response 32 of 154:

Feb 22 15:38 UTC 2006

the point is that after 9/11, homeland security should have implemented a
policy that transitioned control of all u.s. ports to american companies. 
as it is, I was told the chinese control some of our ports out on the west
coast.

remember too that the UAE is, like the Saudis, anti-Israel, they do not
recognize Israel's right to exist.

response 34 of 154:

Feb 22 18:54 UTC 2006

There is a bipartisan-supported bill making its way through congress, which
senate majority leader bill frist, and others support, which would make it
illegal to allow foreign countries to buy control of u.s. ports without
congressional approval.  This would shoot down the Dubai deal.  Bush is
promising to veto it.

New York, New Jersey and Florida are all suing to stop the deal.  This is
getting nasty.

response 36 of 154:

Feb 22 19:18 UTC 2006

This is a statement from Bill Frist, the republican senate majority 
leader:

February 21st, 2006 - WASHINGTON, D.C. - U.S. Senate Majority Leader Bill 
Frist, M.D. (R-TN) today made the following statement on the deal proposed 
by Dubai Ports World of the United Arab Emirates that would give the 
company day-to-day management of six major U.S. sea ports: 


"Recent reports that a company based in the Middle East is seeking to 
purchase the operating rights to several U.S. ports raise serious 
questions regarding the safety and security of our homeland.  The decision 
to finalize this deal should be put on hold until the Administration 
conducts a more extensive review of this matter. 


"It is important for Congress be involved in this process.  I have 
requested a detailed briefing on this deal. 


"If the Administration cannot delay the process, I plan on introducing 
legislation to ensure that the deal is placed on hold until this decision 
gets a more thorough review. 


"This is not the first time questions have been raised about the Executive 
Branch's review process, led by th̃se Committee on Foreign Investment in 
the United States, for these types of transactions.  These deals could 
have a major impact on America's security, the protection of which is our 
greatest responsibility.  The CFIUS process needs to be more transparent 
and include a role for Congress that includes reviewing these deals, and 
possibly voiding them if necessary." 

response 38 of 154:

Feb 22 20:45 UTC 2006

it is a conflict of interest for the Bush administration to have approved this
sale without congressional involvement, because the royal family of UAE has
connections to the Texas oil industry and the Bush family.

response 40 of 154:

Feb 22 22:06 UTC 2006

As the arguments should be used against them.  They're just as evil as Saddam.
The world would be better off without them.  THey pose an imminent threat to
freedom.  Why aren't you "concerned about the national security implications
that this could have for the safety of the American people", Bruce?
Are you an enemy of freedom?

I think GW is a shit for suggesting a veto.
Reem Al-Hashimy, the UAE's commercial attache in Washington, told CNN Tuesday
that her country is not offended by the controversy and said it respects the
democratic process at work in the United States.
Why is GW trying to rifle this deal through without any oversight?
(Other than the fact that he's a typical arrogant rich political prick)

response 42 of 154:

Feb 23 00:02 UTC 2006

Then why is he opposed to a review and threatening a veto?  A hunch?

response 44 of 154:

Feb 23 02:20 UTC 2006

laffo!

response 46 of 154:

Feb 23 06:57 UTC 2006

OH, okay then!  NEVERMIND!  Sell it!

response 48 of 154:

Feb 23 17:31 UTC 2006

 But the times he's threatened to it's been quite disturbing what he 
 felt he had to take a stand on, e.g. torture..

response 50 of 154:

Feb 23 20:53 UTC 2006

A little more information is oozing out about the port management issue. If
it is to be believed, there would be no change in the management, and no
change in employment. The head of the DPW appears to be an American (or, at
least a person of European descent that speaks American). 

I've been arguing that we should get complete information about what affects
this arrangement will have on port management, and what the financial
arrangements are, before screaming about terrorist threats, etc. I am more
likely to oppose the arrangement on economic and managerial grounds, rather
than as a result of people using the terrorism scare. 

Much of the world's merchange fleet is registered in outer Mongolia - well,
some small African or Asian countries - why is this not as much of a terrorism
threat? It's the same question. 

response 52 of 154:

Feb 23 21:16 UTC 2006

Why don't you guys let Americans run your ports?

response 54 of 154:

Feb 23 22:16 UTC 2006

re #52
Think of a loyalty card program like a grocery store.  They issue you this
card so they can track your spending habits.  This is what the port management
incentives basically boil down to.  You can monitor people that compete with
each other and thus leverage your own marketing and wholesale operation
agendas.  In the case of the USA, the Administration cuts all budgets unless
it has to do with cranking out military or nation building expansion.

response 56 of 154:

Feb 23 23:48 UTC 2006

Its more about cutting expenses for corporations.  Nike had to build its own
port system recently near Los Angeles in order to quicker rifle their product
through the security systems and slow 48 hour turnaround.  If that is owned
by a foreign entity then the incentives for backroom special treatment is much
higher with less risk of oversight.