Info on bush's insane port operations deal.

[cjolley]

May be of interest only to the Americans.

From Salon.com

The "people responsible" for port deal? Bush, Rumsfeld say: Not us!

It seems like just yesterday -- and, in fact, it was -- that George W. Bush was insisting that the plan to turn over control of six U.S. ports to Dubai Ports World, a company controlled by the government of Dubai, had been subjected to "careful review" by "people responsible in our government."

But just before Bush spoke yesterday, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman Peter Pace said they didn't hear about the plan until this weekend. And now the White House is saying that the president didn't learn about the plan until "the last several days" -- which is another way of saying, after his administration had already approved it.

So here's a question: If the "people responsible in our government" aren't the president, the secretary of defense or the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who are they? The answer, it seems, is the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, which is headed by Treasury Secretary John Snow, who used to be the chairman of CSX Rail, which sold its own port operations to Dubai Ports World in 2004. Snow's committee approved the Dubai Ports World deal earlier this month after a brief review. Federal law requires that the committee engage in a 45-day investigation -- and leave the final decision to the president -- when the plans of a company controlled by a foreign government could affect U.S. national security. Snow's committee didn't engage in such an investigation, and administration officials are apparently at a loss to explain why not.

The president is going to have to explain that one away if he has any hope of quelling a rebellion in his own party and shutting down criticism from Democrats. Bush tried to push back with blunt force yesterday, threatening to veto any legislation aimed at stopping the deal. Opponents, unfazed, are saying that they have the votes in Congress to override any such veto. Now the administration is trying another tack, saying that the president didn't know about the plan and that others in his administration should have done a better job of informing Congress along the way.

It's hard to see how a "they-a culpa" is going to be enough here. Members of both parties are calling on the White House to take a longer look at the deal and the national security concerns that may arise out of turning over the nation's ports to a company controlled by a country with ties to international terrorism. And while the White House usually wins such fights by playing the terrorism trump card -- see, warrantless spying, stymieing of investigation into -- that card is in the other hand this time. With Republicans and Democrats both charging the administration with exposing the country to unnecessary risk, the White House is going to have to say more than it should have handled the matter better. It may even have to answer the kinds of questions it is usually allowed to ignore. Among them: Is it just a coincidence that the president's nominee to run the U.S. Maritime Administration is currently a senior executive for Dubai Ports World?

[schmosef]

Even the right wing blogs that I read are critical of Bush on this issue.

It just feels wrong.

[RC Agent]

I can't wait for Doc's response on this one. I know he'll find a way to make this sound all okday.

[schmosef]

This issue has both Reps and Dems up at arms in the congress. If Doc does side with Bush, I'm sure his reasoning will be elaborate and well thought out.

Somehow, I doubt that he does though.

[KvHagedorn]

If I were GWB, that sonofabitch would be publicly fired and investigated thoroughly. I have never trusted Chertoff, and now certainly think Snow is a worthless POS. These people have other things to consider than money now.. they have to realize they are not in a corporation anymore. If GWB does not block this deal and fire Snow, he is at the very least weak and at the most a traitor. I am sick of our government putting moneyed interests ahead of national security. Clemency for illegal aliens is another BIG black mark against Bush in my book. The problem is, we are not allowed any other candidates to vote for who would be any better. Wish Teddy Roosevelt was still around.

And WHY did we give away the Panama Canal? We built the thing, hundreds of Americans DIED building it, and Panama wouldn't even exist if we had not helped them gain independence in return for the Canal Zone. The damned thing is OURS and that worthless traitor wuss Jimmy Carter gave it away.. WHY? Because he was a weak PC headuphisass, and so, apparently is GWB.

[Dr Mordrid]

My knee-jerk response was like many others "wtf: why do this?", but knee-jerk responses are often poorly reasonsed.

IF you really examine the deal you see that this UAE outfit is simply a holding company. They'll buy/own the equipment on the dock, cut the paychecks, organize the schedules and distribute the money but will have little to do with the day to day operations of the port. These remain local functions.

The security, hiring and firing etc. will not be done by the holding company but by the local management team, which will pretty much remain what's already there with few changes. Security will still be done by the local cops, Coast Guard, DHS etc., just as it is now. The stevadores will still be local hires and members of the same union as now used.

In terms of what's coming into the US ports: Those who think that the UAE company will be the ones "sending" the containers are ignorant of how shipping really works. The loading security will still be a function of the port that loads the ships, just as now. The security of un-loading will still be done by the same US organizations listed above.

Uppance: the UAE outfits function will be mainly those of scheduling and handling the finances....just as it has been under British management.

After reasoning it out I don't see a real issue here and believe the recent response is mainly political maneuvering in the lead-up to the November elections. Most Democrats are desperately seeking foreign policy creds because of the silliness in this area shown by their leadership in this regard (Pelosi, Dean et al). The Republicans are trying to distinguish themselves from the administration and in some regards each other, especially those planning '08 Presidential runs.

These moves to the center are typical for this point in the election cycle.

I also find the criticism by Congress more than a bit hypocritical. They themselves passed a law back in the late '90's that turned over the vetting of foreign companies in sales like this to the parts of the administration that examined this deal. Nobody forced them to do it, and now here they come charging in like the Lone Ranger when those agencies do their job

IMO this is a tempest in a tea pot, save for the racism I'm seeing among those who would have no problem with ownership by Singapore, Europeans or Japan but act like the low grade rednecks when a Middle Eastern company is mentioned.

If you ask those who have come back from the region after Navy service (my son for one) they'll tell you that they were treated best during port stops by the people and govt. of the UAE and they flat out loved Dubai. They also say that they got a lot of cooperation in terms of security and war on terror issues.

Hmmm.....

Dr. Mordrid

[TnT]

My main criticism is the inconsistencies with what the White House does. They make all these arguments to crush people who indirectly support terrorism and spy on their own people for reasons of security but then say, "You can't judge a whole nation by the actions of a few individuals" (when referring to the fact that two 9/11 hijackers were from the UAE).

And I really think the reason why this deal is not raising flags with Bush, Cheney and Rumsfield is because of the money and lots of it too. I'm sure there are plenty of lobbyists working for the Dubai and English companies.

[schmosef]

My knee-jerk response was like many others "wtf: why do this?", but knee-jerk responses are often poorly reasonsed.

IF you really examine the deal you see that this UAE outfit is simply a holding company. They'll buy/own the equipment on the dock, cut the paychecks, organize the schedules and distribute the money but will have little to do with the day to day operations of the port. These remain local functions.

The security, hiring and firing etc. will not be done by the holding company but by the local management team, which will pretty much remain what's already there with few changes. Security will still be done by the local cops, Coast Guard, DHS etc., just as it is now. The stevadores will still be local hires and members of the same union as now used.

In terms of what's coming into the US ports: Those who think that the UAE company will be the ones "sending" the containers are ignorant of how shipping really works. The loading security will still be a function of the port that loads the ships, just as now. The security of un-loading will still be done by the same US organizations listed above.

Uppance: the UAE outfits function will be mainly those of scheduling and handling the finances....just as it has been under British management.

After reasoning it out I don't see a real issue here and believe the recent response is mainly political maneuvering in the lead-up to the November elections. Most Democrats are desperately seeking foreign policy creds because of the silliness in this area shown by their leadership in this regard (Pelosi, Dean et al). The Republicans are trying to distinguish themselves from the administration and in some regards each other, especially those planning '08 Presidential runs.

These moves to the center are typical for this point in the election cycle.

I also find the criticism by Congress more than a bit hypocritical. They themselves passed a law back in the late '90's that turned over the vetting of foreign companies in sales like this to the parts of the administration that examined this deal. Nobody forced them to do it, and now here they come charging in like the Lone Ranger when those agencies do their job

IMO this is a tempest in a tea pot, save for the racism I'm seeing among those who would have no problem with ownership by Singapore, Europeans or Japan but act like the low grade rednecks when a Middle Eastern company is mentioned.

If you ask those who have come back from the region after Navy service (my son for one) they'll tell you that they were treated best during port stops by the people and govt. of the UAE and they flat out loved Dubai. They also say that they got a lot of cooperation in terms of security and war on terror issues.

Hmmm.....

Dr. Mordrid

The holding company would still have access to sensitive security related info and themselves are much more prone to Jihadist infiltration.

This is a state owned company don't forget.

It also compromises US interests in further efforts in the ME. For example, there's a war or some other major crisis, if America stands on one side and UAE stands on another...

It's just not a good situation to be in.

It may not be exactly like asking the fox to watch the hen house but it's involving the fox in the hen house's daily operations, which isn't good strategy if you want to keep all your chickens.

[Dr Mordrid]

AFAIK the UAE has been one of the most steadfast allies we have among Arabian countries. They let us base both aircraft and naval vessels and even took some missile hits during the war in Iraq. How do you thank them for that? By slapping them in the face at the first opportunity?

IMO if you can't compartmentalize your security issues from a ports holding company you have more issues than that to deal with.

Dr. Mordrid

[schmosef]

yep Doc, I've got "issues" indeed. Serious issues.

And here's a rep from another state controlled UAE organization to explain them...

Video: http://switch3.castup.net/cunet/gm.a...776wmv&ak=null

Transcript: http://www.memritv.org/Transcript.asp?P1=776

Founder of UAE Think Tank Salutes Mothers of Palestinian Suicide Bombers

The following are excerpts from an interview with the founder of "The Creative Thinking" center in the UAE, Dr. 'Ali Al-Hamadi, which aired on Iqra TV on July 21, 2005.

Al-Hamadi: Haven't we heard about the blessed mothers in Palestine who go to their sons and prepare them for martyrdom for the sake of Allah? The son sets out and on his way, he calls his mother from his cellphone, and tells her: "I've arrived at the place, I am going in." Then he says, "I'm ready," and the mother guides him and encourages him until she hears the bombs go off over the cellphone. Then she bows, thanking Allah for granting her son martyrdom for His sake. Then she utters cries of joy and refuses to accept condolences. She does not open a grieving tent, but rather a congratulation tent, because Allah granted her son martyrdom. Such Hansaa-like women have appeared again in our times. Some of these women commit martyrdom themselves. They may be married women or students, but even so, they are not tempted by this life, and they carry out martyrdom operations for the sake of Allah.

Allah Akbar!

[schmosef]

And here's a Memri special report on another "Think Tank" organisation that was funded directly by the Arab League and the UAE:

The Think Tank of the Arab League: The Zayed International Centre for Coordination and Follow-Up - Part II

Table of Contents

Chapter 1: Activities at the Zayed Centre

Introduction: The State Department Protests The Zayed Centre's Antisemitic and Anti-U.S. Lectures
The Zayed Centre Issues a New Disclaimer
More Zayed Conspiracy Theories:
The SARS Virus – A U.S. Creation?
Saudi Professors Blame the Jews for the War in Iraq
The Zayed Centre Praises Antisemitic German Leader for His "Impressive Stances Regarding the Jewish Antisemitism Claims"
Holocaust Denier David Irving on the Zayed Centre
Examining a Fabrication on the Holocaust by the Zayed Centre
Lyndon Larouche's Website: "The Similarities in Outlook Between Sheikh Zayed's Vision and that Presented by Larouche are Striking"
Professors from the World Continue to Lecture at the Zayed Centre
Chapter 2: The Zayed Centre's Reaction to MEMRI's Report

The Zayed Centre's Response to MEMRI's Report
Sheikh Zayed's Interview in a Saudi Weekly on "The Zionist Smear Campaign"
The Arab Media on the Zayed Centre: "Under Attack by MEMRI"
Arab Government Officials Praise the Zayed Centre for Its Stance Against "Zionist Allegations"
The Leading French Daily Le Monde and the Zayed Centre
APPENDICIES

The Zayed Centre's Letter to German Politician Jurgen Mollemann
The Zayed Centre's Response to MEMRI's Report
Official Letters to the Zayed Centre
The Zayed Centre on the Front Page of Le Monde

Go to the link above to read the details... It's quite interesting.

[KvHagedorn]

On principle, I have a problem with ANY foreign government or corporation calling all the shots with regard to anything so vital to our national security. Any defense of this "deal" is a precariously cantilevered rationalization which misses the only point worthy of making, and there is no excuse for it. Anyone who worries about "offending" some foreign government before they worry about their own security is a damned idiot on a par with someone who worries about spilled milk in a burning house. Get your ****ing priorities straight! Who manned the coastal observation stations during the blitz? Lithuanians who would work cheaper than Brits? NO! This is complete horseshit. If we are to have anything resembling democracy anymore, we MUST stop rationalizing everything corporations do as being alright. Corporations are the biggest dehumanizing agents in this world today, and knowing our complacency regarding them, if I were a rich foreign individual or group with an agenda, I think I would start a corporation and buy up some other corporation which we have seen fit to entrust some very sensitive area, like PORT OPERATIONS, and use my clout as CEO to direct the American stevadores under my control to ignore that container with the suitcase nuke in it that my terrorist buddies want to use to blow up a bunch of little kids in school.

People nowadays owe their allegiance to the despotic corporations that absolutely control their economic well-being, rather than to their country. Not surprising, since we are no longer allowed any cohesiveness as a people.. just some vague litany of "isms" which statesmen of the past, historians and journalists have used as a bedtime story for the proletariat to define ourselves with.

[KvHagedorn]

AFAIK the UAE has been one of the most steadfast allies we have among Arabian countries. They let us base both aircraft and naval vessels and even took some missile hits during the war in Iraq. How do you thank them for that? By slapping them in the face at the first opportunity?

IMO if you can't compartmentalize your security issues from a ports holding company you have more issues than that to deal with.

Dr. Mordrid

They did this with their own interests in mind, which are economic. They rationalized that Saddam was a loose cannon that would disrupt their newfound oasis of mammon, and gave us a base of operations so that OUR PEOPLE could die defending their happy little 6 star hotel world. How does this obligate us to let them control our ports? We have conceded this responsibility because we are clueless goons.

[KvHagedorn]

IF you really examine the deal you see that this UAE outfit is simply a holding company. They'll buy/own the equipment on the dock, cut the paychecks, organize the schedules and distribute the money but will have little to do with the day to day operations of the port. These remain local functions.

Dr. Mordrid

Any interested party who controls the pursestrings of some middle management bozos and can influence schedules so that "problem individuals" will be off duty at crucial times is a danger. They have absolute power. The founding fathers instituted all sorts of checks and balances to prevent the abuse of power by any major branch of government, but when you let the government be SeeNoEvil HearNoEvil and SpeakNoEvil, while corporations really run things, you are still living in an absolutist system. There is NO check or balance in place for a foreign CEO to utterly compromise our national security here, and I think it is more of a knee-jerk reaction to rationalize that these despots mean no harm and are just there for our benefit. The same notions were put forth by the average "sensible" Frenchman with regards to Louis XIV. Or by the average Russian with regards to Stalin, for that matter.

[GNEP]

For once I'm with GWB on this one. It's already owned by a foreign company anyway (P&O is/was British), and this is global capitalism. You can't expect to have one's own country's companies owning and running "strategically important" assets in foreign countries, sending the profits back home and not have the same happening with foreign companies owning assets in your own. Just because it happens that some of these will be in countries in an area with which there are some cultural "issues" at the moment shouldn't stop it. If you are at war with a country, then by all means repossess their assets (might not do your country's sovereign credit rating much good though). But if you're not at war, then don't. Free market capitalism has to mean giving up some stuff as well as taking it.