[Frodogzzz]

However YOU want to describe it, it is a government.

Therefore the deal is governed by US Law.

And we, as Americans, are bound by a government of LAWS, not by men -- or the misguided decisions that men can make (or so I've been told).

[padlabtard]

Describing them as a government is really aggrandising them imho. Think of their "government" more as a board of directors.

As a matter of fact, this foreign government-owned company has the same immunity from being sued in all U.S. courts as the U.A.E. government itself. No one injured by its conduct would have any recourse against it in the United States unless that person could prove that the U.A.E. government had waived the company's immunity or that the company had engaged in "commercial activity" within the U.S. sufficient to overcome its presumptive immunity. I don't automatically assume that the Bushettes required the execution of such a waiver before it approved this deal.

[ViaplyVuple]

Who Dares to Question The Dubai Port Deal?

By: Joe Conason
Date: 3/6/2006

How fortunate that the opinion pages of our mightiest newspapers are open to diverse viewpoints. We would otherwise miss the opportunity to learn from liberal, conservative and centrist pundits alike that opponents of the Dubai ports deal—which now include about 70 percent of the American public—must be crazed, racist and xenophobic.

One original thinker after another insists that there can be no honest criticism of the Dubai deal. They tell us that every critic, no matter how measured, is a protectionist bigot; and that every argument, no matter how rational, is a calumny against Arabs and Muslims. There is a strange whiff of demagogy in these screeds.

In The New York Times, David Brooks laments America’s sudden inundation by “a xenophobic tsunami.” That newspaper’s Thomas L. Friedman warns us against “global ethnic profiling.” And Nicholas Kristof huffily declares in its pages that “this fuss about ports is really about Arabs.” Mr. Brooks proclaims that any concern about potential security problems is “completely bogus,” while Mr. Friedman describes such concerns as not only “bogus” but “borderline racist.” Mr. Kristof refers slyly to “the arguments of those who believe we should discriminate against Arabs.”

The same ugly insinuations can also be found in The Washington Post, parroted under the bylines of Richard Cohen and David Ignatius. Mr. Ignatius regards dissent from the Dubai deal as simply “racist,” while Mr. Cohen prefers to squawk “xenophobic.”

Such is the conventional mainstream wisdom, which blesses all trade as “free trade” and venerates corporate globalization as the one truth faith. To question those assumptions, even in the name of national security, is considered a sign of benighted partisanship, economic ignorance or worse.

Now all these literary worthies have suddenly acquired profound and unimpeachable knowledge about our ports. With breathtaking arrogance, they claim to know what will make us safe and what might endanger us. According to Mr. Friedman, we need not worry about the takeover of several ports by the government of Dubai, because “the U.S. Coast Guard still controls all aspects of port security, entry and exits; the U.S. Customs Service is still in charge of inspecting the containers, and U.S. longshoremen still handle the cargos.” According to Mr. Brooks, “nearly every expert who knows something about port security” agrees that there is no reason for worry.

These pundits don’t condescend to engage in serious debate. They gush over Dubai’s luxury hotels and skyscrapers, without mentioning the utter absence of democracy, transparency and human rights. They praise the United Arab Emirates for behaving like an ally against Al Qaeda, while ignoring its recent connections with the Taliban and Osama bin Laden. They seem to think that if any foreign firm is allowed to operate an American port, then a company that is wholly owned by a foreign dictatorship must be treated the same way.

If none of that makes sense to you, then you’re obviously a racist, bigoted, xenophobic protectionist. Remember that for most if not all critics of the Dubai Ports World takeover, the most troubling issue is the Bush administration’s casual approach to vetting the deal. The more we learn about this process, the less confidence we have in it. To doubt the competence of this government is neither xenophobic nor racist.

The Committee on Foreign Investment in the U.S., an interagency body overseen by the Treasury Department, appears to have performed poorly in examining the Dubai deal. Sadly, that is unsurprising, as the Government Accountability Office pointed out last fall. Like the conventional minds of the newspaper world, Treasury officials tend to value “free trade” above all other considerations, including national security. That is why the G.A.O. has been urging tighter and tougher methods for evaluating foreign investment in critical infrastructure and defense sectors.

As for expertise, the collected knowledge of the nation’s newspaper columnists on this subject is considerably less than that of the actual experts who have questioned the deal.

The pundits certainly know less about port security than Clark Kent Ervin, the former inspector general of the Department of Homeland Security, who currently directs the Homeland Security Initiative for the Aspen Institute, an impeccably moderate and nonpartisan research center. Mr. Ervin recently confessed his doubts on the Op-Ed page of The New York Times (where certain columnists might have read him while perusing their own work with the usual self-satisfaction).

The pundits also know considerably less than Joseph King, the former Customs Service special agent in charge of counterterrorism for that agency until 2003. They know less than the Coast Guard officers who turn out to have warned the Committee on Foreign Investment of the “intelligence gap” in the Dubai deal after examining classified information.

In other words, those who have exercised actual responsibility for ensuring the security of our ports believe there is ample reason for concern over Dubai. So let the columnists hiss and fulminate—and let the investigation proceed, with due caution.

copyright © 2005 the new york observer, L.P.

[shumozar]

The key sticking point here is that Dubai DP World is owned by the Dubai government; it is not merely a foreign-owned company.

Isn't PSA of Singapore which already operates in Los Angeles port and was bidding for P%O also partly government owned?

Now all these literary worthies have suddenly acquired profound and unimpeachable knowledge about our ports. With breathtaking arrogance, they claim to know what will make us safe and what might endanger us. According to Mr. Friedman, we need not worry about the takeover of several ports by the government of Dubai, because “the U.S. Coast Guard still controls all aspects of port security, entry and exits; the U.S. Customs Service is still in charge of inspecting the containers, and U.S. longshoremen still handle the cargos.” According to Mr. Brooks, “nearly every expert who knows something about port security” agrees that there is no reason for worry.

These pundits don’t condescend to engage in serious debate. They gush over Dubai’s luxury hotels and skyscrapers, without mentioning the utter absence of democracy, transparency and human rights. They praise the United Arab Emirates for behaving like an ally against Al Qaeda, while ignoring its recent connections with the Taliban and Osama bin Laden. They seem to think that if any foreign firm is allowed to operate an American port, then a company that is wholly owned by a foreign dictatorship must be treated the same way.

I thought shipping companies which operate terminals at seaports are much like foreign airlines who have bases at airports. Also, most checks of cargo are done at the port of embarkation, so if people want to be worried, they shouldn't allow any shipment from a foreign country which they don't trust (abstinence is the most effective form of contraception).

The UAE has no connections with Osama bin Laden or terrorists. It isn't in the UAE's interest to support terrorists, because if they did they would be victimized by the terrorists they're helping. It'll come back to hit them in the groin. The UAE is investing heavily in tourism and properties, and is marketing itself as a safe haven for tourists and expatriates, the last thing it wants is a terror attack on its own soil, or even in ports abroad run by its government.

I see a lot of people bring up stuff about a "dictatorship" and "boycott of Israel" as though it's relevant to this deal. I'm ignorant as to the criteria for investing in the States would be, but if Israel is so dear to the American people, then no Arab investment should be allowed in the States at all, since the majority of Arab countries support a boycott of Israel. And I personally believe the UAE, if it does support this boycott, does it for its own safety rather than to harm Israel. Any Arab country which publicly announces that it trades with Israel will be subjugated to terror attacks (DP World's Ted Bilkey's comment about good business relations with Israel's Zim Shipping puts Dubai at risk.. it should have been kept secret). The UAE's "dictatorship" in my opinion, functions much better than the USA's democratically elected government, with Bush at its head, whom everyone has been bitching about and yet they couldn't get rid of him or stop him from doing what he wanted to do.

The port security experts didn't mention any UAE ties to Bin Laden or terrorism because they don't exist, not because they were gushing over luxurious hotels.

[encumeterz]

Conason is a bit black and white. Observing the massive, painful xenophobia of the reaction to this scummy bush deal does not make it any less of a scummy bush deal. While I've become accustomed to reading about scummy bush deals every other month or so, I did think the massive, painful xenophobia was newsworthy.

[MADwanker]

Conason is a bit black and white. Observing the massive, painful xenophobia of the reaction to this scummy bush deal does not make it any less of a scummy bush deal. While I've become accustomed to reading about scummy bush deals every other month or so, I did think the massive, painful xenophobia was newsworthy.

Let's be factually correct here: it's not a Bush deal. In fact, by his own admission, GW did not even know about this deal before it was approved. The UAE state-owned firm bought the british firm that happens to operate several critical ports on the east coast. GW should be blamed for degfending it without a proper investigation and threatening to veto any congress legislation when the some of security concerns surrounding this deal seem legitimate.

[sadgpokx]

Bush is THE chief executive. His branch of government is responsible for these deals and more specifically for investigating them and clearing them. If he is uninformed, then on whose authority are his underlings acting? Not only wasn't the investigation done as dictated by law, but some clear rules that govern these kind of deals (e.g., maintaining files in the U.S.) were waived.

The xenophobia angle is a smokescreen. People object to a foreign government controlling port operations in this country. I think the public would have rebelled as strongly against any other foreign GOVERNMENT owned business controlling our port operations.

For any component of the media to call it xenophobic is hypocritical. These are the same media outlets that scream headlines at us about the Muslim threat (UAE is muslim, no?). We hear about unrest in the Arab world and protests against the U.S., the great Satan. (UAE is Arab, no?) We hear about going after countries that train, harbor and fund terrorists and that we will "seek them out and destroy them." (UAE harbored and funded terrorists, no?)

These are our allies and friends? Quick someone reference the hames of the sailors killed and maimed in the USS Cole attack.

The emperor with no clothes has finally been spotted. You can't hit us with "security, security, security" and then let us watch reels of film of Mexicans crossing the border, Haitian boat people washing up on Florida shores, and SALES OF OUR PORT OPERATIONS being handed over to foreign governments. Foreign governments whose main responsibility is making decisions that are ITS best interest.

George W. Bush (head tilted back, eyes wide in a stare, looking directly into camera): "Mr. De Mille, I'm ready for my impeachment now."

[indentKew]

I HATE President Bush. But this issue has been blown out of porportion. Now that Bush's popularity has plummetted, it seems everyone is jumping on the bandwagon criticising him. While I'm all for sticking it to him, I don't think he's doing anything wrong in this instance. However, I like watching him being dragged through mud, so I won't being sticking up for him. He deserves all he gets; I only wish the criticism was about something more important. He's done a lot worse.

[maonnjtip]

I don't think people would have piled on if Bush hadn't laid down the gauntlet in defending this UAE company by threatening to use his first veto if Congress didn't accept the deal, and then unfairly trying to define his opponents motivations as anti-Muslim. His initial refusal to allow a review by Congress and his arrogance that the administration would never make a mistake and should be fully trusted put him square and deservingly in the line of fire, IMO.

[kSmica]

I think Bush acted a bit hastily in saying he'd use his veto in defending this deal before even explaining to congress what the deal entails and how they approved it. But I think the government were afraid of losing the best ally in the Middle East with all the criticism of the UAE that was going on in the States.

Setting aside the fact that the UAE's ports are used by the US Navy, and that the country has responded to every single request by the American government in terms of changing their banking laws, allowing for more freedom of speech in the press, and addressing some human rights issues with regards to underage camel jockeys.. the UAE, despite its lack of a real democracy, is what the US wants every other Middle Eastern nation to be like.

I don't think that when the US says it wants to fight terror or the seeds of terror that it really cares whether people can vote. What's important is that people are happy and live their lives without killing and revenge being their top priority. They'd rather have them think of getting an education, making money, having a family, and buying luxuries. They want them to change their lifestyle to make them more tolerant, and give them new interests. That was one of the aims of Radio Sawa, an Arabic-language FM radio station broadcast in all Middle Eastern countries which plays a mix of Arabic and international music. Sawa TV is like MTV. The difference is that Sawa is funded by the American taxpayer. The American government actually broadcasts music videos to make Arab youth think of something else other than "extremism" and make them appreciate Western culture. It's funny though because Middle Eastern countries already have many of their own music TV and radio stations.. Sawa is no different, but I guess they believe it will reach all countries, even war-torn ones.

From this, and many other requests by the American government, it's clear that they want to Westernize people's lifestyle, or else just make them enjoy their lives without thinking of politics or outside factors making them miserable. The UAE is an excellent example of this, and they're one of few countries in the Middle East who focus on building for the future, rather than destroying. It is not in the American government's best interest to damage relations with their pet student.

[yovbQVpD]

Halliburton Eyed for Dubai Ports Deal

Newsmax | March 4 2006

The Bush administration is working behind the scenes to defuse the Dubai Ports World controversy by having the UAE-based firm team up with an American company.

According to the New York Daily News, which first reported the new White House strategy on Saturday, "one snag may be that sources say the U.S. company best equipped to partner with DP World is Halliburton, once headed by Vice President Dick Cheney."

But a role for Halliburton may not be such a "snag" after all, since the controversial company's involvement has already been endorsed by leading ports security critic, Sen. Charles Schumer.

"I'd take Halliburton over U.A.E. at this point, if I had to take a choice right now," Schumer told the Fox News Channel on Feb. 20.

Schumer explained that Democats hate Halliburton not for any security reasons, but because "they made large amounts of profit" from what he said were no-bid contracts in the Iraq war.

But if the company "can do the best job and they get the [ports] contract on the merits," Schumer said, "I'd pat them on the back."

The News said that any revamped deal "would have to be something along the lines of the Marine One contract, where British-and Italian-owned AgustaWestland had to take on Maryland-based Lockheed Martin to win the contract to build the president's helicopter last year."

But a better example may be Port of Long Beach, where the state-run China Ocean Shipping Company [COSCO] was finally allowed to operate two large terminals at the California port after it teamed up with an American firm.

In 1998, Congress blocked COSCO's initial bid to run a terminal at Long Beach that was formerly operated by the U.S. Navy.

In 2001, however, COSCO entered into a joint venture with Stevedoring Services of America to form a new company, Pacific Maritime Services - which signed a 20 year lease to operate what will eventually be five terminals at the port.

The Long Beach deal allowed the Chinese government-owned company to retain a 51 percent controlling interest in PMS.

[vaalmerruutel]

Senator: UAE firm to transfer port operations to U.S. 'entity'
Sources: House, Senate leaders tell Bush deal appears dead

Thursday, March 9, 2006; Posted: 2:22 p.m. EST (19:22 GMT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A United Arab Emirates-owned company has agreed to turn over all of its operations at U.S. ports to an American "entity," Sen. John Warner said Thursday.

Reading a statement from DP World on the Senate floor, Warner, a Virginia Republican, said the reason is "to preserve" the strong relationship between the UAE and United States.

The announcement comes after congressional leaders reportedly told President Bush that the deal for DP World to assume some operations at six U.S. ports appeared dead on Capitol Hill.

House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Illinois, and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tennessee, delivered the news to Bush during a meeting Thursday at the White House, two Republican sources said.

The leaders told the president they would pass measures to block the deal by veto-proof majorities, sources told CNN. Bush had threatened to veto any legislation that stopped the deal.

The UAE firm DP World's purchase of P&O, the British company that manages cargo and passenger terminals at ports on the Atlantic and Gulf coasts, has stirred up intense opposition in Washington. (Read a timeline of the ports deal)

House Republicans are openly defying the president, apparently to prevent Democrats from outflanking them on national security and outsourcing issues as elections approach.(Questions about the deal answered)

The issue marks an unusual rift between Bush and House Republicans, who say they have received overwhelmingly negative comments from constituents. (Your e-mails: Should Bush change his mind?)

On Wednesday, the House Appropriations Committee essentially blocked the deal by voting 62-2 to insert an amendment into a $68 billion emergency supplemental funding bill for military actions in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The bill also includes about $19 billion in disaster assistance for the Gulf Coast for Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.

The measure could come before the full House next week when it is expected to pass by a similar large margin. The committee's approval was bipartisan, with Reps. Jim Moran, D-Virginia, and Jim Kolbe, R-Arizona, casting the only votes against it.

Rep. Jerry Lewis, R-California, chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, worked with other GOP leaders to amend the spending bill. (Watch top Republicans rock the boat on the ports deal -- 1:36)

Tensions between Bush, whose approval rating is near an all-time low, and Congress have been growing for some time, and the president's vow to veto the legislation angered many of his congressional allies.

"In politics ... sometimes the passions and the emotions can overwhelm any factual discussion," said John King, CNN's chief national correspondent. (King: Passions, emotions cloud ports debate)

CNN's Ed Henry, Suzanne Malveaux and Deirdre Walsh contributed to this report.

[Voitramma]

"American Entity"??? ^^^

Not one of the many Congressmen who appeared tonight on Lou Dobbs knows what that term means.

As they said "the deal ain't done".

More surprises in store?

[CurtisTH]

Mayor Criticizes Politicians Who Sank UAE Port Deal

NY 1
March 10, 2006

http://www.ny1.com/ny1/content/index...id=1&aid=57729#
Without naming names, Mayor Michael Bloomberg is slamming the politicians who torpedoed the United Arab Emirates port deal. NY1’s Rita Nissan has more in the following report, including reaction from Senator Charles Schumer, a chief opponent of the deal. To all the politicians who've been up in arms over the United Arab Emirates port deal, Mayor Bloomberg says: “Where were these people for the last few decades? Come on. This is the cheapest political shot in the world. Everybody is rushing to save our ports. It isn't like this hasn't been brewing for two decades.”

The mayor made these comments on his weekly radio show Friday.

“What I don't like is that all of a sudden it becomes the issue de jour and everybody is rushing up there, waving the flag, beating their chests, saying, ‘I'm trying to defend this country better than others,’” said Bloomberg.

Senator Charles Schumer, the man leading the effort to block the port deal, says don't point a finger at him. He says he's no newcomer to the issue.

“I've been talking about port security since about two months after 9/11,” said the senator. “Many of you have attended my Sunday press conferences on the West Side about port security.”

Schumer says the mayor never raised these concerns with him.

“I've talked to him three times this week. He didn't bring it up once,” said Schumer.

Lawmakers in both parties fought the White House on this, arguing the United Arab Emirates has ties to terrorism. The president argued backing out of the deal would send a bad message to our Arab allies.

But, after tremendous political pressure, the company owned by the UAE agreed to turn over control to a company in the U.S.

“My administration was satisfied that port security would not have been undermined by the agreement. Nevertheless, Congress was still opposed to it,” said George W. Bush.

Schumer says he needs to know more about the new arrangement.

“The devil is in the details,” he said. “We are going to go over the contract with a fine tooth comb.”

So this political firestorm that's been brewing for weeks isn't quite over yet.

- Rita Nissan

Copyright © 2006 NY1 News.

[Izzy]

Brooklyn Broadside:
Is Dubai Incident One Of Karl Rove’s Ploys?
by Dennis Holt (Holt@brooklyneagle.net)
published online 03-11-2006


By Dennis Holt
BROOKLYN — Karl Rove, the man behind the curtain, who when he comes out looks like the guy who owned the corner drugstore when there were such things, is smiling these days. His most fiendishly clever plot seems to be working, and he’s hatched many a devilish trick: Just ask former Sen. Max Cleland of Georgia and current Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts.
A big problem, the worst of his career, began to simmer last December. President Bush had launched an illegal wiretapping process, violating laws of Congress and the Constitution, and worse, he admitted it.

Rove began to get calls from thinking Republicans, mainly those up for election this fall, expressing somber concern of what might happen. This was serious business, or could be, worse than Katrina, worse even than Iraq. Something had to be done.

Well, thanks to the maestro, something is being done, and the fruits began to be realized on Wednesday, March 8. The heart of the slight of hand is that the Dubai episode is a fake, a diversion of such cleverness, with so few, so very few, in on it, that it was bound to work.

How do I, of all people, know? Well, as Mr. Rumsfeld once said, sometimes stuff happens.

What has taken place publicly in the last few days? Republicans in the House, by enormous margins, said the Dubai port mess cannot happen. In simple words, “There is no way that my Democratic opponent in November is going to accuse me of being soft on terrorism — that’s our issue.”

Meanwhile, the real potential ticking bomb — the presence of an impeachment process — is being defused by Republicans in the Senate. Every Republican, even those running for dogcatcher, know that an impeachment process could be devastating. It could even guarantee a Democratic victory in 2008. One Richard Nixon in a lifetime is enough.

The Republican ploy in the Senate on impeachment gives cover to almost everyone. It looks good, even if it doesn’t really mean anything in the real world. But in the political world, it is a beaut.

So, in both cases, Republicans are still the ones to trust on the war on terrorism … “Our ports will be run by people like us wearing white shirts and clean shaven, and meanwhile our President is still doing everything he can to keep us safe here at home.

“Maybe our spooks didn’t understand what they heard before 9/11, but not anymore. Let’s not screw up again, no quarter given.”

The first dictum of Karl Rove about the 2006 elections will take place: Regardless of what’s happening in Iraq, American troops will be coming home in sufficient numbers before November.

(About Dubai: is it at all possible that these high-level government types, representing almost the entire federal government, could possibly conduct the Dubai port business, and no one else know about it? Of course not — not even in this government!).

When all the smoke clears on this, the core elements that Republicans must have to avoid a devastating defeat will be more or less in place.

Troops will be coming home, our ports will be safe, the good people will be listening to the bad people, and the Democrats, by all their endless sniping, are proving they can’t be trusted with the tough issues. And if they have to use it, Rove already has in the campaign can a blistering program on fighting illegal immigration — don’t forget that winner.


© Brooklyn Daily Eagle 2006

[WhiliaStelt]

Brooklyn Broadside:
Is Dubai Incident One Of Karl Rove’s Ploys?

The first dictum of Karl Rove about the 2006 elections will take place: Regardless of what’s happening in Iraq, American troops will be coming home in sufficient numbers before November. We'll soon know more about this, as decisions must be made in April about troop markdowns in Iraq ...

Meanwhile, the sales pitch from POTUS continues: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...001949_pf.html

[grizolsemn]

Dubai firm buys US army supplier

Monday 08 May 2006

A Dubai company has completed a deal to take over a British engineering firm that supplies the US military, with the approval of the US president.

Dubai International Capital, an arm of the Dubai Holding company, announced on Sunday that it had "concluded the acquisition contract" for Britain's Doncasters Group, in a deal that has been estimated at $1.27 billion.

Doncasters in turn controls the US company Ross Catherall whose plant in Georgia supplies parts for army tanks and helicopters.

Samir al-Ansari, the executive president of Dubai International Capital, said the "takeover of Doncasters Group gives it the opportunity to move forward with its strategy of equipping itself with a diversified investment portfolio ... in the world".

George Bush, the US president, said on April 29 that he had endorsed the deal after the Committee on Foreign Investments in the United States gave it the green light.

The deal has echoes of the transaction involving Dubai-owned DP World, which had won the rights to operate six US ports through its takeover of British shipping company P&O.

But DP World relinquished its rights in March due to an outcry in the US Congress over the security implications of a state-owned Arab company gaining control of US port operations.


AFP