Bush Accepts DP World's Offer of Review

The Miami Herald ^ | 02/26/2006 | TED BRIDIS

[KCRW]

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Bush administration said Sunday it will accept an extraordinary offer by a United Arab Emirates-based company to submit to a second - and broader - U.S. review of potential security risks in its deal to take over significant operations at six leading American ports. The plan averts an impending political showdown.

The Treasury Department said in a statement it will promptly begin the review once the company formally files a request for one. It said the same government panel that earlier investigated the deal but found no reason for national security concerns will reconsider it.

In six pages of documents sent earlier in the day to the White House, Dubai-based DP World asked for a 45-day investigation of plans to run shipping terminals in New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia.

The announcement means the White House likely won't face a revolt by fellow Republicans when lawmakers return Monday from a weeklong break. A united Republican Party can assert that its leaders - both in Congress and at the White House - have taken additional steps to protect national security.

[CWOJackson]

"...but i know that others are reading these posts."

Which is why there are many people who will insure that the facts are presented...there is no takeover of our ports or their security.

[Rise of South Park Republicans]

Frankly, I'm sick of them; and the more frantic they post, the more they show what their real problem with this is: THEM ARABS!

You are right. we need to go after the real terrorists - THEM LILY-WHITE CRACKERS FROM IOWA! They'll pay for their crimes on 9/11

[Stellar Dendrite]

LOL....

[Stepan12]

Funny, but I find it very strange that every single Jew I personally know is a Democrat.

I didn't understand. My sincerest apologies to you.

[BubbaTheRocketScientist]

My discussion will end now with you.

Thanks for your time, it's been interesting.

[BigSkyFreeper]

I'm just waiting for Stellar to start posting photographs of people from the UAE eating American puppies. This whole campaign was built on a lie, and when pushing that lie didn't work she reverted to posting silly cartoons and graphic photos of violence in Isreal.

I noticed they stopped posting the picture of President Bush kissing the Saudi Prince after I pointed it out who that was.

[F16Fighter]

"Does every member of Islam practice hatred, inequity and malevolence, F16? That is the root of the problem we have here."

It depends on how literally individual Muslims take seriously certain parts of the Koran, doesn't it?

THEREIN lies the problem.

"You will never, ever, ever see me defend the religion of Islam, but I will defend against the massive prejudice against those who were born into this mixed up religion."

Whereas I can appreciate your noble effort to give the benefit of doubt regarding those Muslims who practice "moderate" Islam, we (yes Jeanne Dixon IS dead, isn't she? ;-) unfortunately cannot predict nor define just which tenets those Muslims will or won't abide by.

"I personally have more problem with the possibility that an atheist would become our President than a moderate Muslim."

Sorry -- cannot concur with you theory in this case OWF.

Atheists (who are characteristically libertarian) are not necessarily hostile to ALL OTHER beliefs. Not only that, there are well-principled intellectually atheists who are actually patriotic and love America. AND none of them have been calling for the death of others who ARE "believers."

"And I am old enough, and fundamentalist enough to remember the fear mongering of those who said that the Pope was going to be running America if JFK became our President."

Even IF we assumed JFK MAY have leaned on the tenets of the Pope (which afterall ARE Christian,) your analogy fails.

Comparatively speaking, the new "worry" would be whether a "moderate" Muslim would/could subscribe to or promote subservience to Islamic/Sharia Law....

FAR different than President Kennedy/Catholic vs. a "President" Muhammad Ahmed/Muslim.

AND, FWIW, there was a signer of the Declaration of Independence who WAS Catholic, as were three of the Founding Fathers.

"Fear mongering based on blind prejudice doesn't look any better to me now than it did 45 years ago, no matter how it is disguised, nor who is disguising it."

Again, the Koran, and international Islam has proven without a shadow of doubt that any supposed "blind prejudice" and "fear mongering" is well-founded...and based upon FACT.

Europe is indeed providing a prelude to the affectations of a highly influenced Muslim culture.

[Howlin]

Stellar used you as an example of people calling Buchanan a Nazi.

As for this,

Funny, but I find it very strange that every single Jew I personally know is a Democrat.

I have no idea where that came from; I certainly didn't say it.

[CWOJackson]

When that's all you've got...

[Stepan12]

Funny, but I find it very strange that every single Jew I personally know is a Democrat. I have no idea where that came from; I certainly didn't say it.

But I'm not a Democrat. Incidentally, I met Buchanan and his lovely wife back in 1982. I wished him luck in his debate with Barney Frank at Boston's Ford Hall Forum. Things have changed and I don't think I'd wish him luck today.

[inquest]

It was put under the same scrutiny that all sales/leases to foreign government companies are put through. The Homeland Security office did express some concern at first, but I think that the fact that the Homeland Security office expressed concerns before they approved it just proves that they gave it the careful consideration that it deserved and did not just rubberstamp it.

It also demonstrates that there is indeed a significant security dimension to this. I found a link to this article on Stellar Dendrite's homepage. An excerpt:

Baker [Homeland Security official who sat on the federal committee that approved the Dubai deal] acknowledged that a government audit of security practices at the U.S. ports in the takeover has not been completed as part of the deal. "We had the authority to do an audit earlier," Baker said.

The audit will help evaluate DP World's security programs to stop smuggling and detect illegal shipments of nuclear materials at its seaport operations in New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia.

So it appears that our government is, to a certain extent, relying on DP World to police itself. I admit that I'm not an expert on these things, but when it comes to air cargo, which you talked about earlier, is it true that most if not all cargo that comes through airports gets inspected? If that's not true, then do we know how that compares to the percentage of ocean cargo that gets inspected at seaports?

[inquest]

Most of those who believe this claim that they're really in favor of smaller government but want someone to get involved to make sure a level playing field is achieved or, even more comical, that fair trade is ensured.

OK, I'll grant you that point that that is a Marxist-like attitude, and that there are freepers who've exhibited it. I agree that that's unfortunate. But I would still question whether they would advocate a similar level of government power over our own domestic economy. It may seem inconsistent to favor one and not the other, and in fact probably is, if you were really to press them on it. But it's not unusual for people to have inconsistent views.

For my own part, I agree with some level of protectionism, not because I think it would help our economy, nor because I think domestic producers "deserve" it, but simply because I don't want the U.S. to become overly dependent on foreign countries. We already have that problem with regard to Saudi Arabia, which I think inhibits us from prosecuting the WOT the way we should. And the nations of Europe are finding themselves controlled more and more by pencilnecks in Brussels, even for completely non-economic matters, such as "human rights" (read: indulgence of criminals and West-hating Muslims). I really don't want that here. Having some barriers to prevent it might be an inconvenience economically, but as you acknowledged, our country was able to prosper quite well in spite of it.

[Milligan]

Are they afraid the DPW will be non union?

Not at all. If the DPW deal goes through the Longshoremen will benefit greatly. Why did DPW asked for a 45 day extension? Everyone will be wheeling and dealing for the best offers and get a new contract for their Longshoremen.

Schumer, Hillary and Congressman Peter King took campaign contributions from this Union. It's only fair to represent your constituents, right? New York City and Newark are the biggest ports in the US. Don't you smell the money?

This has nothing to with National Security.

Our ports are very profitable and I don't think any government offical will let this cash cow go. They want DPW operating our ports but they want the average Joe to think their sincere about National Security, kick out the Arabs from our ports and getting more votes for the next election.

Why haven't they kicked out the Chinese COSCO? They have our west coast terminals. Noticed all the Chinese made merchandise being sold at our retail stores at reasonable prices. I'm sure the Saudis have freight operations here in the States. Americans like Danish Cheese and French Wine and Europeans like American Beef.

Business is Business.

[KCRW]

"Simply makes good sense."

I agree- caution is not a bad thing. What I expect with this new review, is honesty. Honestly take a look at the history of this company and their dealings with other foreign governments. Honestly take a look at the security issues.

What I completely and utterly disagree with is that the leaders in Congress are letting hate and fear make their decisions for them. Instead of honestly looking at this issue and weighing the drawbacks and the benefits with this deal- the Congress freaked out. When they freaked out- all of America freaked out with them.

What I also disagree with the Congress about is the fact that they never bothered to look at both sides of the issue. I expect the Congress to do their job and understand both sides and then make a educated decision instead of a emotional decision. No one in Congress that had anything to say about this bothered to think about the repercussions of turning this company away- especially after they had already passed the tests given to them by our government. A foreign company, having already passed all of the reviews that they were supposed to, and then they get turned down by a frightened US government, will definitely cause repercussions.

Also, none of the leaders in Congress ever bothered to look at what would happened to our Navy ships parked in their harbors right now. Our ships, sailors and soldiers can come and go in the UAE as they please right now. We desperatly need our ships, sailors and soldiers as close to Iran as we possibly can, right now.

Lastly, the leaders in Congress never bothered to realize that what they are portraying to Americans right now is fear. The leaders in Congress are showing how truly terrified of the terrorists they are right now. Don't you think that OBL is sitting in a cave right now- and he can literally smell the fear of Americans? You can bet the terrorists are going to use this against America. I can guess what the terrorists next video tape will be saying-"The Americans are scared, the American leaders are terrified. We are winning. We have the Americans on the run." Of course- it is not true- but the terrorists will use the reaction of American leaders to their advantage.

I don't know if this deal should go thru. There are alot of reasons this deal should not go thru, but there are alot of reasons that they should go thru. I do expect our Congress to look at both sides.

I do know that our American leaders should not look and act panicked. This process needs to be thought out. No more jumping to conclusions, no more panicked reactions, it is time for the leaders of this country to use their heads. We expect our government officials to act like leaders and look like professionals. That has not happened in Congress yet.

[TheLion]

I think forming a new company with only US employees would make sense to handle these contracts. UAE has been a good partner. They seem to be bending over backwards to take care of this.

[KCRW]

I heard this too. Operations conducted by Americans, but profits go to Dubai company. It is done all of the time- why not this time?

[LowCountryJoe]

...but simply because I don't want the U.S. to become overly dependent on foreign countries.

It creates an interdependency and that's an important distinction. Combined with the fact that innovation/discovery, exchange rates, and investment & their rates of return never stay static in an economy and that no economy remains dependent [much less interdependent] on certain consumables from another over the long haul.

Markets are beautiful and should be embraced by everyone, in my opinion...because everyone [and their individual preferences and utility] are part of this beauty. Sounds corny unless you've really studied it at which point it's fascinating.

[LowCountryJoe]

That was an excellent reply. Thanks for jumping in on this one.

[inquest]

It creates an interdependency and that's an important distinction. Combined with the fact that innovation/discovery, exchange rates, and investment & their rates of return never stay static in an economy and that no economy remains dependent [much less interdependent] on certain consumables from another over the long haul.

That's the theory, but I'm looking at our own experience with Saudi Arabia, as well as Europe's experience with the EU, and it leaves me wondering if it really does work out that way in practice.

[ohioWfan]

All your points are well taken, though not agreed with.

Do you mind answering this question? Should a Muslim become President, exactly what, considering the separation and balance of powers that the genius of the Founding Fathers placed within the Constitution, could he do to 'promote subservience to Sharia law' in 8 years..........especially considering the Christian, albeit in name only for many, nature of this country's people?

I understand that the Koran is interpreted by many Muslims at its most violent, but I also know American Muslims who are as gentle as any people I have ever met. And a Muslim acknowledges being subject to a higher being, and I don't believe for a minute that there aren't many patriotic Muslims in this country. You're taking the attributes of some and attributing them unjustly to all.

I just don't share your fear, F16. I think your POV is based on emotion and not reason, and I don't share it.

(btw, I still stand by my opinion that the fear of JFK among fundamentalists was irrational, and the fear you have that we would be subject to Sharia law in 8 years is also irrational).