CNN: Bush faces pressure to block port deal

[PhilipShore]

CNN
Politics
Bush faces pressure to block port deal
February 21, 2006

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/02/21/port.security/

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush is facing political pressure to block a deal that would give a United Arab Emirates-based company management of six major U.S. seaports.

The Republican chairman of the House Homeland Security panel said the deal should not go through without a complete investigation.

The Bush administration has said the UAE is a key ally in the war on terror.

Others, however, point out that two of the September 11, 2001, hijackers were from the UAE. In addition, most of the hijackers received money channeled through various sources based in the UAE, according to the Justice Department and the 9/11 commission. (Watch UAE's role in war on terror -- 1:57)

[CJCRANE]

1. Has anyone noticed

that the only qualification needed to be a "key ally in the war on terror" is doing business deals with Buscho? Nothing else seems to matter.

[Skittles]

2. follow the money

it's always money with these GOP bastards

[Brundle_Fly]

3. did you hear lou dobbs' reporter say

the bush admin is trying to claim this is just racism from democrats, and islamo-phobia?

like thats gonna fly this time.


he's screwed politically, he will block the deal to look like a hero, but get his ass kicked by his oil firm buddies

[Dont_Bogart_the_Pretzel]

13. RACISM??

That's what I thought I heard. What a bunch of morans!1!

[tecelote]

4. Once again... WHERE IS THE DEMOCRAT OUTRAGE?!!

Want to talk about the Administration being soft on terror?

How about selling out American security?

Here's the proof that the "War on Terror" is simply a profit motivated neo-con sell-out of America.

Look at the posts above - they say the same thing.

It's about War Profiteering. It's about the rich getting richer. It's not about our safety.

WAKE UP DEMOCRATS.

EXPOSE THE BASTARDS!

PLEASE!!!

[rodeodance]

5. the opportunity is at their doorsteps!

[rodeodance]

6. Industry official alleges 'racism'

Industry official alleges 'racism'

A port security expert, meanwhile, told CNN that fears that the agreement will reduce U.S. security are based on "bigotry" and that "shameless" politicians are creating an issue they think will resonate with the public.

Kim Petersen, head of SeaSecure, a U.S.-based maritime security company, and executive director of the Maritime Security Council -- which represents 70 percent of the world's ocean shipping -- told CNN, "This whole notion that Dubai is going to control or set standards for U.S. ports is a canard ... is factually false."

Dubai Ports World, like all port owners, must abide by the Maritime Transportation Security Act passed by Congress in 2002 and International Ship and Port Facility Security codes enacted in 2004, he said. Both sets of security measures are enforced in the United States by the U.S. Coast Guard.

Petersen said DPW will be under "identical" security obligations, and said opposition to the purchase "comes down to bigotry Arabs."

[rodeodance]

7. interesting that they do not even mention Sen. Clinton in this new bill

that Menendez is proposing.

"We look at what the issue of the threat is. If necessary, we build in conditions or requirements that, for extra security, would have to be met in order to make sure that there isn't a compromise to national security," Chertoff said on CNN.

Sen. Robert Menendez, a New Jersey Democrat, pounced on Chertoff, who is already under fire for his agency's response to Hurricane Katrina.

"You can't just simply tell us, 'Trust us,' " Menendez told reporters. "We trusted the government response to Hurricane Katrina -- and the people of the Gulf were largely left on their own."

Menendez has proposed a new law prohibiting the sale of operations at U.S. ports to companies owned by international governments, noting 95 percent of cargo reaching U.S. ports is not inspected.

[Shelor]

8. Painfully close to the truth

I don't like this anymore than anyone else but that really hits the nail on the head. This whole flap is over nothing more the fact that the company comes from a nation of brown-skinned Muslims. People are presuming that they're terrorist sympathizers simply because of where they come from. Seems that every last person in the entire Muslim world is being declared a de facto terrorist.

[paulthompson]

9. Before you charge racism, do a little research

For instance, this:

February 1999: Bin Laden Missile Strike Called Off for Fear of Hitting Persian Gulf Royalty

Intelligence reports foresee the presence of bin Laden at a desert hunting camp in Afghanistan for about a week. Information on his presence appears reliable, so preparations are made to target his location with cruise missiles. However, intelligence also puts an official aircraft of the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and members of the royal family from that country in the same location. Bin Laden is hunting with the Emirati royals, as he did with leaders from the UAE and Saudi Arabia on other occasions (see 1995-2001). Policy makers are concerned that a strike might kill a prince or other senior officials, so the strike never happens. A top UAE official at the time denies that high-level officials are there, but evidence subsequently confirms their presence. (9/11 Commission Report, 3/24/04 (B))

[Shelor]

10. You just proved my point.

So you're saying that if ANYBODY in the UAE has ever supported terrorists then EVERYBODY in the whole damn country is a terrorist too. All you pointed out is that there are some bad people in the UAE. Some of them are in the government. Are we supposed to declare the entire country to be a bunch of criminals just because you can point to one or two bad guys who've been there? People in this country have used the exact same logic to say that since there are more blacks than whites with a criminal record we should discriminate against ALL blacks.

Is there even ONE SHRED of actual hard evidence that this company is dirty. Apparently, the only thing they've done that's dirty is to be from the UAE. As long as they're associated in any way with the Muslim world they're automatically branded as terrorists. It's pure paranoia.

[paulthompson]

12. No

Of course not, I'm not saying that everyone in the country is guilty. However, to call the UAE lax on terrorism is a gross understatement. The country didn't even have any kind of law against money laundering until 1999, virtually the only country in the world not to even technically have such a law. The UAE is very unique. Look for instance at this quote from the Wall Street Journal, 9/17/03: "To U.S. and global financial-crime investigators, no country in the Middle East is more important than the tiny United Arab Emirates, the financial hub of the Persian Gulf with a long history of lax regulation and a role as a conduit for the Sept. 11, 2001, hijackers."

The rulers of the UAE have consistently supported al-Qaeda and other terrorist and criminal groups while at the same time claiming to be a US ally. Even now, the country continues to be the key hub for Victor Bout, the world's most important illegal arms dealer. I don't know if the port company in question has done anything criminal or not. But the problem is, it's nearly impossible to know, because of lack of serious laws and law enforcement in the UAE. As the Financial Times put it, In the UAE, "Western fraud investigators may find a link here or a connection there, with a person suspected of breaking western laws. But in Dubai, and its neighbour Sharjah, trails tend to vanish like wind-blown tracks in desert sands. ... Secrecy keeps everyone guessing - and speculating. ... 'Medieval feudalism' is how one senior western banker described Dubai's style of government, 'with a veneer of 21st century regulations'."

Until the UAE achieves something at least remotely approaching the same rule of law as most other countries of the world, one has to suspect any UAE company. In many ways, it is a lawless place, almost unique in the world in how the government turns a blind eye to criminal activity. It simply would not be prudent for the US government to trust any company from the UAE because of the condition of its lack of law enforcement. The fact that the royal family has freely associated with bin Laden after he became known as the world's number one terrorist only adds to the concern.

[BoneDaddy]

11. lol

Give me a fucking break. I love Islamic culture, I work with kids from Pakistan, Afghanistan and other Arabic countries and they are great kids. I judge people as individuals. The UAE, however, is not above being judged, and their motives, similar to the US is very suspect.

Look, in a perfect world it would be great to do business with the UAE, but under the circumstances, I think is is showing a little bit of prudence to not allow a Arabic country direct access to our country through our ports. Give me a fucking break with this anti-muslim shit. This is common sense.

[Avalux]

14. Why are you playing the race card?

And for clarification, Dubai Ports World is not a private company, it is run by the UAE government.

[Tanuki]

15. He's playing the race card

because that's how freeper trolls amuse themselves