Yahoo:Homeland Security Objected to Ports Deal

[cal04]

The Homeland Security Department objected at first to a United Arab Emirates company's taking over significant operations at six U.S. ports. It was the lone protest among members of the government committee that eventually approved the deal without dissent

The department's early objections were settled later in the government's review of the $6.8 billion deal after Dubai-owned DP World agreed to a series of security restrictions.
The company indefinitely has postponed its takeover to give President Bush time to convince Congress that the deal does not pose any increased risks to the U.S. from terrorism.

Some lawmakers have pressed for a new and intensive review. Despite persistent criticism from Republicans and Democrats, the president has defended his administration's approval of the ports deal and threatened to veto any measures in Congress that would block it. Hearings are to continue this week

(snip)

Stewart Baker, a senior Homeland Security official, said he was the sole representative on the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States who objected to the ports deal. Baker said he later changed his vote after DP World agreed to the security conditions. Other officials confirmed Baker's account. "We were not prepared to sign off on the deal without the successful negotiation of the assurances," Baker told the AP.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060225/ap_on_go_pr_wh/ports_security

[Booster]

1. Everybody rate this story up.

[cal04]

2. the comments are flying over there. Not too many freepers

I can't understand how they can agree with this

[Clarkie1]

3. So there WAS a concern about UAE managing the ports.

That is the essential truth here. * has been going around saying there was never any particular concern about it, and this proves that he is lying.

[elehhhhna]

5. Yes and the law then requires a 45 day investigation.

Plus they lied to Congress yesterday, LIVE on tv.

The law is clear. 45 day investigation--not a backroom deal and off we go.

[elehhhhna]

4. It's 21 ports, not 6. That's why they call it Yahoo News I guess.

[liveoaktx]

6. Slightly off topic but when you see a URL that has "PR" in it,

that seems, to me, to imply that the "news item" has its origins in PR from (next part) the White House.

IF that's true, that means this is leaked in order to show that, hell, Homeland Security had problems but they were won over when the extra security measures were signed.