So the Port Sale to UAE

[Keino]

How do you feel about it?

Im not sure where I stand on this. My first reaction is to think that it is a truly bad bad bad idea. But then I read today that Bill First agrees with me, so now Im confused.

In all seriousness, though, How do you feel about it, Partisan politics aside?

[swheeler]

I feel that if this is truly only an issue of management and not security, and if we had been fine with a foreign firm doing it before, there's no cause for objection. But then I read this: "I don't understand why it's OK for a British company to operate our ports but not a company from the Middle East when we've already determined security is not an issue," Bush said.
So now I'm confused too. :D

[RedskinsDave]

Start to worry Sean, I agree too. I think it is a very bad thing. I don't think that anything remotely having to do with our national security should be owned by any foreign company muchless country. I didn't realize it was owned by the Brits before but I would have objected to that as well. I would be real curious to see if anyone not directly tied to the admin would have a decent argument for something like this.

[swheeler]

Start to worry Sean, I agree too. I think it is a very bad thing. I don't think that anything remotely having to do with our national security should be owned by any foreign company muchless country. I didn't realize it was owned by the Brits before but I would have objected to that as well. I would be real curious to see if anyone not directly tied to the admin would have a decent argument for something like this.
Just to clarify it is a UAE-based company, not the actual country.

[akhhorus]

I am concerned about it, not because the supposed links to 9-11(which are crap by the way), but because the UAE didn't bother to stop or tell us about the transferring of nuke equipment and technology through their ports(run by this company by the way) headed for North Korea and Iran. I have no problem with a British company running it since they don't have this question mark.

[Booser]

I am concerned about it, not because the supposed links to 9-11(which are crap by the way), but because the UAE didn't bother to stop or tell us about the transferring of nuke equipment and technology through their ports(run by this company by the way) headed for North Korea and Iran. I have no problem with a British company running it since they don't have this question mark.

that is not surprising, akh. the UAE has a strange "understanding" between rogue states and terrorist groups: you can transit our country, and as long as you dont stay here or attack us, we wont stop you. it is the Emirates way of preserving the status quo. and it is one of the reasons why there havent been any attacks on our base there either...

[Ibleedburgundy]

IMO this should be purely a 100% American operation purely on principle.

[akhhorus]

that is not surprising, akh. the UAE has a strange "understanding" between rogue states and terrorist groups: you can transit our country, and as long as you dont stay here or attack us, we wont stop you. it is the Emirates way of preserving the status quo. and it is one of the reasons why there havent been any attacks on our base there either...

It worked for the Saudis for quite some time. The UAE govt is actually quite helpful with fighting terrorism publically and privately, but this isn't the govt, its a private company who has no such treaty or financial obligations.

[tommahawk]

I am concerned about it, not because the supposed links to 9-11(which are crap by the way), but because the UAE didn't bother to stop or tell us about the transferring of nuke equipment and technology through their ports(run by this company by the way) headed for North Korea and Iran. I have no problem with a British company running it since they don't have this question mark.


Very disturbing.
This administration constantly reminds us of the threats that face us. That we must concede our civil rights to combat these threats. Then turns around and ignors history because of the profit he might make.

Why else would he support this. A state owned company, with possible terrorist ties operating six major ports in this country doesn't make sense IMO.

[rskinsfan10]

It worked for the Saudis for quite some time. The UAE govt is actually quite helpful with fighting terrorism publically and privately, but this isn't the govt, its a private company who has no such treaty or financial obligations.But isn't this company owned/controlled by the ruling family in the UAE?

[redskin_rich]

Very disturbing.
This administration constantly reminds us of the threats that face us. That we must concede our civil rights to combat these threats. Then turns around and ignors history because of the profit he might make.

Why else would he support this. A state owned company, with possible terrorist ties operating six major ports in this country doesn't make sense IMO.
This is something I was wondering about. Do any of Bush's cronies own stock in this company? If so, why hasn't it been brought up yet?


Either way, I am against this, for so many reasons...

[akhhorus]

But isn't this company owned/controlled by the ruling family in the UAE?

I didn't hear that, but they still wouldn't be an official(albeit an unofficial one) govt entity and could theoretically be an independant player free of the UAE's agreements and obligations.

[RedskinsDave]

I am against this but let's really not reduce this to some b.s. accusations about the Bush family's investments. This port operation was run by a british company that was sold. Blame the folks who sold the company for crissake.

[Spence]

Bush has never cast a veto, but he's now promised to veto anything passed by Congress which prevents the UAE from taking the ports deal. He obviously feels very strongly about it.

[akhhorus]

Bush has never cast a veto, but he's now promised to veto anything passed by Congress which prevents the UAE from taking the ports deal. He obviously feels very strongly about it.

The irony of that being is that he'll veto the bill to block it and all the Governors of the states involved will break their leases with P&O and its irrelevant.

[redskin_rich]

I am against this but let's really not reduce this to some b.s. accusations about the Bush family's investments. This port operation was run by a british company that was sold. Blame the folks who sold the company for crissake.
You're right, Dave. That is why I was asking Tommahawk, if there was any such special interest in this company. It seems odd that Bush would take such a strong stance in support of this, it doesn't fit his typical MO.

[PennSkinsFan]

Start to worry Sean, I agree too. I think it is a very bad thing. I don't think that anything remotely having to do with our national security should be owned by any foreign company muchless country. I didn't realize it was owned by the Brits before but I would have objected to that as well. I would be real curious to see if anyone not directly tied to the admin would have a decent argument for something like this.

I agree Dave. I do not believe anything strategic like Ports should be in any control except for US control. Nothign to do with bias, nothing to do with bigotry, I personally do not believe our Ports should be managed by Britan either. Only the US gov't, State Govt or private contractor of US origin.

[Agrawog]

Wait - do you mean that now just the appearance of a negative effect on America's security is not enough to change policy? When did this happen? Isn't this the government that brought us profiling of all Arabs on flights and the demonizing of any human being that doesn't "support the troops" in the most farfetched of ways (even if they are medal winning Marines)? What happened to these guys? Jeez, Cheney shoots a guy and loses his guts?

What were the guys thinking - UAE? Of course this is an unacceptable risk to our brave fighting boys and our desperate-to-be-protected public! I mean, so the tie is the most tenous you can imagine. It has to be as bad a grieving mother asking for the war to end, isn't it? How could the administration turn its back on us so horribly?

Why does George W. Bush and the administration hate America?

[Axegrinder]

Bush has never cast a veto, but he's now promised to veto anything passed by Congress which prevents the UAE from taking the ports deal. He obviously feels very strongly about it.
He feels strongly about it?
I heard it reported yesterday that he knew nothing about it.
Go figure.
By the way,I'm in total agreement with the rest of you that this is a bad idea.

[Keino]

Just to clarify it is a UAE-based company, not the actual country.

Actually it is a Govt. controlled UAE based company, ergo it is the actual country.

[Spence]

Bush is promsing a veto. Frist says he has the votes in the Senate to override a veto. Hard to imagine Bush would pick a fight with Congress and have his own party override a veto...in an election year. My guess is that the louder Bush talks about seeing the port deal done, the more the White House is quietly asking UAE to step aside so they can avoid an intra-party fight over the issue. As we know with Harriet Miers, the White House was leaning on her to step aside while Bush was still insisting she be confirmed.

[CNYSkinFan]

This is just a bad idea. Let alone the fact that the Government should not outsource jobs and contracts to foreign contractors in any case, But port security is the actual nuclear nightmare scenario. Since most ports are near major population centers it would be very advantageous for a terrorist to target them for a nuclear or radilogical attack.

It's just silly to think that foreign country....any foreign country should be allowed to handle our security on our own soil.

[dj_stouty]

I personally do not believe our Ports should be managed by Britan either. Only the US gov't, State Govt or private contractor of US origin.

I agree 100%. I think the US Government should take control, or even better; privatize it to a US Contractor. Maybe this way, more than 5% of all cargo entering the US will be searched.

I've watched way too many TV shows (24) and movies (Sum of All Fears) to know how easy it is to smuggle WMDs into the country through our local ports.

[Spence]

This might explain a thing or two: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.Source: NY Daily News (http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/022206Z.shtml)

[CNYSkinFan]

This might explain a thing or two:Source: NY Daily News (http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/022206Z.shtml)

Well well

http://www.financialsense.com/editorials/reality/2004/images/1011gomer.jpg

Surprise surprise surprise

[RedskinsDave]

Well well

http://www.financialsense.com/editorials/reality/2004/images/1011gomer.jpg

Surprise surprise surprise

Not really. The world of transportation and shipping is not very big at all. CSX and DP are huge companies and anyone involved in the industry would likely have ties unless they were not qualified to do their job, a la FEMA's Brown.

[CNYSkinFan]

Not really. The world of transportation and shipping is not very big at all. CSX and DP are huge companies and anyone involved in the industry would likely have ties unless they were not qualified to do their job, a la FEMA's Brown.
Dave you aren't arguing coincidence here are you? Even if it is a coincidence the administration has used up that excuse with Halliburton and Cheney and the Iraqi contracts.

[Spence]

Here's the thing that really annoys me, though I don't know know how Republicans react to it. This is what Bush said yesterday:"They ought to listen to what I have to say about this. They ought to look at the facts and understand the consequences of what they're going to do. But if they pass a law, I'll deal with it, with a veto ... they need to know that our government has looked at this issue and looked at it carefully. Again, I repeat, if there was any question as to whether or not this country would be less safe as a result of the transaction, it wouldn't go forward."Source (http://www.thestate.com/mld/thestate/news/nation/13927309.htm)

His whole point is this: We've looked into it and we like the deal and that ought to be enough for everyone else, so what's the big deal? Just trust our work on this issue and let's move on to something else.

Okay, there's a lot of arrogance in there, but most presidents say something like that sooner or later, so I'm not worked up about that. What really bothers me is that this guy acts as if he has no history on things like this. He wants us to trust that he's looked into it? Pardon, but isn't this what he told us about WMD in Iraq? After Iraq and Katrina and the Medicare Plan D fiasco, which is going to cost $800 billion more than the Bush admin promised, how can anyone fail to understand why people don't trust this guy anymore?

If you're a Republican and you trust Mr Bush, that's fine. But if you're a Republican and you claim you don't understand why others refuse to just take his word for things, you're either a liar or a fool. Mr Bush has gone to that "just take my word for it" line far too often. Those who go for it inevitably get burned. If Republicans don't mind the burn marks that's their business, but the rest of us have good reasons for not taking Mr Bush's word for this or anything else.

So there.

[Spence]

Mr Bush likes to delegate. I mean, he really likes to delegate: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.

But Lawmakers determined to capsize the pending sale said Bush's surprise veto threat won't deter them.

"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 (news, bio, voting record) 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."Source (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060222/ap_on_go_pr_wh/ports_security_34&printer=1;_ylt=Agfc_2xstu_IxUyA9hV0aEoGw_IE;_ylu=X 3oDMTA3MXN1bHE0BHNlYwN0bWE-)

[fent]

i'm working this for my boss, and i'll say this, there aren't a whole lot of people that are okay about not being told this was going on.

[CNYSkinFan]

i'm working this for my boss, and i'll say this, there aren't a whole lot of people that are okay about not being told this was going on.
Well in an odd way this may actually be Bush's way of bringing together both parties and houses of Congress united in a single goal....against him. Slight miscalculation there Georgie.

[Spence]

Bush says the deal's been thoroughly reviewed. Really? The mayors of New York and Baltimore and the Governors of New York, New Jersey, and Maryland say nobody briefed them. Don Rumsfeld says nobody told him this was happening, and he sits on the board that allegedly approved the deal.

It's not as if the fact that "Dubai had long served as an offshore trans-shipment hub for the Pakistani nuclear-procurement network, and it served just as well now as a center for the business of nuclear distribution" should make us concerned about the quality of governance being provided by our new container shipping overlords or anything. After all, if Bush says we can trust the Emir, we can trust the Emir, right? Perhaps Bush saw his soul just like with Vladimir Putin.

Source (http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200601/aq-khan)

[Spence]

Here's a thought. The White House is saying that all the relevant officials were briefed on the sale and approved of it. If that is so, why are the mayors and governors of the ports affected by the sale -- including the Republican ones -- saying that they'd never heard of this deal until the story broke. The mayors and governors are going to be partially responsible for overseeing security at these ports and for overseeing disaster relief efforts if the worst happens. Why were they not briefed by the Bush admin and why were their opinions not sought? How can the White House say all relevant officials were briefed and approved? It's preposterous.

[Spence]

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.Source (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/22/politics/22port.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1140633701-k+KQ90SmmuUVcky8+3EP0A&pagewanted=print)

[fent]

Source (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/22/politics/22port.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1140633701-k+KQ90SmmuUVcky8+3EP0A&pagewanted=print)

apparently CFIUS interprets the Byrd amendment to only apply when there's a question of national security and since they don't feel there is a security concern, then they can bypass the 45 day requirement.

[RedskinsDave]

While I want the deal reversed I can understand why Bush would publicly support the sale. When he comes out and tells arabs and muslims that they are not terrorists in our eyes he would be hard pressed to explain not letting this company take the job over from a British company.

[CNYSkinFan]

While I want the deal reversed I can understand why Bush would publicly support the sale. When he comes out and tells arabs and muslims that they are not terrorists in our eyes he would be hard pressed to explain not letting this company take the job over from a British company.
I agree, but that could also be used as an argument not to allow the sale in the first place. The PR fallout from this will be both domestic and international.

[RedskinsDave]

I agree, but that could also be used as an argument not to allow the sale in the first place. The PR fallout from this will be both domestic and international.

True. They stop this before anyone hears about it and nothing would have happened.

[Spence]

While I want the deal reversed I can understand why Bush would publicly support the sale. When he comes out and tells arabs and muslims that they are not terrorists in our eyes he would be hard pressed to explain not letting this company take the job over from a British company.You mean he doesn't want to offend Arab feelings? Well, it's a bit late to start worrying about that, isn't it? Do we think that if this sale goes forward Arabs will forget about Abu Ghraib? Besides, what are the feelings of Arabs [or anyone else] next to the homeland security of the United States? So some feelings will be hurt. Big freaking deal. I'll send the Emir a box of tissues.

[Spence]

A classic moment in Bush-speak, at today's cabinet meeting:The management of some ports, which, heretofore, has been managed by a foreign company will be managed by another company from a foreign land. And so people don't need to worry about security. This deal wouldn't go forward if we were concerned about the security for the United States of America.Source (http://www.earnedmedia.org/wh0223.htm)

Jon Stewart should have a bit of fun with that.

[CNYSkinFan]

Don't worry. trust me. we have never mad a mistake knowingly before.

[Axegrinder]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060225/ap_on_go_pr_wh/ports_security
WASHINGTON - The Bush administration said Friday it won't reconsider its approval for a United Arab Emirates company to take over significant operations at six U.S. ports. The former head of the Sept. 11 commission said the deal "never should have happened."
More....

[fent]

Bush may not be willing to reconsider it, but DWP has delayed their takeover to give our government time to hash this out.

[redskin_rich]

It looks as though the deal is dead.

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

[dukeuch]

IMO this should be purely a 100% American operation purely on principle.

So what to do about other US ports already being operated by foriegn companies?

[dukeuch]

By the way, I think this deal would not have materially endangered US security. This is a bunch of Republicans up for re-election abondoning a sinking president's ship on an issue that sounds worse than it realy is. I'll bet there are other ports being operated by foriegn companies, and I'll also bet that over 75% of the ships that dock at those ports are owned/operated by foreing companies, mahy state owned. That Bush's chickens are coming home to roost on this matter is ironic. I am much more concerned about our failed mission in Iraq (which I thikn is going to cause us a lot of headaches from terrorists in the decades to come), domestic spying, Medicare "reform", etc,

I mean, how safe do you think our ports are now? Go to any of the ports listed and watch thousands of containers being unloaded in a single day, think that only about 5% are inspected, and then tell me how it could be worse? How do you think all those illegal drugs get into the country?

[Axegrinder]

So....does Halliburton manage ports?