Arabs Are In Charge Of Our Ports

[Me.]

The B*** admin can spin this, and blah, blah, blah all they want but regular Americans are getting a simple message: B*** has turned our security over to the Arabs. He has done what Zell Miller said John Kerry would do, outsourced our security to the terrorists.

This is how the public will see this blunder by those geniuses in the WH. As Lindsey Graham said, the admin is tone deaf on this. A good day, and move, for the dems. The pugs can have this thrown in their face avery time they say they are better at protecting the country.

[havocmom]

1. Might as well dismantle the Dept of Homeland Security

and face facts. There is no security. There is no homeland. There is nothing but corporations. They will do what they want and national borders don't mean squat.

Anybody with a cast iron stomach allowing for visits to freeper-land? What are they saying about their beloved leaders these days?

[Me.]

9. Would Love To If My Theory Holds Up

but don't know if I could bear a trip over there. Though I do predict this is a huge mis-step for the pugs.

[havocmom]

17. My fear is we are well beyond the point where missteps can hurt them

or help us.

Report to the reservation. You only THINK you are a citizen with rights in a nation of laws.

43. I excerpted some from Freepers

Brit Hume: Bush Will Reverse Ports Decision

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/2/19/114128.shtml?s=ic

The Bush administration will reverse its decision to allow a Dubai company based in the United Arab Emirates to gain control over several key U.S. ports, the Fox News Channel's Brit Hume predicted on Sunday.

"I don't think the administration will be able to sustain this," Hume told "Fox News Sunday." "I think it will have to reverse itself in some way or create some entity that stands between the company and the management of the ports."

I agree with Brit and Lindsey. This port deal must be stopped.

On Friday, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice defended the Dubai deal, telling a Mideast news outlet: "There was a thorough

review. It was decided that this could be done and done safely." Even so, why take the political hit -- an obvious loser -- and the potential security hit, which could lead to a HUGE political loss?

Does Halliburton lack the expertise to run ports?

Mr President. Somebody else needs this contract, not a UAE company. How about the Madrid transit authority or the London bus company.........

Anyone bother to notice there are NO actually facts reported about his Company? Notice the whole story is based on guilty by association and rumor? So you have a smear job press release from the Dems vrs what he Security Agencies say "It's ok". Funny how "Conservatives" are falling all over themselves to push Chucky Schumer's Propaganda line.

I bet not, but this a grand opportunity for the RATS to shoot each other in the foot.

Maybe you need some new kneepads. Your incessant defense of anything Bush is just sickening.

The Arabs are the on-record owners, but the management for Arab outfits are the Brits. Arabs attend the meetings and sign the paperwork, but the Brits pull the strings. Not Brit politicos - Brit businessmen & managers.

And what will you say when the President does reverse this decision?

The pressure is mounting and he will make the right call.

Whole problem is the Junk Journalists have not even bothered to find out one actual fact. All they have done is taken Chucky Schumer's Press release and reported it as fact. Chucky and Hillary talk and it doesn't "sound" good.

Does Halliburton lack the expertise to run ports?
My thoughts exactly! Someone has to run these ports... It would be priceless if they got the contract.


This is why I stopped watching Fox News a long time ago. The self-aggrandizing and blatant political pandering on this story is unbelievable.

Two questions, folks . . .

1. From a national security standpoint, what exactly does anything could happen in this country with this UAE-owned company operating terminals at a number of ports?

2. What exactly can be accomplished by a terrorist with this UAE-owned company operating a port terminal that cannot be accomplished already today with a Dutch, Danish, British, or American company operating the terminal?


http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1581697/posts#comment?q=1

[Metta]

2. Thanks for the Zell Miller reminder.

Good quote. :thumbsup:

[Road Scholar]

8. Yeah and I was having a good day. "Get outta my face!!" LOL nt

[Metta]

13. Life is too short.

:thumbsup: :donut: :hi:

[katmondoo]

3. And it was all done in secret

What else is being done in secrecy. I do not even want to guess, it could be something worse than I can ever imagine.

[bryant69]

4. It is an interesting situation

I guess i need to study this issue a bit more - but so far the loudest cry seems to be "Look they're Arabs. Of course we can't trust them."

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[H2O Man]

12. That is worth doing.

The real concern should be based entirely upon the entity that has been selected to be in charge of the security of the six ports. I would suggest that if the ISI were employed to protect American airports, people would have reason to be concerned. In this case, the biggest difference may be that airplanes fly, while ships float.

[Me.]

24. That's Another Point

Another secret panel making secret decisions for this country. I don't want the UAE in charge of our ports any more than I want China, Russia, France or Britain, any foreign country in charge of them.

[H2O Man]

28. I'd think

that the ISI might further compromise US intelligence.

[Oilwellian]

26. "Arabs" are not the issue

the issue is giving control of our ports to a country that has ties to those who attacked us on 9/11. As posted elsewhere on this issue:

Some facts to keep in mind : 1) the UAE was one of three countries in the world to recognize the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan; 2) the UAE has been a key transfer point for illegal shipments of nuclear components to Iran, North Korea and Lybia; 3) according to the FBI, money was transferred to the 9/11 hijackers through the UAE banking system; 4) after 9/11, the Treasury Department reported that the UAE was not cooperating in efforts to track down Osama Bin Laden's bank accounts.

http://politicalswitchboard.invisionzone.com/index.php?act=ST&f=407&t=7894&st=0

[Clark2008]

31. I don't actually care what nationality they are

Our ports should not be protected by people and countries with different interests than our own: that's how the issue should be framed.

One can also point out that UAE was one of the few countries that we can PROVE directly funded al-Qaeda. Yes, there was talk that Saudi did or that Iran did, but there hasn't been proof that it was state-sponsored (only sponsored by the personal money of state officials). That's not true of UAE - the government sponsored them.

[Posteritatis]

5. "The Arabs" are a monolith now? (n/t)

[CountAllVotes]

6. the Arabs are the ones that were in charge on 9/11, or so they said

and it seems they are still in charge today, expect ever more now. We sell them the ports for just the amount of $ we need to keep the war without end going another 6 months.

Piece by piece America goes. When the hell will WE THE PEOPLE say ENOUGH!

:kick:;

[MuseRider]

7. I am worried that this

will just up the hatred/fear/bigotry for the Arab community. Really worried. I may be a bit late to the conversation but what is this about really? Is it just more of the Bush** administration using the United States as a commodity?

[spindrifter]

11. You are right--this is an

opportunity for BushCo to generate negative feelings about Muslims. Now, though, he has really been able to bring it to the homeland--literally to our shores. I have been harping on this for days--P & O is a "foreign" company--it's British. But of course, we share a common interest with the Brits right now.

[MuseRider]

20. We need to somehow untangle this

before it gets too far, if that is possible. Our port security should be in our hands. It makes no difference the religion or race or anything else. The bottom line is that nobody cares more about the security of the US than the US citizens. It should have never been in the hands of the British either but who even knew that was the case?

My god, this is just outrageous but more of the same. These people will use anything, anyone to keep us in such chaos that we are ineffective while they reap the benefits. I never thought I would see this kind of divison in my country again, I thought we were slowly (very slowly) moving forward. I must have been very wrong because people seem very anxious to find someone to hate.

[spindrifter]

44. Division is exactly what

those wingnuts want. If they divide us, they can conquor. Fortunately, there are a lot of people out here who are concerned about finding out the truth. But it makes me very sad that they try to make us divide along religious lines--one of the oldest plays in the book.

[RufusEarl]

14. I think so!

Also, this should mean death to the long shoreman and their union. I haven't heard that this is a done deal yet, but if the Carlyle group is involved then it's a far gone conclusion that it will be so.

We're our Democratic leader on this subject? we're are our countrymen, republican or democratic? On the surface this can not be a good deal for our country's security, and as stated early this can't be a good deal for the union.

[Me.]

19. I Understand Your Fears

and I do hope it doesn't translate into that. But my point wasn't to point a finger at one group of people but at the political ineptness of this move; for a group that has been so good at framing the argument and giving sound bites that stick, the one the public is going to take away from this and which will stick in their minds is that he has sold us down the river, to the very group he and his have done a great job of making the people in this country afraid of.

Commodity, you betcha. All comers with a pocket full of billions welcome.

[MuseRider]

25. Yes. I hope you did not think

I was accusing you of that. I got it but I have been gone most of the last few days and was just trying to clarify what exactly was the motive and who was saying what and why. We most likely will never know the half of it. It seems a win/win for them. If they can stir up more hatred they can get away with it because everyone will be so busy with their new, favorite boogy man they might forget that Bush** did it. :shrug: I am incapable of understanding their motives. As hard as I try I can't think in those terms.

[Me.]

29. No, Thanks, I Didn't Think That

Though it is a concern, for it does amp up fears. But I see this decision as a losing proposition for B***co. It directly contradicts everything he has said for years. Blitzer has just asked if the pResident is tone deaf.

[no name no slogan]

23. I agree-- this is a red herring

The Arab World is not monolithic. Personally, I don't give a damn who's protecting our ports, as long as they do the job right. They can be Arab, Jew, African, Chinese or Martian for all I care.

We used to feel the same way about the Japanese building cars in this country. Nowdays, foreign-owned companies employ several million Americans-- and most large American businesses own factories overseas, employing foreign workers.

This is a convenient issue to distract from the fact that

1) "Homeland Security" is an oxymoron-- just ask NOLA, and
2) Bush and his cronies don't give a damn about this country-- just who gets paid (preferably them).

[SoCalDem]

10. They have framed yet another argument to suit themselves

Any democrat who complains now, will be accused of being xenophobic or racist. :(

[Psephos]

15. Humans are in charge of our ports. The real question is...

...are they soft on security? Whether or not they are Arab is of no concern to me.

Peace.

[Fleshdancer]

16. Turning our security over to anyone is a problem

if we had to choose ONE single thing to NOT outsource, shouldn't it be our security? Our safety should be American made for both reasons of principle and profit. Simple as that.

[Avalux]

18. Actually, the Carlyle Group will be controlling port security.

It's all very clever and it has absolutely nothing to do with terrorism. I believe most of what we've been told has been trumped up to scare us anyway. This is all about world domination and Bush family cronies taking control, along with their Middle Eastern buddies. Those who have billions flock together, regardless of what part of the world they're from. So the whole scary Arab thing is used by our government to control us. That doesn't mean we won't be attacked, would be a very convenent event for a lot of people if we were.

[muriel_volestrangler]

21. Where do you get that from?

All I've seen is that Carlyle bought a container shipping business - one of many - a few years ago.

[Avalux]

27. Yes, Carlyle bought at least a huge chunk of CSX in 2001.

It then appears CSX was partly sold to Dubai a little over a year ago:

Michael Ward, Chairman, CSX Corporation:
”On behalf of CSX, I am delighted to join the announcement of the agreement to sell CSX World Terminals to Dubai Ports International. We have been highly impressed with the quality of DPI’s management and believe it will do an excellent job with this important portfolio of assets and terrific team. We look forward to working with DPI through what we expect will be a brief transition to closing.”

Ward added that the transaction will be “another important step in our continuing efforts to focus on the North American railroad business. CSX is focused on leadership in the U.S. rail industry through safe, reliable service to customers and consistent, continuous improvement quality in all aspects of our performance.”

CSX acquired Sea-Land Corporation in 1987 and has, for the past several years, sold off parts of those international ocean-shipping assets. This transaction would complete that divestiture.
http://www.dpa.co.ae/news/news_24.html

With other articles I've read, it appears Carlyle is/will be working in conjunction with Dubai Ports World. I'll try to do more digging and put something together.

[muriel_volestrangler]

32. Carlyle bought CSX's container shipping business

DPW bought CSX's port business. Neither is a part owner of CSX. They both own buinesses that used to be part of CSX. This does not mean Carlyle and CSX are working together in any way.

For instance, there was a large British car manufacturer called British Leyland, which owned both the Jaguar and Rover brands. Ford bought Jaguar; BMW bought Rover. This does not mean that Ford and BMW are now working with each other.

[Avalux]

33. OK, if you think there's no connection.

You're obviously not as cynical as I am. We'll see.

[Emit]

35. Maybe not, but some things worked out conveniently

to the benefit of CSX and Carlyle, and for the Bushes:

... the link to a $10 million plus tax break for the CSX Corporation in a bill signed by Pataki in January 2003. The tax break was ostensibly to encourage CSX to build a high speed rail between Buffalo and Albany. CSX, however, has never indicated any interest in the project before or after the bill was signed.

At the same time, in December 2002, the Carlyle Group announced its purchase of CSX's container business. Tens of millions of tax dollars being spent in Staten Island by NYS on the Howland Hook Marine Terminal and the restoration of a rail link that will benefit CSX and the Carlyle Group.


~snip~

I forgot to mention that Bush nominated John Snow, chairman of CSX, to be Treasury Secretary in December 2003, the same month that Carlyle bought the majority stake in CSX's constiner business.

So the price for CSX's container business paid by the Carlyle Group was $240 million in cash, $60 million in securities (what securities, I don't know), $10 milllion plus in NYS tax breaks and the treasury position for Snow. New York taxpayers would have been better of buying the farm for the Patakis.

~snip~

What no one ever seems to bring up is that Jeb and George Bush will be among the heirs of the estate of George H. W. and Barbara Bush. The elder Bushes are just that - elderly and there's a reasonable chance that they will die within the next decade. As such, Jeb and George W. have a financial interest in the Carlyle Group and other Bush investments.

http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache:t88BgFFqm1kJ:www.tpmcafe.com/story/2006/1/25/24256/9957+The+Carlyle+Group+John+Snow&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1

[jeffrey_X]

40. I'm in the same boat as you...

I can't quite connect the dots yet.

[Emit]

41. Conveyance of CSX to Carlyle. New name will be Horizon Lines, LLC

Still, it looks like they are working together.

February 27, 2003
#2003-07
CSX and The Carlyle Group Complete Conveyance of CSX Lines

Jacksonville, FL, and Washington, DC - CSX Corporation (NYSE: CSX) and The Carlyle Group, a global private equity firm, announced today that they have completed the conveyance of CSX Lines, LLC, from CSX to a venture formed with The Carlyle Group. CSX received $300 million, consisting of $240 million in cash and $60 million of securities issued by the venture.

As part of the transaction announced December 17, 2002, former CSX Lines President and CEO Charles G. (Chuck) Raymond and his management team will lead the Charlotte, N.C.-based ocean carrier, now named Horizon Lines, LLC. Raymond will also chair the board of directors of the company.

http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache:Q2Xq2-KMZl4J:www.thecarlylegroup.com/eng/news/l5-news2467.html+Carlyle+CSX+&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1

December 06, 2002
#2002-26
The Carlyle Group Acquires Majority Stake in CSX Lines for $300 Million

Washington, DC - Global private equity firm The Carlyle Group today announced that it has agreed to acquire a majority stake in CSX Lines, LLC from the CSX Corp. (NYSE: CSX) in a transaction valued at $300 million. Current CSX Lines President and CEO Charles G. (Chuck) Raymond and his management team will remain in place and the new entity will be called Horizon Lines, LLC. Mr. Raymond will also serve as Chairman of the company's board.

~snip~

Carlyle Managing Director Greg Ledford said, “CSX Lines is a well-managed company that has a bright future. We look forward to working with Chuck Raymond and his seasoned team in the coming years to further unlock CSX Lines' great potential. CSX Lines complements Carlyle's growing transportation portfolio.”

CSX Corp. President Michael J. Ward, said, “This is a terrific transaction for all parties. Completion of this transaction is consistent with our oft and long-stated strategy of becoming a more rail-based organization.”

Charles G. Raymond said, “We are excited about working with The Carlyle Group and benefiting from its transportation experience and financial expertise and support. We expect to grow profitably and maintain our position as the nation's largest and most successful ocean shipping company.”

The equity for this transaction will come from Carlyle Partners III, L.P., Carlyle's flagship U.S. Buyout Fund. Financing for the transaction has been provided by ABN AMRO Bank. The transaction is subject to customary conditions and regulatory approval and is expected to close in the first quarter of 2003.

http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache:w7mswvYQJ5gJ:www.thecarlylegroup.com/eng/news/l5-news706.html+Carlyle+CSX+&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=2

Also, it seems CSX still owns a small portion of this newly formed co, Horizon:

... The ownership of
Horizon Lines is divided into three classes of Membership
Units -- 60,000 Senior Preferred Units, 1000 Senior Common
Units and 1000 Common Units -- all of which are held by
three entities. Delian Holdings, L.L.C. ("Delian"), owns
100% of the Senior Common Units and 90% of the Common Units,
which, given the different number of votes assigned to the
three types of Membership Units, together represent 84.5% of
the voting interests of Horizon Lines. SL Services, Inc.
("SL") owns 90% of the Senior Preferred Units, which
represents 13.5% of Horizon Lines' voting interest.

CSX Domestic Shipping Corporation ("CSX Domestic") owns 10% of
the Senior Preferred Units and 10% of the Common Units of
Horizon Lines, which together represent 2% of the voting
interests of Horizon Lines. Both SL and CSX Domestic are
wholly owned subsidiaries of CSX Corporation. CSX
Domestic Shipping Corporation ("CSX Domestic") owns 10% of
the Senior Preferred Units and 10% of the Common Units of
Horizon Lines, which together represent 2% of the voting
interests of Horizon Lines. Both SL and CSX Domestic are
wholly owned subsidiaries of CSX Corporation.

http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache:k4J3gfIMZ6AJ:ao.nictusa.com/ao/no/030028.html+Horizon+Lines,+LLC+Carlyle&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=3

[Emit]

45. Actually, it looks like Carlyle sold Horizon

In MAY 26, 2004

~snip~
• Castle Harlan buys Horizon for $650m
HORIZON Lines, the former Jones Act containership arm of transport giant CSX, has been sold for $650m to New York equity firm Castle Harlan only 15 months after Carlyle Group of Washington bought it from CSX for $315m.
~snip~

http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache:6DktlXmEnVoJ:www.informare.it/news/review/2004/b260504.asp+Carlyle+Dubai+Ports+World&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=35

[muriel_volestrangler]

46. Thanks for the latest(?) info

Amazing how Carlyle can turn profits so quickly - double their money in 15 months. But this means that Carlyle had bought and sold what had been CSX Lines before Dubai World Ports ever bought CSX World Terminals.

[Emit]

47. Yes, you're right. Just thought I'd put out info for others to see n/t

[Swamp Rat]

22. "EXTRA EXTRA! President Bush sells America to Arab terrorists!!!"

[applegrove]

30. Say Middle East Business elites. Arabs are a people. They exist

in every walk of life around the world. It would be just as true to say "Arabs are in charge of my hostpital".

[TomClash]

34. And WHY was this done

Was it realy only money???

[Cleita]

36. It certainly reeks of putting the fox in charge of the hen house.

What I want to know is why those ports were sold to foreign interests to begin with even if it was the British who are supposedly friendly to us? None of our national assets should be sold to foreign companies. I saw in Chile what happened to them when American Companies bought out the copper mines.

The Chileans could only sit back and watch the wealth of their nation pour out of their country and into the USA. The Americans pointed to the jobs that they provided the Chilean people, but the jobs were there to begin with regardless of who ran the mines. Also the management jobs went to Americans and the jobs provided didn't make up for the wealth lost. We don't want this and should demand that it doesn't happen.

[johnaries]

37. Not just "Arabs", a state-owned Dubai company.

http://www.ccc.nps.navy.mil/si/nov02/southAsia.asp

Financial investigators tracking al Qaeda assets rely heavily on data and paper trails from commercial banks and financial regulators in pursuing and investigating leads. Such data have included the tracing of wire transfers between suspected hijacker Mohammed Atta and Shaykh Saiid of Dubai, believed to be one of Osama bin Laden's key financial operatives.....

...Although Pakistan, India, and the Persian Gulf states are home to the largest concentration of Hawala organizations, Dubai, in the United Arab Emirates, perhaps handles the largest volume of transactions.

B* claims that the UAE is our "ally", but with all the terrorist activity in Dubai can we be certain enough that they can't slip in a terrorist to entrust them with hiring security?

[BeHereNow]

38. What people are missing about ALL of this is the fact that

Under the new "Multi National Corporate GLOBAL Power Structure"
there ARE no Americans, no Arabs, no countries of any sort.
There is only power seeking to consolidate MORE POWER.

Too late to raise hell about whether or not an "Arab" country
is controlling "our" ports. The fact is, this is about multi national
corporations contolling the world.
Period.

BHN

[Solly Mack]

42. Thank you

[Me.]

39. Outsourcing Our Security

Would be another way of framing the arguement against B***.