Posted on 02/22/2006 6:19:30 PM PST by iPod Shuffle
Arab Co., White House Had Secret Agreement
Feb 22 9:03 PM US/Eastern
Email this story
By TED BRIDIS
Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON
1d08c5bfc6d0@news.ap.org The Bush administration secretly required a company in the United Arab Emirates to cooperate with future U.S. investigations before approving its takeover of operations at six American ports, according to documents obtained by The Associated Press. It chose not to impose other, routine restrictions.
As part of the $6.8 billion purchase, state-owned Dubai Ports World agreed to reveal records on demand about "foreign operational direction" of its business at U.S. ports, the documents said. Those records broadly include details about the design, maintenance or operation of ports and equipment.
The administration did not require Dubai Ports to keep copies of business records on U.S. soil, where they would be subject to court orders. It also did not require the company to designate an American citizen to accommodate U.S. government requests. Outside legal experts said such obligations are routinely attached to U.S. approvals of foreign sales in other industries.
"They're not lax but they're not draconian," said James Lewis, a former U.S. official who worked on such agreements. If officials had predicted the firestorm of criticism over the deal, Lewis said, "they might have made them sound harder."
The conditions involving the sale of London-based Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co. were detailed in U.S. documents marked "confidential." Such records are regularly guarded as trade secrets, and it is highly unusual for them to be made public.
The concessions _ described previously by the Homeland Security Department as unprecedented among maritime companies _ reflect the close relationship between the United States and the United Arab Emirates.
The revelations about the negotiated conditions came as the White House acknowledged President Bush was unaware of the pending sale until the deal had already been approved by his administration.
Bush on Tuesday brushed aside objections by leaders in the Senate and House. He pledged to veto any bill Congress might approve to block the agreement, but some lawmakers said they still were determined to capsize it.
Dubai Port's top American executive, chief operating officer Edward H. Bilkey, said the company will do whatever the Bush administration asks to enhance shipping security and ensure the sale goes through. Bilkey said Wednesday he will work in Washington to persuade skeptical lawmakers they should endorse the deal; Senate oversight hearings already are scheduled.
"We're disappointed," Bikley told the AP in an interview. "We're going to do our best to persuade them that they jumped the gun. The UAE is a very solid friend, as President Bush has said."
Under the deal, the government asked Dubai Ports to operate American seaports with existing U.S. managers "to the extent possible." It promised to take "all reasonable steps" to assist the Homeland Security Department, and it pledged to continue participating in security programs to stop smuggling and detect illegal shipments of nuclear materials.
The administration required Dubai Ports to designate an executive to handle requests from the U.S. government, but it did not specify this person's citizenship.
It said Dubai Ports must retain paperwork "in the normal course of business" but did not specify a time period or require corporate records to be housed in the United States. Outside experts familiar with such agreements said such provisions are routine in other cases.
Iraq should have had the repulsive elements thoroughly disemboweled and forced to accept, through brute and sheer destruction, the terms of how they can continue to survive and it should be made a permanent, until not required, forward base of operations to continue to pursue, with all means necessary, the War against Muhammadan Aggression, until total victory is achieved. We're paying the heavy price for believing that Koraniac adherents are not the problem.
Find a new forum. You've outstayed your welcome.
John Ziegler came out in favor of the port deal just before Coast to Coast began...
Medved now appears to favor the deal (from the 15 minutes I listened today)
PBS Newshour segment with David Brooks and Mark Shields (how I loathe this sappy old man). Shields was all huff and puff and fanning the political hysteria, while Brooks was calm and wise. Read the full transcript for yourself. here Some selected quotations:
DAVID BROOKS: I think it's mass hysteria.
...
DAVID BROOKS: Including the president. This was a thing for experts. I think what's happened, we've had some nativism, some isolationism and just mass hysteria and a lot of political pandering.
But the thing that gives me solace about this is I haven't read of a single expert who knows what they're talking about who thinks there's anything to this story. There's not a single person I've read who thinks the security will be changed. The Coast Guard and Customs will still be in charge of security. The American Longshoremen will still be there. The managements will still be there.
That is a globalized industry and the transfer from one holding company to another, according to every expert I've read, doesn't think this will make a difference. So I happen to think this will burn out.
...
I think what happened was that you have these technocrats who don't think like politicians going through a process, which was completely well reported in the financial press, much talked about, this was a big firm, it owns a lot of ports or operates a lot of port management in a lot of countries, none of whom are going through this nativist hysteria. And they thought, well, we do this all the time, we check it out; we have 12 agencies check it out. Technocratically it all checks out; this firm's fine, Dubai is fine, so let it go through. So they're thinking like technocrats, then all along - this really started and really got the biggest push from Michael Savage, who is a genius for understanding what's going to --
...
DAVID BROOKS: Beyond conservative, reactionary.
...
DAVID BROOKS: And so he had a sense this is going to seem weird to people who don't know about it. And it does, UAE, Arabs, ports, ports are insecure, people have a sense that's true. And it's exploded on left and right. But the point for politicians is at some point you have to be a statesman, you have got to resist when you get this popular tide and nobody on Capitol Hill is doing, that except John McCain.
...
DAVID BROOKS: There are a whole series of editorial pages, the Washington Post was one of them, which has very persuasive articles -- the Times quoted expert after expert of people saying it's illogical, this whole thing is illogical, so there's just no there, there. You can talk about, you know, the massive terror war. There's sort of this abstract rhetoric about that we're in threat, we're in danger, but when you get actually down to the deal, when you get down to the operation of the ports, there's no even an argument for why this is dangerous...
My God. This sounds like the DUmp. Honestly, walkingfeather, for you to discredit Gen. Franks you might as well crap all over what we've done in Iraq. He was the Central Commander. According to your train of thought, he "lied" (or might have) about that too, no?
It's also just easier for most of us to type out in comments than writing out the elaboration of the actual terms involved.
We didn't "sell access" to anyone. The government approved access on a transaction that involved access to our ports because of national security concerns. I call it responding to a foreign deal between companies that need to be vetted by US authorities...which it was.
I think you need to be on the Admin's radar for trollio activity.
You are INSANE if you think the majority of Iraqis support radicalism. Do you have ANY appreciation for the fact that they could NOT just toss Saddam, no you do not. Do you know any Iraqis personally? I already know the answer.
Islam has screwed up the world. What you fail to understand is that not all Muslims are happy and willing adherents to the "religion." I know several female Muslims, two of whom lived under Saddam's reign who fled Iraq because of Saddam and one of them is back now busting her ass trying to make things right, meaning FREE and WESTERN.
I will never be on board for trashing all Muslims and certainly not all Arabs. Often we forget that this lifestyle is forced and not chosen. I'll be the first in line bashing the Koran, though.
Hey, you zotted them...I was just getting warmed up. ;-)
Predictable enough. ;O)
He's dead Jim.
LOL. I just posted my comment then read your post to this person. Good call. :)
Whoa! WTG!
Ozone makes me giddy.
Don't you understand? Every single topic, regardless of what it is, has to have something to do with BORDERS.
NO, and you don't either!!!
Sometimes, especially in politics, the reality is in the perception.
The Administration should have KNOWN that this would provide the Dems with the kind of negative fall-out they could and would use effectively in 2006 and 2008.
Want more? I can link you...lol.
Never mind.
Hey!
I'm engaged you know...
LOL --- and these ones are stinkers...lol.
Now, go to bed! I must.
There are many, many Americans who think as I do. This Port Deal is literally a "ping" to terrorists and disorder, from a Western perspective, just as are the problematic border security/illegal alien population issues.
As being retired from the merchant marine, I can't see in any form or shape what this port "consultant" deal has anything to do with national security. Go and check out Rush Limbaugh's web site, maybe that will calm your concerns about your children's security!
Who do you think runs many of the U.S. Navy supply vessels and have done it for years???
Keep on buying Danish goods!!!
????
He's a good guy, he's not a troll.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.