Lincoln vs Cadillac Forums

(This is the forums archive - If you want to get back to the main site simply click the banner above and you will be taken to our homepage.)

Lincoln vs Cadillac Forums is the Ultimate Online Resource for Owners and Enthusiasts of American Luxury Cars. Feel free to browse through our archive - but make sure you make it back to our main site - Lincoln vs Cadillac Forums

Cadillac XLR : Cadillac CTS : Cadillac : 2005 Cadillac STS : Cadillac Forums : 2000 Lincoln LS : Lincoln Mark VIII : Lincoln Mark VII : Car Wax
Lincoln Town Car : Lincoln Air Suspension : Lincoln Continental : Lemon Law : Do It Yourself Car Repair : Lincoln vs Cadillac Forums : Mesothelioma

Back to the Archive Main Page

Pages: 1

House GOP Leaders Line Up Against UAE Port Deal

(Click here to view the original thread with full colors/images)

Posted by: JohnnyBz00LS

House GOP Leaders Line Up Against UAE Port Deal
Tuesday, February 21, 2006

WASHINGTON — House Speaker Dennis Hastert and newly minted House Majority Leader John Boehner will soon be "flexing muscle" against the Bush administration-approved transaction that permits shifting control of port operations in six U.S. ports from a British company to a company owned by the United Arab Emirates.

"We are very concerned about it and that it could threaten our national security," one senior House Republican leadership aide told FOX News late Monday. Another senior aide said: "Most indications point to leadership flexing muscle against this transaction."

On Monday, New York Rep. Peter King, chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, said he was urging President Bush to delay approval of the deal. King also said he saw many reasons to cancel it altogether.

"I'm strongly urging the president to intervene to stop this, to freeze it, to put it on hold," King said. "This contract should not be allowed to go forward until there is a full and complete investigation. And there has not been a full investigation of this company nor of its roots in the United Arab Emirates."

King said UAE-owned Dubai Ports World won approval without thorough administration vetting.

"There have been allegations of weapons parts going through that port to Iran," King said of that country's own territory. "There's been allegations of corruption about that port. None of these have ever been investigated by our government."

King's comments were cleared by House GOP leaders and, according to sources, reflect the view of the House Republican Conference at large. Republicans are increasingly concerned at the political impact of the port story. They fear it could leave them vulnerable to Democratic criticism and at least partially undermine their political advantage on national security.

Late Monday, Sen. Robert Menendez, D-N.J., called on the president to intervene immediately.

"We have 10 days to stop this transaction, a transaction that we think is not in the national security of the united states, and that needs to be stopped by the president," Menendez said.

Under federal law, the president has until March 2 to overrule approval granted by the U.S. Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States for DP World to purchase the London-based Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation, which has been running the commercial operations at ports in New York, New Jersey, New Orleans, Baltimore, Philadelphia and Miami.

The multi-agency task force headed by Treasury Secretary John Snow and comprised of members of the departments of State, Justice, Commerce, Defense and Homeland Security reviewed the transaction and said it posed no national security threat.

Former Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge told FOX News on Monday that congressional questions will persist until more is learned about the administration review process.

"It's very difficult without total transparency and I'm not saying I should necessarily have it but members of congress who have expressed concern should be given a look at the agreement to see who ultimately has operational responsibility and what kind of information is going to be shared with whom once the transaction is completed," Ridge said.

White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan defended the process that approved the $6.8 billion deal.

McClellan said the process of review was followed. He did not, however, defend the decision to approve the transaction or rule out the president's future involvement.

Republican Govs. George Pataki of New York and Robert Ehrlich of Maryland have also voiced doubts about the sale.

"I have directed the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey to explore all legal options that may be available to them in regards to this transaction," said Pataki, who is still in the hospital recovering from an appendectomy.

"We needed to know before this was a done deal, given the state of where we are concerning security," Ehrlich told reporters in the State House rotunda in Annapolis.

The state of Maryland is considering its options, up to and including voiding the contract for the Port of Baltimore, Ehrlich said, adding: "We have a lot of discretion in the contract."

How is handing over control of OUR ports to a foreign company in OUR best interest?? This seems like a ludacris idea. Figures BuSh would back it.

Posted by: barry2952

You're just being racist. That's what the BuSh quagmire is stating.

Posted by: Dominus

Not just handing over security to a foreign power, but but to a company owned by a nation whose loyalties are mysterious at best? Why?

Posted by: JohnnyBz00LS

A little more info, Bill O'Reily made a pretty compelling argument for the UAE deal last night, emphasizing that they are our "Best Friends Forever" in the GWOT, and to not approve of the deal would be to "spit in their face" and we don't want to piss them off. After all, two of the 9/11 hijackers were from the UAE. It was almost hypocritical the way Bill was sounding, advocating kissing up to the UAE so we don't piss them off and turn them into our enemys. Gee, where have we heard that argument before??

Anyway, if the BuSh admin. would just come out and lay out all those compelling facts that support their decision to approve this deal instead of taking the "don't think about it, just trust us" tactic, treating the American citizens like a bunch of dumb fools, they might just avoid all the hand wringing that is going on.

Posted by: JohnnyBz00LS

White House: Bush Didn't Know About Port Deal
Wednesday, February 22, 2006

WASHINGTON — President Bush was unaware that a controversial deal to sell shipping operations at six major U.S. seaports to a United Arab Emirates-owned firm was in the works until it was approved by his administration, the White House said Wednesday.

After Bush repeatedly defended the deal in recent days and threatened to use his veto power against any congressional legislation aimed at stalling it, 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.

"He became aware of it over the last several days," White House spokesman Scott McClellan told reporters Wednesday. Asked if Bush did not know about it until it was a done deal, McClellan said, "That's correct."

"The president made sure to check with all the Cabinet secretaries that are part of this process, or whose agencies or departments are part of this process," the spokesman said. "He made sure to check with them — even after this got more attention in the press, to make sure that they were comfortable with the decision that was made."

"And every one of the Cabinet secretaries expressed that they were comfortable with this transaction being approved," he said.

The Senate Armed Services Committee will get a briefing from Defense Department officials on Thursday afternoon about the decision by a 12-member government panel to approve the sale of London-based Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co., which runs commercial operations at the six U.S. ports, to Dubai Ports World, a company owned by the United Arab Emirates.

In announcing the briefing, Committee Chairman John Warner, R-Va., said Wednesday he met with Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Deputy Secretary Gordon England, and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Peter Pace at the Department of Defense a day earlier to discuss DP World's acquisition of P&O.

Warner said that while it's important to ensure that any foreign acquisition doesn't threaten U.S. national security, "we must also recognize the importance of making fair and objective decisions in working with our allies, especially those which are actively supporting the coalition of nations engaged in fighting the global War on Terror."

Warner said the UAE "has played a key role" in support of the War on Terror by providing logistical assistance to the U.S. Armed Forces in Afghanistan and Iraq, particularly through docking support for naval ships and providing airfields for the U.S. Air Force.

Warner's comments come after the White House has gone on the offensive in support of the pending sale, which will lead to DP World's owning the contract for operations in New York, New Jersey, New Orleans, Baltimore, Philadelphia and Miami.

On Tuesday, President Bush said objections to the deal are unfair, and DP World, the 7th largest international port operator in the world, deserves to be judged by the same rules as the British-owned P&O.

"I think 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 can't manage the port," Bush said.

Bush said he's not sure about the need for congressional briefings on a company whose record is well established and who he called an ally in the War on Terror.

"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. But they need to know that our government has looked at this issue, and looked at it carefully," he said.

On Wednesday, presidential adviser Dan Bartlett said that security for the ports will remain with the United States.

"The physical security of the ports is at the charge of the Coast Guard. The actual cargo that comes in on the ships, is ... charged to the United States Customs Service. So it's critically important for America to understand that doesn't change — not today, not tomorrow, not next week, not six months from now. They are in charge of the security of our ports," Bartlett said.

"The country in question has been a strong partner in the War on Terror. They are helping us cut of financing. They are working side by side with military. They are sharing intelligence. If we are going to win this ... we have to be adding partners in the Middle East, not subtracting," he added.

Dennis Rochford, president of Maritime Exchange for Delaware River and Bay, told FOX News that DP World, like P&O, would function as terminal operators or stevedoring companies. They load or offload cargo. They are not responsible for port security. As a business or a vendor, they must operate by security rules already in place and must comply with port facility security plans submitted to, approved and enforced by the Coast Guard.

"If you have a problem with port security as it is, and think the regulations should be changed, then you should take it up with the entire maritime system. But using this company as a scapegoat is pushing the envelope," he said.

Rochford argued that DP World is "extremely well-respected" internationally for its operations, and if the United States relied on American ships and port companies to run the shipping industry, the ports would shut down.

"2,700 ships come up the Delaware River each year; 2,500 are flying foreign flags," he said, explaining that the United States dropped out of shipping operations by the 1970s as international consolidations increased.

Strength in Opposition

To assuage concerns, the administration has 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 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."

Bush on Tuesday brushed aside objections by House and Senate leaders, both Democrat and Republican, that the $6.8 billion deal could raise the risk of terrorism at U.S. ports or allow terrorists to slip into the country unnoticed. He said he will object to any legislation that is offered to stop the deal.

"There's a mandated process we go through. ... They ought to listen to what I have to say to this. I'll deal with it with a veto," Bush told reporters after an unusual decision to call media aboard Air Force One to the airplane's conference room.

But the opponents of the sale say they can count enough votes in Congress to override a veto.

"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."

Menendez added that the UAE may be an ally now, but that doesn't mean their support is guaranteed.

"The administration says that the United Arab Emirates is an ally. Fine. But we also supported Saddam Hussein at one time and the reality is that it became one of our biggest nightmares," he told FOX News.

But Sen. Joseph Biden, D-Del., said the bipartisan opposition to the deal indicated "a lack of confidence in the administration" on both sides. "Sure, we have to link up with our Arab friends but ... we want to see and those in Congress want to know what ... safeguards are built in," Biden said on ABC's "Good Morning America."

In a break from most lawmakers, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., said the public and Congress should not rush to judgment.

"The president's leadership has earned our trust in the War on Terror, and surely his administration deserves the presumption that they would not sell our security short. Dubai has cooperated with us in the war and deserves to be treated respectfully," McCain said, adding that due diligence is necessary, but a conclusion about the sanctity of the deal shouldn't be reached before lawmakers have all the pertinent facts.

"Until then, all we can offer is heat and little light to the discussion," McCain said.

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.

CFIUS approved the sale last Monday and Bush has until March 2 to decide whether to reject it. Without action, the deal will go into effect automatically. Lawmakers have asked him to delay approval until the multi-agency task force can take a closer look at the sale.

CFIUS is headed by Treasury Secretary John Snow and comprised of members of the departments of State, Justice, Commerce, Defense and Homeland Security reviewed the transaction and said it posed no national security threat.

On Wednesday, Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., wrote Snow asking him to disclose how CFIUS concluded that approval should be granted, suggesting that CFIUS "approved the sale as expeditiously as possible, without even using the additional 45 day investigation process that was clearly warranted under the circumstances."

Kerry also said that ties between the Bush administration and DP World raise suspicions about the basis for approval. For instance, CSX rail corporation, of which Snow served as chief executive officer, sold its port operations to DP World in 2004. Moreover, David Sanborn, the president's nominee to be head of the U.S. Maritime Administration headed DP World's operations for Latin America and Europe.

"In light of these connections, Congress needs to learn more about the relationship between CFIUS members and DP, and whether Administration officials could have unduly influenced CFIUS's approval process," Kerry wrote.

Posted by: TheDude

To the repubs/conserves in here that always said the Left will be the ones responsible for another attack on US soil, guess what, if a bomb is going to make its way onto US soil, I bet ya it will be through one of those ports. Scary stuff.

Speak up though; I'm curious to hear your feelings (pro or con) towards this deal, especially from the more staunch Bush supporters in here (MonsterMark, Fossten, RB3, Bufordtpisser, Calabrio, Vitas etc.)

Posted by: Vitas

Quote:

Originally Posted by 95DevilleNS

Speak up though; I'm curious to hear your feelings (pro or con) towards this deal, especially from the more staunch Bush supporters in here (MonsterMark, Fossten, RB3, Bufordtpisser, Calabrio, Vitas etc.)

It is fairly clear that one side should not be impeded by anyone.

Hence, we all get to watch the left debating the left.

That is what you wanted all along, isn’t it?

(Thanks for the humor.)

Posted by: Calabrio

This is a far more complicated issue than Hillary and the media are making it out to be. Knee-jerk responses aren't necessarily the right answer. There is a lot of disagreement regarding this issue, across the board. Especially within the Republican party. And that concern isn't simply based on the political opportunism so often associated with New York Senators.

I haven't come to a conclussion yet. The information that has been made available to the public really isn't adequate to provide a really informed decision. There are consequences associated with alienating the UAE as well. And there were apparently secret arrangments made by the gov't giving them a degree of oversight and information.

Again, this isn't an easy question to answer. Unfortunately, political opportunists, desperate to suddenly looks "strong on defense" and searching for any issue to misrepresent to hurt the administration, have politicized it now to the point that honest public debate will be near impossible.

Correction, Republicans will still give it thoughtful regard. That's why you'll continue to see a divide in the party on the issue. However, liberals will just ignorantly use the issue to assault the President. The Cheney story didn't have legs.

Posted by: Vitas

Geez, Calabrio, you had to chirp up.

If the "administrators/moderators," made it an even playing field, we would see.

They don't want to let me, or you, play even. That is stated by Bryan.

It is funny seeing the left blindly leading the left.

Posted by: JohnnyBz00LS

My gut feeling it that this deal will be OK. However, this:

Quote:

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.

..... and the fact that GW was unaware of the deal until AFTER it was approved by his admin. sure doesn't give me a warm fuzzy about it. Now GW is backing the deal, either because he did thorough research on it himself, or he's blindly trusting the same people who made the decision to approve the deal. From the article above, it appears to be the latter. Either way, the deal is still deserving of the debate it is now getting. I still contend that if the BuSh administration would've been less secretive and more transparent about the deal in the first place, none of us would be having this discussion. So much for his claim to "want to work with those on the other side of the aisle". Is it any wonder that most people feel that he and his administration can't be trusted?

Posted by: barry2952

Arab Company, White House Had Secret Deal

WASHINGTON (AP) - Under a secretive agreement with the Bush administration, a company in the United Arab Emirates promised to cooperate with U.S. investigations as a condition of its takeover of operations at six major American ports, according to documents obtained by The Associated Press.

The U.S. government chose not to impose other, routine restrictions.

In approving the $6.8 billion purchase, the administration chose not to require state-owned Dubai Ports World to keep copies of its business records on U.S. soil, where they would be subject to orders by American courts. It also did not require the company to designate an American citizen to accommodate requests by the government.

Outside legal experts said such obligations are routinely attached to U.S. approvals of foreign sales in other industries.

Dubai Ports agreed to give up records on demand about ``foreign operational direction'' of its business at the U.S. ports, according to the documents. Those records broadly include details about the design, maintenance or operation of ports and equipment. It also pledged to continue participating in programs to stop smuggling and detect illegal shipments of nuclear materials.

``They're not lax but they're not draconian,'' said James Lewis, a former U.S. official who worked on such agreements. If White House officials negotiating the deal had predicted the firestorm of criticism over it, ``they might have made them sound harder.''

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

The Republican head of the Senate Armed Services Committee, John Warner of Virginia, planned an oversight hearing Thursday. Warner has expressed support for the agreement, describing the UAE as an important ally against terrorism.

Rep. Peter King of New York, the Republican chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, said the conditions are evidence the Bush administration was concerned about security. ``There is a very serious question as to why the records are not going to be maintained on American soil subject to American jurisdiction,'' King said.

Another critic, Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., added: ``These new revelations ask more questions than they answer.''

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

Bush has pledged to veto any bill Congress might approve to block the agreement, but some lawmakers said they still were determined to capsize it.

Dubai Port's top American executive, chief operating officer Edward H. Bilkey, said he will work in Washington to persuade skeptical lawmakers they should endorse the deal; several Senate oversight hearings already are scheduled.

``We're disappointed,'' Bilkey told the AP in an interview. ``We're going to do our best to persuade them that they jumped the gun. The UAE is a very solid friend, as President Bush has said.''

Under the deal, the government asked Dubai Ports to operate American seaports with existing U.S. managers ``to the extent possible.'' The company promised to take ``all reasonable steps'' to assist the Homeland Security Department.

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

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

Foreign communications companies with American customers are commonly required to store business records in the United States. A senior U.S. official said the Bush administration considers shipping manifests less sensitive. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because of the confidential nature of the agreement.

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

In Lebanon, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Thursday that the agreement was thoroughly vetted in a review process that took approximately three months. ``This is supposed to be a process that raises security concerns, if they are there, but does not presume that a country in the Middle East should not be capable of doing a deal like this.'' She described the United Arab Emirates as ``a very good ally'' and said ``if more details need to be made available then I'm sure they will be.''

The White House said President Bush did not know about the agreement until recently. The AP first reported U.S. approval of the sale to Dubai Ports on Feb. 11, and many members of Congress have said they learned about it from the AP.

``I think somebody dropped the ball,'' said Rep. Vito Fossella, R-N.Y. ``Information should have flowed more freely and more quickly up into the White House. I think it has been mishandled in terms of coming forward with adequate information.''

Associated Press Writer Anne Gearan in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, contributed to this report.

Posted by: MonsterMark

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vitas

Geez, Calabrio, you had to chirp up.

If the "administrators/moderators," made it an even playing field, we would see.

They don't want to let me, or you, play even. That is stated by Bryan.

Now what?

All I asked is that the conservatives on this board take the lead and show restraint regarding the tone of their postings. That's all. Not tying one's hand behind their back or anything similar. Conservatives and people on the Right have always attempted to hold themselves to a higher standard in all of life's endeavors. We should be able to win the argument on the merits and not have to resort to 'gutter' tactics to win.

I don't really know what is so hard to understand. Let's have deep, probing discussions without the personal attacks. Pretty simple.

Posted by: TheDude

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vitas

It is fairly clear that one side should not be impeded by anyone.

Hence, we all get to watch the left debating the left.

That is what you wanted all along, isn’t it?

(Thanks for the humor.)

You're insane...............

Posted by: TheDude

Quote:

Originally Posted by MonsterMark

I always thought you were just a little extra lenient on the conserv posters in here and I was fine with that, they share your views. But this crying from certain people because you asked Fossten to show restraint on ONE post is ridiculous.

Posted by: MonsterMark

Quote:

Originally Posted by 95DevilleNS

See!!! The Left thinks I'm lenient on the Right and the Right thinks I am lenient on the Left. Sounds about perfect to me.

350 yards down the middle with a slight fade.

Posted by: TheDude

Quote:

Originally Posted by Calabrio

This is a far more complicated issue than Hillary and the media are making it out to be. Knee-jerk responses aren't necessarily the right answer. There is a lot of disagreement regarding this issue, across the board. Especially within the Republican party. And that concern isn't simply based on the political opportunism so often associated with New York Senators.

I haven't come to a conclussion yet. The information that has been made available to the public really isn't adequate to provide a really informed decision. There are consequences associated with alienating the UAE as well. And there were apparently secret arrangments made by the gov't giving them a degree of oversight and information.

Again, this isn't an easy question to answer. Unfortunately, political opportunists, desperate to suddenly looks "strong on defense" and searching for any issue to misrepresent to hurt the administration, have politicized it now to the point that honest public debate will be near impossible.

Correction, Republicans will still give it thoughtful regard. That's why you'll continue to see a divide in the party on the issue. However, liberals will just ignorantly use the issue to assault the President. The Cheney story didn't have legs.

You're correct that the Left will use this to strengthen their image of 'Protecting America' and attack Bush simultaneously, if that’s right or wrong thing to do, I can't say. More information about the UAE Company and how this deal came to be needs to surface. But what is your gut instinct on this?

Posted by: Vitas

Quote:

Originally Posted by 95DevilleNS

You're insane...............

Thank you, thank you, thank you very much.

How about you?

Posted by: RRocket

I listened to a "right wing" radio show, and the Rebubs sounded pretty pissed about the possibility that Bush might veto any attempt to block this citing security concerns. While I don't know every detail of the controversy, most people were concerned that IF any type of terrorist munition wanted to find a way in, this might make it EASIER. They didn't say they felt it would imminently cause a threat, but they felt that if there were even a few sympathetic people with ties to the port, something being smuggled in would be a little easier and more easily concealed. Is this the general consensus? I must say, this is the most I've seen the right and left in agreement for awhile. What do the righties here think about this situation? Is this a security threat, or is this nothing at all?

Posted by: barry2952

I don't think the risk is in security. I think the risk continues to be the BuSh administration's penchant for doing things behind closed doors.

It came out today that there is a mandated 45 day study period for situations just like this that was completly ignored.

I'm not blaming BuSh directly for this situation. I just blame him for his poor choices to head these departments.

Even the Right will have to agree that cronyism is running rampant and wrecking our government.

Posted by: pbslmo

I remember watching reports on HomeLand Security after 9/11, how only a small percentage of the cargo containers are screened in the ports. The risk is that while UAE may be upfront in their buyout, it is a BIG possiblity that some type of WMD may be smuggled into the ports and detinated.

BuSh: "people don't need to worry about security".

We should be always vigilant about our National Security!

Posted by: Calabrio

This is an extremely complicated issue. There is no obvious "correct" response to the problem. Basically it's a matter of weighing the benefits and consequences associated with both decisions.

Ultimately, I think this deal will go through because it'll be cause the least harm.

What angers me is the way the Democrats seized the issue, without any understanding or concern about the broader implications. In an attempt to seem "strong on defense" they are undermining our security, once again.

By coming out like they did, they have polarized the issue without providing any information or argument. Denying the UAE authorization purely on the grounds they are Middle Eastern is knee-jerk and emotional. It's a natural response, but it's not a thoughtful one.

Posted by: mespock

Quote:

Originally Posted by Calabrio

This is an extremely complicated issue. There is no obvious "correct" response to the problem. Basically it's a matter of weighing the benefits and consequences associated with both decisions.

Ultimately, I think this deal will go through because it'll be cause the least harm.

What angers me is the way the Democrats seized the issue, without any understanding or concern about the broader implications. In an attempt to seem "strong on defense" they are undermining our security, once again.

By coming out like they did, they have polarized the issue without providing any information or argument. Denying the UAE authorization purely on the grounds they are Middle Eastern is knee-jerk and emotional. It's a natural response, but it's not a thoughtful one.

I agree it is complicated but I thought it was a lot of the repbulicans who were coming out against this proposal not just all democrats.

Posted by: JohnnyBz00LS

Quote:

Originally Posted by Calabrio

What angers me is the way the Democrats seized the issue, without any understanding or concern about the broader implications. In an attempt to seem "strong on defense" they are undermining our security, once again.

By coming out like they did, they have polarized the issue without providing any information or argument. Denying the UAE authorization purely on the grounds they are Middle Eastern is knee-jerk and emotional. It's a natural response, but it's not a thoughtful one.

I beg to differ with you. The Dems did NOT "seize" this issue. In fact, this point in the original article:

Quote:

King's comments were cleared by House GOP leaders and, according to sources, reflect the view of the House Republican Conference at large. Republicans are increasingly concerned at the political impact of the port story. They fear it could leave them vulnerable to Democratic criticism and at least partially undermine their political advantage on national security.

...... leaves me with the impression that it was the Republicans who "seized" this issue in the anticipation of the Dems jumping all over it. Sounds like if anyone is politically motivated by making the UAE deal an "issue" it would be the republicans. ADDITIONALLY, Dems have NOT made this an issue "purely on the grounds they are Middle Eastern". The FACT is, some of the Sept. 11 hijackers used the United Arab Emirates as an operational and financial base. Doesn't that concern you at all about where this company's loyalties lie, or the abilities of the UAE to police themselves?

Like Barry said, what pisses people off the MOST is the BuSh administration's constant veil of secrecy on matters such as this one that should be debated publicly. Is it any wonder that the majority of Americans don't trust GW Bush?

Posted by: MonsterMark

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnnyBz00LS

ADDITIONALLY, Dems have NOT made this an issue "purely on the grounds they are Middle Eastern". The FACT is, some of the Sept. 11 hijackers used the United Arab Emirates as an operational and financial base. Doesn't that concern you at all about where this company's loyalties lie, or the abilities of the UAE to police themselves?

Horse crap! I have great concerns about the UAE, especially pre-9/11. But to say just because a couple of guys used a bank account in the UAE makes the country culpable is garbage. The hijackers used US flight training schools! Were does that leave us? The fact is, liberals and the Democratic party ARE racists and are racially profiling this deal. The screaming and wailing came from the Left. Republicans have said, wait a second, let's make sure this is a safe deal. Democrats have come out screaming national security because every poll they have taken says they lose the next election unless they can convince the American people they are not the yellow-bellied sap-suckers everyone knows them to be.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnnyBz00LS

Like Barry said, what pisses people off the MOST is the BuSh administration's constant veil of secrecy on matters such as this one that should be debated publicly. Is it any wonder that the majority of Americans don't trust GW Bush?

What should piss Barry off is the constant whining about how every American has a right to know everything. You know what? You don't need to know everything and anything that goes on. I have faith that our government, from Homeland Defense to the Defense Department and every intelligence agency in-between had an opportunity to have their say on this deal.

Bush called a Cabinet meeting and asked anyone to speak up if they had an issue with the deal. EVERYONE said they were comfortable with it.

I was not sure myself at first. I am happy the UAE agreed to let us look at it further before moving forward. I hope we include language in the contract that keeps all of the records on US soil so we can get our hands on them.

As far as strategic partner, they are the most strategic of all the countries over there and we rely heavily on both their air bases and sea bases for our military support structure. So unless you want to see Iran make good on their promise to shutdown the Strait of Hormuz and cut off 25% of the world's oil, making a deal with a W.O.T. partner is the lesser of two evils at this point.

BUSH was once again brilliant. By coming out in defense of the UAE deal so strongly, he demonstrated his willingness to be their partner. He has gained a bunch of loyalty from the UAE. Even if the deal falls apart, Bush stands to gain in the eyes of the UAE. He stood up for the deal. Another master stroke.

Just watch. In the next several weeks, all the bloviating and pontificating will subside and the deal will quitely pass with a few tweaks here and there.

Democrats will embarrass themselves again. Hillary has almost already signed on to the deal herself. She just wanted to score a few brownie points as a concerned legislator on national security issues. Ya right. Do I need to mention all the Clinton crap pulled by her husband concerning the UAE? You'll all whine if I do, that's for sure.

Posted by: barry2952

Brilliant stroke? You are delusional.

Posted by: MonsterMark

Quote:

Originally Posted by barry2952

Brilliant stroke? You are delusional.

What's delusional? The deal will go thru, largely unchanged after the Left scores some national security brownie points. Bush and the US wind up with a closer working relationship with the UAE and I hope a few quid-pro-quos are thrown in for good measure.

Looks like a win-win to me.

I love to watch the racial profiling going on by the Left. The HEIGHT of hypocrisy in front of our own eyes. Can't trust ANY towel-head is what the Lefties are now saying.

Posted by: barry2952

Funny, I didn't say that. Please show me where I did.

Show me where I've ever used a derogatory term about Muslims or Arabs.

You are the one that has used the terms many times. Pot calling the kettle black?

Hypocrite.

Posted by: MonsterMark

I'm against the UAE deal btw.

I'm pro Bush but I believe it is up the the UAE to prove this deal has no US security issues.

I do believe it is a win-win in so far as we sell a lot of US assets to foreign nationals. Take a deep look into this deal and see how 1st raised objections to the deal. (hint...Repub). The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS)=(Treasury Department) should not be in charge of oversight of these deals. The Pentagon should.

We'll see where this all goes.

Posted by: RRocket

Quote:

Originally Posted by MonsterMark

The fact is, liberals and the Democratic party ARE racists and are racially profiling this deal. The screaming and wailing came from the Left. Republicans have said, wait a second, let's make sure this is a safe deal. Democrats have come out screaming national security because every poll they have taken says they lose the next election unless they can convince the American people they are not the yellow-bellied sap-suckers everyone knows them to be.

Not true, Bryan...that's quite the blanket statement! I seem to recall some openly racist members of the Republican Party (Thurmond, anyone?) As I said, the only reason this topic piqued my interest was a right wing radio show I was listening to most callers (who support Bush) were against this. This was unusual to me since I have NEVER heard any dissent on the program before, as would be expected of a right wing show. But this time was different. Most of them used the terms "security" and "Arab" in the argument against this. I don't think using the term "racist" is correct. I think the American public has been conditioned by the current administration to think all most terrorism is from Arab nations. People today still think Iraq was involved with 9/11. I don't think it's a fair or accurate thing to say that democrats or liberals are racially biased against Arabs. I have heard an equal amount of this from both sides....

Posted by: barry2952

Homeland Security Objected to Ports Deal

By TED BRIDIS
WASHINGTON (AP) - The Homeland Security Department objected at first to a United Arab Emirates company's taking over significant operations at six U.S. ports. It was the lone protest among members of the government committee that eventually approved the deal without dissent.

The department's early objections were settled later in the government's review of the $6.8 billion deal after Dubai-owned DP World agreed to a series of security restrictions.

The company indefinitely has postponed its takeover to give President Bush time to convince Congress that the deal does not pose any increased risks to the U.S. from terrorism.

Some lawmakers have pressed for a new and intensive review. Despite persistent criticism from Republicans and Democrats, the president has defended his administration's approval of the ports deal and threatened to veto any measures in Congress that would block it. Hearings are to continue this week.

A DP World executive said the company would agree to tougher security restrictions to win congressional support only if the same restrictions applied to all U.S. port operators. The company earlier had struck a more conciliatory stance, saying it would do whatever Bush asked to salvage the agreement.

``Security is everybody's business,'' senior vice president Michael Moore told The Associated Press. ``We're going to have a very open mind to legitimate concerns. But anything we can do, any way to improve security, should apply to everybody equally.''

The administration approved the ports deal on Jan. 17 after DP World agreed during secret negotiations to cooperate with law enforcement investigations in the future and make other concessions.

Some lawmakers have challenged the adequacy of a classified intelligence assessment crucial to assuring the administration that the deal was proper. The report was assembled during four weeks in November by analysts working for the director of national intelligence.

The report concluded that U.S. spy agencies were ``unable to locate any derogatory information on the company,'' according to a person familiar with the document. This person spoke only on condition of anonymity because the report was classified.

Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., and others have complained that the intelligence report focused only on information the agencies collected about DP World and did not examine reported links between UAE government officials and al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden before the Sept. 11 attacks.

The uproar over DP World has exposed how the government routinely approves deals involving national security without the input of senior administration officials or Congress.

President Bush, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and even Treasury Secretary John Snow, who oversees the government committee that approved the deal, all say they did not know about the purchase until after it was finalized. The work was done mostly by assistant secretaries.

Snow now says he may consider changes in the approval process so lawmakers are better alerted after such deals get the go-ahead.

Stewart Baker, a senior Homeland Security official, said he was the sole representative on the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States who objected to the ports deal. Baker said he later changed his vote after DP World agreed to the security conditions. Other officials confirmed Baker's account.

``We were not prepared to sign off on the deal without the successful negotiation of the assurances,'' Baker told the AP.

Officials from the White House, CIA, departments of State, Treasury, Justices, and others looked for guidance from Homeland Security because it is responsible for seaports. ``We had the most obvious stake in the process,'' Baker said.

Baker acknowledged that a government audit of security practices at the U.S. ports in the takeover has not been completed as part of the deal. ``We had the authority to do an audit earlier,'' Baker said.

The audit will help evaluate DP World's security programs to stop smuggling and detect illegal shipments of nuclear materials at its seaport operations in New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia.

The administration privately disclosed the status of the security audit to senators during meetings about improving reviews of future business deals involving foreign buyers. Officials did not suggest the audit's earlier completion would have affected the deal's approval.

New Jersey's Democratic governor, who is suing to block the deal, said in his party's weekly radio address on Saturday that the administration failed to properly investigate the UAE's record on terrorism.

``We were told that the president didn't know about the sale until after it was approved. For many Americans, regardless of party, this lack of disciplined review is unacceptable,'' Jon Corzine said.

Bush's national security adviser, Stephen Hadley, said there was no going back on the deal.

Posted by: barry2952

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Coast Guard warned that "intelligence gaps" prevented a broad assessment of any security risks posed by the takeover of some U.S. shipping terminals by a United Arab Emirates company, a Senate hearing revealed Monday.

Sen. Susan Collins, the chairwoman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, disclosed the Coast Guard report on DP World's impending purchase of P&O, the British-based operator of cargo terminals.

"There are many intelligence gaps concerning the potential for DPW or P&O assets to support terrorist operations that precludes an overall threat assessment of the potential merger," a Coast Guard report on the potential deal stated.

"The breadth of the intelligence gaps also infer potential unknown threats against a large number of potential vulnerabilities."

Critics have argued that the deal raises security concerns and requires further scrutiny, since DP World is a state-run venture of the UAE. The country was the home of two of the al Qaeda hijackers involved in the September 11, 2001, attacks, and money to fund the plot was passed through banks in Dubai.

Collins, a Maine Republican, questioned whether the Coast Guard's concerns had been addressed before an administration committee approved the DP World-P&O transaction, which has created a furor in Washington.

"These unclassified questions and the use of the word 'intelligence gaps' that preclude 'an overall threat assessment of the potential merger' and that it involves 'potential unknown threats against a large number of potential vulnerabilities,' that language is very troubling to me," Collins said.

The Coast Guard intelligence document, prepared in December, said the service was unable to answer questions about the security environment at the terminals affected; the backgrounds of workers at those terminals; and whether DP World or P&O were vulnerable to "foreign influence" on security matters.

But Clay Lowery, a Treasury Department official involved in approving the sale, told senators the Coast Guard's concerns "were addressed and resolved." He said they had become the basis for special "assurances" DP World provided the U.S. government as part of the deal.

Rear Adm. Thomas Gilmore, the Coast Guard officer in charge of marine safety and security, said he would have to disclose classified information to respond to questioning.

"Any concerns we had were addressed in the assurances letter," Gilmore said before the committee went into a closed session.

The $6.85 billion acquisition of P&O's parent company would place DP World in charge of cargo handling at some terminals in five large U.S. ports -- Baltimore, Maryland; Newark, New Jersey; Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Miami, Florida; and New Orleans, Louisiana -- and a New York cruise-ship terminal.

The deal, scheduled to close Thursday, was approved in January by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, an administration group led by the Treasury Department.

But criticism of the agreement escalated last week, when the Republican leaders in both houses of Congress and numerous Democratic lawmakers called for the merger to be delayed for further review.

DP World announced over the weekend that it would seek an additional 45-day review of the plan because of the outcry, and would not take control of P&O's port operations until the review is complete.

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist of Tennessee then said he would recommend waiting until the additional 45 days were up "before deciding on any legislative steps."

Lawsuits in New Jersey and Florida have challenged the merger, and Democratic senators from New York and New Jersey have introduced a bill that would bar overseas companies from controlling American port operations.

Critics have questioned why the Bush administration signed off on the merger without a more extensive review of its national-security implications. The White House has tried to reassure lawmakers and the public that the Coast Guard and Customs officers would retain control of security.

"One thing we will never do is outsource control of our ports or security at our ports to any entity," White House spokesman Scott McClellan said Monday. "That will remain under the charge of our Customs and Border Protection and the Coast Guard."

President Bush has threatened to veto any legislation that blocks the transaction and has accused critics of subjecting an Arab-owned company to a higher standard than other international firms. The UAE is a key American ally in the Persian Gulf, and Bush warned that rejecting the deal could undercut Arab cooperation on antiterrorist efforts.

But Rep. John Murtha, a Pennsylvania Republican, said Monday that critics of the deal have taken years of administration warnings about the threat of terrorism to heart.

"They try to scare people and they've been scaring them with these terrorist tactics, and then all at once they're surprised at the public reaction to something that was secretly handled," said Murtha, an outspoken critic of the administration's handling of the war in Iraq.

"My initial reaction would be against it since what I heard about the Coast Guard, but we have to take a good look at it," he said.

Posted by: MonsterMark

Quote:

Originally Posted by barry2952

But Rep. John Murtha, a Pennsylvania Republican, said Monday that critics of the deal have taken years of administration warnings about the threat of terrorism to heart.

{snip}

"My initial reaction would be against it since what I heard about the Coast Guard, but we have to take a good look at it," he said.

Ist. CNN, get things right please. Murtha is a Democrat.

2nd. Notice how everybody that is against the deal seem to have to leave the door open. More lefty waffling. They are pretty good at it.

3rd. More terrorists have come from Britain than the UAE but nobody seems to have had a problem with the Brits running the ports.

Posted by: MonsterMark

Even some liberals get it. This coming from the WAPO of all places.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/idea...p-335106c.html

Pay attention: W right on Dubai

There are times when President Bush sorely disappoints. Just when you might expect him to issue a malapropistic explanation, pander to his base or simply not have a clue about what he is talking about, he does something so right, so honest and, yes, so commendable, that - as Arthur Miller put it in "Death of a Salesman" - "attention must be paid." Pay attention to how he has refused to indulge anti-Arab sentiment over the Dubai ports deal.
Would that anyone could say the same about many of the deal's critics. Whatever their concerns may be, whatever their fears might be, they would not have had them, expressed them or have seen them in print had the middle name of the United Arab Emirates been something else. After all, no one goes nuts over Germany, the country where some of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorists lived and attended school.

To overlook the xenophobic element in this controversy is to overlook the obvious. It is what propelled the squabble and what sustains it. Bush put his finger on it right away. "What I find interesting is that it's okay for a British company to manage some ports, but not okay for a company from a country that is a valuable ally in the war on terror," he said last week. "The UAE has been a valuable partner in fighting the war on terror." It is a long way from a terrorist haven.

Somewhere in the White House, a political operative must have slapped his head in consternation as Bush made that remark. The politic thing for a President with a dismal approval rating (about 40%) would have been to join with the critics, get ahead of the anti-Arab wave and announce that he, too, was concerned about the deal. Instead, the White House stuck to its guns.

That Bush has done this should come as no surprise. He refuses to pander to anti-immigration forces and, shortly after 9/11, if you will remember, he visited Washington's Islamic Center. He reassured American Muslims and the worldwide Islamic community that neither America nor its government was waging war on an entire people.

America has many friends in the Arab world. You can go to Saudi Arabia, for instance, and talk "American" at a dinner party - banter about the Redskins or California real estate prices or, of course, politics. The region is home to many people who have gone to school in the United States and admire it greatly. They are not the majority, by any means, but they are important and influential - and they are being slowly alienated by knee-jerk insults and brainless policies that reflect panic and prejudice.

The true security cost of the Dubai deal has already been inflicted.

Maybe because Bush is a Bush - son of a President who got to know many Arabs - or maybe because he just naturally recoils from prejudice, his initial stance on this controversy has been refreshingly admirable. Whatever the case, the President has done the right thing.

Attention must be paid.

Posted by: JohnnyBz00LS

I listened to an interview a couple nights ago, can't remember which channel (FNC or MSNBC). It appears that giving control of these ports to DPW will have little or no effect on the actual likelihood of bombs or WMDs getting smuggled into the US via these ports. Only 1-2% of the containers are inspected by US customs anyway, and the handling of those containers will remain within US responsibility.

In other words, our back door is, and has been, wide-the-flock open for WMDs to be smuggled into the US via containers and handing control of these ports over to DPW/UAE can't possibly make it any worse for us. The problem / risk lies NOT w/ who operates the ports, it lies WITH our lame US customs and their lack of inspection of containers. While this is a VERY SAD statement about GW BuSh's committment to actually effecting border security against smuggling of WMDs, I tend to agree w/ GW that there is more to gain from this deal (strengthening bonds w/ UAE) and we have absolutely nothing to lose.

This is an odd situation, I actually agree w/ BuSh on this, while Brian is against him. What is this world coming to??

Posted by: MonsterMark

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnnyBz00LS

This is an odd situation, I actually agree w/ BuSh on this, while Brian is against him. What is this world coming to??

IF you re-read what I said on the subject, I am not only against this deal, but also the ones that turned the LA port and the Panama canal over to Communist China. But, I also said this is a win-win deal for the US, therefore, it should go ahead. We need the access points the UAE offers with its strategic location, ports, and air bases as long as we remain reliant on MidEast oil.

People shouldn't be screaming about this UAE deal. What they should be screaming about is that we haven't invested whatever is necessary to inspect ALL containers coming into ANY U.S. port. On the flip side, reality is, we will never be able to stop a WMD attack, no matter how many containers are inspected, or even if all of them are, which is why we need to kill all the bad guys so they won't ever get a chance to meet their virgins.

Posted by: JohnnyBz00LS

Quote:

Originally Posted by MonsterMark

What they should be screaming about is that we haven't invested whatever is necessary to inspect ALL containers coming into ANY U.S. port.

And on that point, we do agree.