Bush Set to Approve Takeover of 9 Military Plants by Dubai

NY Times ^ | April 28, 2006 | JIM RUTENBERG and DAVID E. SANGER

[neverdem]

WASHINGTON, April 27 — President Bush is expected on Friday to announce his approval of a deal under which a Dubai-owned company would take control of nine plants in the United States that manufacture parts for American military vehicles and aircraft, say two administration officials familiar with the terms of the deal.

The officials, who were granted anonymity so they could speak freely about something the president had not yet announced, said that the final details had not yet been set and that Mr. Bush might put conditions on the transaction to keep military technology in the United States.

But his action is almost certain to attract scrutiny in Congress, because of the political furor that erupted over the administration's approval of a deal earlier this spring that would have given another Dubai-owned company, Dubai Ports World, leases to operate several American port terminals through its acquisition of a British company, the Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company.

Dubai Ports agreed to drop the port deal after it became clear that Republicans were abandoning Mr. Bush and opposing the takeover.

In this case, the plants in question are owned by Doncasters Group Ltd., a British company that is being purchased for $1.2 billion from the Royal Bank of Scotland Group by Dubai International Capital, which is owned by the United Arab Emirate government.

Because the plants make turbine blades for tanks and aircraft, the deal was reviewed by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, which sent it on to Mr. Bush himself for a decision, a step used only when the potential security risks or political considerations are particularly acute.

Administration officials alerted Congress that the deal would go through the committee's review process in an effort to head off the kind of public debate that surrounded...

[zook]

In my heart I believe that President Bush knows a hell of a lot more about who to trust and who not to trust in the war on terror than the lot of anti-Bush cranks I see posting here. Maybe once some of you ought to consider that President Bush has some basis to trust UAE and knows something about how their assisting in the war on terror.

I hope this sails through like a hot knife through head cheese.

[CWOJackson]

Interestingly enough, the vocal leaders of those who so vehemently opposed the port facility deal with the UAE haven't even mentioned this deal. Chuck Schumer, the MSM, Sean Vannity....they're suddenly AWOL.

[zook]

It's funny. M. Savage was blithering on last night about how W must have paid Schumer off with some "bridge to nowhere." It's fun to hear Savage be all po'd this (at least for a minute or two--after that it's sad).

[CWOJackson]

I have tried many times to listen to Savage but it's proven impossible to take him for more then four or five minutes before hitting the off button.

[Czar]

"I'm more concerned about our cousins across the pond. What else (beside Buckingham Palace and Big Ben) do they have left?"

The UK is making the same mistakes as France, and we're following in their footsteps. We have far too many immigrant groups in this country who refuse to assimilate (especially Muslims) and are not really interested in becoming Americans. Hence, we have a plethora of "Little This" and "Little That".

We'd better wise up.

Quick.

[Borax Queen]

Yet another surprise.

[nicmarlo]

But not surprising that the surprise is unpalatable to most Americans.

[Borax Queen]

Who cares about Americans anymore?

[nicmarlo]

Who cares about Americans anymore?

In "leadership"? Very few. In big business? Very few. Traitors and the greedy don't love America because their hearts lie elsewhere.

[Hop A Long Cassidy]

>>>Oh crimeny, not this again. AMERICANS WILL BE THE ONES WORKING THESE PLANTS JUST LIKE THEY WOULD HAVE WITH THE PORTS! Some of you people are such media dupes.

This has already been disproven. The high-tech defense plant that was bought by the Chinese during Clinton's administration has already been moved to China -- against their prior assurances.

Also, once control (ownership) passes, there will be immigration visas issued for managers. It's not like they'll manage this operation via telephone and remote computer.

Why do the Bushbot cheerleaders and media people believe there never will be a war? Do they not remember the US cutting metal exports needed by the Japanese war machine? What about the crippling of imports of rubber during WWII to the US and the resulting development of synthetic rubber?

The contracts of our defense establishment must now be reviewed after the likes of Clinton and Bush have compromised the reliability of the suppliers during wartime.

[Accygirl]

"That was a government armory, not a private corporation."

So to follow your logic, then the government should also nationalize Boeing since it's critical to our defense infrastructure?? Heck why don't we nationalize the entire defense sector. We could just abandon free markets and become like the commie-socialists in France. (How's there army doing these days?).

"There have ALWAYS (at least before the last 2 Administrations) been policies in place to prevent foreign acquisition of critical defense infrastructure. That policy seems to be changing - and not for the better. Defense companies can't sell directly to foreign powers, either. It has to go through Foreign Military Sales. Perhaps Lenin was right. We really will sell them the rope to hang us with."

Considering that one could make the case that many companies touch the Defense Industry, then none of our manufacturing companies could every be should to a foreign competitor? That makes real logical sense... Keep all these factories open under bad U.S. ownership, so that they can produce equipment of poorer quality, more slowly and more expensively than perhaps the same company under foreign ownership. That's the same completely warped logic that the domestic car industry hopes that one follows.

As for the previous administrations, everyone up to Clinton (and I do give him credit for this) were against free trade in general. So it isn't shocking that they were incapable of applying free trade principles to the defense industry.

[Accygirl]

"Are they?"
Pretty close to it... In a few months, they'll basically be out of $$.

"What *lack* of monetary support?"
When Hamas comes begging, they aren't doling anything out.

"No, they just want to keep power. There's nothing "liberal" about the UAE's brand of Islam."
Of course, they want to stay in power, this is why they're close allies with the U.S. However, they do have a much more liberal brand of Islam than Osama and friends. The Gulf States are where Saudis will go on the weekends to drink and gamble, and they have a much more enlightened view toward women than their neighbors.

[Accygirl]

"They're begging for *European* money."
Nope for Arab $$$...
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1145961256939&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

"They certainly don't treat foreign children all that well...."
Umm... that's the Saudis (who aren't are friends). Please don't confuse the two.

"Oh, so THAT's why AQ Khan's network worked in the UAE and why 9/11 funding went through there. Why UAE royals go falconing with bin Laden....."
The 9/11 plot probably got $$$ from the religious nutsos in Europe. Does that mean we shouldn't let Airbus bid on U.S. military contracts?

"That'd be Bahrain, not UAE. We are referring to the Emirates."
Same area and same attitude toward Islam.. All those countries (Qatar, Kuwait, UAE, Bahrain, and Oman) have much more liberal social mores than Osama and friends.

[Accygirl]

"If you don't think Boeing operates under restrictions not imposed upon other corporations in other industries, you know absolutely nothing about the defense industry."
Red tape and restrictions are probably why the company is doing so poorly.

Plus, to take your stance to its logical conclusion, one would have to A completely nationalize Boeing and B. completely nationalize any other company that makes anything for the military, right down to the bolt factory for which the U.S. military might represent 1% of its total business.

"There are security implications you just don't care about, do you? Why not just outsource all our military procurement to China, while we're at it!"
It's the UAE we're talking about (not China). BTW, Boeing just got a big order to build civilian aircraft for China. Should that type of order not be allowed to go through in the name of "national security"?

"You CAN'T. National survival trumps "free trade". Always has."
We won't survive without free markets, foreign investment, and exports. Our economy would basically collapse.

"Lenin was right about you people."
Ummm... last time I checked, the U.S. kind of won that war. (It's a bit hazy, but I kind of remember the Berlin Wall coming down when I was seven).

As for your fondness of mentioning Lenin, it goes along nicely with your semi-Marxist view of economic theory.

[Accygirl]

"You must'a missed the begging in Europe...."
Actually the Hamas foreign minister just got back from begging around the Middle East.

"Were European ministers vacationing with bin Laden?"
Well... Ya never know about Le Frogs.

"No,it isn't the same "area". By that measure, SA is in the "same area"."
Considering that most of the Middle East is Saudi Arabia, it's in close proximity to every country.

"Not really, no. They aren't ACTIVELY trying to kill us right now, but that's not the same thing."
Why would the emirs try to cut off the hand that protects them? The U.S. army is basically the reason why these guys aren't part of Greater Iraq or Great Osamaland already.

"Again, there is no "moderate Islam" and there are no "moderate" Muslims. There are actively violent Muslims and those who tacitly support them."
Based on what the Koran? Because if you want to go there, I can give you passages from the Old Testament of the Bible that are just as violent.