UAE Company Agrees to Delay Ports Takeover

[wicket]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060224/ap_on_go_pr_wh/ports_security

A state-owned company in the United Arab Emirates volunteered late Thursday to delay part of its $6.8 billion takeover of most operations at six U.S. ports to give President Bush more time to convince skeptical members of Congress that the disputed deal poses no security risks.

The surprise announcement relieves some pressure from a standoff between President Bush a Congress controlled by his own party that had threatened to try to block the deal over concerns about the UAE's purported ties to terrorism.

Under the offer coordinated with the White House, Dubai Ports World said it will agree not to exercise control or influence the management over U.S. ports pending further talks with the Bush administration and Congress. It did not indicate how long it will wait for these discussions to take place.

The company said it will move forward with other parts of the deal affecting the rest of the world. "It is not only unreasonable but also impractical to suggest that the closing of this entire global transaction should be delayed," Dubai Ports said in a statement.

[dooner]

1. UAE Company *AGREES* to Delay Ports Takeover (AP)

Wow, sure makes it clear who is in control of this deal.

=============================================
By LIZ SIDOTI, Associated Press Writer 9 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - A state-owned company in the United Arab Emirates volunteered late Thursday to delay part of its $6.8 billion takeover of most operations at six U.S. ports to give President Bush more time to convince skeptical members of Congress that the disputed deal poses no security risks.

The surprise announcement relieves some pressure from a standoff between President Bush a Congress controlled by his own party that had threatened to try to block the deal over concerns about the UAE's purported ties to terrorism.

Under the offer coordinated with the White House, Dubai Ports World said it will agree not to exercise control or influence the management over U.S. ports pending further talks with the Bush administration and Congress. It did not indicate how long it will wait for these discussions to take place.

Link to Yahoo news story = http://tinyurl.com/h3omu

[Yavin4]

2. I CALLED IT!!!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x492695

[RoyGBiv]

6. "Delay" is not "dead"

I wish you were correct, but I'm afraid this is not exactly a positive outcome and certainly does not indicate the deal is off. It will have the effect of taking the impending implementation of the takeover off the front page while BushCo twists some arms in back rooms.

This is how he handles every situation in which he faces more opposition than he had apparently expected. First he's defiant. Then he denies. Then he publicly delays to proceed with more discussion. Then he stops talking about it. Meanwhile he and his minions are working under the radar to enact whatever it is he wants as quickly as they can without anyone noticing until it's all over. Alternatively, something even worse than this is in the works, and all this is just a distraction while final implementation of that is being carried out.

I can't say where this is going, but it is far from over. Too much in Bush-world depends on something happening here.

[Yavin4]

9. The Deal Is Dead

The Dubai company will pull out all together.

[RoyGBiv]

11. Why do you say that?

I don't see anything in this or the other news stories today that suggest Dubai has decided to abandon the deal entirely, nor actually even thought about it. In fact, they indicated quite clearly that they were moving forward with the other parts of the deal elsewhere. This indicates they had developed a large package of agreements as a part of a current business strategy. Altering any one part of it, particularly one as sigificant as control of US ports, might well derail the long-term strategy they had been pursuing.

So, again, I wish you were correct, but I'm not seeing it at present.

[Demeter]

23. Dubai Must Sell Off the US Ports

And they can have the rest of their deal. Wonder if any of the other countries are worried about their security?

[PaulaFarrell]

26. It is the Asia ports which are providing the most growth

at the moment for P & O. If worse comes to worst, DP would no doubt be willing to drop these 6 ports - 6 out of more than 100 managed by P & O. But the question is who would take them over as P & O would no loner exist as an entity. Maybe Singapore?

[ClayZ]

3. "part" is the key word in this announcement!

:popcorn:

[doublethink]

4. Hmmmmm ...... pass the butter ........

The company said it will move forward with other parts of the deal affecting the rest of the world. -snip-
"The reaction in the United States has occurred in no other country in the world -snip-

Hmmmm .... wonder if the populations of these 'other country's' even know they were involved in this 'deal'? :shrug:

:popcorn:

[JCMach1]

12. Yes, they just understand the issues at hand a little better

than it seems most Americans do.

[doublethink]

13. Hey I see your from the UAE.

could you please elaborate a bit more on these 'issues' you state a bit more. Thanks. :)

[JCMach1]

16. American living in the UAE... you can checkout any number

of threads where I posted in GD.

I just feel that countries like Britain understand the UAE much more that the average American.

[tedzbear]

20. Screw the UAE!

That government would throw me in prison for life just because I'm queer.

Plus they're burning thru their oil money like there's no tomorrow. Those man made islands are a joke! Who the fuck wants a beach front villa where it's 115 degrees in the shade and the water temperature is 90 degrees. And who the fuck is going to rent space in the world's tallest building in the middle of a desert that makes Nevada look like Hawaii! And what is their airline going to do with 25 A380s? Who wants to vacation in Dubai when they can go to Europe or Tahiti? Muhahahahahahaha!

The UAE is one of the most unappealing countries in the world. Michael Jackson can take Dubai and go #@()!!!_%%$h&$#!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[sattahipdeep]

21. And who? Baker Botts.

Krongard...Poppy...kissinger



:hi:

[doublethink]

14. And also I'd be curious to know if you could .....

let me know what other Country's were involved in this deal? Thanks again and Peace. :)

[JCMach1]

17. Britain, India, China, Phillipines, SE Asia...

P&O was/is a very big company with many assets...

[0007]

22. P&O is also a big partner with the Carlyle Group aren't they?

The surprise concession late Thursday cools the standoff building between the Congress and President Bush over his administration's previous approval of the deal. In early reaction, lawmakers praised the temporary hold. But some critics pressed anew for an intensive examination of the deal's risks.

As part of its new offer, coordinated with the White House, Dubai Ports World said it would agree not to exercise control or influence management over U.S. ports pending further discussions with the administration and Congress. It did not say how long it would wait for these discussions to be finished.

My only question is why all the secrecy? Why not put out all the information?
After seeing what Enron's Ken Lay and Jack Abramoff was to junior, I have doubts that this is on the square.

[Erika]

5. W/Cheney will be safe in bunkers in attacks

We won't.

[Daphne08]

7. "...to convince skeptical members of Congress..." Uh, Hello!

How about convincing a skeptical populace... and WE are the ones who are supposed to be telling Congress what to do!

After all, we pay their salaries not to mention the President's.

[ShockediSay]

8. Who else thinks this is a phony chance for Repugs to vote against *

& show constituents they are not part of the neoCon crowd?

[rodeodance]

10. Schumer still wants a 'voluntary' review.

...The delay did not appease some of the deal's harshest critics.

"If the president were to voluntarily institute the review and delay the contract that would obviate the need for our legislation, but a simple cooling-off period will not allay our concerns," said Sen. Charles Schumer (news, bio, voting record), D-N.Y.

[radfringe]

15. according to Lou Dobbs comment last night

It can take up to 18 months to investigate and approve 1 person for security clearance status. Dubai Ports World was "cleared" in less than 45 days.

what's wrong with this picture?

[Nothing Without Hope]

18. BBC: "ARAB FIRM TO DELAY US PORTS DEAL" (says PART of deal delayed)

Important news, but the article is vague and frustrating in its lack of information. It says PART of deal will be delayed, but not WHICH part. Nor does it say how long the delay is expected to be.

Since Bush has already said he would veto any legislative efforts, this is a way for the Administration and its congressional enablers to save face. The BBC article stresses how opposition to the deal is being seen as "racist" and quotes Scott McClelland's statement, "The safeguards are in place and the president believes it should be allowed to move forward," with no evident sign of uncertainty. In fact, overall, the article takes a pro-Bush stance. The only reason given for critics' concern about the ports deal is that "the UAE was the home of two of the hijackers involved in the 11 September 2001 attacks" -- which IMO shortchanges the real reasons for the concerns.

Here's an excerpt:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4744086.stm
Last Updated: Friday, 24 February 2006, 07:40 GMT

Arab firm to delay US ports deal

The United Arab Emirates firm set to take control of six US ports has said it will delay part of the deal after objections from leading US lawmakers.

(snip - and here are the last three paragraphs in this limp and uninformative article:)

Critics fear an increased risk of terrorist attacks, pointing out that the UAE was the home of two of the hijackers involved in the 11 September 2001 attacks.

The president of the Arab American Institute, James Zogby, has described some of the language being used against the deal as "shameful and irresponsible".

President Bush has himself suggested that some criticism of the deal is racist in nature.

[sattahipdeep]

19. "This didn't rise to the presidential level," McClellan said.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/02/23/MNG7UHDAU01.DTL

You don't need to be a member of the Council on Foreign Relations to grasp
that a country that embraced the Taliban, was a financial hub for the 9/11
attackers, and whose own ports were used by notorious Pakistani scientist
A.Q. Kahn to smuggle nuclear components....

Among the GOP officeholders joining King and Myrick at the port deal barricades
are Bill Frist, Dennis Hastert, George Pataki, Michael Bloomberg, Susan
Collins, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, and Tom Reynolds, chairman of the National
Republican Campaign Committee -- who clearly knows a losing issue when he sees
one. Conservative commentators John Kasich, Cal Thomas, Hugh Hewitt, and
conservative national security analysts Michael Ledeen and Frank Gaffney have
also denounced the deal.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/huffpost/20060222/cm_huffpost/016187;_ylt=A86.I2ROX_1DimABvxf9wxIF;_ylu=X3oDMTBjMHVqMTQ4BHNlYwN5bnN1YmNhdA--

:hi:

[wicket]

24. kick

:kick:

[Nothing Without Hope]

25. Bush already was talking big about vetoes - this is a way for the GOP to

get the deal but save face. Both Frist and Hastert have been posturing about demanding "more time for investigation" - in fact, they've used essentially identical language for this, which makes me wonder about coordination with the WH. Bush, of course, would never back down, so by getting the family friends in Dubai to delay the deal instead, face is saved all around. The GOP-run House and Senate will use this extra time to go through motions and then announce that it's all okay after all, let's all move on...