Ellington

OK, should we be more concerned if he did, or didn't know, that this was happening? This looks really friggin' bad either way for this beleaguered White House. What could possibly be next!?! A P is reporting

President Bush was unaware of the pending sale of shipping operations at six major U.S. seaports to a state-owned business in the United Arab Emirates until the deal already had been approved by his administration, the White House said Wednesday. Defending the deal anew, the administration also said that it should have briefed Congress sooner about the transaction, which has triggered a major political backlash among both Republicans and Democrats.

Bush on Tuesday brushed aside objections by leaders in the Senate and House that the $6.8 billion sale could raise risks of terrorism at American ports. In a forceful defense of his administration's earlier approval of the deal, he pledged to veto any bill Congress might approve to block the agreement involving the sale of a British company to the Arab firm.

Bush faces a rebellion from leaders of his own party, as well as from Democrats, about the deal that would put Dubai Ports in charge of major shipping operations in New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia.

While Bush has adamantly defended the deal, the White House acknowledged that he did not know about it until recently.

"He became aware of it over the last several days," McClellan said. Asked if Bush did not know about it until it was a done deal, McClellan said, "That's correct." He said the matter did not rise to the presidential level, but went through a congressionally-mandated review process and was determined not to pose a national security threat.

This is simply unbelievable. Michael Moore is going to end up with the better legacy, yet.

Previous Comments

ID

104985

Comment

Republicans are p!ssed off, and this story gets more bizarre by the hour. More from AP: 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.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-02-22T23:52:51-06:00

ID

104986

Comment

hilarious one-sentence letter from Republican Rep. Sue Myrick to President Bush about his administration's deal to sell American ports to the Arab Emirates. It's a must-click. Really. Can I ask: Who are these people in the White House?

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-02-23T00:10:48-06:00

ID

104987

Comment

Interesting column on Alternet about the "bigotry" of attacking the Bushie's port deal with Arabs–and what the writer calls the real problems at play: It's like a hot day in the Antarctic: I actually find myself agreeing with the Bush administration. They're right when they say that criticism of the UAE port deal is based largely on racism (I would have said xenophobia, but that's got too many syllables for Bush). [...] If it were a German company -- 9/11 was planned there as well -- nobody would say "boo" about this deal. As the Wall Street Journal points out, "Yes, some of the 9/11 hijackers were UAE citizens. But then the London subway bombings last year were perpetrated by citizens of Britain, home to the company (P&O) that currently manages the ports that Dubai Ports World would take over." (My agreeing with the WSJ makes it two scorchers in Antarctica for those counting.) Don't get me wrong: I take as much pleasure in seeing the GOP getting its knickers in a twist over this as the next guy. What sweet irony it would be if George "I'm A War President" Bush were to exercise his very first veto to kill a Repub-sponsored bill to quash the port deal.[...] That doesn't mean that there isn't plenty to criticize about this contract. First, it looks like the cronyism that's become par for the course in this administration may have come into play on the deal. As the New York Daily News reported, Dubai Ports World -- the company in question -- has at least two ties to senior officials in the Bush administration. Now that this is a story that people are digging around, I bet dollars to donuts that we see a long article pop up in the next week about who lobbied whom to get this contract done. But the bigger issue here is how this story perfectly illustrates the corporate-logic-as-public-policy behind "free-trade," and every Democrat who hides behind that euphemistic banner and is now whining about this deal should have their noses rubbed in it. This deal is about government procurement, one of the hottest controversies in the trade debate, but one of which the general public is largely unaware.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-02-23T01:18:13-06:00

ID

104988

Comment

The port deal may be the head camel's proverbial straw. Associated Press: President Bush's marquee issue, the war on terror, is being turned against him by Democrats and rebelling members of his own party in an election-year dustup over a deal that allows an Arab company to manage major U.S. ports. People in both parties are suggesting it's another case of Bush seeming to be tone deaf to controversy - on top of government eavesdropping, Katrina recovery and Vice President Dick Cheney's hunting accident. The storm is forcing the president to choose between losing face with the Arab world and embarking on what would be his first veto battle with the GOP-led Congress. And it has enabled Democrats to seemingly outflank him on a key GOP issue: national security. Has Bush lost his way politically - or at least his touch? "In regards to selling American ports to the United Arab Emirates, not just NO - but HELL NO," conservative Rep. Sue Myrick, R-N.C., wrote Bush in a terse letter on Wednesday that she also posted on her Web site. No matter that no American port is actually being sold, Bush faces a spreading rebellion among Republicans, Democrats and port-state governors.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-02-23T11:45:20-06:00

ID

104989

Comment

Good NYT editorial today: Reaping What You Sow It's easy to imagine how the Bush administration might have defused much of the uproar over a deal to allow a company owned by the Dubai royal family in the United Arab Emirates to run six American ports. Members of Congress asked for consultation and reassurance that the deal would not compromise already iffy security at one of the most vulnerable parts of the nation's homeland defense system. What they got was a veto threat and a presidential suggestion that they were all anti-Arab. If the administration is in trouble with Congress, it's long overdue. For years now, the White House has stonewalled Congressional committees attempting to carry out their oversight duties. Administration officials appearing before Senate and House committees have given testimony that was, to put it generously, knowingly misleading. Requests for information have been simply waved away with an invocation of national security. Just recently, the Senate Intelligence Committee attempted to get information on the administration's extralegal wiretapping, but was told that it would compromise national security to tell the senators how the program works, how it is reviewed, how much information is collected and how that information is used. The chickens are coming home to roost. A White House that routinely brands anyone who disagrees with its positions as soft on terrorism is now complaining that election-bound lawmakers are callously using the ports deal to frighten voters. A White House that invaded Iraq as a substitute for defeating Al Qaeda is frustrated because Congress is using the company, Dubai Ports World, as a stand-in for all the intractable perils of the Middle East. As satisfying as it may be to see the tables turning, though, there is a serious issue at hand. The United Arab Emirates deserves a serious, respectful explanation if Dubai Ports World is not going to be given the right to manage American ports – a right that has already been granted to companies from countries like Britain and China. [...]

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-02-24T16:13:43-06:00

ID

104990

Comment

My word. Look at the revelations coming out about the administration ports' deal with the Arab Emerites. This report is simply, gasp, sputter, breathtaking. I don't know about y'all, but the Coast Guard are my heroes after Katrina. Imagine them not being listened to: Citing broad gaps in U.S. intelligence, the Coast Guard cautioned the Bush administration weeks ago that it could not determine whether a United Arab Emirates-based company seeking a stake in some U.S. port operations might support terrorist operations. The disclosure came during a hearing Monday on Dubai-owned DP World's plans to take over significant operations at six leading U.S. ports. The Bush administration said the Coast Guard's concerns were raised during its review of the deal, which it approved Jan. 17, and that all those questions were resolved. The port operations are now handled by London-based Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation Co. "There are many intelligence gaps, concerning the potential for DPW or P&O assets to support terrorist operations, that precludes an overall threat assessment" of the potential merger, the unclassified Coast Guard intelligence assessment said. "The breadth of the intelligence gaps also infer potential unknown threats against a large number of potential vulnerabilities," the assessment said. The Coast Guard said the concerns reflected in the document ultimately were addressed. In a statement, the Coast Guard said other U.S. intelligence agencies were able to provide answers to the questions it raised. "The Coast Guard, the intelligence community and the entire CFIUS (Committee on Foreign Investments in the United States) panel believed this transaction received the proper review, and national security concerns were, in fact, addressed," the Coast Guard said. That multi-agency government panel reviews foreign purchases of vital U.S. assets. OK, this is where my conservative side comes out. I believe you can INDEED question doing such a vital deal, involving national security, with the Arab Emerites. Hell, I would question it merely based on the idea of giving such a vital gig to a country that mistreats women so mightily.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-02-27T19:45:26-06:00

ID

104991

Comment

I can't say I'm upset about Congress trying to block the ports deal. AP today: In a congressional election-year repudiation of President Bush, a House panel dominated by Republicans voted overwhelmingly Wednesday to block a Dubai-owned firm from taking control of some U.S port operations. Democrats clamored for a vote in the Senate, too. By 62-2, the House Appropriations Committee voted to bar DP World, run by the government of Dubai in the United Arab Emirates, from holding leases or contracts at U.S. ports. The landslide vote was the strongest signal yet that more than three weeks of White House efforts to stunt congressional opposition to the deal have not been successful. Bush has promised to veto any such measure passed by Congress. But there is widespread public opposition to the deal and the GOP fears losing its advantage on the issue of national security in this fall's elections. The White House said the president's position was unchanged. "This is a national security issue," said Rep. Jerry Lewis, the chairman of the House panel, adding that the legislation would "keep America's ports in American hands."

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-03-08T21:29:24-06:00