Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Arab Co., White House Had Secret Agreement
AP ^ | 2/22/06

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.


TOPICS: Breaking News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: bush; nationalsecurity; ports; uae
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 501-520521-540541-560561-565 next last
To: oceanview
Yes I have no problem if UAE buy the WTC. I guarantee for you they have some buildings already here in the US and same goes to Saudi Arabia. In fact the Lebanese ex-prime minister Rafiq Hariri (assassinated last year by the Syrians) who was very well tied to Saudi Arabia owns the tallest building in Houston.
521 posted on 02/23/2006 8:46:48 AM PST by jveritas (Hate can never win elections.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 498 | View Replies]

To: notigar

Government runs on the principle of GIGO - garbage in, garbage out. Do your 40 hours, collect your paycheck, and go home to play with your kids and watch TV.

They're all asleep at the switch.

And anybody who stands up and asks questions gets their head handed to them, or else their hat.


522 posted on 02/23/2006 8:47:05 AM PST by CobaltBlue (Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. Moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 518 | View Replies]

To: CobaltBlue
you're saying that the actual Secretary is hands-on for every investigation?

Sure, why not? You and many others seem to be upset that Dubya didn't know about it (nor should he have).

The Exon-Florio provision is implemented by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States ("CFIUS"), an inter-agency committee chaired by the Secretary of Treasury.

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

523 posted on 02/23/2006 8:47:44 AM PST by Coop (FR = a lotta talk, but little action)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 520 | View Replies]

To: Coop

I am not upset nor am I surprised that Bush knew nothing about this deal until it was approved.

He's set the policy -- in his mind, there is zero reason to treat the UAE government any differently that the government of Great Britain.

As I said, GIGO, garbage in, garbage out.

He didn't know anything about Katrina until days later. Nobody tells him, he doesn't know, that's the way it goes. He famously doesn't read newspapers, nor, apparently, watch news, not even Fox.

The most powerful people in Washington are the people who tell Bush what's going on. That's true for every president in my lifetime. Not a reflection on Bush so much as a reflection on the enormous task they are asked to perform.

But that doesn't mean I have to approve his every action or every action of people in his administration.


524 posted on 02/23/2006 8:55:00 AM PST by CobaltBlue (Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. Moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 523 | View Replies]

To: Coop
Snow Blindness --- temporary dimming of vision due to intense light reflection

Snowcap --- layer of flakes covering and hiding the tip of an iceberg

Snowjob --- attempt to deceive or persuade through the use of deception

Snowshoe --- a racket-shaped contraption for walking on deep snow without sinking

Snowslide --- avalanche consisting entirely or partially of snow

Snow --- US Treasury Secretary who firmly believes that all Americans are schtoopid

525 posted on 02/23/2006 8:59:39 AM PST by desertlily
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 523 | View Replies]

Comment #526 Removed by Moderator

To: Coop; CobaltBlue
The Secretary of the Treasury chairs the CFIUS.

Feb 22 (Reuters) - U.S. Treasury chief John Snow, head of the panel that cleared a deal for a state-owned Dubai company to manage major U.S. ports, said on Wednesday he was not involved in deliberations until after the transaction was approved.

I think Mr. Snow is trying to distance himself from a perceived conflict of interest, emphasis on "perceived".

CSX Corp., which Snow headed until he took over Treasury three years ago, sold the [CSX] port assets [to DP World] for $1.15 billion in 2004.

527 posted on 02/23/2006 9:04:33 AM PST by atlaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 516 | View Replies]

To: atlaw

OK, that makes at least two of the federal agency heads (Snow and Rumsfeld, not to mention Bush) admitting that they had no knowledge of the deal until the munchkins approved it.

Which makes perfect sense. That's the way it's supposed to operate. No reason to get the Grand Poobahs involved when it's all routine.

The problem is in our definition of "routine." It seems to me that only Congress can solve this issue.

I don't have time to watch C-SPAN today so will catch the summaries later, but Warner isn't impressing me as having a burning desire to do anything but cover the administration's exposed flank.


528 posted on 02/23/2006 9:14:53 AM PST by CobaltBlue (Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. Moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 527 | View Replies]

To: kittymyrib

This is the same federal government that is positively helpless in keeping illiterate Mexicans from crawling over a barbed wire fence to get into the US and is now assuring us that they can handle security at ports they have turned over to Arabs. Good grief...Homeland Security couldn't even keep track of ice trucks for Katrina Relief. They must think the US public has amnesia.



I think that is exactly the problem now. Conservatives are already fed up with Bush's handling of the border and now he adds handing over day to day operations of ports over to Muslims (most of which are sympathetic to Bin Laden). It's a matter of trust and Bush is wearing out what he has earned.


529 posted on 02/23/2006 9:17:53 AM PST by dmanLA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: Wasanother
Bush made them secretly agree to comply with the law?

Love that one. LOL.

530 posted on 02/23/2006 9:19:06 AM PST by mississippi red-neck (You will never win the war on terrorism by fighting it in Iraq and funding it in the West Bank.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: atlaw

I trust GWB. I guess that makes me a dupe, but what the heck?


531 posted on 02/23/2006 9:31:35 AM PST by Dionysius (ACLU is the enemy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 503 | View Replies]

To: CobaltBlue
He didn't know anything about Katrina until days later. Nobody tells him, he doesn't know, that's the way it goes.

Speaking of garbage...

I've smacked you down enough for today. I'm done with you.

532 posted on 02/23/2006 9:37:47 AM PST by Coop (FR = a lotta talk, but little action)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 524 | View Replies]

To: desertlily

Fascinating analysis! [yawn]


533 posted on 02/23/2006 9:38:19 AM PST by Coop (FR = a lotta talk, but little action)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 525 | View Replies]

To: atlaw
I think Mr. Snow is trying to distance himself from a perceived conflict of interest, emphasis on "perceived".

I'd agree. He likely delegated attendance to someone (probably quite high up, but I don't know whom) for this deal, but he still retains chairmanship.

534 posted on 02/23/2006 9:39:47 AM PST by Coop (FR = a lotta talk, but little action)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 527 | View Replies]

To: oldfart
You're right . How about this one?

A government that doesn't trust it's citizens is a government that can't be trusted.

535 posted on 02/23/2006 9:53:21 AM PST by mississippi red-neck (You will never win the war on terrorism by fighting it in Iraq and funding it in the West Bank.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 249 | View Replies]

To: jveritas

well, I give you credit for at least answering the question - you would have no problem with the UAE or the Saudis buying the World Trade Center site.

wonderful.


536 posted on 02/23/2006 9:55:16 AM PST by oceanview
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 521 | View Replies]

To: oceanview
WOW!!! you scored a big point here (extreme sarcasm). Yep, if UAE and Saudi Arabia will buy the WTC they will have some terrorists sneak in to destroy it because they were the one who owned the WTC in 1993 and 2001 when both terrorists attacks occurred (another extreme sarcasm). As I told you before you have the political IQ of a chicken and this stupid question you have been asking is a clear indication of that.
537 posted on 02/23/2006 10:06:32 AM PST by jveritas (Hate can never win elections.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 536 | View Replies]

To: Btrp113Cav
I think we went into Iraq and Afghanistan because our Government knew that the American people would demand that military action take place against those that had just attacked our country and killed three thousand of our citizens.

They knew who was responsible just as everyone with any brains knows who is responsible for spreading this Islamic nightmare and that is the Saudis.

They had to quickly get people's attention focused somewhere else and keep it there. They had to get their mind off the facts that it was 12 Saudi Arabians and 2 UAE citizens that done the act using Saudi money.

But then we can't very well send our ships, planes and troops to clean up this Saudi nightmare the world has have been covering for and kowtowing to for the last eighty years, ever since oil was discovered there and the oil companies invested their money and future there.

Can't have the flow of oil,and the economy disrupted any more than it was.

Can't have big oil and big Wall Street investors losing money for just a few thousand murdered Americans, can we? S/.

538 posted on 02/23/2006 10:29:38 AM PST by mississippi red-neck (You will never win the war on terrorism by fighting it in Iraq and funding it in the West Bank.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 246 | View Replies]

To: thoughtomator

When I read this I can't help but think of Saudia Arabia. I hear the same things about them from the same people. "They are our friends, we can trust them, etc.." Yet, how many people really think the Saudia's have our best interests at heart?


539 posted on 02/23/2006 10:30:09 AM PST by yellowdoghunter (I sometimes only vote for Republicans because they are not Democrats...by Thomas Sowell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: oceanview

what a straw man. you know that WTC site is not for sale.

This is just an example of the hysterics extant over this issue.

I personally would have no objection if the rightful owner
of the site were to put it on the market. And, if Saudis
buy it, then that is their right. The Supremes would likely
find it unconstitutional to disciminate against them in the event.


540 posted on 02/23/2006 10:34:38 AM PST by rahbert
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 223 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 501-520521-540541-560561-565 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson