Can You Believe This

The guy who hired "Brownie" will oversee this operation. Awarding
this to Arabs? Unbelieveable :rolleyes:



Lawmakers Decry Ports Takeover

By WILL LESTER
Associated Press Writer
Published February 19, 2006, 4:53 PM CST


WASHINGTON -- U.S. terms for approving an Arab company's takeover of operations at six major American ports are insufficient to guard against terrorist infiltration, the chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee said Sunday.

"I'm aware of the conditions and they relate entirely to how the company carries out its procedures, but it doesn't go to who they hire, or how they hire people," Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., told The Associated Press.

"They're better than nothing, but to me they don't address the underlying conditions, which is how are they going to guard against things like infiltration by al-Qaida or someone else, how are they going to guard against corruption?" King said.

King spoke in response to Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff's comments Sunday about conditions of the sale. King said he learned about the government's terms for approving the sale from meetings with senior Bush administration officials.

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."

London-based Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co., was bought last week by DP World, a state-owned business. Peninsular and Oriental runs major commercial operations in New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia.

A Miami company, Continental Stevedoring & Terminals Inc., has filed suit in a Florida court challenging the deal. A subsidiary of Eller & Company Inc., the Miami company maintains it the suit disclosed Saturday evening that it will become an "involuntary partner" with Dubai's government under the sale.

"We are aware of the lawsuit, but cannot comment until our legal teams have a chance to review it," Michael Seymour, president of the North American arm of Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation, said Sunday in the company's initial response to the lawsuit.

He noted that his company "is itself a foreign-owned terminal operator that has long worked with U.S. government officials in charge of security at the ports to meet all U.S. government standards, as do other foreign companies that currently operate ports in the United States."

"We are confident that the DP World purchase will ensure that our operations continue to meet all relevant standards in the U.S. through ongoing collaboration between the port operators and American, British, Australian and port security officials throughout the world," Seymour said in a statement telephoned to the AP.

Lawmakers from both parties are questioning the sale as a possible risk to national security.

"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, 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, (to) 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 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."

At least one Senate oversight hearing is planned for later this month.

"Congress is welcome to look at this and can get classified briefings," Chertoff told CNN's "Late Edition." "We have to balance the paramount urgency of security against the fact that we still want to have a robust global trading system," he added.

Sen. Robert Menendez, D-N.J., who is working on legislation to prohibit companies owned or controlled by foreign governments from running port operation in the U.S., said Chertoff's comments showed him that the administration "just does not get it."

Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y. joined some family members of Sept. 11 victims at a news conference Sunday to urge President Bush to personally intervene. The president "should override the agreement and conduct a special investigation into the matter," Schumer said.

Dubai Ports World should not be excluded automatically from such a deal because it is based in the UAE, Chertoff said.

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.

Dubai Ports World has said it intends to "maintain and, where appropriate, enhance current security arrangements." The UAE's foreign minister has described his country as an important U.S. ally in fighting terrorism.

"I would hope that our friends in Abu Dhabi would not be offended by the fact that in our democracy, we debate these things," Rice said in the interview with the Arab journalists.

Sec. Chertoff, Here's buck, maybe you can use it to buy a clue! :rolleyes:

please tell me, this really is an early april fools' joke?

I heard about this on cable news this morning.
UNBELIEVABLE! :(

Man, if this bunch ran World War II we'd be speaking German now. :(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by joycenalex

please tell me, this really is an early april fools' joke?

---

It's true alright. Check out this Fox news report. The scary thing is it
places all the security issues for oversite to DHS.A dept that can't get
anything right.The outsourcing of operations to run US ports in major
cities is unreal. What kind of clowns are running things in Washington.


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,185401,00.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lizbud

What kind of clowns are running things in Washington.

---

Really really stupid ones who are out to destroy this country as fast as they possibly can. I love and honor the United States of America and what it was founded on. I am digusted with our government, and this is the worst of the bunch in office now. Hard to beleive it could get much worse....if it does I'm not looking forward to it one bit.

I heard about it a few hours ago.
I don't believe they really have decided to do this.

Bush Rejects Calls To Abandon Arab Port Deal

POSTED: 3:48 pm EST February 21, 2006
UPDATED: 4:28 pm EST February 21, 2006

WASHINGTON -- President George W. Bush said Tuesday that the deal allowing an Arab company to take over six major U.S. seaports should go forward and that he would veto any congressional effort to stop it.

"After careful review by our government, I believe the transaction ought to go forward," Bush told reporters who had traveled with him on Air Force One to Washington. "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."'

Bush called reporters to his conference room on the plane after returning from a speech in Colorado, addressing a controversy that is becoming a major headache for the White House. He said the seaports arrangement was "a legitimate deal that will not jeopardize the security of the country."

The president spoke only hours after Senate Republican Leader Bill Frist urged the administration to reverse its decision to allow the transaction, under which a British company that has been running six U.S. ports would be acquired by Dubai Ports World, a state-owned business in the United Arab Emirates.

The British company, Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co., runs major commercial operations at ports in Baltimore, Miami, New Jersey, New Orleans, New York and Philadelphia.

"The decision to finalize this deal should be put on hold until the administration conducts a more extensive review of this matter," said Frist. "If the administration cannot delay this process, I plan on introducing legislation to ensure that the deal is placed on hold until this decision gets a more thorough review."

Frist, who spoke to reporters in Long Beach, Calif., where he was on a fact-finding tour on port security and immigration issues, said he doesn't oppose foreign ownership, "but my main concern is national security."

Two Republican governors, New York's George Pataki and Maryland's Robert Ehrlich, voiced their own doubts a day earlier.

But Bush said sternly he would not back down.

"They ought to listen to what I have to say about this. They'll look at the facts and understand the consequences of what they're going to do," he said. "But if they pass a law, I'll deal with it with a veto."


This should be a clue as to what to expect here. They'll screw it up
bigtime. :mad: Careful review, right. :rolleyes:

"After careful review by our government, I believe the transaction ought to go forward," Bush told reporters "

A piece of advice for POTUS, Sec. Rice, and Sec. Chertoff.........

When you find yourselves in a hole, your first course of action should be





PUT DOWN THE SHOVEL AND STOP DIGGING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!





Yes, the deal is technically legal, but mainly due to outdated laws that assumed only "good" countries would be in a position to make these acquisitions. It's time to change the laws, and I don't think the President's veto would be worth the paper it's written on. It would be overriden by both houses of Congress in minutes.

I loved this comment by Sen. Graham.



"It's unbelievably tone deaf politically at this point in our history," Sen. Lindsay Graham, R-S.C., said on "Fox News Sunday."

Way to back pedal Bush...but you figure, hey...lets give the keys to the Arabs anyway....

Hell in a handbasket..

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

Bush unaware of port deal until after approval

• Bush stands tough on port deal
Feb. 22: President Bush says that a deal allowing an Arab company to take over six major U.S. seaports should go forward and that he will veto any congressional effort to stop it.

MSNBC staff and news service reports
Updated: 1:29 p.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.

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 from Congress that would block the sale of a British company to the Arab firm.

Bush faces a rebellion from leaders of his own party, as well as from Democrats, over the deal, which would put Dubai Ports in charge of major shipping operations in New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia.

“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.”

Firm’s connection to Bush appointee questioned
Sen. John Kerry on Wednesday sent a letter to Treasury Secretary John Snow, seeking full disclosure on the deal with DP World.

“As you know, the CSX rail corporation, where you previously served as chief executive officer, sold its port operations to DP in 2004,” wrote Kerry, D-Mass., in a letter. “Moreover, the president’s nominee for administrator of the Maritime Administration, David Sanborn, was DP’s head of operations for Latin America while this transaction was being reviewed ...”

While House spokesman Scott McClellan dismissed any connection between the deal and David Sanborn of Virginia, a former senior DP World executive whom the White House appointed last month to be the new administrator of the Maritime Administration of the Transportation Department. Sanborn worked as DP World’s director of operations for Europe and Latin America.

“My understanding is that he has assured us that he was not involved in the negotiations to purchase this British company,” McClellan added.

“In terms of David Sanborn, he was nominated to run the Maritime Administration because of his experience and expertise,” the spokesman said. Sanborn is a graduate of the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy. He is an operations professional.

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.

Commerce Secretary Carlos Guiterrez, told The Associated Press in an interview: “They are not in charge of security. We are not turning over the security of our ports. When people make statements like that you get an instant emotional reaction.”

Treasury Secretary Snow said failure to complete the transaction would send the wrong message overseas.

“The implications of failing to approve this would be to tell the world that investments in the United States from certain parts of the world aren’t welcome,” Snow told reporters Wednesday following a speech in Connecticut to a fuel cell manufacturer. “That sends a terrible message.”

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.”

He said he was a united, not a divider, this proves it! He's finally managed to unite everyone in the house and senate ! :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lady's Human

He said he was a united, not a divider, this proves it! He's finally managed to unite everyone in the house and senate ! :D

---

*SNORT* ;)

By Cal Thomas

Feb 20, 2006


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.


Cal Thomas is the co-author of Blinded By Might.



This paragraph was especially wierd. :confused:

" 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"

One of the problems with US Federal Law is that there are thousands of pages of documentation to wade through to find information about anything. For instance, the CFR (combined federal regulations) covering workplace safety is 4000 pages. We desperately need to simplify this. Many laws currently on the books are outdated, and need to be changed, but Congress (House and Senate, Republicans and Democrats alike) spends too much time on peripheral items and not enough time on doing their jobs. As an example, one of the reasons Congress has not delcared war since WW2 is that there are thousands of regulations that would instantly kick in, covering everything from wages to price controls, that have not been revised since they were enacted following WW2.

In short, Congress needs to get off of their butts and get their hands dirty rather than pandering to constituents.

LH, Who was talking about Federal Law? All committes, and panels
created serve at the pleasure of the President.

Anothere important difference in this deal is that the British company
that is being bought out by the UAE company. The British company was
a publicly traded company & the Arab company is owned by the state.

Liz,

The reason I mentioned federal law is that the approval panel is set up by public law, and has been reviewing these transactions since 1988. It is under the treasury department, however it is not a creation of an executive order.

Frankly, I wouldn't agree with any overseas entity running US ports, whether it be Great Britain or the UAE. There is just too much vulnerability when security procedures are openly available to a foreign entity, such as what gets searched, why the containers are being searched, etc.. It's an open fact that only around 5% of containers are searched, but we don't need to broacast how that 5% is selected, and port managers would be privy to that information.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lady's Human

Liz,


Frankly, I wouldn't agree with any overseas entity running US ports, whether it be Great Britain or the UAE. There is just too much vulnerability when security procedures are openly available to a foreign entity, such as what gets searched, why the containers are being searched, etc.. It's an open fact that only around 5% of containers are searched, but we don't need to broacast how that 5% is selected, and port managers would be privy to that information.

---

I agree. There are some public figures who have tried to raise the subject
of the lax security at American ports, but nobody seems to want to listen.

A very good article. :)


Now is not the time to be stubborn

Ruben Navarrette Jr
Washington Post Writers Group
Published February 24, 2006


SAN DIEGO -- The imbroglio over allowing a firm owned by the United Arab Emirates to control six U.S. ports--in Miami, Philadelphia, Baltimore, New Orleans, Newark and New York--has brought to light one of President Bush's shortcomings.

Although he holds the most important job in the world--the one that brings with it the most accountability--Bush hates having to explain himself to the American people, members of his own political party, Congress, the federal judiciary, you name it.

That's a problem.

To be a good president, you have to know how to take criticism and admit mistakes and not simply hunker down and threaten to crush dissent.

It helps to have what George H.W. Bush dismissively called "the vision thing," but you also need the persuasion thing. You need to know how to win people over to your side and put together a compelling and thoughtful argument that goes beyond: "We're going to do this because I said so."

This isn't Bush's strong suit. As I've written before, steadfastness and conviction are virtues, but being a leader means being able to persuade your constituents. Bush doesn't seem to have the willingness, or even perhaps the skill, to make a persuasive argument and sell his point of view. It's not just that Bush can be stubborn and bullheaded. That's a given. It's that he seems more comfortable dealing in the world of decrees, which he expects to be accepted by everyone without question.

And now that he has been challenged on the port issue, his first instinct is to strap on his six-shooter and basically tell congressional critics in both parties: "Go ahead, make my day." In five years, Bush has never vetoed a piece of legislation. But now he's threatening to break the streak by vetoing any attempt by Congress to blow up the port deal. It's a bad move.

Like just about everyone else in the world of politics, except those strangest of bedfellows Jimmy Carter and John McCain, I think the port deal is a goofy idea.

It's nothing personal. I'd like to think I'm not dabbling in racism or racial profiling, especially since I've spoken out against both a lot since Sept. 11, 2001, and I wouldn't hesitate to do so again. I'd feel differently if this were an Arab-American company--one that had links to the United States--instead of one owned and operated by a foreign government.

This isn't about racism. At most, it's about nationalism. And it's also about common sense.

Despite the Bush administration's assurances that the UAE is a friend and ally, you'll forgive me if I'm a little skeptical of the source. From Harriet Miers to Katrina to illegal wiretaps, the White House has been wrong a lot lately. How can we be sure it's not wrong again this time?

I'm not convinced that the UAE has the cleanest of hands. It was home to two of the Sept. 11 hijackers and served as a base for them and their fellow mass murderers as they were planning the attacks. Was the UAE government in the dark about that, or did it simply turn a blind eye? Until we know for sure, we should be safe rather than sorry.

The whole idea of putting an Arab-run company in charge of managing our ports makes about as much sense as putting a company owned by the Mexican government in charge of managing our borders. Again, a Mexican-American company, different story. But the Mexican government has its own agenda with regard to illegal immigration: that is, to encourage as much of it as possible and use it as an economic engine. What exactly is the agenda of the UAE?

I'd love to see Congress block the deal. I also wouldn't mind if governors in New York, New Jersey, Maryland and other affected areas made good on threats to pull their ports out of the deal. That should settle everything. No ports, no dice.

With only about 5 percent of the cargo entering this country getting a once over, our ports deserve more attention than they've been given since Sept. 11. Americans love fighting the last battle by beefing up airport security, or indulging their nativist dislike for immigrants by building walls and fences. But they never think much about the ports and the possibility that bad guys with bombs will come not by air or land but by sea.

I guess Bush doesn't think that'll happen. He may even have a persuasive argument to that effect. If so, let's hear it.

----------

Ruben Navarrette is a syndicated columnist based in San Diego. E-mail: [email protected]

As everyone knows by now, the ports deal was stopped. (as written)
The UAE agreeded to turn over the management to an American firm.

It seems to me that the "chickens have come home to roost" for GWB.

After talking for years about that part of the world in very dire terms,
it's no wonder this deal scared the begeebers out of a lot of people.
I love it that he had to back down & didn't have the support for this
deal. He must have expected everyone to just "trust me" on this.Those
days are over for sure.