Posted on 02/28/2006 1:44:53 PM PST by Paul Ross
|
 |
||
| UPDATE 1-Amid dispute, Bush still backs Dubai ports deal
(Adds comments from Frist, new legislation from Bayh) By Caren Bohan and Susan Cornwell WASHINGTON, Feb 28 (Reuters) - President George W. Bush on Tuesday stood by his support for allowing a Dubai-based company to run terminals at six major U.S. ports, as lawmakers raised concerns about a Coast Guard report on security issues. "If there was any doubt in my mind or people in my administration's minds that our ports would be less secure or the American people in danger, this deal wouldn't go forward," Bush said, as the U.S. Congress held another day of hearings on the contested takeover bid. Facing a bipartisan uproar over the agreement to have state-owned Dubai Ports World manage terminals at ports including New York and New Jersey, the White House agreed on Sunday to a new, 45-day security review of the deal. At the end of it, Bush will have to authorize or reject the agreement. As of Tuesday afternoon, the new review had not begun, a Treasury Department spokeswoman said. Bush did not repeat his threat to veto any legislation to block the takeover deal, but aides said his position had not changed. The takeover by the United Arab Emirates-based company pushed Bush's approval rating to an all-time low of 34 percent, according to a new CBS News poll. U.S. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, a Tennessee Republican who asked that the deal be put on hold last week, said he felt "a greater comfort level" with the takeover now that he had received more information. He also said he would not let any related legislation on the Senate floor while the new inquiry is under way. But other lawmakers continued to voice concerns about the deal, which critics say could make it easier for militants to attack the United States. Sen. Evan Bayh, a Democrat from Indiana, introduced new legislation requiring greater scrutiny of business deals involving foreign countries. A bipartisan group of senators had introduced legislation on Monday to give Congress the power to block the deal.
INTELLIGENCE REVIEW Senators at an Armed Services Committee hearing pressed top intelligence officials about a U.S. Coast Guard report late last year that said "intelligence gaps" made it hard to assess if the takeover presented security concerns. Vice Admiral Terry Cross, vice commandant of the Coast Guard, said in a statement on Tuesday that his agency's initial review had identified the gaps but additional information and assurances it had received confirmed the takeover did not pose a significant threat. "In fact, the Coast Guard will have more information about the affected terminals under DPW ownership than it currently does under P&O's ownership," he said. Intelligence chief John Negroponte told the hearing that his own team's intelligence review was submitted Dec. 5, 2005, about a week before the Coast Guard report. "On the basis of our inquiry we assessed that the threat to U.S. national security posed by DP World to be low. And we did not see any red flags come up during the course of our inquiry," Negroponte said. Sen. Charles Schumer, a New York Democrat, said senators had heard from several sources that U.S. Customs also had expressed security concerns. He declined to identify the sources. Sen. Susan Collins, a Maine Republican and chairwoman of the Homeland Security committee that made the Coast Guard document public on Monday, said she thought the administration had rushed to judgment in deciding in the company's favor. (Additional reporting by Caroline Drees)
|
|
|
|
|
||
Reuters has no media bias??? /rhe
I asked whether you had any links or other sources regarding DP World's business dealings with Zim. By your off-topic response, I take it that you don't.
Oh, Like the routine security requirements that they should maintain all their operational business records on our shores? Or that they provide a U.S. citizen as a corporate officer here on our shores?
These all got peremptorily waived, mysteriously.
Not increased security.
Lessened.
Manifestly, security became a 'lip-service.' Form over substance. Subsituting reliance upon their "assurances" for our need for real, substantive, security measures and procedures.
Keep in mind, the security concerns never originated with the democrats. It originated with real conservatives. The RATs merely sensed an opportunity. An opportunity that was not the fault of the conservatives. But the administration.
An adminstration which proves over and over again...that it is no where close to being conservative.
Even Robert Novak, while trying to defend the deal, found it excruciatingly painful to recite the following in The Politics of Ports:
When Democrats first opened fire, presidential counselor Dan Bartlett was alerted by congressional Republicans to stormy waters ahead and urged to do something about it. Bartlett replied in the imperial style of this presidency by suggesting he hoped Republicans could support the deal, but if they could not, it just would be too bad. That was followed by the president's rare session with reporters aboard Air Force One in which he threatened a veto.
"If there was any doubt in my mind or people in my administration's minds that our ports would be less secure or the American people in danger, this deal wouldn't go forward," Bush said"
This is EXACTLY why I voted for Bush!!!!
Staying the course and making me proud!
If your confused by this issue, just look who opposes it. The party that gave President Bush 9/11 on a silver platter, the Dims. Not even their clock is right twice a day.
Right. Another remarkable instance of your inside information, despite the confidentiality of the agreement between DP World and the administration.
And perhaps you'd care to explain what is so "over and above" about this:
"Under a secretive agreement with the 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 . . .The U.S. government chose not to impose other, routine restrictions.
Under the deal, the government asked Dubai Ports to operate American seaports with existing U.S. managers "to the extent possible." The company promised to take "all reasonable steps" to assist the Homeland Security Department.
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 said stricter provisions are routine in other industries.
Foreign communications companies with American customers are commonly required to store business records in the United States. A senior U.S. official said the Bush administration considers shipping manifests less sensitive. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because of the confidential nature of the agreement."
That's a couple dozen notches "under and below" what should be even minimally required.
Of course they do. But a story can be just a story. As Sigmund Freud said, sometimes a cigar, is just a cigar.
How would you have reported the substance herein differently?
Hannity had some stat last week detailing the number of times the UAE has voted in our favor at the UN. It was a pitifully low number, something like 4-5 times out of a 100 some votes. Terrible. And we're going to hand them our ports?
Proof for that accusation. Considering how every single "Fact" cited by the Port Deal foes, most recently yesterday's fraudulent misquoting of a Coast Guard Report to claim the exact OPPOSITE of what in fact says, anything stated by the Port Deal Critics is assumed to be a lie until independently verified. So far every attack line has been prove a lie. We are NOT "turning control of our ports over to the Arabs". We are NOT "giving the Arabs control of our Port Security functions" The Coast Guard did NOT oppose the Port deal. etc etc etc. So I suspect this too is just another lie made because the Port Deal Critics are too arrogant to admit they fell hook line and sinker for a Chucky Schumer Democrat Senate Election year PR stunt. They just keep flailing away hoping the NEXT attack lie will get them off the hook they decided in their hysteric ignorance to impale themselves on.
As has been repeated proven, US Local Govt Port Authories control our ports. This is another of the lies told by the Port Deal foes.
Think they were Muslims by chance?
Any links to this information you posted?
His proposed guest worker program has been a real help also.
The President has made no effort to increase the southern border security through spending or manpower. He cares about the illegal immigrant invasion about as much as he cares about the increasing size of government.
Actually, I'm not confused by this issue. I am perpetually disappointed with the administration not being conservative. The conservatives were the first to raise the red flags on the issues.
To wit: Frank Gaffney.
The democrats merely sensed an opportunity, but it was not an opportunity created by the conservaitves. It was "ham-handedly" created by the Administration, as admitted by the deal-supporting Robert Novak. And as he is the first to tell us, the administration is conspicuously not conservative.
As for who opposes it, you need to note the long list that has accumulated. Peter King (R-NY), Curt Weldon (R-PA), Senate Majority-leader Bill Frist (R), House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R), New York Governor George Pataki (R), Senator Rick Santorum (R), Senator John Thune (R), and on and on.
Whereas who supports the deal that should give you real pause?
Jimmy Man-Eating-Rabbit Carter,
John Freaking "Swift Lie" Kerry
run terminals at six major U.S. ports
So, no, we aren't going to hand them our ports. Wanna hear about how the Port of Houston is feeeelllling about it? Read below!
HOUSTON, Feb. 23, 2006 -- The recent announcement of plans by the Dubai Ports World (DP World) to purchase P&O Ports (P&O) will not have an impact on any of the facilities or operations of the Port of Houston Authority (PHA).
The PHA is a political subdivision chartered by the state of Texas. It owns and either operates or leases 12 public facilities. The PHA does not own or operate private facilities.
Specifically in Houston, P&O leases space at the PHA's Barbours Cut Container Terminal for container and chassis repair and container storage. At the PHA's Turning Basin Terminal, P&O maintains a freight handling assignment and is licensed to provide stevedore services. P&O does not own or operate public (PHA) facilities.
P&O, a private company headquartered in London, is involved in worldwide container terminal operations and stevedore services for the maritime industry.
The Port of Houston comprises more than 150 public (PHA) and private terminals along the 53-mile Houston Ship Channel. The port's private terminals include several U.S.-based, foreign-based and multi-national corporations. Approximately 85% of cargo that moves through Houston's port is handled at private facilities. A large portion of the port's private facilities are engaged in production, refining and transportation operations related to the global oil, gas and chemical industries.
PORT SECURITY
All port facilities in the U.S. that are engaged in commercial activities across interstate lines or international borders -- whether public or private, domestic or foreign -- are subject to state and federal security statutes as well as the rules and regulations of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and other federal agencies.
The federal government takes the lead in protecting America's ports. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security, primarily through the activities of Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and the U.S. Coast Guard, runs many programs to secure U.S. ports. The U.S. Coast Guard is responsible for maritime security and reviewing and approving security plans for vessels, port facilities and port areas which are required by the MTSA. Customs and Border Protection is responsible for cargo security, and screens and inspects cargo entering the U.S. through every U.S. port.
Other cargo security programs include:
-- Container Security Initiative (inspection of U.S. import cargo
by CBP prior to leaving the outbound foreign port)
-- Use of radiation detection equipment to screen for weapons of
mass destruction
-- Use of other non-intrusive inspection devices
-- Customs Trade Partnership Against Terrorism (C-TPAT), which
encourages maritime stakeholders to verify their security
measures.
The Port Security Grant program and the pending implementation of the Transportation Worker Identification Credential (TWIC) are also important parts of America's port security portfolio to provide layered security.
While the federal government takes the lead on waterside and cargo security, overall security is a shared responsibility with port authorities, facility and vessel operators, and state and local law enforcement agencies providing additional security. The Maritime Transportation Security Act also establishes local security committees to evaluate and make improvements in each port.
In general, port infrastructure throughout the U.S. and around the world consists of diverse collections of docks, warehouses, and terminals. For the past two decades, it has been a common maritime industry practice for private port facilities in some countries to be operated by organizations that are based in other countries. This is widely regarded as the nature of trade and commerce in today's global economy.
For more information, please visit www.portofhouston.com .
The Port of Houston Authority logo can be found at: http://media.primezone.com/prs/single/?pkgid=720
CONTACTS: Port of Houston Authority
Argentina M. James, Director of Public Affairs
Office: (713) 670-2568 Cell: (713) 306-6822
ajames@poha.com
See my 28 for the Port of Houston Authority statement about the "portgate" deal.
Sorry. That overstatement is unworthy of a conservative.
Because if you continue to maintain that hyperbole, it is you, who needs a reality check. The transparent desperation in your shrillness, to salvage the political wreckage of a pathetically bad mistake can't cover for the mistakes. Or the coverups.
Not a single point of the original objections have been "disproven." The democrats don't enter into this. This is between conservatives, and this administration, which is squarely in our sights.
Even Rush Limbaugh was very careful to draw a righteous distinction that the original...and continuing... opponents such as Peter King and Frank Gaffney are not wrong and are not liars.
And neither have any of the explicit Coast Guard concerns been "addressed." Note how ambiguous and nonspecific the "assurances" are...when the objections were quite specific.
Manifestly, a political decision was made to just accept the risks. Hence, the concerns were resolved with mere "assurances" rather than real procedures. Form over substance.
They were papered over, and Politically Correct Brass Hats saluted, and did as they were told.
And clearly, so has Rush, because, after all, we mustn't offend the UAE...and lose the Navy bases.
[Really "solid ally" there! ]
My Position: There has to be some other 'plum' we can give the UAE to keep them happy.
Still waiting for some proof. Anyone....??? Oh but that is RIGHT. The Whine All The Time Choir is only intrested in accusations that feed their political bigotry NOT facts that prove them hysteric Know Nothings.
Amazing how apologists for the deal still do not "get it" that it only takes one such terminal to slip in the nukes. And all of these P&O terminals are massively busy.
And as far as your foreign airliner "red herring"...we now have Avenger missile batteries around some key cities, and at the Pentagon, so we don't need the CAPs, just what are you expecting, a reprise of 9-11 using airliners?
So the airliner issue doesn't necessarily prove anything.
And stll more tellingly, as Al-Queda proved ... the jihadists can be patient. Waiting for our guard to slip, and overconfidence to weaken us.
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.