Lawmakers Urge Greater Review of UAE Firm's Deal to Run Six U.S. Ports

FOX News Online ^ | February 16, 2006 | Sharon Kehnemui Liss

[OpusatFR]

"Not one American Company bid on this contract."

I'd have to read the contract to see what the terms are before I jump all over American no-shows. What pressure was placed on American companies by this Administration? What was the political strong-arm invovled? Any tit for tat, i.e., give aways to American corporations for not bidding?

One thing I've learned over time is that nothing, absolutely nothing is ever as it appears in politics. Nothing is ever straightforward or clear. Nothing is ever done without myriads of shades of gray...

[Post-Neolithic]

You might want to rephrase your " The British company that the UAE-based firm is buying doesn't run these ports in the first place, so this story is really just a lot of crap.," statement. These are the facts,

P&O Ports in Philadelphia, PA & Camden, NJ

P&O Ports North America, Inc. is a 50% joint venture partner in Delaware River Stevedores (DRS), which provides stevedoring and terminal services in Philadelphia, PA, Camden, NJ, and Wilmington, DE.

[SubMareener]

Can you imagine the outcry from the DemocRATS if Halliburton had bid on the contract? The headline would be "Bush and Cheney Oil Buddies take over US Ports!"

[Alberta's Child]

Are you stating that the UAE company will not have any hand in securing these ports or have any knowledge of how security will be implemented? If yes, please supply some links....it would be an interesting read

That's not what I said. I said that the statement about the UAE company "running" or "operating" these ports is blatantly false. Quasi-public port authorities run these ports, and the UAE company is a maritime shipping company and terminal operator no different than any other.

You should visit one of these port facilities someday to see how they operate. Make a careful note of how many foreign-looking characters of all kind work at these ports or access them on a daily basis.

Security operations have been overseen by U.S. Customs for decades, and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security has been in the process of implementing much stricter measures at these ports ever since 9/11.

[Alberta's Child]

Not one American Company bid on this contract.

Name one American company that could have bid on this contract.

I may be wrong about this, but I am under the impression that none of the major maritime shipping companies are American.

[Paul Ross]

Bump.

This administration appears to have an increasingly strong bent towards political suicide...

[Alberta's Child]

. . . which provides stevedoring and terminal services . . .

Key phrase here. These entities don't "run" anything.

This is sort of like having Donald Trump rent a luxury apartment in Manhattan to a Saudi prince. Anyone who used this to complain that "giving Trump Tower to the Saudis is dangerous" would be justifiably ridiculed for their ignorance.

[Paul Ross]

Name one American company that could have bid on this contract. I may be wrong about this, but I am under the impression that none of the major maritime shipping companies are American.

You may be right. Which is nontheless not a legitimate excuse. It is COMPLETELY unacceptable.

A chillingly excessive degree of foreign dependancy...that ALL of our greatest leaders throughout history up until the last 3 administrations, apparently...would have found an impeachable abdication of executive responsibility...

[Eric in the Ozarks]

These people are not our friends.

[Post-Neolithic]

Except that the Stevedors have direct access to cargo and terminal equipment. Which gives these people the opportunity to have "Their" cargo pass through the port without much inspection.

And I must also point out something which the people who are for this sale seem to conveniently pass over, this company(the U.A.E. affiliated one), is "Government owned", not privately. So we are giving a government, who in the past has been very hostile to us, the ability to strike at us from within. Not a very smart move.

[LibLieSlayer]

I do not want this company to run the ports, but you did not answer me as to HOW President Bush is supposed to force a US company to bid on this contract?

LLS

[LibLieSlayer]

ALL that I know I heard through Brit Hume last night.

LLS

[Alberta's Child]

Now I'm really confused. If there were no American companies in existence to bid on this contract, then how could this possibly be "completely unacceptable" at all?

It would seem to me that the phrase "completely inevitable" would be a more appropriate description.

[Paul Ross]

HOW President Bush is supposed to force a US company to bid on this contract?

Puuuhhhhlleeeze!

There are scads of ways. Issuing contract prerequisites. And it wouldn't hurt to offer some appropriate money.

[Paul Ross]

If there were no American companies in existence to bid on this contract...

You change the facts on the ground. You do what it takes, rather than just say, oh well, the Jihadists and communists win!

[Alberta's Child]

The UAE firm is buying out a British firm. I hate to break this to you, but the crews of these ships operated by the British firm were not dominated by pale-skinned Manchester United fans who wore Union Jack tattoos and sang "God Save the Queen" every time they entered a U.S. port.

It's kind of odd how none of this contrived outrage was heard during all those years when British-owned ships operated by sailors from all over the globe were making port calls in the U.S. on a daily basis.

[LibLieSlayer]

I understand (through a friend that ran the State port here years ago) that several companies contemplated bidding, but they DID NOT want to become the NEXT Halliburton. Their PR has suffered from felonious attacks from the left, and it is understandable that rats attacking might not be something that a company would want to endure!

LLS

[Alberta's Child]

You change the facts on the ground. You do what it takes, rather than just say, oh well, the Jihadists and communists win!

I see. So the U.S. government should be in the business of creating U.S.-owned marine carriers to compete with these companies from other nations?

[Alberta's Child]

Talk to your friend and then come back here and post the names of five U.S. companies that could have bid on this contract.

[PigRigger]

Understand your statements....However, allowing a company domiciled in a country that has known problems with terrorism, in a post 9-11 world, is more apt to invite problems.

The UAE company is most likely going to become privy to sensitive security documents and processes that (in order to cooperate with those who will assist in implementing security) they otherwise would never have access to. It is irresponsible to sanction such actions given the domiciled countries track record and what happened on 9-11.

I'm sorry if you can't see that, but it poses a huge problem to many, even those who agree whole heartily with free trade.