Dubai Ports: Shame on the Democrats!

Wait a minute. The first objections to this plan came from Peter King, Republican of New York. He has been JOINED by, amongst other Republicans, Senator Frist, Mayor Mike Bloomberg, Governor Pataki as well as Democratic Senators Clinton and Schumer. The objections have been bi-partisan.

Golly why? NYTIMES Feb 21 Article

The whole thing seems just a little like the old story of this administration.
Use a connection from inside the Administration to make some kind of deal, (Snow), don't tell Congress much, get sharp with anyone making any kind of demurrers. Trust us, they say. Yeah, they have been so right about so much so far.

Do Bush supporters really want this to be the subject of his FIRST veto??

Hooray for those in the GOP who are finally regrowing their Congressional backbones.

Joe(Aren't there some retired Taliban who could run the ports?)Nation

You might want to consider moving your store, Joe.

<bookmark>

I think that regardless of who owns the company that manages our ports, we need to pay FAR MORE attention to the security of ports, nuclear reactors, chemical plants, etc.. At present we seem to be focusing only on transportation systems (trains and planes) and trusting jihadists to simply not do their deed.
It IS possible that any islamist who wants to gain access to our ports would have an easier time infiltrating an arab owned company than one owned by a European or American owned company.
But, then, the Oklahoma bombing was arab-free.

I agree with ebrown on this.

Obscure US intelligence agency assessed ports deal

By David Morgan
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A deal that allows an Arab-owned company in Dubai to manage six major U.S. ports was scrutinized for security risks by an obscure intelligence agency that has existed for only four months, American officials said on Wednesday.

The Intelligence Community Acquisition Risk Centre, or CARC, overseen by the office of intelligence chief John Negroponte, was asked by the government committee that vets foreign investments in the United States to look into the ports deal soon after it came to its attention in early November.

U.S. officials approved the sale of British-based P&O to Dubai Ports World of the United Arab Emirates on January 16, giving the Arab-owned firm a green light to take over port operations in New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, Philadelphia, New Orleans and Miami.

But the deal has since unleashed a political firestorm from both Republicans and Democrats, who see it as a potential risk to national security.

The White House sought to stem criticism on Wednesday by saying the port takeover had been reviewed by intelligence agencies, including counterterrorism experts.

"The intelligence community did assessments to make sure that there was no national security threat," White House spokesman Scott McClellan told reporters.

But intelligence officials said CARC, which has little to do with counterterrorism activities, was formed just last October as the agency mandated to assess security risks posed by companies that do business with the intelligence community.

Only a small part of the center's resources are devoted to vetting commercial deals, officials said.

CARC's first director, William Dawson, was appointed in January, more than a month after the centre had been asked to begin work on the Dubai Ports World acquisition.

Dawson had been a senior information technology official for the intelligence community prior to his appointment.

A spokesman for Negroponte acknowledged the intelligence community provided an assessment but declined to discuss specifics.

Intelligence officials, who requested anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly about CARC, said many of the center's functions were transferred to Negroponte's office from the CIA in 2005 as a result of congressionally mandated intelligence reforms.

I don't know if it is a good idea or a bad one. But, there is no harm checking the company out real good before allowing it to go forward.

It was thoroughly vetted, including being approved by the committee on foreign investment.

Now we approve of guilt by association? Some evil passed through Dubai, so all of Dubai is EVIL!!!!

Then the terrorists must be right to hate all Americans, eh?

Political opportunism. A chance to scare people and to get in the papers.

Or rather, a chance to scare people just to get in the papers.

Didn't the UAE support the Taliban, and the Taliban support Al Qaeda? Also:


Source

We want these people controlling ports to major cities at a time when we're trying to stop enemies from sneaking weapons into the country?

I agree, but I was suggesting that an arab-owned company, no matter how good, how pro-U.S., CAN be more easily infiltrated by bad guys because of its arab characteristics. One of the problems we may have in getting intelligence on arab islamist activities is that americans (unless they are arab-americans) cannot not pass for islamists (appearance, cultural background, language, etc.). The same applies to islamists; they have less chance of infiltrating "white" U.S. organizations than they can arab organizations. And the Dubai organization of one of the latter.

This just isn't fair.

This is one of the few things that I agree with Bush about... and I says to myself-- Great! I will be supported and respected by Brandon who is always complaining about how we lefties are knee-jerk anti-Bush.

But what happened? This is the ONE time I have ever seen Brandon question Bush-- and on an issue of national security no less! What gives?

I am beginning to suspect that Brandon isn't really pro-Bush (as he seems)... he is anti-Ebrown.

Anyway, I applaud ebrown for the thread.

Perception is reality to those who believe it.


The perception of the American People is that they do not feel secure with a Govt Owned company running key ports.

Now the job of the President is to sell this to the American People.

By him saying to knuckleheads like Clinton and Schumer, I'll Veto This....does not sell.

By GW saying we looked at all the details and it is OK... again does not sell it to the public.

I personally am not sold on it for the obvious potential conflict of interest.

I don't know what you people read. Don't you know that both Frisk and Haslet are questioning this deal as well as many republicans in congress.

And dumbo is crying nobody told me.

If any of yall are still trying to figure this whole ports issue out, I would refer you to npr.org where, today on Morning Edition, they offered a good summary (in my opinion) of what is going on. There was included an interview with the CEO of the Dubai company at the center of this controversy.
I rarely agree with Mr Bush but on this he is right, unless it turns out that there were back room shenanigans going on.

If you want to have a global economy and free trade then companies from other countries are going to conduct business in the US.

The GOP has trained their base well on this issue. Too bad they trained them to complain when foreign companies were set to run US interests during the 90s. Go to newsmax and look up all the stories attacking Clinton for just this sort of thing, that would decrease our security, and that is in a pre 9/11 world. As Bush keeps telling us we are in a post 9/11 world now.

I don't see a problem with it but Bush is reaping what the GOP sowed on this one. They deserve to be raised on their own petard and marched around the square.

He can't sell it to his own constituency. What is curious is that he declared he would veto any legislation that would hold up the sale and than admitted he knew nothing about it till he read or pardon me he does not read? Heard it on the news. His administration has bollixed up everything they got involved with. Why would one suppose this would be any different.IMO Mr. Bush and his covey of liars is not to be trusted.