Results 1 to 2 of 2

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

  1. #1
    Senior Member dman1200's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    3,631

    This port deal is worst than I thought, Please read!

    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,185875,00.html

    UAE Company Offers to Delay Port Deal
    Friday, February 24, 2006

    WASHINGTON — Nearly a week after sparking a political firestorm, the United Arab Emirates-owned management company bidding to take over operations of 21 U.S. ports offered to delay part of its $6.8 billion deal.

    That gives the administration a little more breathing room to convince Congress why the deal is not a threat to national security.

    While some lawmakers praised the delay, others said it is nothing more than smoke and mirrors, designed to smooth over the fact that the administration was blindsided by the huge amount of harsh criticism it has taken over the business transaction.

    "This promise isn't worth the paper on which it is written. It is a smokescreen that changes none of the underlying facts. This merger has already been approved by the Bush administration. It is scheduled to close in less than a week, and once it does, Dubai Ports World will own operations at U.S. ports and can assume control of them at anytime without any ability for our government to stop it. Nothing that the company or the administration has announced changes that fact," said Sen. Robert Menendez, the Democrat from New Jersey who is co-sponsoring legislation to block the sale of operations at U.S. ports to companies owned by foreign governments.

    "We can't rely on nonbinding promises from foreign governments to secure our ports. If the Bush administration will not stop this deal from closing, Congress must," he added.

    Rep. Peter King of New York, chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, described the offer as "definitely a positive step." A leading Republican critic of the deal, King said the president still must disclose new details about the administration's review and approval of the agreement last month.

    Added Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y.: "A small delay is an excellent idea and would give a chance for a solution amiable to all sides to follow. We hope the administration is serious about this suggestion."

    Lawmakers continue to argue that allowing UAE-owned Dubai Ports World to buy the London-based Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co., which currently operates the port terminals in question, would threaten U.S. port security. Administration officials point out that DP World would not be in charge of security, just port operations. The U.S. Coast Guard and Customs are in charge of port security.

    At first, it was reported that the deal involved only six ports but DP World's Web site says it involves 21 ports, from Portland, Me., to Corpus Christi, Texas.

    A senior DP World executive, Edward H. Bilkey, said the company will otherwise move forward with its purchase of P&O, which operates in 18 countries. Although the company agreed to temporarily segregate the company's U.S. operations, Bilkey expressed bewilderment over the security concerns expressed in Congress.

    "The reaction in the United States has occurred in no other country in the world," Bilkey said. "We need to understand the concerns of the people in the U.S. who are worried about this transaction and make sure that they are addressed to the benefit of all parties."

    The company, timing its announcement before financial markets opened in London, assured British shareholders they will be paid as previously planned.

    "It is not only unreasonable but also impractical to suggest that the closing of this entire global transaction should be delayed," DP World said in a statement.

    On Thursday, White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove told FOX News' Tony Snow that the Bush administration wants to make Congress is comfortable with the contract, even if it means the sale of P&O is slightly pushed back.

    "Our interest is in making certain the members of Congress have full information about it, and that, we're convinced, will give them a level of comfort with this," Rove said, adding that regulatory rules abroad could also add a few days to a final sign off on the transaction.

    "There are some hurdles, regulatory hurdles, that this still needs to go through on the British side as well that are going to be concluded next week. There's no requirement that it close, you know, immediately after that," Rove added.

    Rove said a lot of the complaints about the purchase came as a result of limited information about the deal. He said when congressional members return from their President's Day break next week, top officials in the departments of State, Defense, Commerce, Treasury and Homeland Security will provide briefings and share background on the "extensive review" conducted by the government on the sale to both parties.

    President Bush said Americans shouldn't fret over the controversial ports deal involving that has taken Washington and state lawmakers by storm.

    "People don't need to worry about security," Bush said Thursday. "We wouldn't go forward if we were concerned about the security of the United States of America."

    Pols: Deal a 'Failure of Judgment'

    At a briefing of the Senate Armed Services Committee, debate over the deal turned from whether it is a good idea to let a UAE-owned firm run freight terminals inside U.S. ports to whether the Bush administration conducted itself properly in approving the deal.

    Democratic Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York and Carl Levin of Michigan, the vice chairman of the panel, alleged that officials in the 12-member U.S. Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States broke the law by not taking the full 45 days available to it to review the ports deal. They argued that the statute that defines the job of the panel requires a 45-day review. CFIUS approved the deal after 30 days.

    "If you want the law changed — I don't care which administration you represent — if any administration wants the law changed, this or a previous one, come to Congress and change it but don't ignore it," Levin said.

    But U.S. officials said they interpret the law differently, and the deal was carefully reviewed ever since it came into CFIUS' hands in November

    "We're not aware of a single national security concern raised recently that was not part of" the three-month review of the deal, Deputy Treasury Secretary Robert Kimmitt said.

    Added Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England: "This review definitely was not cursory and it definitely was not casual. Rather, it was in-depth and comprehensive."

    Sen. John Warner, R-Va., chairman of the committee, said he would put in a request to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales for an official interpretation of the statute.

    Clinton, who has co-sponsored legislation with Menendez, called the approval process "a failure of judgment" because officials "did not alert the president, the secretary of the treasury and the secretary of defense" that several of our critical ports would be turned over to a foreign country.

    Opponents have repeatedly noted that the Sept. 11 commission reported that the UAE backed the Taliban and allowed financial support for Al Qaeda through its banking system. Critics also suggest the UAE can't be trusted since two of the Sept. 11, 2001, hijackers were from the UAE.

    On top of that, they note A.Q. Khan, the notorious Pakistani nuclear scientist, met with Iranian officials in the UAE and shipped some black market nuclear equipment through the Emirates.

    Former CIA operations officer Peter Brookes said that the UAE does have a questionable history, but "things changed after 9/11."

    "We have a different relationship with them today than we had a few years ago. They've become a military ally, they've become an ally in the War on Terror," said Brookes, who added that a delay in approval of the deal would be a good idea because of the communications breakdown between the legislative and executive branches.

    Officials point out that it was the UAE that captured Rahim Al Nashiri, the Al Qaeda mastermind of the 2000 USS Cole bombing, which killed 17 American sailors.

    "There is no question that their performance has changed since 2001 in the War on Terror. They have been critical allies in Afghanistan. They have been critical allies in fighting the financial war against terror," said Frances Fragos Townsend, the president's chief homeland security and counterterrorism adviser.

    Rove also called Dubai a "great military asset" and "vital to our security." He said as far as Dubai's cooperating with Customs and Border Protection and the Container Security Initiative, the UAE is one of the "best and eager partners in safety."

    On Thursday, former ambassador Edward Walker, who now runs the Middle East Institute, said the the UAE needs the United States, too.

    "The UAE, particularly in the Abu Dhabi portion of it, looks across the water and it sees this very large Iran there. They have been the target of Iran in the past; several islands — UAE islands — were occupied by Iran and continue to be occupied today. They don't trust the Iranians one iota and now we're looking at a possibility of a nuclear armed Iran, so it makes sense for them to have a good solid friendship with a country that also has nuclear capabilities," Walker said.

    Who's Running Port Operations?

    Noting that British companies already manage the ports in question, Bush said Thursday that "the more people learn about the transaction that has been scrutinized and improved by my government, the more they'll be comforted that our ports will be secure."

    DP World is the seventh largest terminal operator in the world, running 23 facilities in 13 countries. It has terminal contracts in countries that are allies of the United States, including Germany, Australia, India and South Korea as well as nations such as China, Saudi Arabia and Venezuela.

    If it does win U.S. approval for the deal, the company will own the contracts for terminals now run in the United States by P&O. Outside of cruise ship terminals, those U.S. operations will include two of the 14 terminals in Baltimore's port, one of three terminals in the Miami port, one of five terminals in Newark, two of five terminals in New Orleans, one of five terminals in Philadelphia.

    The deal also lets DP World run four of 12 terminals in Houston and allows it to be involved in stevedoring for all five terminals in Norfolk, though DP World would not manage any specific terminal.

    Clinton on Thursday pointed out that only 5 percent of the cargo entering the United States is inspected, though most experts suggest that number should be at 15 percent to 20 percent. She added that ports don't have the right technology to do the job of detecting radiological or other weapons being pulled off ships.

    The administration argues that funding for port security has increased by more than 700 percent since September 11, 2001, from $259 million in 2001 to about $1.6 billion in fiscal year 2005.

    Rove added that while DP World will take over P&O, virtually all the workers will continue to be U.S. citizens, with a few management positions held by British workers.

    "After the sale, it'll be the same people, because that was the deal. They wanted to buy the company, and with it, the employees to operate it. And again, the security will remain under the U.S. Coast Guard and under the U.S. Customs. I mean, what'll change is the bank from which their paychecks come, I suspect," he said.

    Former Republican National Committee Chairman Ed Gillespie said while ownership of the firm is changing at the top, the American employees will not change their allegiance.

    "Just because someone works for Toyota or Honda in an American plant doesn't mean their loyalties are with Japan," he argued.

    On Thursday, Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., the ranking Democrat on the House Homeland Security Committee, wrote to the Government Accountability Office asking it to look into the decision-making process of CFIUS, which he claims suffered from conflicts of interest and a lax view of what a national security threat is.

    Levin pointed to the prior relationship between Treasury Secretary John Snow and DP World, which bought port operations previously owned by CSX Corporation, of which Snow used to be CEO.

    "I would like the GAO's investigation to answer the following questions 1) Did the Secretary of Treasury recuse himself from the review of this sale? If not, what role did he have in the review?" Thompson wrote.

    Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said the current controversy has served to spotlight the "ongoing failure of the Bush administration and congressional Republicans to adequately provide security at our nation's ports." He asked Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist to consider legislation to prevent the Bush administration from outsourcing U.S. port operations.

    "I hope you will agree with me that after we complete legislation related to the DP World transaction before the March 2 deadline, port security legislation should be the Senate's top priority," he wrote.

    ================================================== ============

    Can you believe this crap? That's 21 US ports, not 6. Why is this even up for debate? Any president regardless of political party should have been tried for treason for even cooking up this nonsense. We are freaking being sell the freak out. This minor delay is nothing more than a smoke screen to allow this administration to be able to pass this through the back door so he can sneak it past the public eye. Bush is just waiting for the public to calm down and forget about it. Don't let this travesty come to pass. If this deal goes through then WTF do we even have a homeland security for? PR?

    "It is not only unreasonable but also impractical to suggest that the closing of this entire global transaction should be delayed," DP World said in a statement.
    Unreasonable to whom? The American people have every right to decide who controls their ports. It's what's good for us, not what's good for your pocketbook. God I'm so sick of these globalists parasites destroying our country from within. Get these parasites out of our government and out of our country NOW and replace them with some rationale, reasonable patriots who are actually willing and able to defend our country and put their country before commerce.
    Please support our fight against illegal immigration by joining ALIPAC's email alerts here https://eepurl.com/cktGTn

  2. #2
    Senior Member AuntB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    670

    This port deal is worst than I thought, Please read!

    I've been thinking about Iraq and the so called reasons we've been given to go to war.

    Like possible weapons of mass destruction. Aiding Al-Quida. Radical Islamic influence. Refusal to recognize Isreal. Transit point for terrorists. Relationship with Bin Laden.....

    Oh, nevermind, that's the UAE.

    In other words, we had more reason to attack the UAE than Iraq!
    Want to make people angry? Lie to them.
    Want to make them absolutely livid? Tell 'em the truth."



    http://towncriernews.blogspot.com/

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •