Worries escalate over sale of U.S. port operations to Arab firm

Status
Not open for further replies.
I continue to be amazed that people find it hard to believe that most political
decisions are made from the point of money and power, there is very little
done in the name of America, freedom, mom and apple pie in this modern
world.
 
No, my hope is that Bush listens to his inner voice and reforms utterly. He has a choice: two awful years leading up to '08 or the possibility of some useful and profitable moves. He can start by doing something about the southern border.

I have never deluded myself that ther Democrats offer a better alternative. Therein lies a potential national tragedy.

I take no pleasure in Bush's discomfiture. We needed to make sure that neither Gore nor Kerry got to the White House.
 
longeyes said:
Buchanan has good and bad points; I'll wager that his brand of nationalism is about to get new life politically.

I never used the term "conspiracy." The Carlyle Group is W.'s "family," that's all. Let's be real about this. The Carlyle Group is the poster-child for all those mysterious global "investment groups" that are comprised of poobahs with passports who bounce from government to corporate at will. These are the people who pose as "capitalists" while trading on friendships made while in high-echelon jobs. They make a mockery out of real entrepreneurship and everyday labor. Some of us can't live off "finder's fees" and corporate directorships.

+1

Entrepreneurship and hard work should be rewarded. That sort rewards only connections, political favors, mutal backscratching, and the members of already-established networks of hopelessly entanged political-corporate alliances.
 
longeyes said:
No, my hope is that Bush listens to his inner voice and reforms utterly. He has a choice: two awful years leading up to '08 or the possibility of some useful and profitable moves. He can start by doing something about the southern border.

I have never deluded myself that ther Democrats offer a better alternative. Therein lies a potential national tragedy.

I take no pleasure in Bush's discomfiture. We needed to make sure that neither Gore nor Kerry got to the White House.

My prediction is that no such thing will happen. The borders won't be secured, the ports will be sold.

Something really bad will happen. Another hit, somewhere, some city. And instead of doing something about it THEN, even, it will just become more fodder for empty rhetoric. 9/11 will be joined by another event in recycled speech after speech, there will be memorials and many "patriotic" graphics and soundbites produced. And that's it.

Until we replace these people with competent people who are more concerned with the future of the United States than their own political careers, that's it.
 
This must be important to President Bush - he just threatened to use a veto if legislation is put on his desk to block the deal. This would be his first veto.

Well...we know who the puppet is - but who is the puppeteer? We might be seeing who is pulling the strings on this administration.

From Drudge...

Bush called reports at about 2.30 aboard Air Force One to issue a very strong defense of port deal... MORE... He said he would veto any legislation to hold up deal and warned the United States was sending 'mixed signals' by going after a company from the Middle East when nothing was said when a British company was in charge... Lawmakers, he said, must 'step up and explain why a middle eastern company is held to a different standard.' Bush was very forceful when he delivered the statement... 'I don't view it as a political fight,' Bush said..
 
Merkin.Muffley said:
This must be important to President Bush - he just threatened to use a veto if legislation is put on his desk to block the deal. This would be his first veto.

Well...we know who the puppet is - but who is the puppeteer? We might be seeing who is pulling the strings on this administration.

From Drudge...

Bush called reports at about 2.30 aboard Air Force One to issue a very strong defense of port deal... MORE... He said he would veto any legislation to hold up deal and warned the United States was sending 'mixed signals' by going after a company from the Middle East when nothing was said when a British company was in charge... Lawmakers, he said, must 'step up and explain why a middle eastern company is held to a different standard.' Bush was very forceful when he delivered the statement... 'I don't view it as a political fight,' Bush said..


I am sure he needs Congress to take full responsibility via a veto override for alienating UAE. Can you say "oil embargo"?
 
Bush to Veto

:fire: :cuss:
Manedwolf said:
My prediction is that no such thing will happen. The borders won't be secured, the ports will be sold.

Something really bad will happen. Another hit, somewhere, some city. And instead of doing something about it THEN, even, it will just become more fodder for empty rhetoric. 9/11 will be joined by another event in recycled speech after speech, there will be memorials and many "patriotic" graphics and soundbites produced. And that's it.

Until we replace these people with competent people who are more concerned with the future of the United States than their own political careers, that's it.

You sir, could not be more correct!

I read on Worldnetdaily that if Congress prevents the UAE terrorists from gaining control of the ports, Bush will use his first ever veto to assure terrorist control!:banghead:

BUSH HAS LOST HIS MIND. Traitorous Ratfink Bastard!

Next week, I fully expect Robertson to have issued a Fatwa explaining how God withdrew His protection from Bush who will have since had a massive stroke. Unfortunately that will leave with us with Dick in charge of the country. God help us.
 
Merkin.Muffley said:
This must be important to President Bush - he just threatened to use a veto if legislation is put on his desk to block the deal. This would be his first veto.

Well...we know who the puppet is - but who is the puppeteer? We might be seeing who is pulling the strings on this administration.

From Drudge...

Bush called reports at about 2.30 aboard Air Force One to issue a very strong defense of port deal... MORE... He said he would veto any legislation to hold up deal and warned the United States was sending 'mixed signals' by going after a company from the Middle East when nothing was said when a British company was in charge... Lawmakers, he said, must 'step up and explain why a middle eastern company is held to a different standard.' Bush was very forceful when he delivered the statement... 'I don't view it as a political fight,' Bush said..

Oh, LET him veto this! Please!

The first EVER veto he's used...and it would be to make sure that Islamists take control of our ports. I sooooooo want to see how Ann "nuke all muslims" Coulter would deal with that, besides head-explodey. :D

Could anything else wake up more people to the fact that neocons ARE NOT CONSERVATIVES and have other agendas ($$$) than the security of the nation?

Also:
Lawmakers, he said, must 'step up and explain why a middle eastern company is held to a different standard.' Bush was very forceful when he delivered the statement... 'I don't view it as a political fight,' Bush said..

Let's see now...

- The UAE was one of only three countries in the world to recognize the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan.

- The UAE has been a repeated transfer point for illegal shipments of nuclear components to Iran, North Korea and Libya...a company based there will own our ports! Yay!

- Money was transferred to the 9/11 hijackers through the UAE's banks....this from the FBI reports

- After 9/11, the Treasury Department reported that the UAE was not cooperating in efforts to track down Osama Bin Laden's bank accounts.

...and he's gonna veto to make sure they get control of our ports! Darned good strategy, George! Next, homeland security will tell us to leave keys and shotguns on our doorsteps for the convenience of home invaders!
 
Please, everyone calm down. The President obviously has the best interests for this country at heart, and he knows what he's doing.

Besides, you have 3 straight nights of 2-hour American Idol specials to help take your mind off this trivial matter...

:(
 
U.S. Outsources Homeland Security to North Korea

Feb. 21, 2006 - Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff raised eyebrows today by announcing that the United States would outsource all of it homeland security operations to a little-known North Korean firm called Jim Kong-Il Inc.

Coming just days after the controversial decision to allow several major U.S. ports to be run by a company based in the United Arab Emirates, the outsourcing of the nation’s homeland security functions to an obscure company based in an Axis of Evil country struck some in Washington as ill-timed at best.

But Chertoff vigorously defended the decision in a Washington press conference this afternoon, calling Jim Kong-Il Inc. the "right firm for the job," adding, “I looked into the company and it seems okay.”

When asked exactly how thoroughly he had vetted the North Korean firm, Chertoff said, “Well, I mean, I haven’t Googled it or anything but you just have to trust me on this one.”

Almost nothing is known about the North Korean company that is about to control the U.S.’s entire homeland security apparatus, nor about its highly reclusive founder, the mercurial Jim Kong-Il.

In an official statement released today, Jim Kong-Il said that his company’s first official act on behalf of the U.S. would be to collect all of the nation’s nuclear fuel rods.

“It is of utmost importance that America’s nuclear fuel rods do not fall into the wrong hands,” his statement read. “Therefore, we will collect all of those fuel rods and ship them to North Korea immediately.”

Elsewhere, Vice President Dick Dick Cheney admitted having a beer at lunch before advocating the invasion of Iraq.
 
Bush got his back up because the great unwashed stood up to him. He's threatening to die on a hill not worth dying on. If he was smart and not infantile in his rage he would simply call his Buds in UAE and tell them to chill out. Too hot now for any progress. The PR nightmare he would face by vetoing any legislation would be profound. Here is a guy who can't spell the word VETO exercising his first efforts at penmanship to override something Americans feel pretty strongly about. Really stupid gameplan.

I've listened to the republican bootlickers on the radio today and I think they have completely missed the source of outrage. The thought is the decision to enable UAE to run the ports is a good economic decision and a really bad political decision. I think the issue is sliced differently. I think the issue is foreign control over our ports. Joe and Martha want to know why it is we can't find an America company to run the ports. When confronted with the fact of British control for years the concern is dismissed because the Brits are just like us except for the language thingy.

I think deep down the anger over UAE ownership is really anger of so much of the US being sold off to foreigners (not getting into whether or not globalism is a good thang). I've checked with a few genetic liberals about their view and I get the same response: why can we not find a US company interested in running the ports? What is it about business in the US that makes a business adventure unacceptable to US companies and perfectly acceptable to foreign companies. Once that question is formed, change the subject from ports to <insert industry of choice> and ask the question again. Bush may not like the implications of these questions.
 
Over and over again, people try to find logic and sense in the inherently illogical and senseless.

IMO, GWB is an infantile puppet "managed" by a cohort of "friends". That is all. Everything that he has done or failed to do is consistent with that simple diagnosis.

And yes, if congressmen were any better, the personal failures of our self-styled Claudius would be irrelevant, but they themselves are predominantly corrupt, senile, cowardly, and myopic.
 
Waitone said:
I think the issue is foreign control over our ports. Joe and Martha want to know why it is we can't find an America company to run the ports. When confronted with the fact of British control for years the concern is dismissed because the Brits are just like us except for the language thingy.

I think deep down the anger over UAE ownership is really anger of so much of the US being sold off to foreigners (not getting into whether or not globalism is a good thang).

I believe the outrage comes from UAE being a very much different culture and type of government than the US. They aren't officially guilty of anything else. All of these other bigoted arguments are ignoring that UAE is in good diplomatic and economic status with the US. It doesn't help that Muslims in general are not expressing any visible outrage against terrorism. I expect that the average person's reaction is something like, "Oh my God, they're Muslims".
When everyone catches their breath and gets some real information, they won't be very proud of their position in this episode, or shouldn't be.
 
I think deep down the anger over UAE ownership is really anger of so much of the US being sold off to foreigners (not getting into whether or not globalism is a good thang).

The anger is about more than national security danger, yes; it's even, I believe, more than about the U.S. being sold off to foreigners. It is about a sense of betrayal and violation at the deepest level, something beyond just a rational assessment of risks and rewards. A bit of shock and awe, if you will, at suddenly discovering the true nature of someone purporting to be their leader and on whom they realize they are dependent for their survival. Bush's failure to grasp what's wrong (secretiveness again), his immediate reaction (stonewalling), compounded now by intransigence (threatened veto) suggests an arrogant rogue President who is in a state of total disconnect from the citizens who elected him.

Bush is in grave danger of Caligulizing himself before our very eyes.
 
My prediction is that no such thing will happen. The borders won't be secured, the ports will be sold.

Something really bad will happen. Another hit, somewhere, some city. And instead of doing something about it THEN, even, it will just become more fodder for empty rhetoric. 9/11 will be joined by another event in recycled speech after speech, there will be memorials and many "patriotic" graphics and soundbites produced. And that's it.

If you're right--and you may be--the neo-Cons will have more to worry about than Al-Qaeda. My prediction is they will see the eruption of a homegrown revolutionary movement.
 
As I posted in this thread:

I don't see any problem with a Dubai company owning a British company that sub-contracts to an American entity to operate our ports. Consider:

1. Britain has at least as many Islamic radicals (including mad bombers) as Dubai, possibly more. They could have come over here working for P&O as easily as they could working for anyone else.

2. The USA still has to issue visas for anyone coming to work here. This should serve as a check on Dubai nationals just as easily as US nationals - and there are already many thousands of Dubai nationals here, studying and working.

3. We can't apply a double standard. If US companies are allowed to operate in Dubai, then Dubai companies must be allowed to operate here. It works both ways.

4. I don't see the Dubai company as being in any way eager to assist terrorists - after all, they'll be making billions of dollars from their US operations, so it's in their own best interests to make sure that their US staff are reliable, loyal and completely non-terrorist (or better yet, anti-terrorist) in outlook.

I think this is a storm in a teacup, and is being stirred up by those who "feel", rather than those who actually think about the realities of the situation.
 
Back to Story - Help
Bush Shrugs Off Objections to Port Deal

By TED BRIDIS, Associated Press Writer 55 minutes ago

Brushing aside objections from Republicans and Democrats alike, President Bush endorsed the takeover of shipping operations at six major U.S. seaports by a state-owned business in the United Arab Emirates. He pledged to veto any bill Congress might approve to block the agreement.

The president on Tuesday defended his administration's earlier approval of the sale of London-based Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co. to Dubai Ports World, despite concerns in Congress it could increase the possibility of terrorism at American ports.

The sale — expected to be finalized 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.

"It sends a terrible signal to friends around the world that it's OK for a company from one country to manage the port, but not a country that plays by the rules and has got a good track record from another part of the world," Bush said.

To assuage concerns, the administration disclosed some assurances it had 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 Tuesday it was nearly finished inspecting Dubai Ports' facilities in the United States.

A senior Homeland Security official, Stewart Baker, said this was the first-ever sale involving U.S. port operations to a state-owned government. "In that sense this is a new layer of controls," he said. Baker added that U.S. intelligence agencies were consulted "very early on to actually look at vulnerabilities and threats."

Bush 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's two senators, Hillary Rodham Clinton and Charles Schumer.

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 on Tuesday, 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 that protesting lawmakers should understand his approval of the deal was final.

"They ought to listen to what I have to say about this," the president said. "They'll 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."

Bush, who has never vetoed a bill as president, said on the White House South Lawn: "This is a company that has played by the rules, has been cooperative with the United States, from a country that's an ally on the war on terror, and it would send a terrible signal to friends and allies not to let this transaction go through."

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.

They say a port operator complicit in smuggling or terrorism could manipulate manifests and other records to frustrate Homeland Security's already limited scrutiny of shipping containers and slip contraband past U.S. Customs inspectors.

Rep. Pete King, R-N.Y., and Democrat Schumer said Tuesday they will introduce emergency legislation to suspend the ports deal. King, chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, said the government "cannot consider approving this contract until a much more thorough investigation takes place on this security matter."

Sen. Susan Collins (news, bio, voting record), R-Maine, and Rep. Jane Harman (news, bio, voting record), 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 Tuesday 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."

A company at the Port of Miami, a subsidiary of Eller & Company Inc., sued last week to block the deal in a Florida state court. It said that under the sale, it will become an "involuntary partner" with Dubai's government and it may seek more than $10 million in damages.

Frist said Congress should have veto authority over such foreign sales, which are reviewed by a secretive U.S. panel that considers security risks of foreign companies buying or investing in American industry. The panel includes representatives from the departments of Treasury, Defense, Justice, Commerce, State and Homeland Security.

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld described the United Arab Emirates as a close ally. "It's a country that's been involved in the global war on terror with us," Rumsfeld said. He added that the United States and the UAE "have very close military-to-miltary relations, as well as political and economic relations."

Separately, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said port security would not be threatened. "This is not a question about port security," Gonzales said. "This is a question about port operation."

___

Associated Press writers Ben Feller, Will Lester, Terence Hunt, and Devlin Barrett in Washington, Matthew Verrinder in Newark, N.J., and Tom Stuckey in Annapolis, Md., contributed to this report.

Copyright © 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. The information contained in the AP News report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press.
Copyright © 2006 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
Questions or Comments
Privacy Policy -Terms of Service - Copyright/IP Policy - Ad Feedback

I think my highlighted statement says it all. King Jorge will have his way no matter what. It's impeachment time, boys! Get a rope!
(oh, I voted for him, twice)
 
A man who in five years vetoed NOTHING all of a sudden, when cornered, threatens a veto?

This is becoming theater of the absurd.

And there's a term in the theater that applies here. It's called "losing your audience." That's where Bush finds himself today.

Bring down the curtain. Good night and God bless.
 

Does anyone know whether the Carlyle Group has any financial interest in this? As many of you probably know the Carlyle Group is the financial instrument by which the Bush family and some of their Arab buddies and others hide/launder their financial interests. The Bushes have made tons off various Middle East deals, all nicely concealed behind the Carlyle Group.

For me, this is the only explanation as to why the administration would do such a stupid thing.

If you'd like more, do a Google of Carlyle Group.

Bob
 
Yes, and do the Google of "Carlyle Group" now because in another year you will be on a terrorist list for doing so.

Anyone want to take odds on who ends up benefiting from this deal when all the paper trails are followed out?
 
Preacherman said:
As I posted in

1. Britain has at least as many Islamic radicals (including mad bombers) as Dubai, possibly more. They could have come over here working for P&O as easily as they could working for anyone else.


3. We can't apply a double standard. If US companies are allowed to operate in Dubai, then Dubai companies must be allowed to operate here. It works both ways.

I think this is a storm in a teacup, and is being stirred up by those who "feel", rather than those who actually think about the realities of the situation.

I counter your points by saying that the real issue is that the UAE company is STATE owned. It is owned by the actual government of the UAE. It is not a publically held company, it is not accountable to a board, to shareholders, or to the market. It is an arm of the UAE government.

I certainly don't object to this deal on the grounds that the UAE are Arabs, or Muslims. Frankly, this sale would still bother me if we sold our ports to the Canadian government. Wouldn't that bother anyone else? Isn't the point that we should not sell off our stuff to other governments? Does anyone care that foreign governments can have this type of control over major US infrastructure?

I don't think we would have this furor if this deal were with a publically or privately owned corporation of UAE origin. But ironically enough, I don't see anyone objecting to deal on the grounds that we should not sell US strategic infrastructure to other governments:confused: . What is doubly ironic, is that a similar situation arose a short while back when China's government wanted to buy a huge refining company here on US soil. Thankfully, China backed out if I remember correctly.

As far as the comment regarding the double standard if we don't allow the UAE to operate in the US...

One...Would the UAE government allow the US government, say the Treasury Dept, to have business control of their oil infrastructure? The Treasury Dept would still employ UAE citizens, and it would be purely a business deal, so no need to worry, right? Anyone think the UAE would buy that argument?

Secondly...I would encourage you to read over the business section of the UAE government website, http://www.uae.org.ae/business/index.htm . It is very interesting. There seem to be some fairly strong limitation on doing business in the UAE. For example, in the business section you will find that no foreigners are allowed to own the majority share of a business based in the UAE. The majority MUST be owned by a UAE national. There are also strong restrictions on buying private property if you are not a national (if I remember correctly, you simply can't buy property there), but I could not find the details of this in the the websites latest iteration (might still be there, but I haven't looked that hard). While you'rer there, take a look at the social section (don't get caught walking around at night, especially if you are female).

From these basic details, it looks like the UAE is also worried about the influence of foreigners on their land. I don't blame them, since the majority of their population are foreign workers. Considering their own concerns, I am sure the UAE are in a position to completely understand the reservations of the US people (and most if its government). While I say this somewhat sarcastically, the UAE rulers probably really do understand our reservations, barring any "evil plans" for US domination of course. In fact, it wouldn't surprise me if the UAE rulers actually convince Bush to back down from his angry, chest thumping, "ask me anymore questions and I'll stomp my feet" VETO talk.
 
I talk, you listen

Bush said that protesting lawmakers should understand his approval of the deal was final.

"They ought to listen to what I have to say about this," the president said. "They'll 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."

Danger, Will Robinson, Danger!!!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top