GOP Governors Threaten to Block Port Deal

[allyray231]

I am still in shock over this --I really hope both parties can come together and stop this.

From Yahoo
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060221/ap_on_go_co/port_security;_ylt=Ak9hiUaH2PKjJZ9Qe7esH06s0NUE;_y lu=X3oDMTA3b2NibDltBHNlYwM3MTY-

Two Republican governors are threatening legal action to block an Arab company from taking over operations in major U.S. ports and some GOP lawmakers say the deal should be closely examined.


In the uneasy climate after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, the Bush administration decision to allow the transaction is threatening to develop a major political headache for the White House.

New York Gov. George Pataki and Maryland Gov. Robert Ehrlich on Monday voiced doubts about the acquisition of a British company that has been running six U.S. ports by Dubai Ports World, a state-owned business in the United Arab Emirates.

The British company, Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co., runs major commercial operations at ports in Baltimore, Miami, New Jersey, New Orleans, New York and Philadelphia.

Both governors indicated they may try to cancel lease arrangements at ports in their states because of the DP World takeover.

"Ensuring the security of New York's port operations is paramount and I am very concerned with the purchase of Peninsular & Oriental Steam by Dubai Ports World," Pataki said in a news release. "I have directed the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey to explore all legal options that may be available to them."

Ehrlich, concerned about security at the Port of Baltimore, said Monday he was "very troubled" that Maryland officials got no advance notice before the Bush administration approved the Arab company's takeover of the operations at the six ports.

"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 arrangement brought protests from both political parties in Congress and a lawsuit in Florida from a company affected by the takeover.

Public fears that the nation's ports are not properly protected, combined with the news of an Arab country's takeover of six major ports, proved a combustible mix.

Republican Sen. Lindsay Graham of South Carolina said on Fox News Sunday that the administration approval was "unbelievably tone deaf politically." GOP Rep. Tom Davis of Virginia said on ABC's "This Week," "It's a tough one to explain, but we're in a global economy. ... I think we need to take a very close look at it."

Democratic Sen. Robert Menendez of New Jersey said Monday that he and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., will introduce legislation prohibiting the sale of port operations to foreign governments.

At least one Senate oversight hearing was planned for later this month.

Critics have noted that some of the 9/11 hijackers used the UAE as an operational and financial base. In addition, they 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.

The Bush administration got support Monday from former President Carter, a Democrat and frequent critic of the administration.

"My presumption is, and my belief is, that the president and his secretary of state and the Defense Department and others have adequately cleared the Dubai government organization to manage these ports," Carter told CNN. "I don't think there's any particular threat to our security."

Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff made the rounds on the talk shows Sunday, asserting that the administration made certain the company agreed to certain conditions to ensure national security. H said details of those agreements were secret.

During a stop Monday in Birmingham, Ala., Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said the administration had a "very extensive process" for reviewing such transactions that "takes into account matters of national security, takes into account concerns about port security."

[Delta]

I dunno what to think about it. I think the deal is way more complicated and less threatening than what it sounds on its face.

[allyray231]

Really? Maybe but these people have ties to terriost money-how can that be a good thing??

[msnicolea]

I can possibly accept this: Democratic Sen. Robert Menendez of New Jersey said Monday that he and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., will introduce legislation prohibiting the sale of port operations to foreign governments.

but it should apply without prejudice to all other countries, not simply Arab nations. Ports are obviously an area in need of attention (re: national defense), and my tendency would be towards US military (Coast Guard/National Guard) presence.

[LittleFredPunkinHead]

I can possibly accept this: Democratic Sen. Robert Menendez of New Jersey said Monday that he and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., will introduce legislation prohibiting the sale of port operations to foreign governments.

but it should apply without prejudice to all other countries, not simply Arab nations. Ports are obviously an area in need of attention (re: national defense), and my tendency would be towards US military (Coast Guard/National Guard) presence.
I agree, completely. The focus on Arab nations, as opposed to, say, nations with terrorist ties, makes me very nervous.

[Delta]

but it should apply without prejudice to all other countries, not simply Arab nations. Ports are obviously an area in need of attention (re: national defense), and my tendency would be towards US military (Coast Guard/National Guard) presence.OK, but this company has nothing to do with the security or anything like that. They just own terminals in the port, and they get paid to have boats dock there to load and/or unload goods. There are plenty of terminals in ports around the country that are foreign-owned. Port security is already handled by the US through Homeland Security. If we are going to have a discussion about security there, it needs to be about HSA. I don't blame people for wanting to take a closer look at the deal, but in the end I think the initial uproar is going to be seen as overblown.

[Delta]

Plus, it makes so sense to 'prohibit the sale of port operations' because port operations are not for sale. Ports are operated by municipalities ie Port Authorities.

[LittleFredPunkinHead]

Plus, it makes so sense to 'prohibit the sale of port operations' because port operations are not for sale. Ports are operated by municipalities ie Port Authorities.
Didn't they just say in the article though that port operations are being taken over by the UAE company?

[Delta]

I think this is why people aren't fully understanding what this is all about. The company would be taking over operations at the British-owned and operated terminals in these ports. I do think that the the company owns a large number of terminals, but they don't 'run the port' if that makes any sense. They basically profit from ships (owned by shipping companies) docking at their terminals.

[Delta]

Think of it like an airport - the city owns it, the government operates it and is in charge of security and things like that. Private companies pay for the right to operate out of the airport, no? The only difference here is that the port companies own the terminals, but all boats, ports and companies operating with the port are subject to the same restrictions, inspections, duties, security, etc.

(Again, if we have issues with port security - and there are many - we need to take it up with Homeland, not put restrictions on who owns what.)

I'm pretty sure that many of not most terminals are foreign-owned. And if a law such as the one Hillary proposed were to pass, the only American companies at this point who have the capabilities to do the job would be companies like...Halliburton.

[LittleFredPunkinHead]

Think of it like an airport - the city owns it, the government operates it and is in charge of security and things like that. Private companies pay for the right to operate out of the airport, no? The only difference here is that the port companies own the terminals, but all boats, ports and companies operating with the port are subject to the same restrictions, inspections, duties, security, etc.

(Again, if we have issues with port security - and there are many - we need to take it up with Homeland, not put restrictions on who owns what.)

I'm pretty sure that many of not most terminals are foreign-owned. And if a law such as the one Hillary proposed were to pass, the only American companies at this point who have the capabilities to do the job would be companies like...Halliburton.
Hillary isn't the only one proposing changes here. Or questioning the move.
Tom Ridge says the decision was probably fine but needs more transparency. Chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security says a full investigation should be made before the deal goes through. Bill Frist also says the deal should be put on hold for more investigation.
(OTOH, Jimmy Carter seems to be okay with it.)

As far as security not being an issue, I don't know about that.
I've been reading some of the newest articles on CNN and NY Times, and it's not so clearcut to me.

Bush faces pressure to block port deal
Lawmakers voice concerns about takeover by UAE firm (http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/02/21/port.security/index.html)
A Dubai Ports World spokesman said that the firm has received all the necessary regulatory approvals and that the security systems in place at the ports would only get better under the new management.

"We intend to maintain or enhance current security arrangements, and this is business as usual for the P&O terminals," the spokesman said.
That sounds to me like they will be at least partially responsible for enforcing security standards set by the government.

[Delta]

As I said before, I definitely think there is nothing wrong with taking the time to look into it further (though I think there is some politicking going on there too.) I definitely agree with what Tom Ridge says about transparency. I was basically explaining the facts that are lost amongst the initial paranoia.

[Secret_Squirrel]

I think this is why people aren't fully understanding what this is all about. The company would be taking over operations at the British-owned and operated terminals in these ports. I do think that the the company owns a large number of terminals, but they don't 'run the port' if that makes any sense. They basically profit from ships (owned by shipping companies) docking at their terminals.

Are you sure? Because that's not how I understand it. The contract is not over a few terminals, but port management. Also, I've heard said that there are only 3 firms in the world that do port manangement, none of them American.

Currently, Peninsular & Orient Steam, a British company, is contracted to oversee the day-to-day operations over the six ports. But they are being bought out by Dubai Ports World, a business owned by the UAE.

The local Port Authorities would still be CEO, but the Operations Manager would be DPW.

I first heard about this a few weeks ago, as DH works in global logistics. Our ports are embarassingly vulnerable and frankly, I'm surprised there hasn't been a direct threat through them yet. Putting DPW in charge of those 6 ports doesn't immediately weaken security, but it certainly doesn't seem like a step in the right direction.

Given the current political climate, it doesn't seem like a smart idea to me.

[msnicolea]

Secret Squirrel--your take is the same as mine, although I don't know much about the issue--I need to read some more!

[kcjaime]

Per CNN breaking news just now:

President Bush defends deal to let a Dubai-based company run 6 major U.S. ports, saying he would veto any bill to hold up the deal.

No story beyond that yet.

[allyray231]

Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!

[kcjaime]

Yup. That about sums it up for me.

[allyray231]

You know-it is just stupid. I don't care if they are running the ports, the ship, whatever--a country with terriost ties should NOT be allowed to do this.

It would be like having someone who is a Nazi being the president of the Jewish Museum of NY.

Just stupid!!!

[kcjaime]

The way I see it, I don't agree with pretty much anything Bush does. Sadly, this news, while disturbing, doesn't surprise me.

[Delta]

Are you sure? Because that's not how I understand it. The contract is not over a few terminals, but port management. Also, I've heard said that there are only 3 firms in the world that do port manangement, none of them American.

Currently, Peninsular & Orient Steam, a British company, is contracted to oversee the day-to-day operations over the six ports. But they are being bought out by Dubai Ports World, a business owned by the UAE.

The local Port Authorities would still be CEO, but the Operations Manager would be DPW.

I first heard about this a few weeks ago, as DH works in global logistics. Our ports are embarassingly vulnerable and frankly, I'm surprised there hasn't been a direct threat through them yet. Putting DPW in charge of those 6 ports doesn't immediately weaken security, but it certainly doesn't seem like a step in the right direction.

Given the current political climate, it doesn't seem like a smart idea to me.
OK, but when you say 'ports' are you referring to actual ports, like the entire whole port of New Orleans, or are you referring to port facility? For example - here is what P&O does in New Orleans: http://portal.pohub.com/portal/page?_pageid=169,112164&_dad=pogprtl&_schema=POGPRTL. P&O runs the largest port facility (terminal) there, but it doesn't operate and run the Port of New Orleans.

Also, from what I understand, this takeover won't really change much except who gets the profits.

And I agree that politically this is causing a lot of problems.

While it's had its issues with terrorists, I've always thought of the UAE itself as an ally of the US, so maybe that has impacted my initial reaction to this (as in, not to get freaked out.)

[bookworm]

I heard a clip from Bush's press conference on the way home (on NPR of course), and for once I didn't want to throw something at him.

I understand the concern about having foreign lease-holders in such a vulnerable area. But nearly all of the ports in the west and 50% in the east are controlled by foreign lease holders. Saying "foreign is ok, but not Arab" is creepy.

On the other hand, there is apparently some evidence that banks in the UAE laundered the money that funded the attacks of 9/11. Given that, I think taking some time to review the decision is not out of line.

[KarenS]

a country with terriost ties should NOT be allowed to do this.Well, technically the US is a country with terrorist ties. By that logic we should not be allowed to run our own ports.

Karen

[allyray231]

On the other hand, there is apparently some evidence that banks in the UAE laundered the money that funded the attacks of 9/11.

That is my concern--it is about it being and Arab country-it is about a 9/11 tie.

[msnicolea]

Well, technically the US is a country with terrorist ties. By that logic we should not be allowed to run our own ports.

Karen

My reaction exactly.

And ITA, bookworm. I have no problem with taking more time to review the situation and establish a fair but responsible policy.

[LittleFredPunkinHead]

Bush Would Veto Any Bill Halting Dubai Port Deal (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/22/politics/22port.html?_r=1&oref=slogin) NY Times
This is what concerns me:
The administration's review of the deal was conducted by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, a body that was created in 1975 to review foreign investments in the country that could affect national security. Under that review, officials from the Defense, State, Commerce and Transportation Departments, along with the National Security Council and other agencies, were charged with raising questions and passing judgment. They found no problems to warrant the next stage of review, a 45-day investigation with results reported to the president for a final decision.

However, a 1993 amendment to the law stipulates that such an investigation is mandatory when the acquiring company is controlled by or acting on behalf of a foreign government. Administration officials said they conducted additional inquires because of the ties to the United Arab Emirates, but they could not say why a 45-day investigation did not occur.
There always seems to be a lack of research with these guys. As long as what's on the face of it supports what they want to do, no need for more research. If it doesn't, then they dig until they find something that at least appears to say what they want to hear.

If our homeland security is so at risk that we have to wiretap without warrants, then how can we possibly afford to push aside mandatory investigations like this?

It's total BS.

[TerpsFan]

The most concerning thing to me about this issue is the fact that even the state governors seem blindsided about this deal. The continuing lack of communication between state and local authorities and the federal government is alarming.

[msnicolea]

What a joke. rolleyes:

WASHINGTON -
President Bush was unaware of the pending sale of shipping operations at six major U.S. seaports to a state-owned business in the United Arab Emirates until the deal already had been approved by his administration, the White House said Wednesday.

Defending the deal anew, 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.

Bush on Tuesday brushed aside objections by leaders in the Senate and House that the $6.8 billion sale could raise risks of terrorism at American ports. In a forceful defense of his administration's earlier approval of the deal, he pledged to veto any bill Congress might approve to block the agreement.

But Lawmakers determined to capsize the pending sale said Bush's surprise veto threat won't deter them.

"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 (news, bio, voting record) 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."

White House counselor Dan Bartlett said Wednesday the UAE company, Dubai Ports, "is a reputable firm that went through a congressionally approved vetting process." He said the U.S. has "the necessary safeguards to make sure that the security of our country is in place" and that rejecting the deal would send "a dangerous signal to people overseas that America plays favorites."

"The president wants this deal to go forward because it was followed by the book and he wants Congress to understand that," Bartlett said on CBS' "The Early Show." He told Fox News Channel that Bush felt strongly that "we need to be adding strategic partners" in the Mideast.

But Sen. Joseph Biden (news, bio, voting record), 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."

The first-ever sale involving U.S. port operations to a foreign, state-owned company is set to be completed in early March. It would put Dubai Ports in charge of major shipping operations in New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia. "If there was any chance that this transaction would jeopardize the security of the United States, it would not go forward," Bush said.

Defending his decision, Bush responded to a chorus of objections this week in Congress over potential security concerns in the sale of London-based Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co.

Bush's veto threat sought to quiet a political storm that has united Republican governors and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist of Tennessee with liberal Democrats, including New York Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Schumer.

To assuage concerns, the administration 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.

Frist said Tuesday, before Bush's comments, that he would introduce legislation to put the sale on hold if the White House did not delay the takeover. He said the deal raised "serious questions regarding the safety and security of our homeland.

House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., asked the president for a moratorium on the sale until it could be studied further. "We must not allow the possibility of compromising our national security due to lack of review or oversight by the federal government," Hastert said.

Bush took the rare step of calling reporters to his conference room on Air Force One after returning from a speech in Colorado. He also stopped to talk before television cameras after he returned to the White House.

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

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 said protesting lawmakers should understand that if "they pass a law, I'll deal with it with a veto."

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.

[allyray231]

Oh gee he didnt know--isn't that nice

[kiddo]

I'm pretty sure that many of not most terminals are foreign-owned. And if a law such as the one Hillary proposed were to pass, the only American companies at this point who have the capabilities to do the job would be companies like...Halliburton.

While most terminals are foreign-owned, they are owned by private companies who are based in foreign countries. From my understand, Dubai Ports is state owned by the UAE. This deal would seem to me to put the terminals in the hands of a foreign government, not a foreign-owned company. Big difference, IMO.

While it's had its issues with terrorists, I've always thought of the UAE itself as an ally of the US, so maybe that has impacted my initial reaction to this (as in, not to get freaked out.)

Iraq was also once an ally.

[msnicolea]

Yeah--Saudi Arabia is an "ally", too--funny thing about most of the 9/11 perpetrators being from there.

[Delta]

That is my concern--it is about it being and Arab country-it is about a 9/11 tie.
I don't think that the US should be basing policy decision on the racial makeup of the country. And I understand the concerns about the ties to 9/11, but remember that Germany also has 'ties' to 9/11 as well. I don't know the exact details about the money laundering that went on, things like that, so I can't comment.The most concerning thing to me about this issue is the fact that even the state governors seem blindsided about this deal. The continuing lack of communication between state and local authorities and the federal government is alarming.Are the governors usually kept in the loop with deal like this? I have no idea. President Bush was unaware of the pending sale of shipping operations at six major U.S. seaports to a state-owned business in the United Arab Emirates until the deal already had been approved by his administration, the White House said Wednesday.Is the president usually notified about things like this? I have no idea how the bureacracy works, or doesn't work in cases like this.While most terminals are foreign-owned, they are owned by private companies who are based in foreign countries. From my understand, Dubai Ports is state owned by the UAE. This deal would seem to me to put the terminals in the hands of a foreign government, not a foreign-owned company. Big difference, IMO.That make sense.Iraq was also once an ally.I don't see your point here.
Yeah--Saudi Arabia is an "ally", too--funny thing about most of the 9/11 perpetrators being from there.
And I personally would NOT consider Saudi to be an ally, not really.

[allyray231]

That is my concern--it is about it being and Arab country-it is about a 9/11 tie.

Sorry I was wrong it what I said--it is NOT about it being an Arab country-it is about a 9/11 tie--and when I say tie-meaning that some of the terriosts came from that country.

[ADSigMel]

It just seems to me like everyone is really quick to get up in arms about this deal because it is an Arab-owned company. If this were a company from Ireland, which also has its fair share of terrorists, I don't think everyone would be making such a huge deal about it. For what it's worth, UAE is one of the most Westernized countries outside of the western world...my husband and I can't wait to go there for a visit next year.

[allyray231]

Documents Reveal White House Deal on Ports

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060223/ap_on_go_pr_wh/ports_security


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.

[msnicolea]

Unbelievable. This administration makes me SICK.

[allyray231]

And the WH press secretary admitted that Bush didn't know anything about until the press reported it.

[LittleFredPunkinHead]

It just seems to me like everyone is really quick to get up in arms about this deal because it is an Arab-owned company. If this were a company from Ireland, which also has its fair share of terrorists, I don't think everyone would be making such a huge deal about it. For what it's worth, UAE is one of the most Westernized countries outside of the western world...my husband and I can't wait to go there for a visit next year.
If it was a company owned by the Irish government, if the mandatory 45 day review had been waived with no reason given, and if Irish citizens had been involved with the 9-11 terrorist acts, then I do think people would make "such a huge deal" about it.

[allyray231]

From CNN

Referring to debate over foreign operations of U.S. ports, President Bush says "people don't need to worry about security."

[IrisHope]

Unbelievable. This administration makes me SICK.

Imagine all the things we DON'T know about.

[Secret_Squirrel]

I've re-thought this issue over the last couple of days. I've come to the conclusion that:

- Delta is right, DPW will not be "taking over" the ports, but only leasing terminals that are already operated by a foreign corporation.

- They'll be retaining the same workforce. Plus, the UAE has been our strong allies since 9/11, allowing us to base troops and surveillance equipment on their soil.

- UAE is a much more open society, the kind of society we're supposedly trying to encourage in the Arab world. It could be a costly mistake to refuse to do business with them because they're still an Arab country.

- The 9/11 terrorists were UAE citizens, not government emissaries. British citizens have also been terrorists, and that doesn't stop us from doing business with British companies.

Sadly, the administration is completely inept at preparing and explaining issues to the American people. They should have anticipated concern, since they've been peddling the importance of national security (some would say, fear).

Has no one in this administration watched an episode of "West Wing?" It's not that hard to anticipate a thorny issue and handle it appropriately, if you care.

[KarenS]

- Delta is right, DPW will not be "taking over" the ports, but only leasing terminals that are already operated by a foreign corporation.

- They'll be retaining the same workforce. Plus, the UAE has been our strong allies since 9/11, allowing us to base troops and surveillance equipment on their soil.

- UAE is a much more open society, the kind of society we're supposedly trying to encourage in the Arab world. It could be a costly mistake to refuse to do business with them because they're still an Arab country.

- The 9/11 terrorists were UAE citizens, not government emissaries. British citizens have also been terrorists, and that doesn't stop us from doing business with British companies. Yes! Thank you for posting it so clearly. As I posted in the other thread, I've been so frustrated with the whole "UAE is buying US ports" exaggerations. :)

Karen

[lawyerlee]

Has no one in this administration watched an episode of "West Wing?" It's not that hard to anticipate a thorny issue and handle it appropriately, if you care.
I'm glad to know everything works the way it does on TV. :confused:

I don't have problems with this because I don't understand what is going on. I have problems with it because, once again, the Bush Administration misled us about what it knew about something. You shouldn't have to tell thinking people not to worry, that you'll take care of it, but be unable to give any assurances as to why they shouldn't worry. I'm sorry, but I don't buy that.

Lawmakers assail deal giving Dubai firm control of ports (http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/politics/13915993.htm)
San Jose Mercury News

BY MICHAEL MCAULIFF
New York Daily News

WASHINGTON - The Bush administration gave control of six crucial ports to a Sept. 11-linked Arab nation after a flimsy investigation and with weak guarantees the company in charge can stop Osama bin Laden from infiltrating, the House homeland security chairman said.

"There are conditions, which shows they had concerns, but it's all procedural and relies entirely on good faith," Rep. Pete King, R-N.Y., told the New York Daily News. "There's nothing those conditions ... nothing that assures us they're not hiring someone with bin Laden."

The firm, Dubai Ports World, owned by the United Arab Emirate of Dubai, cut a $6.8 billion deal last week to buy control of the ports - including Manhattan's cruise ship terminal and Newark, N.J.'s, giant container port - from a British firm.

A source with knowledge of the purchase echoed the chairman, telling The News that while Department of Homeland Security administrators rubber-stamped it, senior analysts at the agency were never told, and they don't like it now. News of the sale, approved by a secretive multi-agency panel headed by the Treasury Department, has sparked a growing outcry from both political parties.

"It's unbelievably tone-deaf politically at this point in our history, four years after 9/11, to entertain the idea of turning port security over to a company based in the UAE, (which) vows to destroy Israel," Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., told "Fox News Sunday."

Dubai Company to Transfer U.S. Ports to American Company (http://nytimes.com/2006/03/09/politics/09cnd-ports.html)
By DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK and CARL HULSE
New York Times

WASHINGTON, March 9 — DP World, the United Arab Emirates state-owned company that had agreed to buy several port terminals in the United States, said today that it will transfer those properties to an American-owned company, bowing to a political groundswell against the acquisition.

The decision came just hours after a delegation of Republican leaders in Congress told President Bush in an Oval Office meeting that Congress would act within days to block the company's acquisition of the United States port terminals in the name of national security, lawmakers present said.

"The House spoke very clearly," Senator Bill Frist of Tennessee, the Republican leader, said in an interview after the meeting.

Announcing the company's decision on the Senate floor about 1 p.m., Senator John W. Warner, Republican of Virginia, read a statement from the company: "Because of the strong relationship between the United Arab Emirates and the United States and to preserve that relationship, DP World has decided to transfer fully the U.S. operations of P & O North America to a United States entity."

The announcement did not immediately mollify Democrats, though Senator Charles E. Schumer of New York, a chief critic of the deal, called it a promising development. But he added that if the Dubai-owned company ultimately retained control over the port operations, "I don't think our goals would be accomplished and obviously we will need to study this agreement carefully."

Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic leader, concurred. "We will have to wait and see what is really going to happen," Mr. Reid said.

[ADSigMel]

Whoooo-whee, boys, we done saved our country from them damn dirty A-Rabs now! No WAY terrorists can git us now that our big ole hoopla done made that company give up on its obvious desire to take over the U. S. of A.



Yeah, I'll sleep so much better at night knowing that the United States doesn't do any business with any countries located in the same hemisphere as Osama bin Ladin's last reported location. Now let's just hope no American terrorists appear so we don't have to stop doing business with ourselves,too...oh but wait, that's already happened! Timothy McVeigh was from New York and the Unabomber was born in Chicago....what to do, what to do? *bites nails anxiously*

I honestly hope that the UAE doesn't hold this ridiculous bit of xenophobia against us. I'm sure that eventually the US people will come back to their senses and realize that the entire Middle East is not comprised of a bunch of monsters out for American blood, and go back to having a sensible approach to foreign policy that does not involve blowing a gasket every time a company whose leadership speaks Arabic wants to do business with us.

ETA: The fact that Dubai Ports World gave up on the deal so easily (and the fact that, according to the AP, the US ports bit was less than 10% of the entire deal for them, since it involved other countries as well) leads me to think that we probably would have been pretty safe from terrorists on this front anyway, at least to the extent that following the mandatory investigation period would have prevented any terrorist attacks. Obviously, terrorists can slip through the cracks of any organization. For all we know, there could be terrorists in Homeland Security.

[lawyerlee]

I honestly hope that the UAE doesn't hold this ridiculous bit of xenophobia against us. I'm sure that eventually the US people will come back to their senses and realize that the entire Middle East is not comprised of a bunch of monsters out for American blood, and go back to having a sensible approach to foreign policy that does not involve blowing a gasket every time a company whose leadership speaks Arabic wants to do business with us.
Excuse me? This isn't about the "entire Middle East", nor is it about treating people from there as though they are "monsters out for American blood". Thanks a lot for reading what people have had to say and actually trying to entertain the notion that there might be real concerns here. :(

But I'm sure you're fine with the deal we just struck with India, too. Cause that made so much sense. And I'm sure it's racism, pure and simple, that causes me concern about that situation, too.

[LyLMyssChaos]

Ya know the thing that really stinks now that this deal fell through?? We are probably going to lose the access to what is our biggest Naval port in the Middle East(Dubai.) The UAE have been very cooperative in letting our troops use their country as an entry and exit point to the middle east. They also have allowed our Air Force to use their airfields to launch missions into Iraq and Afghanistan. Now, most likely they will want nothing to do with us.

[lawyerlee]

Bush's Loss on Ports Deal Dents Image, Exposes Rifts (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000087&sid=a4iBfcX36pK4&refer=top_world_news#)
Bloomberg.com

March 10 (Bloomberg) -- The collapse of a plan to let a Dubai company manage U.S. ports marks another setback for President George W. Bush, exposing deteriorating relations with fellow Republicans and underscoring a perception of incompetence stemming from the government's response to Hurricane Katrina.

Bush found himself publicly rebuked by members of his own party -- many of whom are seeking re-election this year -- amid strong public opposition to the deal.

``It's hurt him, and it's hurt him where he has always believed he had great strength, and that's in executive management,'' said Charles Jones, a retired political science professor at the University of Wisconsin in Madison who is now a senior fellow at the Washington-based Brookings Institution. ``This looks like they don't know what they are doing.''

With Congress poised to pass legislation blocking the Bush- backed agreement, state-owned DP World yesterday abandoned its efforts to assume control of operations at six major U.S. seaports and cargo unloading businesses at 15 others as part of its $6.8 billion acquisition of London-based Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation Co. DP World said it would sell P&O's leases on the ports to a U.S. entity.

The dispute also raised fears of damage to commercial and diplomatic ties between the U.S. and the United Arab Emirates, of which Dubai is part, as well as other Middle Eastern countries. Reem al-Hashimy, commercial attaché of the U.A.E. Embassy in Washington, said in an interview that ``the decision was really done primarily to salvage the relationship between the U.A.E. and the United States.''