Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

SCANDAL: Bush nominated PORT DEAL exec as Maritime Admin in January

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
 
MikeNY Donating Member (242 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-21-06 07:05 PM
Original message
SCANDAL: Bush nominated PORT DEAL exec as Maritime Admin in January
Edited on Tue Feb-21-06 07:11 PM by MikeNY
Dubai, 24 January 2006: - Global ports operator DP World today welcomed news that one of its senior executives, Dave Sanborn, has been nominated by US President George W. Bush to serve as Maritime Administrator a key transportation appointment reporting directly to Norman Mineta the Secretary of Transportation and Cabinet Member.

The White House has issued a statement from Washington DC announcing the nomination. The confirmation process will begin in February.

Mr Sanborn currently holds the position of Director of Operations for Europe and Latin America for the Dubai-based company

Mohammed Sharaf, CEO, DP World said:
“While we are sorry to lose such an experienced and capable executive, it is exactly those qualities that will make Dave an effective administrator for MarAd. We are proud of Dave’s selection and pleased that the Bush Administration found such a capable executive. We wish him all the best in his new role.”

Ted Bilkey, Chief Operating Officer, DP World said:
“Dave’s decades of experience in markets around the world, together with his passion for the industry and commitment to its development, will allow him to make a positive contribution to the work of the Maritime Administration. We wish him well for the future.”

Mr Sanborn, a graduate of The United States Merchant Maritime Academy, joined DP World in 2005. He previously held senior roles with shipping lines CMA-CGM (Americas), APL Ltd and Sea-Land and has been based, besides the US, in Brazil, Europe, Hong Kong and Dubai during his career. He has also served in the US Naval Reserve.

Mr Sanborn is due to take up his new role based in Washington DC later in 2006.


http://www.dpiterminals.com/fullnews.asp?NewsID=39

Hello to Portgate!

HOW FAR DOES THE CORRUPTION GO?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
MikeNY Donating Member (242 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-21-06 07:12 PM
Response to Original message
1. Has anyone else seen this at all? UNBELIEVABLE n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TruthStream_dot_org Donating Member (135 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-21-06 07:12 PM
Response to Original message
2. this is what Im saying!!
This WHOLE THING was planned - they are preparing for 9/11 II - It will be within the next couple months.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CJCRANE Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-21-06 07:33 PM
Response to Reply #2
7. That's why * isn't worried about this transaction -
he'll be "out of harm's way" if anything happens.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FreedomAngel82 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-22-06 07:19 AM
Response to Reply #2
16. I'd say March or shortly after March
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seemslikeadream Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-22-06 07:28 AM
Response to Reply #16
18. March 20 to 26, 2006: Iran-USA, beginning of a major world crisis
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spanone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-21-06 07:13 PM
Response to Original message
3. Kick
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lindsay Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-21-06 07:15 PM
Response to Original message
4. Oh, yeah, I've seen this.
And John Snow made a tidy sum when DP World bought CSX, which Snow ran before being named to the cabinet.

It's always all about the money and power.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
converted_democrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-21-06 07:17 PM
Response to Original message
5. Unreal.. Unfucking real..n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Just Me Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-21-06 07:20 PM
Response to Original message
6. I'm just catching up, here. It appears someone on the inside,...
,...may have prevented several awful events from occuring.

I'm sure the BushCO/neoconster regime expected this deal to go quietly through.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
katinmn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-21-06 07:53 PM
Response to Original message
8. In January! That's a lot different than learning about it on the
news "a couple days ago."

Impeach Bush today!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FreedomAngel82 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-22-06 07:20 AM
Response to Reply #8
17. And Rumsfeld claimed to learn about it over the weekend but
it was told yesterday here on Du that he knew about it since early February.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
punpirate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-21-06 08:06 PM
Response to Original message
9. What I'm having trouble finding, however...
... is the status of Sandborn's nomination. His confirmation hearings were scheduled for Feb. 7th, but there's nothing I can find on a confirmation vote.

Funny, too, that there's no mention of him on the DoT web site, not even in the last month's press releases. And, he's not listed in the key officials section (there's a deputy maritime administrator shown, but not the top spot).

This is gettin' kinda weird, y'know?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MikeNY Donating Member (242 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-22-06 06:46 AM
Response to Reply #9
13. Odd
Now that is weird... I'd be interested in knowing that too
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nothing Without Hope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-21-06 08:14 PM
Response to Original message
10. And then there is John Snow, now Sec'y of the Treasury, who was CEO
of CSX, the company being bought by Dubai. That and the Sanborn connection are discussed in this article:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2121775
thread title (2-21-06 LBN): KRT Wire: Dubai company set to run U.S. ports has ties to administration
Comment/excerpt: “The Dubai firm that won Bush administration backing to run six U.S. ports has at least two ties to the White House. One is Treasury Secretary John Snow, whose department heads the federal panel that signed off on the $6.8 billion sale of an English company to government-owned Dubai Ports World - giving it control of Manhattan's cruise ship terminal and Newark's container port. Snow was chairman of the CSX rail firm that sold its own international port operations to DP World for $1.15 billion in 2004, the year after Snow left for President Bush's cabinet. The other connection is David Sanborn, who runs DP World's European and Latin American operations and who was tapped by Bush last month to head the U.S. Maritime Administration.”

Oh yeah, Bush wants this bad. He's said he would use the veto FOR THE FIRST TIME if Cogress tries to slow down this deal. They really tried to ram it through secretly and still think they can get away with no oversight as usual.

I think part of the reason is this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x484387
thread title (2-21-06 GD): The Dirty Little Secret Behind the UAE Port Security Flap (David Sorata)
Comment/excerpt: Excerpt from David Sirota’s explanation: “What does "free" trade have to do with this? How about everything. The Bush administration is in the middle of a two-year push to ink a corporate-backed "free" trade accord with the UAE. At the end of 2004, in fact, it was Bush Trade Representative Robert Zoellick who proudly boasted of his trip to the UAE to begin negotiating the deal. Rejecting this deal might have set back that trade pact. Accepting it - regardless of the security consequences - likely greases the wheels for the pact. That's probably why instead of backing off the deal, President Bush - supposedly Mr. Tough on National Secuirty - took the extraordinary step of threatening to use the first veto of his entire presidency to protect the UAE's interests. Because he knows protecting those interetsts - regardless of the security implications for America - is integral to the "free" trade agenda all of his corporate supporters are demanding.”

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Disturbed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-21-06 08:26 PM
Response to Reply #10
11. Shrub is a Sock Puppet but
to believe that he knew nothing about this deal would real gullible. He knew and that is why he is threatening a veto if any Bill passes that would cancell the deal. The Regime thought that they could sneak this shit by Congress and the American people just like the NSA crap.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nothing Without Hope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-21-06 09:55 PM
Response to Reply #11
12. He more than knew, he's been planning this for a long time. His
Edited on Tue Feb-21-06 09:55 PM by Nothing Without Hope
corporate backers DEMAND it. No wonder he has already said hed use his veto, which would be for the VERY FIRST TIME, if there was interference. Much, MUCH money is involved and I think this thread is onto something:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x484387
thread title (2-21-06 GD): The Dirty Little Secret Behind the UAE Port Security Flap (David Sorata)
Comment/excerpt: Excerpt from David Sirota’s explanation: “What does "free" trade have to do with this? How about everything. The Bush administration is in the middle of a two-year push to ink a corporate-backed "free" trade accord with the UAE. At the end of 2004, in fact, it was Bush Trade Representative Robert Zoellick who proudly boasted of his trip to the UAE to begin negotiating the deal. Rejecting this deal might have set back that trade pact. Accepting it - regardless of the security consequences - likely greases the wheels for the pact. That's probably why instead of backing off the deal, President Bush - supposedly Mr. Tough on National Secuirty - took the extraordinary step of threatening to use the first veto of his entire presidency to protect the UAE's interests. Because he knows protecting those interetsts - regardless of the security implications for America - is integral to the "free" trade agenda all of his corporate supporters are demanding.”

Both Hastert and Frist have come out saying that "more review is needed," really in essentially identical language, but I think that's just PR band-aid stuff. They don't dare really oppose this - their fiinancial backing and ties with the Bush machine are at stake and they are bought and paid for.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-22-06 06:49 AM
Response to Original message
14. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
FreedomAngel82 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-22-06 07:06 AM
Response to Original message
15. People shouldn't be surprised now because
this administration has everything already planned. Every appointment. Every action and deed. Already planned and scripted. They don't have to write speeches because it's already planned. Remember what Jim McDermott said about the "Patriot Act" in Moore's F911. He said it was like they had this laying around all ready. That's because they did.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed Apr 10th 2024, 03:57 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC