Selling our ports to the Arab emirates

[Coldwolf]

There is nothing the Bush Administration (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060220/ap_on_go_co/port_security) won't do to appease its oil buddies in the middle east.

Controversy grows over Bush giving control of US ports to United Arab Emirates

Bushies hit over lease to terror-linked Dubai

BY MICHAEL McAULIFF
DAILY NEWS WASHINGTON BUREAU (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/local/story/393032p-333282c.html)

Manhattan's cruise ship terminal, which forms just a part of the $6.8 billion package secured by Dubai Ports World. The company cut the deal with a British firm last week.
WASHINGTON — The Bush administration gave control of six crucial ports to a 9/11-linked Arab nation after a flimsy investigation and with weak guarantees the company in charge can stop Osama Bin Laden from infiltrating, the House homeland security chairman said.

"There are conditions, which shows they had concerns, but it's all procedural and relies entirely on good faith," Rep. Peter King (R-L.I.) told the Daily News. "There's nothing those conditions ... nothing that assures us they're not hiring someone with Bin Laden."

The firm, Dubai Ports World, owned by the United Arab Emirate of Dubai, cut a $6.8 billion deal last week to buy control of the ports — including Manhattan's cruise ship terminal and Newark's giant container port — from a British firm.

A source with knowledge of the purchase echoed the chairman, telling The News that while Department of Homeland Security administrators rubber-stamped it, senior analysts at the agency were never told, and they don't like it now. News of the sale, approved by a secretive multiagency panel headed by the Treasury Department, has sparked a growing outcry from both political parties.

"It's unbelievably tone-deaf politically at this point in our history, four years after 9/11, to entertain the idea of turning port security over to a company based in the UAE, [which] vows to destroy Israel," Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) told "Fox News Sunday."

[Coldwolf]

Condi, Chertoff defend outsourcing port security to Arab country with troubling ties to terrorism

And these are the people who are going to keep us safe? How people still believe that George Bush is good on terrorism is beyond me. He was the President during the worst attack ever on American soil. Bush apologists pretend there was no way to avoid that attack. But, Bush was warned on August 6, 2001 (http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/terrorism/80601pdb.html) -- five weeks prior to September 11th -- the Bin Laden was determined to attack in the U.S. -- his response was to stay on vacation.

So, the fact that the Bush administration is turning over the security of American ports to the United Arab Emirates --a country with ties to the 9/11 hijackers --shouldn't be all that shocking. Just give some serious consideration to this thought: Bush is proactively putting foreigners, in this case foreigners with ties to terror, in charge of the security of our homeland. As AP notes (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060219/ap_on_go_co/port_security):<blockquote>Critics have cited the UAE's history as an operational and financial base for the hijackers who carried out the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. In addition, they 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. </blockquote>Now, imagine a Democrat cutting a deal with the United Arab Emirates. But, instead, Bush's lackies have been out defending this latest outrage. Today, Chertoff, the guy who oversaw the complete failure of Katrina defended the deal:<blockquote>Chertoff defended the security review of Dubai Ports World of the United Arab Emirates, the company given permission to take over the port operations. Chertoff said the government typically builds in "certain conditions or requirements that the company has to agree to make sure we address the national security concerns." But Chertoff declined to discuss specifics saying that information is classified.

"We make sure there are assurances in place, in general, sufficient to satisfy us that the deal is appropriate from a national security standpoint," Chertoff said on ABC's "This Week."</blockquote>Condi has also been out spinning this one. Don't forget, she was National Security Director when the U.S. was attacked on our own soil:<blockquote>Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice told Arab journalists in an interview Friday at the State Department, 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."</blockquote>Yes, Condi, you just spin us some more on this one.

You know how Karl Rove keeps saying terror and security are going to be the top political issues for the GOP this year? Well, the GOP just gave a big part of that issue to the Democrats. Let's see if they can capitalize on it.

[Coldwolf]

Even Pataki and Ehrlich are being vocal in their criticism (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/port_security;_ylt=AvfZherqz93Q_nV.0jarZnKs0NUE;_y lu=X3oDMTA2Z2szazkxBHNlYwN0bQ--) of the transfer of ownership to Dubai-based Peninsular & Oriental Steam claiming that there was no advanced notice or discussion. Ehhh, why would Bush start discussing now? That's not how the Soviet-style team has worked in the past so why would anyone expect them to change? Regardless of whether one approves or disapproves the sale and transfer, it would have made sense to at least have a debate and discuss the sale instead of just letting it happen. Democracy can be such a hassle sometimes with all of that open debate and we know how much the Bush team likes that.
<blockquote>"Ensuring the security of New York's port operations is paramount and I am very concerned with the purchase of Peninsular & Oriental Steam by Dubai Ports World," Pataki said in a news release. "I have directed the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey to explore all legal options that may be available to them."

Ehrlich, concerned about security at the Port of Baltimore, said Monday he was "very troubled" that Maryland officials got no advance notice before the Bush administration approved the Arab company's takeover of the operations at the six ports.

Republican Sen. Lindsay Graham of South Carolina said on Fox News Sunday that the administration approval was "unbelievably tone deaf politically."

[Coldwolf]

Bush says Dubai port deal should go forward
21 Feb 2006 20:55:14 GMT
Source: Reuters (http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/WBT004834.htm)
ABOARD AIR FORCE ONE, Feb 21 (Reuters) - President George W. Bush said on Tuesday that a deal for a state-owned Dubai company to manage major U.S. ports should go forward and will not jeopardize U.S. security.

Bush told reporters traveling back to Washington with him from Colorado that he would veto legislation to stop the deal from going through.

"After careful review by our government, I believe the transaction ought to go forward," Bush said. He added that if the U.S. Congress passed a law to stop the deal, "I'll deal with it with a veto."
"I want those who are questioning it to step up and explain why all of a sudden a Middle Eastern company is held to a different standard than a Great British company. I am trying to conduct foreign policy now by saying to the people of the world, `We'll treat you fairly.'"</blockquote>


It's a state-owned company. The state that owns it has ties to the 9/11 plotters.

AP graciously included this paragraph in their article -- again: <blockquote>Critics have noted that some of the 9/11 hijackers used the UAE as an operational and financial base. In addition, they 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. </blockquote>How's that?

Bush and Rove want to make national security a major political issue in 2006. Looks like we have the issue.

[Summer]

Total madness! http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/shout.gif

[MadScot]

I can't see how the Congress is going to let this come to pass. Hopefully enough lifelong Republicans like this guy will speak out and convince Congress to put a stop to this even if they have to override a Bush veto.


I'm not quite sure what to think anymore. My mind keeps going back to the reporter quoting a high level Bush offical before the first election. I can't remember the exact quote I'll paraphrase. 'We are going to bring down such a **** storm that you won't be able to keep up with it. While your trying to figure out what we did yesterday we'll be pulling more **** today.' I don't see how anyone can say Bush has made us any safer if anything he's done just the opposite. I consider his actions treasonous. There's more cronyism going on here too. David Sanborn who heads up DP World's European and Latin American operations was just appointed by Bush to head the U.S. Maritime Administration. Treasury Secretary John Snow was chairman of CSX rail who sold their international port operations to DP World in 2004 a year after joining the Bush Cabinet.



'President's gone insane' – 9/11 dad (http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/393077p-333284c.html)
Peter Gadiel just doesn't get it.
How, asks Gadiel, whose son James died in the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center, can a company owned by a terror-linked country get control of our nation's ports?

"I'm a lifelong Republican and I think the President's gone insane," said Gadiel, 58, who heads 9/11 Families for a Secure America.

[Summer]

Yes, I'd like to see someone explain this one - again, what the heck can we do about it? Are we just sitting ducks here while the madness goes on?

[tocools]

I even have to say I think this is wrong.

[Coldwolf]

Originally posted by Summer:
Yes, I'd like to see someone explain this one - again, what the heck can we do about it? Are we just sitting ducks here while the madness goes on?

All you can do is write to your congressmen and senators and let them them know you oppose the sale of the company that run our ports to the Saudis, Or to any other business entity with ties to terrorism, and to tell others to do the same.

The are our representitives. Let them REPRESENT us.

I have to say that I use this forum to try to let people know the maddness that I see. You can agree or not agree. If you want to disagree, thats fine. But base it on something.

The person that tried to belittle me based on my choice of employment? Nothing.

[Keith]

What's that old saying?

Keep your friends close, but your enemies even closer!!

http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/bonk.gif

[Summer]

What's that old saying?

Keep your friends close, but your enemies even closer!!

Ooo, forgot about this one - good words to ponder Keith.

[Coldwolf]

Keep your friends close, but your enemies even closer!!


Sure, but don't put them in charge of your ports! http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/wink3.gif

[BGW]

We get as much oil, in one day, from Canada as what we get from the entire Persian Gulf Region (Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabiaand Kuwait combined).

The last time I checked...The USA was not kissing any major Canadian butt or invading any Canadian borders....

Just a thought to think today

Another mind bender: Dubia and Dubya...to similar for comfort

[Yosemite Joy]

And this is a surprise because?

Come on, if you have read "Bushwhacked" or numerous other articles and books you would know what close ties the Bush Family has with UAE, Oil, etc etc etc...

Obviously Bush is proving what a lame duck he is.

It is just too much that people who voted for Bush the second time had the opportunity to know what a war mongering, oil sucking, insane money grubbing SOB he is.. and chose to ignore it until it was on the News. It is like people just think you are a liar until Brian Williams or some Fox commentator reports it.

Boring.

And to think the WMD that will destroy a city or two in the US won't be brought in until Bushy is out of office, then it will be the Democrat President's (yes, a Dem will win in 08) fault. The Republicans who toted the Clinton got a Monica/Cigar/Blue dress messy/sexual relations excuse for eight years will suddenly forget that Bush allowed this to occur.

Impeach Bush!

[Average Joe]

I think we should judge based on facts, not the name of the company involved nor the location of the country. It doesn't sit well with me, on the surface - but "on the surface" is not adequate to make judgment. How have the UAE performed in our anti terror efforts? What are the processes they would manage? How high is the risk related to those activities? What do we gain thorugh cooperation vs rebuffing the sale? These are the things that matter - the rest is politics.

[Yosemite Joy]

Why not answer your own questions there Av Joe?

Let's put some facts out there...

Number one: Two 9/11 terrorists were from the UAE, and they laundered money through their country to help fund the 9/11 attacks.

Number two: The UAE has been a key supplier of illegal nuclear shipments to North Korea, Iran, and Libya.

Number three: Since 9/11 the UAE has been uncooperative with tracking down Bin Laden's various bank accounts.

Number four: The UAE recognised the Taliban as a government of Afganistan.

Number five: We have essentially whored ourselves to get the UAE to cooperate with future investigations by allowing them to takeover six of our ports. (http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/World/WarOnTerrorism/2006/02/11/1437324-ap.html)


Please. Ask questions, but find out the answers. If you feel the need to google all of my facts, go for it.. while you are at it find some links for them and post them.

If you have something to add that I forgot here, that would be great too. Gotta get the baby to sleep, and keep the kids in their own rooms. No time for expansion on the subject right now.

remember: War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength..

[MadScot]

How's this fact for ya Joe.

The Central Intelligence Agency did not target Al Qaeda chief Osama bin laden once as he had the royal family of the United Arab Emirates with him in Afghanistan, the agency's director, George Tenet, told the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks on the United States. Had the CIA targeted bin Laden, half the royal family would have been wiped out as well, he said.

It's a nationalized company it's owned in essence by the Royal family terrorist ties to the UAE are well documented. I fail to see how what they have done since 9-11 makes a difference. Are you willing to take the chance that there are no Osama supporters still working for this company in sensitive positions. The port authority can issue papers which allow people to enter the country without passports. They are responsible for which cargo gets checked and which doesn't. I don't need to list out the dangers that this would present they are self evident. Since we as a Nation have nothing to gain from the sale of this British Company operation I consider it a no brainer that this be stopped.

[Average Joe]

Originally posted by Yosemite Joy:
Why not answer your own questions there Av Joe?

Let's put some facts out there...

Number one: Two 9/11 terrorists were from the UAE, and they laundered money through their country to help fund the 9/11 attacks.

Number two: The UAE has been a key supplier of illegal nuclear shipments to North Korea, Iran, and Libya.

Number three: Since 9/11 the UAE has been uncooperative with tracking down Bin Laden's various bank accounts.

Number four: The UAE recognised the Taliban as a government of Afganistan.

Number five: We have essentially whored ourselves to get the UAE to cooperate with future investigations by allowing them to takeover six of our ports. (http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/World/WarOnTerrorism/2006/02/11/1437324-ap.html)


Please. Ask questions, but find out the answers. If you feel the need to google all of my facts, go for it.. while you are at it find some links for them and post them.

If you have something to add that I forgot here, that would be great too. Gotta get the baby to sleep, and keep the kids in their own rooms. No time for expansion on the subject right now.

remember: War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength.. First off yo joy, I thought you had no intrest in anything I post, and just to let you know I really don't care about what your views are one way or another. I do post the links to things that I post when ever it's necessary so why don't you get over this nastiness thing you appeear to have towards me and others that have different views than you, better yet how about you stop replying to what I post and I'll do the same with you.

[Yosemite Joy]

I don't have much interest in what you post. It isn't that I don't like you, or that I am nasty. It is just that, though you appear to like Earl, I just don't care.

This is a very interesting topic, the UAE getting dibs on the ports for cooperating with US officals in terrorist matters...

I wasn't talking about you posting links to anything. Drrrr, get a clue. I was saying that since I didn't exactly look up every fact, because, well, I kinda knew some of it stored in my brain (you should hear me watch Jeopardy, I am a trivia queen) I didn't have links handy. I did find the last one in an article that I remembered and posted a link.

I absolutely refuse to come to some kind of treaty with you Joe, because there is no truce needed.

Now take your 0-1 score and keep it, 'cause you are the only one playing.

At least you didn't call me a liar. Or call me out in falsehoods you may have found with my facts. I stand by them. And you obviously weren't seeking answers.

[Kahlua Kid]

I'm not a political poster cause I have thin skin, but my thoughts are...

Sure, lets just give them a perfect entree into the US for worse attacks than 9/11...

But the other side of the coin is... the US is a democracy with free-trade. If the Brits want to sell and another party wants to buy... how can you stop them?

A vast majority of US land/improvements are owned by foreign interests.

And who is to say that today while XYZ country is our friend/ally, the future they could be our enemy... positions/alliances change all the time in history... I doubt the future will be any different.

[Coldwolf]

Bushies had secret -- not very restrictive -- deal with UAE

Bushco cut a secret deal (http://customwire.ap.org/dynamic/stories/P/PORTS_SECURITY?SITE=JRC&SECTION=POLITICS&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2006-02-22-23-00-59)with their pals in the UAE on port security:<blockquote>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.</blockquote>But according to experts, the deal did not include a lot of standard operating procedures. Why was the Bush Administration so determined to give the UAE a break?:<blockquote>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.


The concessions - described previously by the Homeland Security Department as unprecedented among maritime companies - </blockquote>This story still has a long way to go before we really find the truth. And, the truth won't come from the Bush Administration.

[jakobscalpel]

I can't see this as anything other than a bad idea. Still, attacks by determined terrorists will occur regardless of who manages our ports. I can think of several effective attacks off the top of my head and not one of them requires a long term, expensive, and politically impossible deal to take over ownership of US ports. Although I think this is a bad idea, I have no fear of terror attacks as a direct result.

[John @ 3300ft.]

^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ What he said!

1) the UAE will not be in charge of port security.

2) The UAE is a country, not a terrorist "group". If any
country commits terrorist acts against the US, what do
you think a Republican President would do about it?

3) Only 5% of containers are inspected NOW. Would it make any
difference?

[Coldwolf]

A quote from George:emphasis is mine"The more people learn about the transaction that has been scrutinized and approved by my government, the more they'll be comforted."

Think that was a Freudian slip, or an Orwellian screamer?

[Yosemite Joy]

I always go with Orwell.

[John @ 3300ft.]

It's YOUR government too...
http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/bonk.gif

[Coldwolf]

Originally posted by John @ 3300ft.:
It's YOUR government too...
http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/bonk.gif
Not necessarily. Its my country, but I have to say that the Bush administrationDoesn't represent .um...anything for me. So while it is the government of the USA, it really isn't my government.

That being said, the point was, Dubya called it his government not his administration.

[Coldwolf]

I want to say that Average Joe and John made me think about this a little. The whole race/religion/Arab/Muslim thing involved in this sale. I've wrestled for the past few days with the issues of bigotry and racism related to the whole matter. And actually President Bush crystallized the whole thing a few days ago (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/02/20060221-1.html) for me when Bush said, "I want those who are questioning it to step up and explain why all of a sudden a Middle Eastern company is held to a different standard than a Great British company."

Now let's see if we can follow the bouncing ball of Bush's foreign policy: after 9/11, after bombing Afghanistan back to the stonier age, Bush pressed on with a predetermined plan to take over Iraq - sorry, to "get Saddam Hussein out of power"- and in doing so, conflated Iraq and al-Qaeda into one screwed-up miasma of brownish people. With the initial overthrow of Saddam complete, the Bush administration labeled anyone who would dare fight against the invaders as "terrorists," which included an assortment of homegrown insurgents, jihadists, and pizsed off people, some of whom came from other countries in the region. We are assured, on a nauseatingly (http://www.defense.gov/speeches/2006/sp20060217-12527.html) regular (http://www.defense.gov/news/Feb2006/20060221_4268.html) basis, that we are in a "war on terror," that we have threats coming (http://www.defense.gov/news/Feb2006/20060221_4264.html) from everywhere, that terrorists are out to get us, so live in fear, bitshes, live in fear. And, we're told, that al-Qaeda is just achin' with a giant desire to attack the U.S. again. In other words, the whole modus operandi of the U.S. government foreign policy has been to demonize, isolate, and condemn the darker Others of the Middle East and North Africa.

And anyone should be surprised that people'd be pizzed off about the ports deal? Now Bush wants us all to separate out the UAE from Iraq and Iran. Great damn luck with that.

This is not to mention that, you know, the "Great British" aren't called out (http://www.martinirepublic.com/item/bush-defends-plan-to-sell-american-ports-to-united-arab-emirates/) as a nation for support of groups like the Taliban and for turning a blind eye to terrorism in the 9/11 Commission report, as the UAE is. Yeah, there is a difference, and it's got nada to do with race and a hell of a lot to do with reality.

Let's say, and why not, that you're a victim of a crime, where a guy breaks down the doors to your house, wrecks the **** out of your living room, strangles your cockatiel, and poops on the floor. You know who did it. It's your neighbor who hated hearing your gobdamn cockatiel start chirpin' at sunrise everyday. But the cops can't find your neighbor. Now let's say you hire a decorator to come in to refurbish your shat on, messed up living room. Let's say you discover that the decorator's assistant is your neighbor's cousin. Sure, you can be assured over and over that he only saw your neighbor at large family gatherings and that he doesn't know where the jerkwad is, but, c'mon, you gonna feel comfortable with that dude in your house every day? Would you be wrong to fire him?

The Bush administration can act like it's surprised by the reaction to the Dubai Ports World deal, but in the end, it's just reapin' what it's sown. Besides, what this is really about is patronage to cronies (http://www.dpiterminals.com/fullnews.asp?NewsID=39) , a means of trying to use the deal as leverage on the UAE's support for continued funding (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1139395461317&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull) of a Hamas-led Palestinian Authority, and the general "who gives a flying fig about the American public" attitude of the Bush administration.

[MadScot]

Bush said trust me again and this time Congress stands up and says no. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/applause.gif

[beautiful_mess38]

WASHINGTON - Bowing to ferocious opposition in Congress, a Dubai-owned company signaled surrender Thursday in its quest to take over operations at U.S. ports

"DP World will transfer fully the U.S. operations ... to a United States entity," the firm's top executive, H. Edward Bilkey, said in an announcement that capped weeks of controversy.

Relieved Republicans in Congress said the firm had pledged full divestiture, a decision that one senator said had been approved personally by the prime minister of the United Arab Emirates.

"The devil is in the details," said Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, reflecting a sentiment expressed by numerous critics of the deal.

[LindaBo]

What a BAD! idea http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/idea3.gif What in the H--- was he thinking? then we may as well Stop all the Check points! the hassel at the airports! Road blocks for the Arabs.......It,s like Opening the door to the USA you editeit!!! http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/shout.gif

[MadScot]

The deal is dead but the fallout is far from over. In the House Congressman Kucinich introduced a resolution of inquiry to obtain documents pertaining to the security investigation done by the administation.

Republican Senator Richard Shelby also spoke out. "It's my interpretation that the Byrd Amendment is pretty clear, that if you look at the legislative history, they certainly didn't follow the law that I thought they should had. He referred to the 1992 law that requires extra national security review of some foreign investments.

Howard Dean chimed in.
"We need to do more to ensure the security of our ports," Dean said in the Democrats' weekly radio address. "It's unacceptable that five years after 9/11, only 6 percent of cargo coming into America's ports is inspected. Republicans have shown a pre-9/11 mindset when it comes to closing the gaps in our security at our ports."

Dean said Republicans in Congress stopped efforts by Sen. Debbie Stabenow, D-Mich., and Sen. Bob Menendez, D-N.J., to get "long overdue funding for adequate port security."



I'd like to know what possible valid excuse can be used to justify not increasing port security. It can't be the cost we've wasted billions on this trumped up Iraq war. Between the lack of port security and the ability for armed forces to repeatedly cross our Mexican border essentially unopposed the Bush administration is really falling down on job. Bush's obsession with Iraq has acted as a recruiting tool for terrorism and has diverted attention away from the real dangers we should be addressing. It's no wonder his once near unanimous support among Republicans has now dropped to 70%. It's astounding it's even that high.

[Coldwolf]

Halliburton.

If I was a conspiricy theorist, I'd say the plan was for to have a completely unacceptable option tossed at us under the table. Then when that option was "found out" a more palatable option tossed into the pigpen.

What will that option be, now that the United Arab Emirites have pulled out?

Nothing on this so far, but watch.

just watch.