The Ports deal is dying as UAE Company agrees to divest itself of American holdings

The UAE company that was attempting take over management of 22 U.S. ports announced today that it will divest itself of all American interests.Dubai Port Company to Divest Itself of American Holdings

This appears to be a face saving device to head off a major confrontation between Congress and President Bush over the controversial deal.

The announcement came just hours after Republican leaders from the House and Senate met with President Bush to tell him Congress appeared ready to block the deal, and was given by Senator John Warner (r-VA) who has been attempting to broker a compromise between Congress and the president.

The assessment by influential congressmen came at a private meeting at the White House, according to Amy Call, a spokeswoman for Sen. Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) It came only one day after lawmakers took their first formal steps toward killing Dubai Ports World's deal to manage American ports, as reported here.

Bush has repeatedly said he would veto any attempts to crush the deal. But over 70% of Americans have reacted viscerally to the proposd deal, giving Congress momentum towards a confrontation with the White House.

"We want to protect the American people," said House Speaker Sen. J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill). "We've been doing it the last four and a half years. We fought a war in Iraq, fought a war in Afghanistan, stood up to the Homeland Security Department. We will continue to do that. We will maybe have our differences, but we think we're going to continue to" oppose the Dubal deal," he said this morning.

The House Appropriations Committee Wednesday tacked on a measure to block the deal to funding for Katrina relief and a war-funding bill. The vote on the bill was 62-2. A full House vote on the bill is expected to pass overwhelmingly next week if it comes to a vote.

The ports deal split conservatives from the Bush administration on the president's own key issue -- national security.

Bush appears to still be hanging onto his original stance on this like a dog on a well loved bone. At the same time the GOP leadership was meeting with Bush, White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan repeated Bush's vow to veto any legislation that interferes with the deal.

That kind of cluelessness and indeed, arrogance has only made things worse. And many conservatives are livid at the White House handing a gift to the Democrats on anissue that many of them are rightfully perceived to be weak on.

This looks to be headed in one of two directions -- a veto confrontation between the president and Congress or a decision by Dubai Ports World to abandon its takeover plans.

Either way, this appears to be a done deal. And rightfully so.

Whatever were you thinking, Mr. President?

House Republicans work to block Ports Deal

You KNOW it's bad when you own party turns against you, Dubbya...even the House Majority Leader and the Speaker!

Today, House Republicans proposed legislation that would block UAE owned Dubai Ports World from taking over operations at 22 U.S. ports, shrugging off a veto threat from President Bush.

"We believe that the U.S. should not allow a government-run company to operate American ports," said Ron Bonjean, a spokesman for House Speaker Dennis Hastert.

The legislation is esupposed to hit the House floor next week as part of a $91 billion appropriation for wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and aid for Gulf States recovering from Hurricane Katrina. Way to stack, guys!

"This is a very big political problem," House Majority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, said. "I have seen it in my district. I have seen it every place I have been."

I'll just bet he has.

Rep. Jerry Lewis, R-Calif., chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, said he would attach the ports legislation to the spending bill Wednesday. It it works out that way, it would explicitly block DP World from assuming control of terminals at U.S. ports.

Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., chairman of the House Armed Services Committee is one of the Bush Administartion's most loyal voices in Congress. He pledged to block the deal and introduced his own legislation Tuesday.

President Bush is reportedly livid about this defection. he's still threatening to veto any measure that would block or delay DP World's takeover.

"The president's position is unchanged," White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said Tuesday.

Maybe he should reconsider. I can almost guarantee the votes are here to overide any veto...and as much as I disagree with President Bush on this, the last thing I want is to see him humiliated.

This is a bad deal, and a major security risk. Whatever promises Dubbya made to his friends at the UAE, he needs to get a grip and reconsider.

Hillary Clinton 'unaware' of Bill's Dubai ties; but her senatorial financial disclosure says different!

Senator Hillary Clinton (d-NY) is a leading opponent of the UAE owned DP World's takeover of US port management at 21 different locations.

This week, she stated that she wasn't aware that her husband had advised Dubai leaders on how to handle the growing dispute.Hillary Clinton 'unaware' of Bill's Dubai ties - Financial Times - MSNBC.com

But former President Bill Clinton's ties to Dubai and the United Arab Emirates should not have come as a surprise to his US senator wife.

Mrs Clinton's own senatorial financial disclosure forms reveal that her husband earned $450,000 giving speeches in Dubai in 2002.

Officials from the UAE also donated between $500,000 and $1m to fund Mr Clinton's presidential library in Arkansas!

According to the Financial Times article, this was part of an effort by the emirates, said a person close to UAE officials, to forge a close relationship with a former US president who is influential and highly regarded in the region.

Is that another way of saying `let's bribe us an ex-President and hire hime as a lobbyist?'. I think so. Mr. Bill joins an impressive list of UAE paid lobbyists hammering congress on their behalf,including ex Senate majority Leader Tom Daschele, Clinton's ex-Secretary of State Madeline Albright and ex Republican Senate Minority Leader and presidential candidate Bob Dole.

None of these people work cheap, which leads me to question why the UAE is willing to spread this kind of money around on this deal to get it through.

Mrs Clinton is widely regarded as the leading Democratic candidate for the 2008 presidential elections, and she has used her opposition to the ports deal to attack the Bush administration on national security, an issue that has been a weak point for Democrats.

Some would regard this as classic Clinton-having it both ways.

Needless to say, Mrs. Clinton's selective amnesia may cause some of her proponents to think twice about whether they really want Mrs. Clinton and her husband back in the White House.

Dubai Ports World participates in Arab boycott against Israel

The parent company of Dubai Ports World, the Dubai-based company now attempting to purchase American ports participates in the Arab boycott against Israel, contrary to US law.Jerusalem Post | Breaking News from Israel, the Middle East and the Jewish World

The firm, Dubai Ports World, is seeking control over 21 US ports(not 6 as commonly reported), including those in New York, Miami, Philadelphia and Baltimore. It's entirely owned by the Government of Dubai via a holding company called the Ports, Customs and Free Zone Corporation (PCZC), made up of the Dubai Port Authority, the Dubai Customs Department and the Jebel Ali Free Zone Area.

"Yes, of course the boycott is still in place and is still enforced," Muhammad Rashid a-Din, a staff member of the Dubai Customs Department's Office for the Boycott of Israel, told the Post in a telephone interview.

"If a product contained even some components that were made in Israel, and you wanted to import it to Dubai, it would be a problem," he said.

A-Din said that while the main office for the anti-Israel boycott sits in Damascus, he and his fellow staff members are paid employees of the Dubai Customs Department, which is a division of the PCZC, the same Dubai government-owned entity that runs Dubai Ports World.

Moreover, the Post also found that the website for Dubai's Jebel Ali Free Zone Area, part of the PCZC, advises importers that they will need to comply with the terms of the boycott.

In a section entitled "Frequently Asked Questions", the site lists six documents that are required in order to clear an item through the Dubai Customs Department. One of them, called a "Certificate of Origin," "is used by customs to confirm the country of origin and needs to be seen by the office which ensures any trade boycotts are enforced," according to the website.

A-Din at the Israel boycott office confirmed that his office examines certificates of origin as a means of verifying whether a product originated in the Jewish state.

On at least three separate occasions last year, according to the Jerusalem Post, companies were fined by the US government's Office of Anti-boycott Compliance, an arm of the Commerce Department, on charges connected to boycott-related requests they had received from the Government of Dubai.

US law makes it illegal for firms to comply with such requests or to cooperate with attempts by Arab governments to boycott Israel.

In one instance, according to a Commerce Department press release, a New York-based exporter agreed to pay a fine for having "failed to report in a timely manner its receipts of requests from Dubai" to provide certification that its products had not been made in Israel.

Dubai is the same country that hosts the government funded Zayed Center, known for funding some of the most outrageous Jew hatred, Holocaust denial, anti-American conspiracy theories and hate speech to be found anywhere on the planet, as I reported
here

For instance, the Zayed Center has hosted Thierry Meyssan, the French author of "The Appalling Fraud," which claims that the U.S. military staged the 9/11 attacks. The center translated Mr. Meyssan's book into Arabic, hailed its publication and widely advertised and distributed the book all over the Arab World.

Is the Bush Administration prepared to turn over our ports management to a company owned by a country that proudly boycotts Israel, breaks American law and makes a fetish of government funded anti-Semitism?

Dubai Ports — Strategic Implications

A fascinating and far reaching discussion of the strategic implications of the Dubai Ports takeover by scholar, sharia expert and top notch economist David J. Jonsson.
Definately worth the read:Dubai Ports — Strategic Implications

UAE terminal takeover extends to 21 ports

In yet another example of how the Bush Administration is dissembling over the UAE ports deal, today it was revealed that the takeover involves 21 ports..not 6 as previously reported.United Press International - Security & Terrorism - UAE terminal takeover extends to 21 ports

According to P&O Ports North America's website, the UAE owned Dubai Ports management takeover involves 11 ports on the East Coast, ranging from Portland, Maine to Miami, Florida, and 10 on the Gulf Coast, from Gulfport, Miss., to Corpus Christi, Texas.

The deal is set to go through March 2 unless Congress intervenes.

Dubai Ports has offered to delay the deal because of the publicity to allow Congress to be briefed..and to allow it's high powered and high priced lobbyists, including ex-Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschelle, ex-Secreatry of State Madeline Albright and ex-Republican Presidential Candidate Bob Dole to work the phones and press the flesh.

Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y. said after the briefing she expects swift, bi-partisan approval for a bill to require a national security review before it is allowed to go forward. She will have lots of help on the other side of the aisle, including Republican majority leader Bill Frist.

President George W. Bush on Tuesday threatened to veto any legislation designed to stall the handover. This is shaping up into a major showdown.

There is a 1992 amendment to a law that requires a 45-day review if the foreign takeover of a U.S. company "could affect national security." Many members of Congress see that review as mandatory in this case.

The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, comprised of officials from 12 government departments and agencies, approved the deal unanimously on January 17...just like they've approved every deal but one out of about 1580 or so.

The same day, the White House appointed a DP World executive, David C. Sanborn, to be the administrator for the Maritime Administration of the Department of Transportation. Sanborn had been serving as director of operations for Europe and Latin America at DP World.

"The structure of the deal led us to believe there were no national security concerns," said Homeland Security Deputy Secretary Michael P. Jackson.
That little tidbit above should reveal how seriously the Committee vetted this deal!

Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John Warner, R- Va., said he will request from both the U.S. attorney general and the Senate committee's legal counsel a finding on the administration's interpretation of the 1992 amendment.

Congress is also not happy about the way the were not notified as the Administration tried to slip this through the cracks.

Iowa Republican Sen. Charles Grassley stated in a letter to Bush on Feb. 21 that he specifically requested to be kept abreast of foreign investments that may have national security implications. He made the request in the wake of a controversial Chinese proposal to purchase an oil company last year.

"Obviously, my request fell on deaf ears. I am disappointed that I was neither briefed nor informed of this sale prior to its approval. Instead, I read about it in the media," he wrote.

The Associated Press broke the story Feb. 11, Joshuapundit wrote about it Feb. 12 and the Center for Security Policy, a conservative think tank, wrote about it Feb. 13. CSP posited the sale as the Treasury Department putting commerce interests above national security.

Gee, you think?

Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England is worried about alienating countries in the Middle East the United States is trying to court as allies in the war on terrorism.

"It's very important we strengthen bonds ... especially with friends and allies in the Arab world. It's important that we treat friends and allies equally around the world without discrimination," he said.

Hmmmm.

Does that mean the the UAE is on the same footing with America as Australia, Great Britain and Israel? That doesn't seem to pass muster with me.

Real and long standing alliances, Mr. Deputy Secretary come from shared values and not from relationships of convenience. If the US errs on the side of caution and stops this takeover of our ports, does that mean that our loyal allies at the UAE are going to start supporting al Qaeda again?

Port Security is a major issue in the USA. Since the Homeland Security merger, Customs and Immigration have been merged into one organization, Immigration and Customs Enforcement or ICE, and customs enforcement has been pushed to the curb, given the USA's problem with illegal immigration, and the ICE is already stretched to the limit, as I wrote here.

Port facility operators have a major security responsibility, and one that could be exploited by terrorists if they infiltrate the company, said Joe Muldoon III. Muldoon is an attorney representing Eller & Co., a port facility operator in Florida partnered with M&O in Miami. Eller opposes the Dubai takeover for security reasons.

"The Coast Guard oversees security, and they have the authority to inspect containers if they want and they can look at manifests, but they are really dependent on facility operators to carry out security issues," Muldoon said.

The Marine Transportation Security Act of 2002 requires vessels and port facilities to conduct vulnerability assessments and develop security plans including passenger, vehicle and baggage screening procedures; security patrols; establishing restricted areas; personnel identification procedures; access control measures; and/or installation of surveillance equipment.

Under the same law, port facility operators may have access to Coast Guard security incident response plans -- in other words, they know exactly where the weak points and loopholes in the system are.

"The concern is that the UAE may be our friend now ... but who's to say that couldn't change, or they couldn't be infiltrated. Iran was our big buddy," said Muldoon.

In a January report, the Council on Foreign Relations pointed out the vulnerability of the shipping security system to terrorist exploitation.

CFR suggests a terrorist event is likely to be a one-time operation on a trusted carrier "precisely because they can count on these shipments entering the U.S. with negligible or no inspection."

"All a terrorist organization needs to do is find a single weak link within a 'trusted' shipper's complex supply chain, such as a poorly paid truck driver taking a container from a remote factory to a port. They can then gain access to the container in one of the half-dozen ways well known to experienced smugglers," CFR wrote.

Still want our friends at the UAE watching the store?

More on `Portgate'; Ties between the Bush family and the UAE begin emerging

Congress and the Bush Administration have apparently agreed to a delay in the Dubai Port takeover of 6 busy ports,pending a review. I received a slew of disturbing new information today.

First of all, according to the London Times, US Secretary of State Condi Rice, who is enroute to Abu Dhabi in the Emirates today revealed that the UAE and the US have been in the process of negotiating a free trade agreement, and Condi was quoted as saying that the ports deal "had been vetted by the Bush Administration for three months". America, United States, Times Online, The Times, Sunday TimesSo much for President Bush being unaware of this until it was already a done deal!

Also of interest was the fact that The United Arab Emirates has long-standing ties to the Bush family. Records show the UAE and one of its sheikhs contributed at least $1 million before 1995 to the Bush Library Foundation, which established the George Bush Presidential Library in College Station, Texas.

Another interesting bit concerns the President's brother Neil Bush, who last surfaced as a defendant in the Silverado Trust Savings and Loan scandal.

Neil Bush is a frequent visitor and paid speaker in Dubai, and a friend of Dubai's Crown Prince Sheikh Mohammad bin Rashid al-Maktoum and Information Minister Sheikh Abdullah bin Zayed al-Nahyan. He was there right after 9/11 trying to get investors for an educational software company he owned that later went under. Arab-American BusinessBush was a frequent vistor to Dubai and actually e-mailed his wife of his desire for a divorce from his Dubai hotel room!

Bush's relationship with the Saudi and UAE royals was also bolstered by his employment by his Syrian-American multimillionaire boss, Jamal Daniel, who is well connected to the royal families. Daniel reportedly paid Neil Bush a $60,000 a year salary for only a few hours work. Bush's marriage to his second wife was held at Daniel's palatial Houston mansion.

At onespeech in Saudi Arabia, Neil Bush encouraged conferees to expand lobbying and PR efforts to change "perceptions" about the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Aside from Neil Bush's paid speaking engagement engagements throughDubai's Datamatrix, he's prominently displayed on the company's website (and listed as "Brother of US President George Bush"), as are Al Gore and Sandy Berger. Datamatix - The Power of Trust

Neil Bush has also made paid speeches to the Zayed Center, which was funded by UAE's President, Sheik Zayed bin Sultan al-Nahyan, who recently died. Some of you may recall that the Zayed Center is known for funding some of the most outrageous Jew hatred, Holocaust denial, anti-American conspiracy theories and hate speech to be found anywhere on the planet.

In August 2002, the Los Angeles Times quoted Mohammed Murar, the executive director of the Zayed Center, saying about Jews that "the truth is they are the enemies of all nations." His comment came on the heels of a Zayed Center report stating that "the Zionists are the people who killed the Jews in Europe."

Sheik Zayed also funded the Abu Dhabi-based Zayed Center for Coordination and Follow-Up, a prominent think tank of the Arab League, founded in 1999. The Zayed Center, described on its Web site "as the fulfillment of the vision of Sheikh Zayed," promotes Holocaust denial, anti-American conspiracy theories and hate speech in its lectures, symposiums and publications. In August 2002, the Los Angeles Times quoted Mohammed Murar, the executive director of the Zayed Center, saying about Jews that "the truth is they are the enemies of all nations." His comment came on the heels of a Zayed Center report stating that "the Zionists are the people who killed the Jews in Europe."

The Zayed Center has a history of giving Holocaust deniers like David Irving a forum to promulgate their ideas. In 1998, Sheik Zayed's wife donated $50,000 to finance the defense of infamous Holocaust denier Roger Garaudy in a French court.

In April 2002, the Zayed Center hosted Thierry Meyssan, the French author of "The Appalling Fraud," which claims that the U.S. military staged the 9/11 attacks. The center translated Mr. Meyssan's book into Arabic, hailed its publication and widely advertised the work.

The Center has also proudly hosted Umayma Jalahma, a professor of Islamic Studies at King Faisal University, who declared: "The Jewish people must obtain human blood so that their clerics can prepare for holiday pastries."OpinionJournal - Taste

It's one thing for the President's brother to take money and cozy up to people like this. But are these the sort of people we want managing our ports in a post 9/11 atmosphere?

Even more disturbing is the security problems associated with the reorganization of the former INS and U.S. Customs Service into ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement. The agency is already stretched to the limit, given the problem with illegal immigration in the US. Since Immigration is now the main focus of the ICE, investigations into smuggling from foreign countries and monitoring port security has fallen by the way-side.

While Customs and Border Protection does inspections, the investigations are still supposed to be conducted by ICE, who agents are already overloaded and who's budget for this year already spent. ICE is also burdened with a political appointee,Julie L. Myers,running ICE who has no law enforcement experience or Customs experience.

One of the Administrations' selling points on this deal is that he security is `taken care of'. Let's just say I have my doubts and need a lot more reassurance.



A shout out to Debbie Shlussel who provided some of the info on this post.

The latest on the ports deal

President Bush struggled to convince congressional sceptics today that letting a state-owned Dubai Ports take over management at six major US seaports did not represent a security risk.

Senior administration officials from the Departments of Defence, State, Treasury and Homeland Security appeared before a hastily called Senate committee briefing to offer assurances over the deal.

Dubai Ports is also not sitting back quietly on this. They are spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to hire high profile lobbyists to push the deal through Congress, including ex-US senator and presidential candidate Bob Dole, ex-senate minority leader Tom Daschele and ex- US Secretary of State Madeline Albright!

Another aspect that bothers me, frankly, is President Bush insuting my intelligence. On the one hand, the White House stated that neither President Bush nor Treasury Secretary Snow knew about this until it was a `done deal'. Yet President Bush, three days later is threatening to veto this and saying that a deal he supposedly knew nothing about is interfering with his ability to conduct foreign policy? I don't expect or even demand truthfulness from the president on every occasion, but this is a bit much.

There are some good arguments on letting this deal go through; apparently Dubai has indeed been helpful in some aspects of the war, and one airforce man I correspond with who ought to know wrote me that without the use of the Al Dhafra air base, the attack on the Taliban in Afghanistan would have been extremely problematical.

The United Arab Emirates is certainly the most Western of Persian Gulf nations.Its ruling emirs permit Navy warships to dock and refit in the bustling port of Dubai. It also hosts U.S. Air Force warplanes, refueling jets and spy planes at the Al Dhafra air base near Abu Dhabi. And that base sits right across the Persian Gulf from Iran,which may very well be a decisive factor.

The arguments against this weigh heavily as well; First aside from Dubai's past association with Islamic terrorism, there is the fact that even though the administration is claiming that nothing is changing and that the present employees would remain in place, no guarantee exists that things won't change in the future.

Even more to the point, if this goes through, the US will have a foreign entity with the knowledge of all of Homeland Securities' criteria for port security...and knowledge of the loopholes and blind areas in the system.

I also am extremely suspicious of the high powered lobbying that's going on, the `Islamophobia' card that's being played and what I consider to be the Bush Administration dissembling on this from the beginning. Not to mention that ex-president Jimmy Carter favors this deal!

The President needs to sit down with Congress and make the necessary changes needed to reassure them that this deal is necessary and more important, completely vetted as far as our security goes. The President needs to make a case for this action.That aspect was handled poorly from the very beginning, and as I said, doesn't pass the smell test.

If President Bush is unable and/or unwilling to do that, then it needs to be opposed and if necessary killed by appropriate Congressional action.

What's really behind the port deal controversy.

Stranger and stranger.....

Let's do some serious analysis, shall we?

I think it pays to ask the question: why is President Bush so exercised about a simple comercial transaction? Especially one opposed by both the Senate and House Majority leaders in his own party? What is so important that he is threatening a veto of any legislation blocking this, when he hasn't vetoed anything in five years?

I think I know, or at least have an idea.

You have to start with two logical premises: one,that President Bush is NOT an idiot(though certainly capable of mistakes) and two, that he is not an evil meglomaniac bent on America's destruction, and would not DELIBERATELY do anything to harm the country's security.

(I think a couple of `liberals' just peeled off into the ozone)

Let's look again at what he said:

"I want those who are questioning it to step up and explain why all of a sudden a Middle Eastern company is held to a different standard than a Great British company. I am trying to conduct foreign policy now by saying to the people of the world, `We'll treat you fairly.'"

"They ought to listen to what I have to say about this. They'll look at the facts and understand the consequences of what they're going to do," he said. "But if they pass a law, I'll deal with it with a veto."

Bush addressed this again immediately upon his return to the White House, to make sure his soundbite would make the evening news. "This is a company that has played by the rules, has been cooperative with the United States, from a country that's an ally on the war on terror, and it would send a terrible signal to friends and allies not to let this transaction go through."

Well, Mr. President, I can think of a number of reasons to hold a UAE company to a different standard. For starters, there's the little matter of Dubai and the UAE being a major funding source for al Qaeda, Hamas and Hezbollah, the fact that some of the 9/11 hijackers used the UAE as an operational and financial base and the fact that the UAE was the main transfer point for shipments of smuggled nuke components and data sent to Iran, North Korea and Libya by Pakistani scientist Dr. Aly Khan.

It's obvious that Bush made a personal committment to someone, based on a quid-pro-quo and if you examine what he said, it's obvious that he feels his personal word is on the line.

So whom did he promise and what WAS that deal? I have a feeling the operative words are Saudi Arabia and Iran.

While some of you were fixating on a hunting accident, King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia was finalizing improved relations with India and China.
J O S H U A P U N D I T: Connecting the dots on Iran, funding for the Palestinians...and the Saudis

Obviously part of that was a Saudi committment to make up the oil shortfall to these countries in the event of trouble with Iran, and to lean on the other OPEC nations to go along, including the UAE.

A strike against Iran may be in the advanced planning stages even as I write this.

Bush may just be putting together a bloc of Arab countries aimed at ultimately isolating the Islamist/terrorist supporting or near Islamist nations in the region.

This bloc appears to consist of Jordan, Oman, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Iraq, Bahrein and Qatar. Notice that with the exception of Iraq, all of them are Arab autocracies..and all surround Iran, Syria, and the Palestinian Authority. Another point to note is that except for Iraq, all of them are predominantly Sunni.

Egypt, which Bush has pretty much cut off from any US aid, is no longer a player. Egypt will be an Islamist state as soon as the elderly Mubarek dies.

In spite of all the lip service about `Arab democracy' Bush and Condi Rice appear to be playing the conservative, Sunni autocracies against the more radical states in the region, especially Iran and Syria.

Now, the price for this cooperation could very well be a hands off attitude towards the Saudi export of jihad to America via Saudi funded mosques, madrassahs and university chairs, US help with bringing Saudi Arabia into the world's commercial mainstream (Bush sponsored the Saudi's entry into the WTO) and just maybe, increased entry of Arab companies into the USA, including government contracts.

Do I agree with that? Not at all, on the face of it. But I think it's necessary to see where the pieces on the board go. And there may obviously be some information or issues that I lack knowledge of.

Could Bush be playing a classic game of divide and conquer, planning to deal with the Saudis after Iran and Syria? Maybe.

Either he is three steps ahead of the game, or merely playing what he feels is the best hand he has with what he has to work with.

In any event, he is going to need to make nice to Congress and spend some time briefing the House and Senate intelligence committees, like he did with the NSA controversy.

As we've noticed, the tone on the NSA wiretaps has changed considerably since Congress received an Intel briefing on the subject, even among Democrats.

President Bush will have to make his case on turning over management of 6 of our busiest harbors over to Dubai Ports. I have major doubts on the matter, but he deserves the opportunity.

Bush plays the `race card' on port deal

This is getting crazier and crazier. President Bush said today that he would veto any congressional attempts to stop a deal allowing an Arab company to take over six major U.S. seaports.

This puts him in conflict with the senate and house leaders of his own party, aong with most Democrats. I can't imagine what Dubbyah is thinking.

"After careful review by our government, I believe the transaction ought to go forward," Bush told reporters who had traveled with him on Air Force One to Washington. "I want those who are questioning it to step up and explain why all of a sudden a Middle Eastern company is held to a different standard than a Great British company. I am trying to conduct foreign policy now by saying to the people of the world, `We'll treat you fairly.'"

Well, for starters, Mr. President,there's the little matter of Dubai and the UAE being a major funding source for al Qaeda, Hamas and Hezbollah, the fact that some of the 9/11 hijackers used the UAE as an operational and financial base and the fact that the UAE was the main transfer point for shipments of smuggled nuke components and data sent to Iran, North Korea and Libya by Pakistani scientist Dr. Aly Khan.

Perhaps the administration considers this insignificant. I don't think most of Congress or the American people agree.

Bush called reporters his conference room on Air Force One after returning from a speech in Colorado. He obviously wanted to be on record on this controversy. He said the seaports arrangement had been extensively examined by the administration and was "a legitimate deal that will not jeopardize the security of the country."

Bush, who has yet to veto a bill in more than five years in office, said sternly he would not back down.

"They ought to listen to what I have to say about this. They'll look at the facts and understand the consequences of what they're going to do," he said. "But if they pass a law, I'll deal with it with a veto."

Bush adressed this again immediately upon his return to the White House, to make sure his position would be on camera and make the evening news. "This is a company that has played by the rules, has been cooperative with the United States, from a country that's an ally on the war on terror, and it would send a terrible signal to friends and allies not to let this transaction go through," the president said after emerging from his helicopter on the South Lawn.

Now, I wonder why Bush is so exercised personally about this. Whom did he make promises to and on what basis? And what is the US getting in return? This is obviously more than a simple commercial transaction.

Nuke Nightmare-how vulnerable are we?

A sober, factual analysis of the threat to America from islamic nuclear terrorism. Not for the easily upset..

On Sept. 12, 2001, Wall Street Journal columnist Peggy Noonan wrote that New Yorkers still alive should be thankful to be so, thankful that "for some reason, and we don't even know what it was, the terrorists didn't use a small nuclear weapon floated into New York on a barge in the East River."

She suspected that "the next time the bad guys hit" it will be nuclear, but "for now we have been spared. And now, chastened and shaken, we are given another chance, maybe the last chance, to commit ourselves seriously and at some cost to protecting our country."

read the rest here:WORLD Magazine | Nuclear Nightmare

`Portgate' continues..the latest on the controversy over the Dubai Ports deal

I continue to follow this story with absolutely jaw-dropping disbelief that this would even be considered, in an era of Islamic terrorism and attacks on our nation. And especially by an administration that prides itself as strong on national security.

The Bush Administration continues to draw heavy fire on the proposed deal permitting a United Arab Emirates company to take over six major U.S. seaports..as well it should.
J O S H U A P U N D I T: Should the Arabs control American ports?

This ill-advised proposal is facing bi-partisan criticism in Congress. The latest prominent Republican to weigh in is Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist(r-TN).

He called Tuesday for the Bush administration to stop the deal.

"The decision to finalize this deal should be put on hold until the administration conducts a more extensive review of this matter," said Frist. "If the administration cannot delay this process, I plan on introducing legislation to ensure that the deal is placed on hold until this decision gets a more thorough review."

Frist spoke as other lawmakers, including Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., and Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., said they would offer emergency legislation next week to block the deal ahead of a planned March 2 takeover.

Two Republican governors, New York's George Pataki and Maryland's Robert Ehrlich, likewise expressed outrage over the proposed Arab takeover.

Both governors indicated they may try to cancel lease arrangements at ports in their states because of the DP World takeover.

"Ensuring the security of New York's port operations is paramount and I am very concerned with the purchase of Peninsular & Oriental Steam by Dubai Ports World," Pataki said in a statement. "I have directed the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey to explore all legal options that may be available to them."

Ehrlich, concerned about security at the Port of Baltimore, said Monday he was "very troubled" that Maryland officials got no advance notice before the Bush administration approved the Arab company's takeover of the operations at the six ports.

"We needed to know before this was a done deal, given the state of where we are concerning security," Ehrlich told reporters in the State House rotunda in Annapolis.

Republican Sen. Lindsay Graham of South Carolina said on Fox News Sunday that the administration approval was "unbelievably tone deaf politically," and at least one Senate oversight hearing was planned for later this month.

The administration is claiming that the security aspects of this have been `handled', and Nicholas Chertoff, head of Homeland Security even voiced the facile sentiment that `all of the same employees would remain in place, nothing is changing.' What nobody asked him, and what he did not address is what guarantee exists that things won't change in the future? Even more to the point, if this goes through, the US will have a foreign entity with the knowledge of all of Homeland Securities' criteria for port security...and knowledge of the loopholes and blind areas in the system.

As I wrote onsite previously, you might remember that some of the 9/11 hijackers used the UAE as an operational and financial base. And that the UAE was an important transfer point for shipments of smuggled nuclear components sent to Iran, North Korea and Libya by a Pakistani scientist, Dr. Aly Khan.

The Bush Administration needs to cancel this deal on America's ports....now.

Keep contacting your congressmen!

Controversy over the management of major US ports by Arab firm continues

Well, the fit has hit the shan on this, as they say. And well it should.

As I reported a few days ago, The Bush Administration approved what I consider to be an unbelievably unsound measure to let a UAE Dubai-based company take over six of our busiest ports, including New York Harbor, Baltimore and Miami.J O S H U A P U N D I T: Should the Arabs control American ports?

I cold understand how this might have slipped through the Federal bureacracy, and expected the President to call for an investigation of this deal. Instead, they are defending it! Unbelievable.

You might remember the UAE's history as an operational and financial base for the Mohammed Atta's hijackers who carried out the attacks of 9/11. One of the hijackers hailed form this area. In addition, the UAE was an important transfer point for shipments of smuggled nuclear components sent to Iran, North Korea and Libya by the infamous Pakistani nuclear scientist Dr.A.Q. Khan.

The head of Homeland Security, Nicholas Chertoff made the rounds of the Sunday talk shows defending the ports deal.

"You can be assured that before a deal is approved we put safeguards in place, assurances in place, that make everybody comfortable that we are where we need to be from a national security viewpoint," Chertoff said on ABC's "This Week with George Stephanopoulos."

Frankly, I don't believe him. This sounds more like an example of Washington bureaucrats attempting to cover for one another.

Senator Lindsay Graham (r-SC), among others, agrees with me. He said said it was a mistake for the administration to approve the sale and called on Congress to investigate it.

"It's unbelievably tone deaf politically at this point in our history, four years after 9/11, to entertain the idea of turning port security over to a company based in the UAE who avows to destroy Israel," Graham said on "Fox News Sunday."

"I don't think now is the time to outsource major port security to a foreign-based company."

This puts Senator Graham(and me)in the embarassing position of being on the same side of this issue as Senators Schumer, Boxer, Clinton and Menedez, all of whom have said they would support legislation to block this sale.

I was on the horn to some of my favorite congressmen last week, and I urge you to do the same.

President Bush needs to intervene and stop this sale. Now.

Should the Arabs control American ports?

Call me primitively suspicious, but I don't like this one little bit.

Some of America's biggest and busiest ports are about to become the property of a government-owned United Arab Emirates firm.

This includes the ports in New York Harbor, Newark, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia. all busy terminals for cargo. Do we really want our major ports in the hands of an Arab country where al Qaeda recruits and raises money?

The U.S. Committee on Foreign Investment, a Treasury Department group which reviews such foreign investments approved a $6.8 billion transaction between the ports' current British owners and Dubai Ports World, a government-owned United Arab Emirates firm. The United Arab Emirates, you'll remember, was home to Marwan al-Shehhi, a September 11 hijacker and the Emirates known transit points and funding havens for
al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah and other terrorist groups.And there are a number of terrorist symphathizers who live in the Emirates and in nearby countries.

The Bush administration calls the United Arab Emirates an ally in the war on terror, just as they do the Saudis.Both essentially fight and arrest terrorists who operate against their own countries and turn a blind eye at terrorists involved anywhere else.

The sale doesn't displace American ownership, and the British Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation Co., who managed the ports previously probably never gave much thought to port security, but that's no reason to ignore an extremely questonable transactions and make matters worse. We should be improving port security right now, not outsourcing management of these ports to a company owned by a government that can and does have hostile anti-American and pro terrorist adherants among its citizens.

And what about Dubai Ports World? Where is the money coming from? Dubai Ports World is claiming 20 percent annual growth since 2001. That's not unverifiable since its a foreign private company. For all we know, Dubai Ports World is an undeclared arm of a foreign government...or worse.

Senator Chuck Schumer(NY-d), of all people is asking tough questions about this deal. For once, I have to agree with him: President Bush should overrule the committee and not permit this transaction.If he won't Congress should take action. The country's busiest ports shouldn't be owned or managed by a company owned by a foreign government.

Especially one that hails from a part of the world not noted for exactly wishing America well.