Posted on 03/10/2006 7:37:43 AM PST by Solson
WASHINGTON - A Dubai-owned company will control 23 American ports - not six - as a result of the deal approved by a Bush administration panel in January. The takeover of the British company Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co. involves almost every major Atlantic seaport from Portland, Maine, to Miami and along the entire Gulf Coast, according to an attorney fighting the deal. The list includes Port Arthur and Beaumont, Texas, which have handled about 40 percent of the war materiel the Army has shipped to combat theaters in Iraq and Afghanistan. It also includes Norfolk, Va., home to most of the U.S. Navy's Atlantic fleet, along with three seaports in Louisiana that handle massive shipments of crude oil. In the spreading controversy, it was known that the British firm being bought by Dubai Ports World runs operations at New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia. Attorney Joseph Muldoon III represents Eller & Co., a Miami-based shipping firm that is fighting the transaction here and in Britain's highest court. In an interview, the attorney said Eller & Co. does not want to become an unwilling partner of DP World's Miami operations. Muldoon told The News he unsuccessfully appealed two months ago to Sen. John Warner, R-Va., whom he knows personally, and also saw staff members for Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas, to stop the sale on national security grounds. "I'll check it out," Muldoon quoted Warner as responding. "Finally, I went to Sen. [Charles E.] Schumer because he is a member of the Senate Banking Committee, which oversees the Treasury Department board which approved this thing. If this hadn't been for Sen. Schumer," Muldoon said in an interview, "this issue would never had gotten any traction. "My client, and I personally, believe that the seaports of this country should not be run by a foreign government," Muldoon said. He said claims by the Bush administration that security is not involved is a myth. "The port operator is the one who lays out the security plan," he said, "and the Coast Guard and other government operations follow suit." In London, Eller & Co. attorneys have been given the right to appeal the deal by Britain's highest court. It was not until Muldoon called Schumer's office three weeks ago that it bloomed into an issue that threatens the president's hold on Republican majorities in the House and Senate. "I had an instinct about this situation," Schumer said, "and it was to keep it as bipartisan as possible. So I went first to [Sen. Tom] Coburn [R-Okla.] and he was very concerned." Muldoon said "Schumer was hanging out there all alone on it until" Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., announced his opposition. King is chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee. Both national and statewide polls indicate the planned takeover of operations of American ports has helped plunge Bush to the lowest ratings of his presidency. A New York poll done by the Republican-oriented Strategic Vision LLC gives Bush an overall approval rating of 24 percent. National polls have Bush at between 36 and 39 percent. In the state survey, 81 percent of respondents think an act of terrorism is more likely if the Dubai ports deal goes through. Although the Bush administration officially approved the deal Jan. 16, DP World, the company owned by rulers of the United Arab Emirates, has requested the United States conduct a 45-day review of the transaction in an effort to defuse opposition. Schumer and King are sponsoring nearly identical bills that would empower Congress to block the deal if Congress is dissatisfied with the results of the review. Rep. Thomas M. Reynolds, R-Clarence, was an early supporter of King's bill, which now has 97 co-sponsors. Backers include almost the entire state delegation. e-mail: dturner@buffnews.com
Bureau assistant Sara Blumberg contributed to this article.
BTTT
Fortunately, you don't get to determine what's "American" and what is not.
BTW, did ya see the report that IT oursourcing is leading to more job growth for IT folks in the US because of the money the outsourcing saves companies?? Check out the latest "Information Week" magazine.
The Democrats will start bleating about the horrors of wire taps on Al Qaeda and cold pasta at Guantanamo and totally erase any paltry gain this issue might have given them.
If you think that's naive, show me all the articles about the failed port deal that get printed in July.
.
This will end up as a 2006 election issue.
Good. I'm livid. For the first time in my life I was disrespectful in my comments to my entire Congress.(I called them all traitors and political whores yesterday and that is exactly how I felt.)
That is pretty shallow; If that is all this President stands for then he stands for nothing. If he wants to take his ball and leave, then he should just quit and run off to Texas to play with his cattle.
The media will continue to print that the Senate and Congress "saved" us from having dirty Ay-rabs running our national security...
Hyperbolic nonsense.
If the election is going to be fought on the issue of which party is stronger on national security, the GOP will be thrilled.
Hillary fights for civil rights for al Qaeda and illegal immigrants. And she brags about it! A failed port management business deal is irrelevant in the grander scheme.
I don't understand....according to your link....
''We are certainly encouraged by what the statement said,'' said Eller attorney Michael Kreitzer. ``We think we are one of the companies [who could buy it]. We have been in the business for 70 years. We could do it.''
and there are others interested as well......If that's the case, why didn't any of these American companies bid on the deal in the first place? OR,
was the 'deal' , the entire P&O package, bigger than any American company could afford and so no American company bid on it, but the American portion ONLY is affordable? So 'causing' the American portion only to be for sale NOW makes the purchase more affordable to Eller?
Id also like to know why Schumer, given his position, was not aware of this deal prior to being confronted about it?
anyone?
Oh so the whole country was busting a blood vessel yesterday over just some little "soon to be forgotten" port deal......right.
Now it's just a "business deal". Yesterday it was "The Arabs are coming!! The Arabs are coming!!".
There was that little old lady from the nursing home who signed up just to post a entire thread in all cap locks who said," NO WAY AM I LETTING MY PORTS BE TAKEN OVER BY SOME STINKING MUSLIMS!!!"..well...she might forget, but it will only be the dementia setting in.
NO....I disagree with you....congress was disgraceful, IMHO.
If the UAE trading diminishes or goes away, is that good or bad for US Security interests?
The more they stir it, the more it stinks!
LLS
You obviously don't understand the implications. First, we have now insulted an Arabic Nation. Maybe you should look more closely at their culture. A slap in the face is very devastating..
They can take it. They're big boys.
Global politics and global industry play hardball. Sometimes things don’t work out the way you like. You need to get over it and continue to do business.
Dubai needs our military in their ports to provide security and stability in their country. This stability allows them to make billions in tourism and banking industries.
They are not the easily bruised girly men who seem to imagine. They are not going to cry and sulk in the corner.
And they are most certainly not going to kick our navy out of their ports in a pique of self-righteous insult. There are billions of dollars on the line, and they are not as stupid as you seem to think.
I don't even know what you're talking about. You seem a bit hysterical.
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.