people to move back or they won't have the labor to work the Port - our nations LARGEST sea port ( or it was prior to Katrina & Rita :mad: )

Hopefully it'll be restored to it's former glory in this century. Especially since it was so vital to getting goods into the midwest area from the Mississippi River. I just wish I didn't have such a bad feeling about the money. The term "dirty money" still comes to mind. :/

mesue

02-24-2006, 12:34 AM

Funny. The same people complaining about the prisoner abuses, how they should be treated as individuals, and not all Muslims are terrorists are now complaining about this. What's the problem? It's probably just innocent students and farmers taking over these ports. Can you prove that the ones who bought these berths are terrorists? Or are you just blaming a whole nation for few bad apples? Amazing. *shakes head*
Once again you miss the point, this country has ties to terrorists. Otherwise I would not have a probem with this deal. The 70% or more of the people being arrested by mistake in Iraq are innocent, no ties of any kind to terrorism, many are held for long periods of time and many were tortured. I have been saying that our counry needs to adhere to the rules of the Geneva convention on POW treatment. How exactly do you want all the detainees treated?

YNKYH8R

02-24-2006, 04:52 AM

Bush isn't selling anything.... Clinton sold the rights to the europeans. They are selling those rights.Whatever...someone's making a buck. I say if there is going to be controversy then don't sell at all.

That has always been the plan, it's thier country we are just there to help them get it back from the tyrants.No I was talking about the ports not their own country. Control of the ports.

JKATHERINE

02-24-2006, 08:22 AM

katgirl3

02-24-2006, 03:15 PM

Once again you miss the point, this country has ties to terrorists. Otherwise I would not have a probem with this deal. The 70% or more of the people being arrested by mistake in Iraq are innocent, no ties of any kind to terrorism, many are held for long periods of time and many were tortured. I have been saying that our counry needs to adhere to the rules of the Geneva convention on POW treatment. How exactly do you want all the detainees treated?

I stand by what I said. You're a hypocrite. The problem with getting your points are, they change for the moment. And the only reason you keep saying that to me is because I said it to you. You're soooo mature. Can I be just like you? :rolleyes:

katgirl3

02-24-2006, 03:22 PM

Once again you miss the point, this country has ties to terrorists. Otherwise I would not have a probem with this deal. The 70% or more of the people being arrested by mistake in Iraq are innocent, no ties of any kind to terrorism, many are held for long periods of time and many were tortured. I have been saying that our counry needs to adhere to the rules of the Geneva convention on POW treatment. How exactly do you want all the detainees treated?

Sure. A bunch of innocents. So we let them go. They go get their guns and proceed to attack our military. You are so naive. http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v292/katgirl3/dry.gif Yep. No ties to terrorism in Iraq. :rolleyes:

YNKYH8R

02-24-2006, 05:52 PM

Uh oh we're veering off.

katgirl3

02-24-2006, 09:14 PM

Uh oh we're veering off.

Sorry. My bad. :p

mesue

02-25-2006, 08:47 PM

I stand by what I said. You're a hypocrite. The problem with getting your points are, they change for the moment. And the only reason you keep saying that to me is because I said it to you. You're soooo mature. Can I be just like you? :rolleyes:
Oh my I did not realize you were so young, I generally prefer to have any debates with adults, perhaps you should visit the childrens forum here. And in answer to your last question, I'm so honored you picked me as a role model, study, and maybe someday your dream will come true. Good Luck!

YNKYH8R

02-26-2006, 12:40 PM

When in doubt follow the money. Who stands the most to benefit from this deal? AMerican tax payers, middle class, lower class, job growth or non of the above? Hell even the unions are against this. Bush saying he didn;t know about it till later makes no difference, he should be able to see that this is a bad idea.

Jolie Rouge

02-26-2006, 11:04 PM

REMEMBER GLOBALISM AND DEMOCRACY?
By Richard Reeves
Sun Feb 26, 12:43 PM ET

DALLAS -- Forget for the moment the flap over doing business with Peninsula & Oriental Steam Navigation Co., the port-management company sold by the British to the United Arab Emirates. Did you see that Intel is moving ahead with plans to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to build a computer-chip plant in Ho Chi Minh City?

That's globalization.

It is cheaper to build chips, the engines of our computers, in a communist country than in the rich precincts of Silicon Valley. If I felt like it, I could make a persuasive false argument that it is dangerous beyond measure to have commies planting their evil little fingers in the machines that make capitalism and American national security work in these troubled times.

So what's the big deal about having friendly Arabs take on some of the mechanics of running our ports -- especially when there are only a couple of small American companies capable of doing the work? We long ago stopped doing such chores ourselves because many foreign ports and the companies running them are far more modern, efficient and cheaper than their few outdated American competitors.

That's globalization.

We have spent the last decade and more selling the world on capitalism, on globalization, on democracy, on freedom. Then when foreign countries actually practice the American way, and we don't like the results, we move to destroy them. If we don't like the results of Palestinian voting, we condone cutting off aid and every other kind of help to the winners. If we don't like the winners of global bidding wars, we move to change the rules.

That's hypocrisy. And that is what the world has come to expect of us. If things don't go our way, we attack.

The crisis in our ports is not that a government-controlled Arab country is willing to venture to make a few bucks doing work we don't want to do ourselves; it is that we are unwilling to spend the bigger bucks to modernize our port facilities to deal with the new realities of the post-Sept. 11 world. We would rather spend our borrowed dollars in a vain and stupid effort to take over our own Arab country, Iraq.

Forget that; it's over, part of the weird overreaction to the horrors of Sept. 11, 2001. Bush's answer to that terror has been to try to take over the world. No chance.

But the president is right on the port-management deal, even though he has characteristically blundered into a domestic crisis by trying to keep the deal secret. But then no one is accusing him of being competent. This time, he either didn't know about the port deal, or he did know about it and is lying. Either way, he tried one more time to circumvent the checks and balances of our system by pushing through the deal and keeping it secret from Congress, press and people.

That's the usual modus operandi of this White House. This is the first administration to lose a city, New Orleans, since our own civil war. Perhaps that is why he and the few people he talks with were so drawn into civil war in Iraq.

It goes on in ways small and large. One of the small ways beginning to come to light is refusing to allow scholars and students into the United States, particularly from countries with any Muslim population, most notably India.

That is not globalization. In fact, Muslims have some justification in claiming that we have declared war on Islam. We would have to be nuts to do that, but we are sure exhibiting signs of doing it. Iraqis preparing for civil war are not blaming each other for outrages such as the destruction of the Shiite Askariya mosque in Samarra. They are blaming us.

We are tipping toward disaster. I, for one, was shocked to see that even The Wall Street Journal has noticed enough that it began Friday's editorial page by preparing to question what the White House has done and is doing, writing: "Critics of President Bush's Iraq policy have been predicting -- and, in some cases, hoping -- that without Saddam's iron rule the country was destined for sectarian civil war. Following Wednesday's devastating attack on the Shiite Golden Mosque in Samarra, it would be foolish to dismiss the possibility."

That, like Walter Cronkite's 1968 attack on the Johnson administration's management of the war in Vietnam, could be the beginning of the end of the American brand of imperialism and the beginning of more enlightened policy that brought together Intel and the ghost of Ho Chi Minh in Saigon.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ucrr/20060226/cm_ucrr/rememberglobalismanddemocracy;_ylt=AqjJaACrKDo8AaQ 3YnNIolL9wxIF;_ylu=X3oDMTA5aHJvMDdwBHNlYwN5bmNhdA--

Jolie Rouge

02-26-2006, 11:05 PM

Why Dubai is good for US business
By Mansoor Ijaz
Fri Feb 24, 3:00 AM ET

LONDON - In the battle of hearts and minds that defines America's struggle to combat terrorism, the emotional eruption from US politicians in the past week over the proposed takeover of six key American ports by a Dubai company is a big step backward for US national security. It is a uniquely un-American reaction that assumes the worst of an important Arab ally, pronounces its guilt, and seeks to paint its companies as enemies without one shred of evidence.

A rational look at the facts tells a different story. True, the United Arab Emirates - where Dubai stands out as a modern city-state on par with Singapore and Monaco - was home to the man, Marwan al Shehhi, who piloted United Airlines Flight 175 into the second World Trade Center tower. But our key frontline ally in fighting terror today, Pakistan, was home to a lot worse. True, bad banking went on in the UAE, some of which funneled money to the 9/11 hijackers, but money laundering is not unique to Arab countries. True, Dubai was the distribution hub of rogue Pakistani scientist A.Q. Khan's nuclear black market. But truer still is the cooperation Dubai's intelligence officials gave the US in helping unravel Dr. Khan's network.

Since the Sept. 11 attacks, many nations have changed course in important ways to balance out such negative liabilities as the UAE carried in the pre-9/11 world. Dubai is a glamorous showcase for global capitalism in the unlikeliest of places. And there is a fundamental commitment to fighting terrorism there that most Americans don't know about.

In December 2004, Dubai was the first Middle East government to accept the US Container Security Initiative as policy to screen all containers for security hazards before heading to America. In May 2005, Dubai signed an agreement with the US Department of Energy to prevent nuclear materials from passing through its ports. It also installed radiation-detecting equipment - evidence of a commitment to invest in technology. In October 2005, the UAE Central Bank directed banks and financial institutions in the country to tighten their internal systems and controls in their fight against money laundering and terrorist financing.

Dubai's business environment is the Middle East's only meritocracy. Young men and women compete openly with ideas and ambitions to make their nation a model example for Muslim societies besieged by high unemployment, low literacy rates, bad trade policies, and authoritarian political structures. They run businesses transparently, with integrity and with an increasingly democratic and accountable corporate culture.

Known for innovative investing and one-of-a-kind megaprojects, Dubai should not be antagonized. Rather it should be encouraged, for example, to fund and deploy a revolutionary array of security initiatives at the US ports, such as neutron pulse scanners and smart chips for tracking containers. US technology already exists in prototype form to scan containers without opening them or materially affecting port management economics. The Department of Homeland Security should find a common investment and implementation basis with Dubai Ports World for the rapid development of such technologies.

It is hypocritical for America to want democracy in the Middle East, to champion capitalism as the best economic framework while pushing for reform, transparency, and anticorruption practices in its businesses, and then turn protectionist when a Dubai-owned company turns up on our shores having played the capitalist takeover game responsibly and transparently.

America is best when it finds creative ways to open its doors to the world. Erecting artificial barriers reveals America's paranoia and fear about a Muslim world we desperately need to understand better if we are to survive the wrath of Islam's lunatic fringe. Alienating the very people and their countries that can most help us to contain and control the impulses of Islamist radicalism is a recipe for our own undoing. Bring Dubai in to manage our ports and demonstrate to the world that we fear nothing.

• Mansoor Ijaz is chairman of Crescent Investment Management, a private equity firm developing homeland security technologies. Crescent Hydropolis Resorts, the firm's publicly traded property development company, is developing the world's first permanent underwater living facilities, including a planned location in Dubai.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20060224/cm_csm/yijaz;_ylt=AuXXyxB.gQF7DZNwD1ouqSWQWxIF;_ylu=X3oDM TA3YWF***A2BHNlYwM3NDI-

dlwt

02-27-2006, 01:24 PM

=Jolie Rouge]Ok - you guys have to pick one : Bush is a mindless; clueless rube who has no idea what is going ..... ( the evil members of his adminitration pushed this past his nose )
or he is the evil dictator selling the US piecemill ?

Probably the first one, though the 2nd seems about right as well. I am serious

dlwt

02-27-2006, 01:30 PM

Once again you miss the point, this country has ties to terrorists. Otherwise I would not have a probem with this deal. The 70% or more of the people being arrested by mistake in Iraq are innocent, no ties of any kind to terrorism, many are held for long periods of time and many were tortured. I have been saying that our counry needs to adhere to the rules of the Geneva convention on POW treatment. How exactly do you want all the detainees treated?

Amen, I agree with everything you are stating here.

What is the Geneva Convention then? And how do we want out POW"s treated THINK ABOUT IT. and if these thoughts make me bad, explain please

dlwt

02-27-2006, 01:37 PM

Bush may be good for business's bottom line BUT its not good for the regular workers. You and me. He could care less about us. Dont tell me he cares its what I feel. Hey I can say this I had voted for Bush the first time so I think I can say what I want about him because if it wasnt for dummies like me he would never have gotten in office the first time. Take gas prices we pay the most now and those same gas companies have the highest profits ever and the highest tax incentives ever. This is just a example and just a tip of the iceberg

Jolie Rouge

03-01-2006, 03:34 PM

March 01, 2006, 7:41 a.m.
Hamas More Don’t We Know?
Is the UAE guilty of providing material support to terrorism since 9/11?

The $8 billion deal to turn over commercial shipping operations at major American ports to Dubai Ports World, a company owned by the United Arab Emirates, continues to stoke controversy. The Bush administration and other supporters of the deal insist that, despite a history of facilitating al Qaeda — including what the 9/11 Commission described as contacts between high-regime officials and Osama bin Laden himself — the UAE is a "good friend" and a valuable ally in the war on terror.

Nevertheless, it has become necessary to ask whether, even now, the UAE is in felony violation of the 1996 law that has become the cornerstone of U.S. counterterrorism enforcement. Is the UAE providing material support to Hamas, a specially designated terrorist organization?

Any American citizen doing such a thing would be sent to prison. Any American company doing it would surely be convicted and put out of business — and its principals liable for prosecution and imprisonment.

Obviously, the UAE cannot be prosecuted criminally; it has diplomatic immunity. But if it is transgressing our fundamental antiterror law, in the middle of a war on terror, would it be asking too much to insist that it not be rewarded with a profitable commercial deal that would call for it to be read into part of the strategy for our border enforcement?

THE BUSH DOCTRINE
Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.

Those were the words President Bush spoke with stirring moral clarity on September 20, 2001, just days after Islamic terrorists annihilated nearly 3000 innocent Americans in suicide hijacking attacks against the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. This directive, the Bush Doctrine, was echoed in the National Security Strategy of the United States, promulgated by the White House near the first anniversary of 9/11. It proclaims:

The United States of America is fighting a war against terrorists of global reach. The enemy is not a single political regime or person or religion or ideology. The enemy is terrorism — premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against innocents.

In many regions, legitimate grievances prevent the emergence of a lasting peace. Such grievances deserve to be, and must be, addressed within a political process. But no cause justifies terror. The United States will make no concessions to terrorist demands and strike no deals with them. We make no distinction between terrorists and those who knowingly harbor or provide aid to them.

At a minimum the Bush Doctrine necessarily means a country supporting terrorist organizations cannot be considered a reliable ally in the war on terror.

In 1996, as part of a major overhaul in counterterrorism law, Congress enacted the material support statutes. (Title 18, U.S. Code, Section 2339B is the provision germane for present purposes.) The law states, in pertinent part:

Whoever, within the United States or subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, knowingly provides material support or resources to a foreign terrorist organization, or attempts or conspires to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 15 years, or both, and if the death of any person results, shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life.

MATERIAL SUPPORT TO HAMAS AND PIJ?

The United States government officially designated Hamas a foreign terrorist organization in 1995, and reaffirmed the designation in 1997, following the aforementioned overhaul of counterterror law.

Formed in 1987 as an outgrowth of the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas (whose name is derived from Harakat al-Muqawamah al-Islamiyya, meaning the "Islamic Resistance Movement") is incorrigibly dedicated to the destruction of Israel. To this day, its charter states: "the purpose of HAMAS is to create an Islamic Palestinian state throughout Israel by eliminating the State of Israel through violent jihad." Hamas is responsible for innumerable terrorist attacks and murders. Its recent electoral triumph in the Palestinian territories of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, far from inducing it to foreswear this deadly posture, appears only to have emboldened it.

Consequently, several people and entities have been indicted in the United States for providing material support to Hamas, as well as related crimes. In announcing one such indictment in 2004, then-Attorney General John Ashcroft was plainspoken about the government's position: "Today, terrorists have lost yet another source of financing and support for their bombs and bloodshed. Our record on terrorist financing is clear: We will hunt down the suppliers of terrorist blood money. We will shut down these sources, and we will ensure that both terrorists and their financiers meet the full justice of the United States of America."

Is the UAE a source of support for Hamas? It certainly appears to be. In an important article in FrontPage Magazine last Friday (February 24), analysts Rachel Ehrenfeld and Alyssa A. Lappen describe extensive strands of UAE funding for the terror organization. Indeed, as they observe:

On July 27, 2005, the Palestinian Information Center carried a public HAMAS statement thanking the UAE for it's "unstinting support." The statement said: "We highly appreciate his highness Sheikh Khalifa Bin Zayed Bin Sultan Al-Nahyan (UAE president) in particular and the UAE people and government in general for their limitless support...that contributed more to consolidating our people's resoluteness in the face of the Israeli occupation".

The HAMAS statement continued: "the sisterly UAE had... never hesitated in providing aid for our Mujahid people pertaining to rebuilding their houses demolished by the [Israeli military] ... The UAE also spared no effort to offer financial and material aids to the Palestinian charitable societies."

Sheikh Zayed Bin Sultan, the father of the current UAE president, is described as having been an ardent benefactor of Hamas as well as another U.S.-designated foreign terrorist organization, Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ), right up until his death in 2004 — i.e., three years after 9/11, the point at which the Bush administration maintains that the UAE became staunchly antiterrorist.

The UAE, moreover, continues to operate an ostensibly "charitable" entity, Human Appeal International, which is alleged to fund the terrorist activities of Hamas and PIJ by routing thousands upon thousands of dollars through the Palestinian Red Crescent Organization, whose branches in the Palestinian territories are controlled by Hamas. The terror organization is said then to transfer the money to purported charities which are actually fronts for Hamas's dirty work. As Ehrenfeld and Lappen elaborate, the UAE has a "compensation" plan for the Palestinian intifada. In 2001, this plan is said to have "included $3,000 for every Palestinian shaheed [i.e., "martyr" or suicide bomber], $2,000 for his family, $1,500 for those detained by Israel, $1,200 for each orphan. In addition, families of those terrorists whose homes Israel demolished each received $10,000."

Back in October 2005, moreover, the Palestinian Authority broke ground on a new town to be known as "Sheikh Khalifa City," in honor of the UAE president, who has ponied up $100 million for the project. As an Israeli news service reports: "The new town will not be used to ease the housing crisis in the PA's refugee camps, but will rather house relatives of those killed in the years of violence against Israel, other casualties such as the wounded and arrested, and families whose homes were razed during the war."

Meanwhile, America's premier expert on Islamic terrorism, Steven Emerson of the Investigative Project on Terrorism, recently told MSNBC's Rita Cosby that "Hamas couriers as late as last year ... were sent to the West Bank or Gaza [who] came in with UAE cash. So there is still a problem of terrorist supporting operations."

DRAWING CONCLUSIONS FROM THE UAE'S MIXED RECORD

It cannot be gainsaid that the UAE was an al Qaeda booster before 9/11. Nor should it be minimized that, ever since, the country has vastly improved, giving valuable assistance to our military overseas. Of course, on the latter score, it is worth noting that — the port deal aside — a good relationship with the U.S. is where the UAE's interests lie. Its hospitality to American forces and its billions in purchases of American arms are precious insurance for a tiny autocracy that has sometimes tense relations with menacing Iran. Still, proponents of the ports deal understandably emphasize that the UAE's strides are a welcome development. It is one we should cultivate to the extent we can do so without compromising core principles.

But that means not at the expense of making a mockery of our laws — particularly the laws essential to our security. The ports transaction will be under review for the next 45 days. That probe must include an assessment of the UAE's ties to Hamas and PIJ.

If there is to be anything left of the Bush Doctrine, the United States cannot allow a country in violation of our counterterrorism laws to play a critical role in admitting, storing and transferring shipments into our country. Nor can we abide a lucrative financial arrangement for a country that uses its wealth to underwrite organizations our law designates as terrorists.

http://www.nationalreview.com/mccarthy/mccarthy200603010741.asp

Jolie Rouge

03-02-2006, 04:33 PM

Ports deal to close by Monday

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Dubai Ports World's $6.85 billion acquisition of Britain's P&O will close on Friday or Monday, despite an additional 45-day review by the U.S. government in response to security concerns, a U.S. Treasury Department official said on Thursday.

"My understanding is that the deal will not close today," Deputy Treasury Secretary Robert Kimmitt told a Senate panel. "Although they had announced March 2 as the closing date ... that deal will not now close until tomorrow or Monday."

Kimmitt made his statement in response to a question from lawmakers on the Senate Banking Committee.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/security_ports_deal_dc;_ylt=AlkORwoCNxTwt_utuOaipr as0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA2Z2szazkxBHNlYwN0bQ--

Jolie Rouge

03-02-2006, 04:53 PM

Bill Clinton Advises Nation Hillary Slams
Former president Bill Clinton has privately advised Dubai officials how to address U.S. political concerns over the ports deal Sen. Hillary Clinton has publicly criticized.

http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/news/story.jsp?idq=/ff/story/7000%2F20060302%2F1310000006.htm&sc=uswashrpt

WASHINGTON (AFP) - Former president Bill Clinton has privately advised Dubai officials how to address US political concerns over a controversial ports deal, a spokesman for the ex president told AFP.

The spokesman for Bill Clinton, Jay Carson, said however, that the former president was not acting as a formal advisor for Dubai Ports World in its multi-billion dollar bid to takeover Britain's P & O, which runs terminal operations at six major US ports.

The deal has been publicly criticized by the former US leader's wife, Senator Hillary Clinton, on national security grounds. Hillary Clinton is opposed to a foreign government running operations at key US ports.

DP World's bid to takeover the Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co., which runs terminal operations at six big US ports, has triggered a political firestorm in the United States and senator Clinton is pushing congressional legislation that seeks to sink the deal.

The Financial Times newspaper first reported Thursday that Bill Clinton had privately advised Dubai officials on the deal two weeks ago, but the spokesman Thursday downplayed Clinton's role.

"It's very important to be clear that he (Bill Clinton) is not advising DP World on this deal" in a formal way, Carson said.

"He takes calls from world leaders every day on a variety of topics," Carson said, adding that Clinton had been called by one of Dubai's leaders and recommended that the deal should go through an extended screening process.

Following the telephone conversation, DP World subsequently agreed with the White House to undertake a more lengthy review process of the deal, despite already receiving US government approval for it to proceed.

Carson said that the former president's position on the controversial 5.7-billion-euro (6.8-billion-dollar) takeover deal was not at odds with his wife's public position.

"He's been very clear like senator Clinton and many people of both sides of the aisle ... he's legitimately concerned about foreign-state ownership of ports," Carson said.

"He's supportive and is supportive of senator Clinton's position on this," Carson added.

The takeover would see DP World run ports at Baltimore, Miami, New Jersey, New Orleans, New York and Philadelphia.

03/02/2006 13:08

stresseater

03-02-2006, 09:18 PM

Don't you love it when they talk out of both sides of thier @**es at the same time. :D

Jolie Rouge

03-02-2006, 09:27 PM

Clinton has his eye on the UN top slot .... scary thought.

katgirl3

03-03-2006, 08:34 PM

Oh my I did not realize you were so young, I generally prefer to have any debates with adults, perhaps you should visit the childrens forum here. And in answer to your last question, I'm so honored you picked me as a role model, study, and maybe someday your dream will come true. Good Luck!

Again....your response makes no sense. As usual. Am I gonna have to give you a sign? Or maybe you already have one? ;)

mesue

03-03-2006, 11:22 PM

Again....your response makes no sense. As usual. Am I gonna have to give you a sign? Or maybe you already have one? ;)

I'm not going to have a silly argument with you. Maybe it's because as you said earlier I'm soooo mature that makes me feel that way. LOL Now you can go back to watching, apparently one of your favorite scholars, Bill Engvall.

Jolie Rouge

03-09-2006, 12:59 PM

UAE firm to transfer port operations to U.S. 'entity'
Sources: House, Senate leaders tell Bush deal appears dead
Thursday, March 9, 2006; Posted: 2:22 p.m. EST (19:22 GMT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A United Arab Emirates-owned company has agreed to turn over all of its operations at U.S. ports to an American "entity," Sen. John Warner said Thursday.

Reading a statement from DP World on the Senate floor, Warner, a Virginia Republican, said the reason is "to preserve" the strong relationship between the UAE and United States.

The announcement comes after congressional leaders reportedly told President Bush that the deal for DP World to assume some operations at six U.S. ports appeared dead on Capitol Hill.

House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Illinois, and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tennessee, delivered the news to Bush during a meeting Thursday at the White House, two Republican sources said.

The leaders told the president they would pass measures to block the deal by veto-proof majorities, sources told CNN. Bush had threatened to veto any legislation that stopped the deal.

The UAE firm DP World's purchase of P&O, the British company that manages cargo and passenger terminals at ports on the Atlantic and Gulf coasts, has stirred up intense opposition in Washington.

House Republicans are openly defying the president, apparently to prevent Democrats from outflanking them on national security and outsourcing issues as elections approach.

The issue marks an unusual rift between Bush and House Republicans, who say they have received overwhelmingly negative comments from constituents.

On Wednesday, the House Appropriations Committee essentially blocked the deal by voting 62-2 to insert an amendment into a $68 billion emergency supplemental funding bill for military actions in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The bill also includes about $19 billion in disaster assistance for the Gulf Coast for Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.

The measure could come before the full House next week when it is expected to pass by a similar large margin. The committee's approval was bipartisan, with Reps. Jim Moran, D-Virginia, and Jim Kolbe, R-Arizona, casting the only votes against it.

Rep. Jerry Lewis, R-California, chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, worked with other GOP leaders to amend the spending bill.

Tensions between Bush, whose approval rating is near an all-time low, and Congress have been growing for some time, and the president's vow to veto the legislation angered many of his congressional allies.

"In politics ... sometimes the passions and the emotions can overwhelm any factual discussion," said John King, CNN's chief national correspondent.

CNN's Ed Henry, Suzanne Malveaux and Deirdre Walsh contributed to this report.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/03/09/port.security/index.html

Jolie Rouge

03-09-2006, 01:00 PM

Timeline of controversial ports deal
Thursday, March 9, 2006; Posted: 2:14 p.m. EST (19:14 GMT)

(CNN) -- The following timeline maps out the series of events leading up to the purchase of the British firm P&O to the United Arab Emirates-based DP World:

September 21, 2005 -- The United Arab Emirates sends $100 million in aid to the United States to help the victims of Hurricane Katrina, four weeks before the ports deal.

October 2005 - London-based P&O is approached with a buyout offer, does not disclose suitor

November 29, 2005 - P&O announces agreement to be bought by DP World International for $5.7 billion

January 2006 - PSA (Port of Singapore Authority) International offers contesting bid for P&O

January 26, 2006 - DP World outbids Port of Singapore for P&O

February 10, 2006 - Port of Singapore drops out of bidding for P&O

February 10, 2006 - DP World wins P&O with bid of $6.8 billion

February 15, 2006 - Bipartisan group of lawmakers from House and Senate call on administration to open broader review of Dubai Ports deal

February 17, 2006 - Sens. Hillary Clinton, D-New York, and Robert Menendez, D-New Jersey, announce plan to introduce legislation blocking sale

February 18, 2006 - Rep. Frank LoBiondo, R-New Jersey, promises legislation to require U.S. citizenship of port security officials

February 19, 2006 - Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff defends the deal

February 21, 2006 - Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tennessee, and House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Illinois, among lawmakers calling for the administration to stop the deal; Frist promises legislation

February 21, 2006 - President Bush vows veto of any legislation blocking deal

February 23, 2006 - DP World and the White House agree to delay the ports deal, to give the president more time to convince members of Congress there is no threat to national security

March 2, 2006 - Britain's High Court tentatively approves DP World's takeover of Britain's P&O, giving the company the rights to run operations at six key U.S. ports

March 6, 2006 - London High Court refuses appeal by U.S. ports operator Eller & Co. over the DP World takeover of P&O

March 6, 2006 - Congressman Peter King, R-New York, sends new compromise proposal to the White House. It suggests DP World sub-contract operations of the ports to U.S. companies

March 8, 2006 - House Appropriations Committee votes 62-2 to block ports deal

March 9, 2006 - Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist tell President Bush the ports deal appears dead on Capitol Hill

March 9, 2006 - Dubai Ports World agrees to turn over all of its operations at U.S. ports to a U.S. entity, says Sen. John Warner, R-Virginia, reading a statement from DP World

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/03/09/ports.timeline/index.html

Jolie Rouge

03-09-2006, 01:19 PM

Key questions about the Dubai port deal
Monday, March 6, 2006

CNN -- The DP World deal to obtain the right to operate in U.S. ports has engulfed Washington in controversy since the deal was announced in February. Below are some answers to key questions about the deal and the resulting controversy:

1. What's happening at America's ports?

In October 2005, the London-based Peninsular & Oriental (P&O) Steam Navigation Company agreed to be purchased by DP World, a Dubai-based ports company owned by the United Arab Emirates (UAE). On February 10, DP World won the right to acquire P&O after it outbid PSA International, a Singapore-based company, with a final bid of $6.8 billion.

As part of the worldwide deal, DP World gained the right to operate in six major U.S. ports, including terminals in the New York/New Jersey area, Philadelphia and New Orleans. (View a detailed look at the major ports)

2. Why is the DP World/P&O deal controversial?

The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), a government body led by the secretary of the U.S. Department of the Treasury and consisting of representatives from other government agencies, approved the deal on January 17 after the company gave assurances that employee lists and other information would be made available. DP World agreed to an additional 45-day review after the controversy erupted.

Many lawmakers argue that allowing a foreign-owned company, particularly a company owned by the UAE, undermines national security. They note that two of the 9/11 hijackers came from the UAE and that they drew funding from Dubai banks before the attack. The UAE also was one of only three nations to recognize the Taliban's regime in Afghanistan.

Rep. Peter King of New York, a Republican and chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, also charges that CFIUS did not conduct a thorough investigation into any terrorist ties DP World may have.

However, backers of the deal, including the White House, point out that the UAE has been a strong ally in the war on terror since September 11. Furthermore, the U.S. Navy calls on the port of Dubai, and the U.S. Air Force uses the UAE airfield to launch missions into Iraq and Afghanistan, and losing access to those facilities would seriously undermine the U.S. military's ability to operate in the area.

3. Do other foreign-owned companies operate in U.S. ports?

Yes. In fact, three-quarters of cargo containers go through terminals leased by foreign companies. P&O, a British company, continues to operate the ports until its purchase by DP World is completed and, according to the Washington Post, large companies based in Denmark, Singapore, Taiwan and South Korea operate U.S. terminals. And a Chinese company operates a terminal at the port of Long Beach, California.

4. So, would DP World be worse at security than other foreign-owned companies?

It's difficult to say. Ultimate responsibility for port security rests with the U.S. Coast Guard, which boards about 25 percent of incoming ships to search for safety violations, and the U.S. Customs and Border Protection service, which physically examines about 7 percent of incoming cargo containers. The terminal operators are responsible for the physical security of their own facilities.

In early March, Idon Ofer, the CEO of Zim Integrated Shipping Services, a large Israeli shipping company, in a letter to Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-New York, said "[d]uring our long association with DP World, we have not experienced a single security issue in these ports or in any of the terminals operated by DP World."

On Sunday, the CEO of DP World, Mohammed Sharaf, told CNN "We need to clarify to the American people ... it's a misunderstanding or misconception of us as DP World, what sort of an operator we are."

"We need to educate the people in America that we are truly a global company, and it is not in our best interest to get into those areas where we feel or our customer feels that security is an issue," Sharaf said.

5. Why did the Bush administration initially approve the deal?

The Bush administration says the CFIUS review looked at the security implications of the deal and found nothing that would lead it to block the deal. The company also gave assurances that they would provide additional information to the government.

However, a memo released by Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, the Republican chairwoman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, suggests that the Coast Guard had concerns that they did not have enough intelligence to make a final decision. But the Coast Guard said those concerns were later resolved when the company agreed to provide more information.

6. What are lawmakers doing now?

A bipartisan group of senators -- led by Sen. Charles Schumer, D-New York, and Sen. Norm Coleman, R-Minnesota -- has proposed legislation that would require the president to provide Congress with the report resulting from the 45-day review and give Congress the final say on the deal.

California Rep. Duncan Hunter, Republican chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, would prohibit any foreign entity from owning facilities that the Department of Defense and the Department of Homeland Security deem critical to national security.

Collins would change oversight of the Committee on Foreign Investments in the United States (CFIUS), the administration panel that reviewed and approved the ports deal.

7. Why doesn't America run its own ports?

American companies do operate terminals in U.S. ports, but shipping is, by its nature, a capital-intensive and global business, and many U.S. operators have been bought by international shipping conglomerates. Some U.S. operators also have had problems with shipping workers' unions.

8. Can the U.S. just shut out foreign operators?

Theoretically, yes. Port terminals are usually owned by a port authority and leased to operators. If foreign operators were barred from holding such leases, it is unclear whether a U.S. operator could be found to outlay the large capital expenses necessary to operate the terminals.

katgirl3

03-09-2006, 09:08 PM

I'm not going to have a silly argument with you. Maybe it's because as you said earlier I'm soooo mature that makes me feel that way. LOL Now you can go back to watching, apparently one of your favorite scholars, Bill Engvall.

Funny. I didn't know we were arguing. ;) Glad you know who Bill Engvall is. I guess you'll understand this, then. Here's your sign. ;) It's been a long time comin'.

http://www.smiliegenerator.de/s29/smilies-41025.png

mesue

03-10-2006, 12:41 AM

Funny. I didn't know we were arguing. ;) Glad you know who Bill Engvall is. I guess you'll understand this, then. Here's your sign. ;) It's been a long time comin'.

http://www.smiliegenerator.de/s29/smilies-41025.png
Yawn, now that was just totally asinine. But exactly what I have come to expect from you. Just a bit too trite.

katgirl3

03-10-2006, 03:31 PM

Yawn, now that was just totally asinine. But exactly what I have come to expect from you. Just a bit too trite.

My thoughts exactly, every time I read one of your posts. ;) Ridiculous. But really....you've earned that sign. So cherish it. :) I think what's really bothering you is you've run out of places to store all the signs you've received. Maybe you could rent a storage locker? Just a suggestion. ;)

mesue

03-10-2006, 05:01 PM

My thoughts exactly, every time I read one of your posts. ;) Ridiculous. But really....you've earned that sign. So cherish it. :) I think what's really bothering you is you've run out of places to store all the signs you've received. Maybe you could rent a storage locker? Just a suggestion. ;)
If the best you can do is borrow an over done line from a comedian, then you have my sympathy and I would suggest you start reading more than the funny pages. If you can't understand that one can be for human rights and national security at the same time then you clearly have a problem. You suggest I'm bothered by something but I am not the one going chasing somone into another thread, and insulting someone, and I think even you can figure out where you can stick your sign.

Jolie Rouge

03-10-2006, 05:44 PM

Bush concerned about message to Mideast over ports

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President George W. Bush said on Friday he was concerned about the message being sent to Middle Eastern allies by the collapse of efforts by a Dubai company to manage major U.S. ports.

Speaking to a newspaper group a day after the ports deal fell apart under withering attack from the U.S. Congress, Bush also pledged to work with members of Congress on how to improve the process that led his administration to approve the transaction.

"I'm concerned about a broader message this issue could send to our friends and allies around the world, particularly in the Middle East," Bush said.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060310/ts_nm/...y_ports_bush_dc (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060310/ts_nm/security_ports_bush_dc)

US, UAE postpone free trade talks amid ports row

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States and United Arab Emirate have postponed free trade talks set for next week, the U.S. Trade Representative's office said on Friday.

The announcement came one day after state-owned Dubai Ports World, facing intense U.S. political opposition, said it would sell recently acquired U.S. assets to an American entity.

"The U.S. and UAE are strongly committed to making progress on our FTA negotiations. In order to get an agreement that both sides can successfully implement, we need additional time to prepare for the next round of negotiations," Neena Moorjani, a spokeswoman for the U.S. Trade Representative's office, said.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=...de_uae_usa_dc_1 (http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=2631&ncid=2631&e=3&u=/nm/20060310/ts_nm/trade_uae_usa_dc_1)

Dubai ports debacle darkens Gulf investors' mood
By Dayan Candappa
Fri Mar 10, 9:00 AM ET

DUBAI (Reuters) - Gulf Arabs reacted bitterly on Friday to Dubai's decision to relinquish control of six U.S. ports, saying the political storm that forced the emirate's hand could provoke a backlash among regional investors.

State-owned Dubai Ports announced on Thursday that it would transfer the ports to a U.S. entity at the behest of Dubai's ruler to allay concerns in the United States that the deal posed a threat to American national security. "Do you think we are happy this morning? The mood is black, very, very black," said a senior official who was involved in the Dubai Ports deal.

Since the September 11 attacks, investors from the world's biggest oil-exporting region have feared their assets in the United States might be targeted for security reasons.

While the Dubai Ports row reinforced those fears among the Gulf's wealthy private investors, most analysts had said it would barely affect state-controlled petrodollar flows that are increasingly important to the U.S. economy.

They, like the region's business community, had believed the Gulf's close diplomatic and military ties with Washington would prevail when push came to shove.

But that faith was shattered by the forced capitulation of a government-controlled company in the United Arab Emirates, a frequent port of call for American warships and a country described by President George W. Bush as a staunch ally. "It doesn't matter whether it is a private investor or a public investor. This will affect investment," said Robert Springborg, director of the London Middle East Institute of the School of Oriental and African Studies.

U.S. critics of the deal note that two of the September 11 hijackers came from the UAE and that the country once recognized the Taliban government in Afghanistan.

Those arguments have done nothing to address concerns in the region that Dubai Ports, which had gained control of U.S. ports by taking over British firm P&O, was singled out simply because it was an Arab company.

PERCEPTION

"I have always argued that this was not an anti-Arab issue but rather a matter of domestic (U.S.) politics," said Ali Sadek, a former director of the Arab Monetary Fund.

"But the perception, whether on the street or the corridors of power, is going to be that it is."

The sheer volume of cash at stake makes that perception a matter of critical economic importance.

Record oil prices are driving up the amount of Gulf money available for investment in foreign assets by about $130 billion a year -- about 16 percent of the external funding needed to cover the U.S. current account deficit.

The UAE economy minister warned last week that the Dubai Ports row could prompt other countries to divert funds away from the United States.

A lot of that money is channeled through bodies linked to Gulf governments, which have been diversifying their holdings across geographies and asset classes since the oil boom began.

U.S. securities still account for the bulk of the identifiable investment from OPEC oil cartel states, but their share of investable OPEC funds has fallen compared to the last oil boom in the 1970s, according the Bank for International Settlements.

The Dubai ports row has given Gulf investors another reason to keep diversifying their holdings away from the United States, the destination of choice during the 1970s oil boom, analysts said.

"There already has been a drift away from U.S. assets by Arab investors. You may well have a further drift," said Angus Blair of Dubai-based Mena Financial.

Springborg said the immediate impact would be felt in the mergers and acquisitions business, which drew more than $30 billion of Gulf cash last year. Only about 6 percent of that went to the United States, according to a Credit Suisse report.

(Additional reporting by Yara Bayoumy and Richard Dean in Dubai and Souhail Karam in Riyadh)

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=...ity_ports_dc_11 (http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=2631&ncid=2631&e=15&u=/nm/20060310/ts_nm/security_ports_dc_11)

katgirl3

03-10-2006, 06:16 PM

If the best you can do is borrow an over done line from a comedian, then you have my sympathy and I would suggest you start reading more than the funny pages. If you can't understand that one can be for human rights and national security at the same time then you clearly have a problem. You suggest I'm bothered by something but I am not the one going chasing somone into another thread, and insulting someone, and I think even you can figure out where you can stick your sign.

The problem is, you only seem to sympathise with the terrorists. That's the only time you seem concerned about human rights. That irks me as an American. And I'm not chasing you. Just responding to a thread. You're making more of this than it is. But then, that's your style. Blowing things out of porportion. Typical. :rolleyes:

I'm curious. Specifically where would you like me to stick YOUR sign. Cause it's yours, ya know. You've earned it. Again. :) And for someone who doesn't want to have a silly argument, you certainly keep coming back for more. Stop chasing me. lol :rolleyes: There's no argument here. I'm right. You're wrong. On soooo many levels. Nope. No argument here. :)

YNKYH8R

03-10-2006, 08:27 PM

stresseater

03-10-2006, 09:16 PM

H wants what he has said all along, the middle east people to be free from the dictators and for them to NOT be a safe haven for terrorist. How long do you suggest we treat the middle easterners like pariah? Here is a nifty little bit of information and on a liberal site no less.... Dean's World (http://www.deanesmay.com/posts/1140679550.shtml)
What is the United Arab Emirates? Like the United States (USA) or the United Kingdom (UK), the United Arab Emirates (UAE) is a single nation that unites various member states into one country. The states within the country are known as "emirates," because they've historically beeen ruled by emirs, which are basically a form of prince.
It's a fairly small country, with a population of only about 2.6 million people. It's situated between Saudi Arabia and Oman, and is right across the Persian Gulf from Iran. Here's a map, courtesy of Wikipedia:
So we understand so far that this is a country, right? Not some terrorist club or anything. It's just a small country in the Middle East. You can get a lot more details on this small nation here in the CIA World Factbook.

The UAE is the home of the United States Air Force Base at Al Dhafra, and the UAE port of Jebel Ali is the most frequent port of call for U.S. Navy ships in the world outside the United States, with a reputation for being a great place for R&R for tired sailors. The USO even operates major facilities in the UAE . Indeed, it's one part of the region where American service members can generally walk the streets unafraid, casually shopping and touristing and making friends with the locals.

The United Arab Emirates is hardly a perfect nation. The Freedom House report on the UAE shows them to have a long way to go in terms of basic rights, and although there have been some important recent reforms the country clearly needs to reform even more before joining the modern world. But they have never once appeared on the State Department list of terror-sponsoring nations , and in the wake of 9/11 they instituted serious reforms to stop any financial or other activities that might help international terrorists. The UAE also has troops fighting alongside U.S. troops in Afghanistan.

In short: the recent hullaballoo over a UAE-based company taking over ownership of some U.S. ports--ports that used to be owned by British corporations--is crazy. They were already owned by foreigners, now it's just different foreigners, both of them great friends to the United States and staunch, vital wartime allies. But security at these ports will still be handled, as always, entirely by United States forces.

Daniel Drezner has more. Joe Gandelman has a humorous spin on a political counteroffensive to this storm of over-reaction. But me? I've had enough. I have only one more thing to say:

Please stop giving aid and comfort to the enemy by crapping on our friends in the Middle East. Please.
I love some of the comments on there after his rant hehehe they wouldn't even take Michael Jackson... Sounds like a reasonable people to me. :D

mesue

03-10-2006, 10:59 PM

The problem is, you only seem to sympathise with the terrorists. That's the only time you seem concerned about human rights. That irks me as an American. And I'm not chasing you. Just responding to a thread. You're making more of this than it is. But then, that's your style. Blowing things out of porportion. Typical. :rolleyes:

I'm curious. Specifically where would you like me to stick YOUR sign. Cause it's yours, ya know. You've earned it. Again. :) And for someone who doesn't want to have a silly argument, you certainly keep coming back for more. Stop chasing me. lol :rolleyes: There's no argument here. I'm right. You're wrong. On soooo many levels. Nope. No argument here. :)
So you can't even figure out where to stick your sign? LOL Now that says a lot about you. LOL

mesue

03-10-2006, 11:36 PM

What the hell does Bush want? He spends most of his time from 9/11 till now talking about the middle east being a hostile place, making averyone afraid of terrorists threats, and terrorist cells. People here have been saying that the "Liberals" are forgetting about 9/11. (I gotta say I'm trying really hard ;)) Then he turns around to support this AUE deal. What about protecting America? You cannot go around scaring the bejeezus out American citizens and then expect them to sit back and say "yah we should have middle east countries control the operations of American ports."
Now is not the time for this attitude some day but not now. People are Arab crazy. How socially acceptable were Japanesse people after Pearl Harbor? It just goes to show it is not about "accepting" the middle east; it's about business.
I totally agree and the fact that they had ties to Bin laden and the Taliban makes it even more difficult to understand why he would think anyone would go for this. Had it been a midde eastern country that had not done the things listed below I really don't think I would have a problem with it. But it makes sense to be leery of the UAE based on their track record. Also from what I have read they woud have a bit more authority than was being reported by the media

http://www.newshounds.us/2006/02/22/dubai_port_deal_big_deal_or_much_ado_about_nothing .php
The UAE:

- was one of three countries in the world to recognize the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan
- has been a key transfer point for illegal shipments of nuclear components to Iran, North Korea and Lybia.
- according to the FBI, transferred money through their banking system to the 9/11 hijackers
- was not, according to the Treasury Department, cooperating in efforts to track down Osama Bin Laden’s bank accounts
(Hat tip to ThinkProgress for the initial investigative work!)

As for other aspects of the deal:

- The deal has not gone through the proper 45 day vetting process, required by law (which is what Huddy is referring to)
- The British company which is being bought out, P&O, recently renewed a deal with "the United States Surface Deployment and Distribution Command to provide stevedoring [loading and unloading] of military equipment at the Texan ports of Beaumont and Corpus Christi through 2010. Almost 40 percent of the Army cargo deployed in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom flows through these two ports.” With DP World gaining control of P&O who inked this deal, DP World would be in charge of monitoring the loading and unloading of America's military equipment.
- The person tapped by Bush to run the Department of Transportation's Maritime Administration, David Sanborn, was a senior executive at DP World.

nightrider127

03-11-2006, 03:53 AM

So you can't even figure out where to stick your sign? LOL Now that says a lot about you. LOL

Trust me, she knowes exactly where the sign belongs.

TexasGal

03-11-2006, 08:19 AM

I love some of the comments on there after his rant hehehe they wouldn't even take Michael Jackson... Sounds like a reasonable people to me. :D

:confused: Last I heard, Michael Jackson was living in the palace with prince what's his name (who is a big fan of MJ) and was looking to purchase property there.

Trust me, she knows exacly where the sign belongs.

Yep ;)

tngirl

03-11-2006, 11:08 AM

Trust me, she knowes exactly where the sign belongs.

roflmao :D Lynda, you shock me! :eek:

YNKYH8R

03-11-2006, 04:50 PM

H wants what he has said all along, the middle east people to be free from the dictators and for them to NOT be a safe haven for terrorist. How long do you suggest we treat the middle easterners like pariah?
It's not that we want to treat all middle east countries like pariah it's just that this was not the time to bring up a deal of this nature. After the war is over THEN we can look into this deal again.
Consider the ports aren't secure as they are; Iran wants to finish work on a nuke; the is a probability to have such a weapon enter the US. Or at least risked.

Bliss

03-11-2006, 06:01 PM

Iran wants to finish work on a nuke; the is a probability to have such a weapon enter the US. Or at least risked.

It may very well be the whole plan. You never know!

nightrider127

03-11-2006, 08:24 PM

roflmao :D Lynda, you shock me! :eek:

I am a shocking person :D :D :D :D :D

Jolie Rouge

03-14-2006, 09:52 PM

Ports Without a Home
by William F. Buckley Jr

Analysis of the aborted ports deal begins and ends with political questions. Vin Weber, former congressman and now a lobbyist for the emirates, acknowledged that public pressure in the matter was "unprecedented" in his experience. Mr. Weber had for several days been counseling Dubai to back off from the deal, and signals were buzzing about in the capital at a feverish rate.

On Thursday, the climactic day, everyone in Washington was bound to or from the White House, the Senate, the Department of Homeland Security, or to a TV talk show... when, suddenly, the calm voice of the sheik came across. Mohammed bin Rashid al-Maktoum, emir of Dubai, said in effect: "Look, if you people want so bad to operate the ports we took over from Peninsular Oriental in Great Britain, well, go ahead. Round up a few American capitalists who want to buy us out for the $6.8 billion we were willing to pay."

President Bush was understandably indignant at the suggestion that he was indifferent to U.S. security. Ironically, when word got out that the White House hadn't even been aware of the pending deal until late last month, critics rushed to the conclusion that here was evidence of presidential insouciance. But it wasn't that. It was evidence that the machinery of government over which the president presides was humming along, everyone doing his duty.

John Negroponte, director of national intelligence, had surveilled the proposed sale and found no objection to it. The Committee on Foreign Investments in the United States, an interagency committee that passes judgment on foreign acquisitions, had approved the shift. The Coast Guard was unconcerned.

There was nothing inherently wrong with the deal, and the president's involvement became purely political. House majority leader John Boehner said it in so many words: "House Republicans were obligated to take action to respond to the concerns Americans have expressed about the proposed deal." This is different from saying that Congress had to act to ensure national security. Everything, as one observer noted, has changed since 9/11. The American public was almost overnight induced to be edgy about a deal that would give administrative control in six major port facilities to a company in effect owned by a remote Islamic emirate located in a part of the world over which, manifestly, the United States has only problematic control.

If the matter had proceeded normally, attention would have been given to other questions. Is there a flat rule against selling port facilities to companies that operate under foreign flags? Since the ports in question were being operated by a British company, such a national prohibition would have been new. That does not mean it would have been irrational, because it might be persuasively contended that in an age in which terrorist leverage is especially to be guarded against, what was OK under the rule of free trade and global economic impartiality is no longer OK.

That argument can logically be extended to weigh against any building rising beyond a given number of stories. The vulnerability of the twin towers was in some respects owing to their height above the ground. Critics of the Dubai deal have pointed out that only a small amount of commerce is actually examined at our ports of entry and that this must be reformed. The reform could of course take place irrespective of who owns the port facilities. How incoming goods are examined is something left to Customs and Coast Guard and security forces. And these agencies would operate under rules that would not change whether the owner of the port was foreign or American.

Yet the mere feel of port facilities owned by (a) foreigners, (b) a despot kingdom, (c) Muslims, (d) sitting there in the Persian Gulf a stone's throw from Iran ... Well, Americans aren't isolationists, but too much is too much.

The White House recognized force majeure. The president did not repeat his threat to veto congressional intervention in the deal. The 62-2 vote in the House Appropriations Committee, the 70 percent opposed in the CBS News poll, carried the day. And it was manifestly a relief to the White House that the deal was aborted without a political showdown, which the president would have lost.

Will there be bad blood? Yes, even though the emir isn't likely to lose a great deal from properties that have depreciated in virtue of this round of capital immobility. There is, also, the matter of pride. The U.S. diplomatic apparatus will look for opportunities to say pleasant things about Dubai, and the emir will be consoled by the strategic satisfactions of continuing to engage in commerce with the West.

Jolie Rouge

03-15-2006, 04:53 PM

Lawmakers Satisfied by DP World Plans
By TED BRIDIS, Associated Press Writers
36 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - A Dubai-owned company announced Wednesday it would sell all its U.S. port operations within four to six months to an unrelated American buyer, completing a multimillion-dollar deal forced by congressional concerns over terrorism security.

Lawmakers who criticized the Bush administration for approving DP World's earlier plans to operate in the United States said they were satisfied by the new details from the company. Still, the U.S. House was expected to vote, perhaps late Wednesday, formally expressing its opposition to DP World running any port terminals in America.

DP World, the world's third-largest ports company, said that until the sale is finalized its U.S. businesses will operate independently. The announcement was the first time it described its plans for the newly acquired U.S. operations as a "sale" to a single American buyer and indicated it would retain no stake.

Michael Seymour, the president of DP World's U.S. subsidiary, said there was "already significant interest in the sale from American buyers."

Asked whether a foreign-owned company with its own U.S. subsidiary might qualify, Seymour said: "An American buyer is exactly what we say it is; it's an American buyer and we envisage it will be a wholly owned American organization."

DP World said it would provide information about its business to "interested parties," which it did not identify.

The new disclosures by DP World responded to questions raised since its vague announcement last week that it intended to "transfer fully" to an unspecified American company the U.S. operations it acquired when it bought London-based Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co. for $6.8 billion.

"It's important for the company to continue moving forward on what they committed to doing, and we appreciate the step that they took," White House spokesman Scott McClellan said. He praised the decision by Dubai's ruler, Mohammed bin Rashid al Maktoum, to sell the U.S. operations to preserve good relations between the countries.

Under the sale, DP World had taken over a U.S. subsidiary with significant operations at ports in New Jersey, New York, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia — plus lesser dockside activities at 16 other ports in this country.

DP World has said those U.S. operations are worth roughly $700 million. It agreed to the sale to quell a bipartisan furor in Congress.

"It certainly appears on its face to achieve what we want, and that's to have a U.S. company running these ports," said Rep. Peter King (news, bio, voting record), R-N.Y., chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee. "I think DP World got the message loudly and clearly."

Another vocal critic, Rep. Duncan Hunter (news, bio, voting record), chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, said lawmakers will continue to monitor the corporate negotiations.

"It's not over until it's over," said Hunter, R-Calif. "We're optimistic they'll keep their commitment, but the need to secure domestic critical infrastructure extends beyond the Dubai Ports World deal."

Republicans in Congress blocked a Democratic effort Wednesday to force votes in the House on expanding government scrutiny of foreign investments. Democrats still planned to seek more money for port security, arguing that Bush administration hadn't done enough.

Almost six in 10 Americans, 58 percent, say they support the congressional opposition to the Dubai ports deal, according to a Pew Research Center poll released Wednesday.

But people are still not sure whether transferring operations at the ports to an American company will improve security. Less than half, 46 percent, said that was satisfactory, while more than half said it was either not satisfactory or they were not sure.

Until the sale is completed, DP World said its U.S. operations will continue to be managed independently by P&O Ports North America Inc., the wholly owned U.S. subsidiary of the British company it bought. That sale was finalized last week.

The largest maritime firms are not based in the U.S., although nearly all of them own and operate U.S. subsidiaries. DP World's suitors could include Seattle-based SSA Marine and New Jersey-based Maher Terminals Inc. At Miami's port, an early critic of the Dubai ports deal, Eller & Company Inc., said earlier that it was considering an offer to buy out operations there and possibly at other ports.

DP World said Wednesday it had hired Deutsche Bank Securities Inc. of New York as its financial adviser for the sale. It also hired a New York law firm, Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, for legal advice and said it will continue to rely on the Alston & Bird LLP law and lobbying firm in Washington for help with U.S. regulatory issues.

Gen. John Abizaid, head of the U.S. Central Command, skirted questions Wednesday about whether the Pentagon has a backup plan if Dubai decides to retaliate by limiting the U.S. military's access to its ports. Navy ships, including aircraft carriers, use Dubai's ports, some of which are considered among the most modern and best-equipped worldwide.

"I don't think it will happen," Abizaid said during a House Armed Services hearing. "There are always ways to work around it ... but it would be very painful."

___

Associated Press writers Liz Sidoti and Lolita C. Baldor contributed to this story.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/ports_security