Treasury-led committee cleared Dubai ports deal

[sabra]

http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/02/23/news/ports.php

Treasury-led committee cleared Dubai ports deal
By Elisabeth Bumiller and Carl Hulse The New York Times

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 23, 2006


WASHINGTON The Bush administration decided last month that a deal to hand over operations at major American ports to a government-owned company in Dubai did not involve national security and so did not require a more lengthy review, according to administration officials.

The decision was made by an interagency committee led by Deputy Treasury Secretary Robert Kimmitt. The group included officials from 12 departments and agencies, including the departments of Defense, Justice, State and Homeland Security, as well as the National Security Council and the National Economic Council.

In a telephone interview Wednesday, Kimmitt said the company, Dubai Ports World, had been thoroughly investigated by the administration, including by intelligence agencies, and that on Jan. 17 the committee members unanimously approved the transfer.

...

In September, the Government Accountability Office, an investigative arm of Congress, said the Treasury Department, as head of the interagency review committee, had used an overly narrow definition of national security threats because it wanted to encourage foreign investment.

[rodeodance]

1. and Snow says he did not know either.

[sabra]

2. "Treasury-led".... what ever you say Snow.

[mom cat]

5. Lying is epidemic in the Bushco admin.

[Sal316]

3. Reading up on CFIUS and the Exon-Florio provision...

...as far as I understand, the 45-day investigation is mandatory if the company in question is owned by a foreign government.

Amendments. Section 837(a) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1993, called the "Byrd Amendment," amended Section 721 of the Defense Production Act (the "Exon-Florio provision"). It requires an investigation in cases where:

o the acquirer is controlled by or acting on behalf of a foreign government; and

o the acquisition "could result in control of a person engaged in interstate commerce in the U.S. that could affect the national security of the U.S."

Exon-Florio Provision of CFIUS


Me thinks that 'port management' of seaports that ship our military equipment/supplies qualifies as a 'national security' issue.

[Beetwasher]

4. If I Were Kimmit, I'd Watch My Back, He's Being Set Up!

SUCKER! Scape goatin's a comin'!

Turn now, buddy. You're about to be sacrificed.

"...had used an overly narrow definition of national security threats because it wanted to encourage foreign investment."

:wow:

Stunning. Absolutely fucking stunning.

[Eugene]

6. "major American ports... did not involve national security" ?!?!

:wtf:

Let me get this straight. Our government, that wants to tap our telephones
and know what books we read, does not consider who runs major seaports
to be a national security matter? And Secretary Snow had no idea
that his deputy was handling a major international trade deal
under his nose? At this point, BushCo doesn't even care about
making their lies plausible.

Apparently, if it's good for the Bush Family, it's in the national interest.
I was neutral on the Dubai Ports deal, but the more I learn, the less I like.
I don't fear the Ay-rab terrists as much as the Bushies, who have sold
the country out to the highest bidder.