White House Defends Port Operations Sale

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060216/ap_on_go_pr_wh/port_security;_ylt=AnjMMsKpjJuR6n3cNoE7JfID5gcF;_ylu=X3oDMTBjMHVqMTQ4BHNlYwN5bnN1YmNhdA--

White House Defends Port Operations Sale

AP - 13 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - The Bush administration on Thursday rebuffed criticism about potential security risks of a $6.8 billion sale that gives a company in the United Arab Emirates control over significant operations at six major American ports.

Lawmakers asked the White House to reconsider the deal.

The sale to state-owned Dubai Ports World was "rigorously reviewed" by a U.S. committee that considers security threats when foreign companies seek to buy or invest in American industry, National Security Council spokesman Frederick Jones said.

The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, run by the
Treasury Department, took into account an assessment from U.S. intelligence agencies. The committee's 12 members agreed the sale did not present any problems, the department said.

The public defense of the secretive committee, which reviews hundreds of such deals each year, came in response to criticism about the purchase of London-based Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co.

Rep. Vito Fossella (news, bio, voting record), R-N.Y., urged congressional hearings on the deal.

"At a time when America is leading the world in the war on terrorism and spending billions of dollars to secure our homeland, we cannot cede control of strategic assets to foreign nations with spotty records on terrorism," Fossella said.

Critics also have cited the UAE's history as an operational and financial base for the hijackers who carried out the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

"Outsourcing the operations of our largest ports to a country with a dubious record on terrorism is a homeland security and commerce accident waiting to happen," said Sen. Charles Schumer (news, bio, voting record), D-N.Y. "The administration needs to take another look at this deal."

They need to demand that this is not approved. This is National Security we are talking about. Why is there even a discussion about this. The answer should be No.

<snip>
Lawmakers asked the White House to reconsider the deal.
<snip>

Perhaps because:
US Government has Contingency Plan to Use Nuclear Weapons Against Iran

The United States Strategic Command (STRATCOM) has been ordered by Vice President Dick Cheney, through the Pentagon, to hit Iran with conventional and tactical nuclear weapons should another 9/11-type attack take place.

...

The attack plan is not conditional on Iran being linked to a terrorist attack and it is reported that several senior Air Force officers involved in the plans are deeply unhappy at the prospect of Iran being the victim of an unprovoked attack.

http://www.shortnews.com/shownews.cfm?id=49460&CFID=538904&CFTOKEN=43823191

:scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr:

Lessee, this is the same bunch that couldn't even get some Greyhound buses rerouted to the Superdome . . . and they think they can know the motives of a United Arab Emirates corporation?

You win the refrigerator.

Who is on the committee - is it congressional members or other officials? Who lobbies for the state-owned Dubai Ports World?

The Treasury does not list them, but the chair person is Gay Hartwell Sills. I found this from the last Congressional request for a review of its procedures just last year.


In its final report, released September 28, GAO found that component agencies of CFIUS use an excessively vague definition of what constitutes a national security threat, and often have inadequate time to collect and analyze information about foreign corporations and governments that may be involved in their operations. In addition, the report asserted that inadequate transparency in the review process prevented the Congress from meeting its oversight function.


http://canberra.usembassy.gov/hyper/2005/1102/epf306.htm

Not really the kind of folks I want in charge of ANYTHING in my country.

http://www.nysun.com/article/27663?page_no=2

Given such considerations, the question occurs: How could even a stacked deck like the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States find it possible to approve the Dubai Ports World's transaction?

Could it have been influenced by the fact that a former senior official of the UAE company, David Sanborn, was recently named the new administrator of the Transportation Department's Maritime Administration? Until recently, Mr. Sanborn was DP World's director of operations for Europe and Latin America.

rag wasn't far off when they headlined a piece on US is broke, having a garage sale, etc

We know the principals of the UAE consortium have ties to BCCI/AQ banking. We know the UAE was the home of some of the alledged hi-jackers. How is this different than, say, a group of North Koreans buying these ports? The only real way our defenses can be compromised is by sneaking WMD through our sea ports. This is something that ought to be reviewed by Congress, not approved by an unknown ommittee of people working on behalf of the House of Bush.

In 1993, in response to a sense of Congress resolution, CFIUS membership was expanded by Executive Order 12860 to include the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy, the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs and the Assistant to the President for Economic Policy. In February 2003, the Department of Homeland Security was added to CFIUS. This brought the membership of CFIUS to twelve under the chairmanship of the Secretary of Treasury. The other members are the Secretaries of State, Defense, and Commerce, the Attorney General, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, the U.S. Trade Representative, and the Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers.

http://www.treas.gov/offices/international-affairs/exon-florio/

branch.

Why does BushCo want these guys running our ports?

What do they get out of it?

Are there no American firms that could do it?

We need to find out from the US Companies up for this contract why they think the government would go with this foreign company. Does everything HAVE to be outsourced internationally?

This is whacked.

What BushCo wants is another terraist attack that they can claim was inevitable and that will once again untie the country behind the Chimp in Chief. No one has seriously questioned how Clinton could inform the bushies that OBL was going to consume the majority of their anti-terrorist efforts, that BushCo could receive some of the most explicit warnings of attack conceivable, and that BushCo could STILL allow 9/11 to happen.


Unless, of course, it served their purposes...

I guess we'll have to add UAE to the list of countries we'll have to make nice to.

Can you think of a better way for "Osama" to get a dirty bomb into the US?

may have been involved in the money laundering that helped to finance al Qaeda. If this doesn't set off red flags about the potential for importation of WMDs to be used in another attack....

even in this upside-down bushworld, i canNOT fathom this!!!

...the 2006 election season. This definitely is an issue the could flip a lot of "Red State" swing voters, if properly exploited.

And I still think it's a very bad idea.

more info.

Google monkeys, assume the position. :D

They are raising a stink about it on their home page and encouraging members to get on the horn and shoot the deal down.

Time for some bipartisan action.

I can't imagine those asshats would like this.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1579951/posts

Freepers know it stinks, too.

and the deal still goes through, then you know that they are bought and paid for. Time for some bipartisan action from the people in dealing with Congress and the Admin.

government decision?

and maybe my city council, too!

prison doors start closing in? Any takers??

with Fuddgate, 1300+ Abu Ghraib photos, Plame,....., and now this, he might actually be feeling the walls closing in. Oh, we can hope!

????

Will it be rigorously reviewed by the same people who rigorously review the junta's actions to make sure our civil liberties are safe?

It's another "trust me" line from the snake oil salesmen in the Bush regime. No sale.

Just ask Scotty!

Really... Gotta turn a profit. That's what life is about, after all. :shrug:

Do you believe that Congress should investigate why the Committee on Foreign Investments in the United States approved a deal that would give control of U.S. ports to a country with ties to radical Islamist terrorism?

will hit the dobbs poll too. . .

a perfect example of an issue that is a gift to the dems: the hate american workers republicans selling america's security to a bunch of foreigners who may be in cahoots with america's enemies.

democrats who stand for nothing will fall for anything, or in elections, to anybody.

Msongs
www.msongs.com/political-shirts.htm

Major displeasure that's crossing both isles.

This is another open door for the Democrats if we choose to pursue it.

decision.

It's their country; we're just here to supply yard maintenance and cannon fodder.

and Oriental Steam Navigation Co. by the UAE company which means to me this London etc. sold their U.S. Port business to the UAE. The U.S. was not handling the control over the ports prior to this sale. What is the story about foreign entities handling the operations of our ports.

It turns out the Justice Dept analysts and lawyers recommended against approving the law, but the political appointee in charge overruled them and approved it anyway.

Looking forward to seeing the documents and analysis that was done on this transaction.

but I am. How in the hell can any of these whack-jobs claim to be keeping us safe by selling our major sea ports to another country???

I'm speechless.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2454971
thread title (2-12-06 GD-P): 911 Bankers to Run SIX Major U.S. Ports—Dubai(UAE). IMPEACH NOW!!!
Comment/excerpt: “Six ports will be run and protected by a Dubai based port management company (DP World): New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia. The deal was approved by a “U.S. government panel coordinated out of the White House. Just prior to the deal, David C. Sanborn of Virginia was appointed as administrator of the Maritime Administration of the Transportation Department. Sanborn worked as DP World's director of operations for Europe and Latin America.…. A company in the United Arab Emirates is poised to take over significant operations at six American ports as part of a corporate sale, leaving a country with ties to the Sept. 11 hijackers with influence over a maritime industry considered vulnerable to terrorism.“

Even the freepers are upset about this outrage:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x446111
thread title (2-16-06 GD): Freepers JUST AS MAD About the Port Control Issue... Common Ground?
Comment/excerpt: Free Republic posts expressing concern/outrage over Dubai operating 6 major US ports.

how about handing over control of the FAA to Saudi Arabia?

cigars over this at the White House reminiscing about the glorious site on the balcony they had of the American escort planes takng the Bin Ladens out of the country after 9-11.

They may even hold hands and hug.