|
Bush tucks his tail between his legs... err, I mean DP world drops US ports takeover
|
View this Thread in Original format
| emc^2 |
I love politics. especially, when they are sooo blatantly obvious. So, Bush finally realized that the only way his popularity can soar any lower, it would have to hit a negative territory. He must have called his Dubai cronies to help him save his dumb face:
| quote: |
By DAVID E. SANGER
Published: March 10, 2006
WASHINGTON, March 9 — The state-owned Dubai company seeking to manage some terminal operations at six American ports dropped out of the deal on Thursday, bowing to an unrelenting bipartisan attack in Congress that swept aside President Bush's efforts.
The company, DP World, said that at the direction of Dubai's ruler it would "transfer" to a still-unnamed American company the leases to manage some of the busiest terminals in the United States, including some in New York, Newark, Baltimore and Miami.
Under questioning, the company declined to say whether it planned to sell the American operations or had some other transaction in mind.
The action averted a showdown with Congress that Mr. Bush was all but certain to lose, as signaled on Wednesday by a 62-to-2 vote of the House Appropriations Committee to reject the transfer because it allowed the sale of some terminal operations to an Arab state company.
Senator John W. Warner, Republican of Virginia, announced the change on the Senate floor two hours before the Senate had been scheduled to vote on a motion that could have paved the way for a Democratic proposal to scuttle the deal.
Mr. Warner made his announcement amid indications that the White House was looking for a way out of the confrontation. A delegation of Republican Congressional leaders told Mr. Bush on Thursday morning that his threat to veto Congressional action against transferring control of the terminals would not stop Congress from blocking the deal.
The outcome did nothing to solve the underlying issue exposed by an uproar that has consumed the capital for weeks. A vast majority of containers that flow daily into the United States remain uninspected and vulnerable to security gaps at many points.
Some experts suggested that DP World's quick surrender might take pressure off the administration, Congress and nations around the world to solve that problem.
DP World announced its decision after the White House appeared to signal that Mr. Bush wanted a face-saving way out of the shift by declining to repeat his veto threat.
The company said the decision had been made by the prime minister of the United Arab Emirates, who is also the ruler of Dubai, Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid al Maktoum.
"This was clearly not a business decision made by DP World," a senior administration official said. "It was a strategic decision made by the U.A.E. to avoid further damage."
In Dubai, a senior political official with intimate knowledge of the deliberations, said: "A political decision was taken to ask DP World to try and defuse the situation. We have to help our friends."
The official sought anonymity because he was not authorized to speak for the record. He was referring to Mr. Bush, who backed the initial deal, and several Republican senators who did as well.
The company's decision drew sighs of relief from officials in New York and other cities where the imminent transfer had stirred cries of alarm. But the announcement left those officials wondering which American companies might want to buy the American terminal operations. The company that DP World outbid to buy the current operator, Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation, a British company, for $6.8 billion, is Singaporean.
"If it's a U.S. company, it should alleviate some of the concerns about security which have been talked about over the last few weeks," Charles A. Gargano, vice chairman of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, said. "I don't know how successful they'll be."
The Port Authority owns terminals in the New York metropolitan region.
Foreign companies have long dominated the business of loading and unloading cargo ships, and few American operators remain. "This is a case where we were arguing about the wrong part of the problem," said Stephen Flynn, a former Coast Guard officer and port security expert who has argued that the nationality of the port operations manager has little to do with the gaping holes in security. "Americans were shocked to learn that the vast majority of port operations in this country are handled by foreign firms. But transportation is a global network, and we're not going to own all of it."
Private equity firms, including the Blackstone Group in New York and KKR, have been named as potential buyers of the American terminal operations, which are a small and not particularly lucrative slice of the $6.85 billion Dubaian purchase.
|
Linky
What worries me is the lack of transparency (thus far) - most likely the operations will be assumed by some shell US company and it will be back to business. company will be us-based, with the same Arab owners who will most likely put their best poker faces on and say "who, us???"
the more I see the world politics, the more I realize how ing filthy the politicians are. Can't wait till 2008:mad: |
|
|
| Q5echo |
| quote: | Originally posted by emc^2
I love politics. especially, when they are sooo blatantly obvious. So, Bush finally realized that the only way his popularity can soar any lower, it would have to hit a negative territory. He must have called his Dubai cronies to help him save his dumb face. the more I see the world politics, the more I realize how ing filthy the politicians are. Can't wait till 2008:mad: |
you're right about this being a political coke-orgy in an election year, but where do you get Bush doing this for poll numbers? if anything its Capital Hill thats doing it for their poll numbers.
Dubai doesn't need the deal and have reflected that accordingly. neither did Bush.
Bill Clinton sealed the 45 day review for DPW last week.
i don't care if you hate the guy, its just that it has clouded your perspective.
| quote: | | with the same Arab owners who will most likely put their best poker faces on and say "who, us???" |
man, you must really not like Arabs |
|
|
| emc^2 |
| quote: | [b]Originally posted by Q5echo [/b
man, you must really not like Arabs |
I can neither confirm nor deny this rumor.. However, you don't think that shady dealings are above large corporations? Be they US or UAE-based?
I can say the same thing about Ukos deal - where Russian government created a dummy corporation to make a deal look legit. It's all over the place.
Make no mistake about it - Bush may not be eligible for re-election but Republicans are. In an almost unprecedented action, the voice was bi-partisan - both, Reps and Dems opposed the deal in great majority.
Now, how that's going to (hopefully) improve our port security is yet to be seen.
What pisses me off, though, is that we're screaming for all to hear "our ports are unprotected" - even so, why tell the enemy that?
anyway, agree to disagree?
;) |
|
|
| Q5echo |
| quote: | Originally posted by emc^2
anyway, agree to disagree?
;) |
i hear ya, but all the rhetoric, from both sides (like you said), we are hearing about this is nothing more than fear-mongering xenophobia for the sole purpose of positioning ones self for the november elections. a way for republicans to distance themselves from a poll-sucking president, and for democrats to gain some much needed ground on national security while taking cheap shots through the main stream media at the president along the way like they always do. meanwhile what has really been accomplished here?
Dubai will still run ports in Canada and all over the world like a normal company would do.
Saudi Arabia will still operate ports in this country like they have for a decade or so. same with China all up and down the West Coast.
(did you know that China has twice threatened us with nuclear bombs? i don't recall Dubai doing that ever. but you never heard the blowhard zealots on Capitol Hill say anything.)
Dubai's (state run) airline will still fly their jumbo jets into Kennedy, Newark, O'hare, La Guardia and so on like they do every frikken day.
and when this bi-partisaned dicksucking fiesta has settled on capitol hill, nothing will ever be done about "foriegn ownership of our precious ports" rhetoric. it will be time then for all the campaign commercials saying "RE-ELECT ME! I scared you people into thinking I'm tough on national security! WHOOPITY DOOOO!!!"
(you know whats wierd? most of the same two-faced forked-tongued idealogues in the House and the Senate wanting to look tough on television today, voted against the extention of the patriot act a few days ago.)
Bush has so much other fish to fry right now. he could probably care less other than he's lost some pull with a much needed Arab ally. for what?
i hope Dubai pulls out all of their interests in the U.S.
did you know they just signed a $9.7 billion deal with Boeing last fall to buy like forty 777 dreamliners. i hope they cancel the contract and go with Airbus. i really do. seriously.
i hope they withdraw the billions in bonds held in our banks and stop flying their planes here for good.
i hope they stop letting our Navy moor in their port too.
this is just great politics. |
|
|
| Marc Summers |
You are a ing idiot. DP world has been nothing but cooperative in order to show that they have absolutely nothing to hide. This just shows our country's prejudice toward arabs.
And this is directed to the thread starter. |
|
|
| killingjoke |
mind you that UAE has a combination of Arabs and Iranians who seek prosperity in the thriving small country from Iran.
does it ever appear to you that infiltration from iranians would be apparent if that ever happen?
oh wait they are already are.
smack in LA and washington. |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Marc Summers
You are a ing idiot. DP world has been nothing but cooperative in order to show that they have absolutely nothing to hide. This just shows our country's prejudice toward arabs.
And this is directed to the thread starter. |
By that rationale, you must absolutely loove Al Qaeda, looove the Taliban, love and advocate child and women slave trade, and hate Israel in the exact same manner as the UAE does, considering you seemingly support their actions.
They do have a lovely history:
| quote: | # The UAE was one of three countries in the world to recognize the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan.
# The UAE has been a key transfer point for illegal shipments of nuclear components to Iran, North Korea and Lybia.
# According to the FBI, money was transferred to the 9/11 hijackers through the UAE banking system.
# After 9/11, the Treasury Department reported that the UAE was not cooperating in efforts to track down Osama Bin Laden's bank accounts.
http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf...orts_letter.pdf |
and this:
| quote: | Osama bin Laden's operatives still use this freewheeling city as a logistical hub three years after more than half the Sept. 11 hijackers flew directly from Dubai to the United States in the final preparatory stages for the attack.
The recent arrest of an alleged top al-Qaeda combat coach is the latest sign that suspected members of the terrorist organization are among those who take advantage of travel rules that allow easy entry. Citizens of neighboring Gulf states such as Saudi Arabia can come to Dubai without visas, which other nationalities can get at the country's ports of entry.
.....al-Qaeda isn't the only organization that has found Dubai useful. The father of Pakistan's nuclear program, Abdul Qadeer Khan, has acknowledged heading a clandestine group that, with the help of a Dubai company, supplied Pakistani nuclear technology to Iran, Libya and North Korea.
...Emirates officials refused to discuss the country's latest steps to combat terror.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/...ror-dubai_x.htm |
| quote: | The Central Intelligence Agency did not target Al Qaeda chief Osama bin laden once as he had the royal family of the United Arab Emirates with him in Afghanistan, the agency's director, George Tenet, told the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks on the United States on Thursday.
Had the CIA targeted bin Laden, half the royal family would have been wiped out as well, he said.
http://in.rediff.com/news/2004/mar/25osama.htm |
| quote: | On February 8, the military began to ready itself for a possible strike. The next day, national technical intelligence confirmed the location and description of the larger camp and showed the nearby presence of an official aircraft of the United Arab Emirates. But the location of Bin Ladin’s quarters could not be pinned down so precisely…According to reporting from the tribals, Bin Ladin regularly went from his adjacent camp to the larger camp where he visited the Emiratis; the tribals expected him to be at the hunting camp for such a visit at least until midmorning on February 11…No strike was launched. By February 12 Bin Ladin had apparently moved on, and the immediate strike plans became moot. According to CIA and Defense officials, policymakers were concerned about the danger that a strike would kill an Emirati prince or other senior officials who might be with Bin Ladin or close by.
http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch4.htm |
Human trafficking:
http://gvnet.com/humantrafficking/U...rabEmirates.htm
http://abcnews.go.com/International...id=79131&page=1
And recently we learned that al Qaeda had infiltrated the UAE government:
http://www.ctc.usma.edu/aq/AFGP-2002-603856-Trans.pdf
Well gee, no wonder they have a warm, fuzzy place in their heart for the Taliban? No wonder they just don't seem to get along with Israel, huh?
The Coast guard also raised concern about the deal, but that concern along with Homeland Security went completely unnoticed:
| quote: | There are many intelligence gaps, concerning the potential for DPW or P&O assets to support terrorist operations, that precludes an overall threat assessment of the potential merger. … The breadth of the intelligence gaps also infer potential unknown threats against a large number of potential vulnerabilities.
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl...cs/3689459.html |
Both Bush-lite Lieberman and Collins reviewed this concern by the Coast Guard, and it was pretty apparent such concerns were handwaved away:
| quote: | A careful review of the “assurances letter” reveals that DP World is not, in fact, bound to provide the U.S. government with the information it would need to close the intelligence gaps the Coast Guard identified. … The language is weak. … Indeed, the assurances appear to amount to little more than a restatement of what the FBI or other law enforcement agency could gather anyway in the course of an investigation.
http://images1.americanprogress.org...toff_letter.pdf |
So let's put things into perspective:
Is there some definite political posturing? Of course, on both sides. The whole Bill Clinton ordeal quite honestly pisses me off, and gives me further credence to make sure Hillary doesn't get the nomination. Republicans will eat her alive for obvious reasons like these.
But posturing by the Repubs. is definitely noticable and understood for reasons already mentioned- Bush is hurting, and they want to distance themselves as much as possible.
Is there valid concern over this GOVERNMENT-run company controlling our ports (though not the security aspect)? Absolutely, considering their questionable "fight on terrorism", especially their pretty tight association to our worst enemy. If they want business controlling our ports, they should reconsider whom they are associating with. Their refusal to acknowledge Israel as well as their obvious hatred towards them is pretty noteworthy as well.
Is their some sort of prejudice towards "Arabs" by these Republicans or Democrats going against the deal? I'd be very interested if you ing Ditto-heads could come up with verifiable evidence of such behaviors. Because what it looks like to most people are you Bush apologists running out of excuses on the deal, and have to resort to these silly labels that have no merit. Your argument is wholly lost the minute you attempted to slap such labels on EVERYONE and ANYONE who disagreed with your precious leader's behaviors, especially when they were attempting to do this deal in such a hush-hush manner and had FULL knowledge of it when they publicly stated otherwise. |
|
|
| Fir3start3r |
I think there needs to be more distinction between Dubai and UAE in these arguements.
Dubai for the most part is essentially a different animal when it comes to global business than it's host country UAE; think of it as an enclave.
Dubai, in a business sense like the ports deal, is not UAE and I think this is where people have been confused and thanks to media, somewhat misled.
Trying to educate others of this distinction however is almost fruitless and I can see why Bush & Co. backed down.
It was simply going to cost them way too much in the end; ie. the election.
...such is the world of politics... |
|
|
| Marc Summers |
MisterOpus1, you've been saying UAE which is the country in which DP world is centralized, and controlled by, but don't mix the two up.
As you know, the UAE is a socialist country and controls the company, overwhelmingly. But DP world is a business. And businesses like money. And you can't do business with america if you are supporting terrorism. The company doesn't support terrorism, because it's bad for business. Simple as that. |
|
|
| Yoepus |
ridicilous the xenophobia of this country. sad sad sad. :(
How this even turned into a political issue is beyond me...
DP World selling off its USA assets is not gonna be a big deal. DP World bought P&O primarly for its European, Asian, and African ports. The USA was just an added bonuse. US ports have very little returns and since most the current ports DP World owns do not to Africa/Asia - US shipping but Africa/Asia - Europe shipping there was little point.
It boggles me that people think a corporation will respect or treat laws differently because its charter is arbitrarely created in one country over another. |
|
|
| emc^2 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Marc Summers
You are a ing idiot. DP world has been nothing but cooperative in order to show that they have absolutely nothing to hide. This just shows our country's prejudice toward arabs.
And this is directed to the thread starter. |
"Name-calling is usually a desperate, last resort tactic for those who are incapable of making an intellectual argument on the merits of the issue and are about to lose face/image. As soon as name-calling/personal attacks begin, that person has lost the debate irrevocably, even to the novice bystander."
-- Common wisdom :rolleyes: |
|
|
| emc^2 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Marc Summers
MisterOpus1, you've been saying UAE which is the country in which DP world is centralized, and controlled by, but don't mix the two up.
As you know, the UAE is a socialist country and controls the company, overwhelmingly. But DP world is a business. And businesses like money. And you can't do business with america if you are supporting terrorism. The company doesn't support terrorism, because it's bad for business. Simple as that. |
Gawd, you Bush-loving puppet - have you even bothered to read the article or do some research on the subject matter????
Read above, in my initial post or here, if you're too damn lazy or ADD-prone:
| quote: |
The company said the decision had been made by the prime minister of the United Arab Emirates, who is also the ruler of Dubai, Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid al Maktoum.
"This was clearly not a business decision made by DP World," a senior administration official said. "It was a strategic decision made by the U.A.E. to avoid further damage."
In Dubai, a senior political official with intimate knowledge of the deliberations, said: "A political decision was taken to ask DP World to try and defuse the situation. We have to help our friends."
|
Even right-wing conservative nuts, like Rush Limbaugh! Glenn Beck! and other republican mouthpiece tools are all screaming bloody murder at the deal.
Of course, their argument completely excludes Bush from the picture - it's all Clinton's fault... but regardless.
What's funny is that I think it's Slick Bill's "big you" to G.W. - Bill just cast the rod and bait.... Bush bit the hook, line, and the sinker...
Tho, I must say that neither one walked away -free, yet Slick Willy managed to come out clean(er) than your monkey-faced coke fiend.
rattle on... |
|
|
|
|
