POL - Our ports under UAE control?
 

The President has decided that it is ok for a company controlled by the United Arab Emirates to have control of six major US ports. This seems to me to be a bad idea. I would object to any foreign company in charge of that, and especially one from the Middle East. And on the radio I heard that Sean Hannity and Jay Severin both agree with me, so it's obviously not just an anti-Bush view. Can someone explain to me why this is a good idea?

Many politicians and media journalists are wanting more information on the subject. Up until this, I never realize our ports were privately-controlled.

I wouldn't think it would be too hard to kick them out should the need arise. I do understand the concern, though.

no

Here's an exchange at the DoD Press Briefing today.
http://www.defenselink.mil/transcrip...221-12543.html

and later...

the companies that are owned by foreign entities are NOT companies that are owned by foreign governements especially those who recognized the Taliban as the rightful government of Afghanistan or refuses to recognize Israel as a sovereign nation. This is going to be bad for Bush all around, and if it comes to fruition it WILL weaken our security of our ports, which is abysmal already. Even if its .00000001% weaker, it is a possibility because it has become quite evident, no matter who doesnt want to admit it, but the muslim nations are the hotbed of anger against the West....so knowing that, the odds are higher that a closet terrorist could be hired by them, as with any outside management company, but somewhat heightened.

Surprise! It turns out that there are some pretty close WH ties to the port company.

hxxp://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/393375p-333478c.html

W aides' biz ties to Arab firm

BY MICHAEL McAULIFF
DAILY NEWS WASHINGTON BUREAU

Breaking news update: Bush shrugs off objections to port deal

WASHINGTON - 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 agency 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 was tapped by Bush last month to head the U.S. Maritime Administration.

The ties raised more concerns about the decision to give port control to a company owned by a nation linked to the 9/11 hijackers.

"The more you look at this deal, the more the deal is called into question," said Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), who said the deal was rubber-stamped in advance - even before DP World formally agreed to buy London's P&O port company.

Besides operations in New York and Jersey, Dubai would also run port facilities in Philadelphia, New Orleans, Baltimore and Miami.

The political fallout over the deal only grows.

"It's particularly troubling that the United States would turn over its port security not only to a foreign company, but a state-owned one," said western New York's Rep. Tom Reynolds, chairman of the National Republican Campaign Committee. Reynolds is responsible for helping Republicans keep their majority in the House.

Snow's Treasury Department runs the Committee on Foreign Investment in the U.S., which includes 11 other agencies.

"It always raises flags" when administration officials have ties to a firm, Rep. Vito Fossella (R-S.I.) said, but insisted that stopping the deal was more important.

The Daily News has learned that lawmakers also want to know if a detailed 45-day probe should have been conducted instead of one that lasted no more than 25 days.

According to a 1993 congressional measure, the longer review is mandated when the company is owned by a foreign government and the purchase "could result in control of a person engaged in interstate commerce in the U.S. that could affect the national security of the U.S."

Congressional sources said the President has until March 2 to trigger that harder look.

"The most important thing is for someone to explain how this is consistent with our national security," Fossella said.

I'll let Mr Rumsfeld field this one. :)

it doesnt make any sense, it HAS to get weaker simply by having someone else do hiring on the port that has links, IM SORRY, is owned by THE FOREIGN GOVERNMENT, NOT the foreign corp. The corp. is owned by the country. It is intuitive that it would weaken the already crappy security at our ports by having it be run by another governemtn linked to all of the Facts I posted above.

Well, if nothing else, it is a political fumble for Bush. I'm sure don't like the idea of the UAE running our ports.

One letter off from the ports being under MY control!

Yeah, this makes absolutely no sense for an administration that has been pushing the limits of our civil liberties and has started two wars all in the name of security.

I'm all for it.

Why, exactly? Don't you find it a little odd that by his own admission, the Secretary of Defense was not consulted at all on this pending transaction? Presumably the Department of Defense would be in some sort of position to comment on any potential security issues this would raise, right?

So what is it? Is Rumsfeld relevant, or is he not?

So either Rummy, as the SecDef, is completely out of the loop on national defense issues, or lying. Either does not bode well for our national defense.

You certainly would think so...especially considering that he's on the Committee on Foreign Investments in the United States, and thus one of the people who approved the sale. On February 13. A week before he claims to have known anything about the matter.

Dutch, could you explain for me, in your own words, why this is a good thing for America? Does is cost less to have Dubai run our national security? Is that savings enough to offset the potential harm of having another state handle matters of national security? I don't see the benefit here.

I don't think it's "kicking them out" which is the concern. I think the concern is that U.A.E. has many black marks against it, most of which are very relevant to port security.

For instance, the investigation into A.Q. Kahn, the Pakistani scientist who sold nuclear secrets, has unearthed evidence that nuclear components were shipped to North Korea, Libya and Iran through Dubai.

Secondly, the FBI believes that a good amount of the money used to finance 9/11 went through U.A.E.'s banking system.

Lastly, Treasury and other departments have complained about some of UAE's lack of cooperation in helping with terrorism-related investigations after 9/11.

I'm on your side on this one, but that is an outrageous, preposterous piece of typing.

The dude is in charge of the biggest beuracracy in this country. Perhaps the situation was being dealt with by these 5 or 6 different agencies and the question of security came up and one of the different agencies told him, "It stays the same, the Coast Guard is responsible."

At that level, you have to have some sort of trust in your people. Rumsfeld is the head of the Defense Department, not the expert port authority! He gets his info from those experts and division heads. I can guarantee you that if you trust the people you work with, and they are the subject-matter experts and they say, "Honestly, not politically speaking, this is the right thing to do (i.e. let this transaction take place) and security remains the same", you have to trust your people in that situation. You heed their advice and you make a decision based on that advice.

Should Rumsfeld be in on every single last meeting and decision that takes place in the Department of Defense? It would be a nice luxury. Is that remotely possible? Of course not. That's what delegation is about. The Department of Defense could never be run successfully without trusting the trained leaders up and down the chain. From an NCO on the battlefield in Iraq to the head of homeland security. You have to trust these guys and have to trust they have been trained to do their jobs and provide the proper information to their leadership.

Dear god, this is remarkably stupid - American companies own foreign companies- why not vice-versa ? Bush is dead on accurate about this - the people criticizing him from the left and the right are pandering to the Anti-Arab and the protectionists, two groups that are generally pretty useless.

Dutch, read my post. It's not that he's in charge of Defense, it's that he's on the committee specifically designed to deal with issues like this, and yet claims not to know about it. We're not talking about 5 or 6 different agencies. We're talking about one committee.

Sorry Dutch, that is a pretty weak arguement. When he is a direct member of the committee that makes the decision on this, that is an entirely different meeting than the one to decide how much to pay for toilet seats on a C-130.

Some of ya'll act like your on the foreign investments committee. Why didn't you bring this up sooner? :)

That about sums it up for me.

That's your response?

Hell, we evidently knew as much about it as the guy who approved the sale.

I can see that pov. It does seem like ado about nothing. I certainly wouldn't dismiss the concerns out of hand, though, given the emphasis on security we have these days.

I suspect you've heard everything you wanted to hear.

As have you.

but does the american govt own foreign countries? some might even answer yes to that but that is the MSOT accurate analogy...it is NOT simply a foreign company, THAT company is run and owned by the Foreign governemtn itself.

The fact that you refuse to acknowledge something so blatant isn't surprising. I'd say it's disappointing, but you've done it so many times in the past.

Pathetic.

I knew your stance before this thread was even put on here so thats moot. Bu some on here are not comparing the apples to the apples. The UAE has done everything I listed and some more Like AQ khan, and it is THAT COUNTRY that would be running our ports via their company. Its not simply a foreign company buying it, it IS a foreign country buying it.

I think ports are a big part of our national security. In fact, I think that is why people are upset. And we are paying the UAE to take it over.

At least I don't pretend to be unpredictable.

Ok, but why is it good to have any foreign state in control of our ports?

If security falls under the control of the Coast Guard, as it does now apparently, then what's the problem? Do brown people scare you?

Ok, here's a separate issue: why would President Bush promise to veto any bill Congress would approve to block the agreement?

I agree with this. Much ado about nothing. Kind of like people who freak out that Citgo is owned by Chavez's Venezuela.

"It sends a terrible signal to friends around the world that it's OK for a company from one country to manage the port, but not a country that plays by the rules and has got a good track record from another part of the world," Bush said.

you just dont know me well...I NEVER pretend anything except when Im getting paid to do so (Id throw a sarcatic BEEEYOTCH!! at the end of that but Im afraid youll take it seriously and get all mad so only apply it if you can take it as a joke)

Spare me Dutch, it doesn't mean anything to me to have you, who for the past year has been telling me we have to invade all brown people countries to have peace, ask me if brown people scare me.

What exactly is Dubai doing in the ports? How does their presence have no effect on the security there? Why should any foreign state be in control of our ports??

even thats messed up, he's comparing a foreign company to a foreign country, they are NOT the same thing.

It would be fine if it were just a foreign company (it was previously a British company), but is it so clear cut when the foreign company in question is owned by a foreign government?

So he believes a Republican controlled Congress is willing to send such a signal? And the will of the American people supercedes their representatives to such a degree on this issue that he needs to take it into his own hands to correct the wrong?

Radical Muslims do me.

Well c'mon, you know how much Bush cares about our reputation in the world.

Now, where were you to back me up when Mr Bigglesworth's runs amok with the brown people talk? I feel so let down.

Brown People does not equal Radical Muslims. I know many a brown person who is muslim and not radical or not muslim at all.

You're not ever going to get me to take you seriously as long as you express yourself like that.

But not people from Dubai, right? They are all a bunch of brown terrorists?

Do I have this line of questioning in Mr Biggleworth fashion down well enough?

Well, if you want to get technical, British companies are in control of the ports in question now. They are the ones wanting to sell to the UAE.

I'm still waiting for a serious response to my earlier question: why is Bush promising to veto any move by Congress to block the agreement?
Does he believe a Republican controlled Congress is willing to send such a signal? And the will of the American people supercedes their representatives to such a degree on this issue that he needs to take it into his own hands to correct the wrong?

I should have taken the hint from the refusal to address the Rumsfeld issue, but I figured a second chance was worth a shot.

I'd be willing to bet that in Dubai the numbers of Muslims in the population are higher than here or GB for that matter. If you take a % of a sample and grow the sample, that same % is going to yield more radicals. If those radicals can use some of the loopholes exploited in Dubai's monitoring in the past to then use them on our porous ports....I'd say that that grows our vulnerability. It truly is intuitive....even if you take partisanship out, its simple mathematics. Now you understand my stance, it is a bad idea to hand it over to any foreign governement, especially one in the M.E. considering we have this little war on terror that seems to revolve around the M.E., even though no one wants to admit it. Shoot, having it handled by a foreign company is bad in its own rigth when only 4% of containers are being checked, but this is something expoenetially worse.

My understanding is that the controlling company actually prepares the security plan. That plan has to be approved by the Coast Guard, but it is initiated by the controlling company.

The President is not Congress.

You're becoming unhinged. You aren't even putting forth arguments anymore, just quoting McClellan press conferences and accusing people of racism.

Clearly. He, a single individual, has the power to overrule the work that hundreds of his fellow politicians--most of which are members of his own political party--would have agreed was best for the nation. Why would he do that? And why would he announce his intentions to do that?

Yes, and personally I don't think British companies should be in charge either.

EDIT: Or American companies for that matter. I think the ports should be administered by the government.

Who owns the company doesn't solve anything. I seriously doubt that the ports in question have a bunch of British workers walking around right now, and I don't expect a bunch of Dubaian workers to be around after the sale goes through. These are state-side ports with state-side workers.

The Coast Guard has authority over security, if they aren't doing their job properly, that's another issue entirely, but something that I would surely support investigating.

We'll just send the guy who's in charge of social security right over there.

"Somebody clean him up and for christ's sake, give him a shower!"

Unhinged.

Dude, I haven't even reached a tenth of your unhinginess.

Who own's the company may not solve anything but, IMO, it is the problem. Dubai has a piss poor history on the hidden things that dont get press in the war on terror, like the fact that they still havn't recognized israel, they Did however recognize the Taliban, they couldnt stop Khan (onlyy kirk could), and now were going to let them run our show. That, is a blatantly bad idea....oh and the Coast Gaurd does NOT run the day to day ops, so yes, the Dubai govt will have the say of who works where, until that is we have a disaster or someone bad gets caught on their payrolls. Not a risk I thought this, protector Bush, would be willing to take, or at least voice....then again he hasnt done crap about our borders in general so Im not sure why anyone should be surprised at this move from negligence by ignorance to negligence by actions.

Nobody has even attempted to explain. I guess there isn't one.

The Department of Homeland Security and Department of the Treasury were the lead agencies on this issue. And according to Rumsfeld, the chairman, Bob Kimmitt (deputy of the Treasury) is supposed to explain in greater detail this entire procedure. Hopefully he answers all of our questions to a satisfactory degree.

And no, Mr Biggleworth, I am not Bob Kimmitt.

That sounds a little more personal that we were looking for....

Dola:

I am against this with every thread of my being. I can't believe that I am agreeing with some of my normal political polar opposites on thie sone (I feel so dirty).

I will also go this far. If one damn incident occurs because of this, I will be the first one callng for Bush's ass to be impeached.

My wife said that she just pictured Hillary and First simultaneously saying "bad idea" and then looking at each other, thinking to themselves "my, that was uncomfortable". That's gotta say something about this situation.

I was all ready to conedmn the racist attitude over this thing as it's unfair to not let a company do this because they're "another one of them ay-rab counties". But it looks best to just ride that tide of stupidity to get rid of what now looks like it's just another crony deal for Bush. Is there anyone he won't blatantly do a favor for?

SI

I just heard something interesting. Apparently a PRC company runs some ports in the US already. Well isn't that interesting ;).

Apparently the Dubai company does run a lot ports worldwide and is independantly run, but funded by the UAE.

He He We agree AGAIN!!!!
:cue maniacal laugh

Don't worry...we don't completely agree. I honestly don't have a problem about this. It sounds so bad on its face, that I've got to think that Security will be ever scrutinized under this proposal. I might have a bit of a problem if the cronyism factor gains some traction.

For those adamantly against this...Do I sense that you'd be ready to get behind racial profiling of say airline passengers? 'Cause that type of profiling makes a hell of a lot more sense than what appears to be being applied here.

I'm against it until someone can tell me a good reason why it should be the case, and the only reason I have so far is "trust Bush" and that's a little flimsy. But a majority of the people opposed to this that I have seen are against ANY state run company controlling our ports, and a sizable percentage of that say that it shouldn't be done by any private companies at all (where I agree). So I don't think that the 'racial profiling' accusation has a leg to stand on, except for some of the usual suspects out there in the political world. If you ask, 'Well, why are you saying something now?' it's because this is the first that I have learned of it.

I haven't read this thread, but I saw something earlier on a news site that has me curious:

apparently, the same company running the show now still will be, 'cept it got bought by the UAE company. True? False?

I'll have to agree with Dutch here. You can criticize it for being a crony deal, but from a security standpoint, this is much ado about nothing. Security is the Coast Guard's responsibility, and as with other multinationals the day to day operations will be handled by the locals.

It must be kept in perspective in that it is not a foreign company but a label placed on another country running the day to day activities including security of our ports. Also that this is a country whose own ports, in their homeland, have spotty history of security . If this is the benchmark that they will execute here as opposed to the presentation they gave the review committee and subsequently the Coast Guard....We are just supposed to "trust" them? I think that when the administration is touting our security, raising our alert level numerous times, stamping out plots regularly, etc. It is counter-intuitive to out-source our ports management, including loading, offloading, inspecting, hiring, firing, et al. to a foreign government, ANY foreign government and it is also a bad idea to have it controlled by a foreign company (including the one that has been doing the job...Im sure we all would have been up in arms if that received press on its own). It is exponenetially worse that it is a country in the heart of darkness where the firey rhetoric of the jihad recruits, plans, and executes its side to their war on terror against us. Man that was good...I mustve drank or ate something good today cuz that was tehroxorz.

Oh Rummy said that? Well, shit, how can anyone have a problem now???

I dunno. I don't think I've seen anyone say Trust Bush on this particular issue, nor have I seen the slightest indication that anyone has declared that we will simply trust this company to handle security on its own. I just don't believe that will happen. The FBI/CIA will be all over this company both here and internationally. Not to mention the Coast Guard with regard to port security.

I don't see any problem with private enterprise managing our ports. They are good at it, invest at the proper levels, and make a profit all along. That is a pretty good deal. No reason to nationalize this as some of you have proposed. It would just be a huge waste of resources, and probably slow our economy by imposing a limiting bureaucracy on our imports.

As for a foreign government owning this company. I really think that the stink being raised about this is strictly about which foreign company we're talking about. I also think there is a camp of people who also fall into the camp of "If Bush if for it, I'm again' it". I don't think there would be anywhere near the uproar if this was a Western European country we're talking about. But since it is a Middle Eastern country, I really think that critics of the administration are running with it because they know they'll get extra traction due to our relationship with that region of the world.

Very well said.

This goes against the idea of capitalism however. In capitalism it is "cut costs as much as possible, to do a satisfactory job which is measured by not getting fired by the buyer, and then make your profit." In this case there would be no investment in R&D as it isnt a evolving process.

In the past this company has NOT done a good job and their track record should not garner us as buyers. That is leaving out all of the other undercurrents you mentioned.

I have a problem with ANY other company, and ESPECIALLY country running our ports, or airports, or borders, et al.

Ok, something doesn't jive here. Rummy said he didn't know anything about the purchase until after it had been approved. Now Bush is saying THE SAME THING, but says it is ok because he talked to all of the cabinet level people who had to approve it, and they were all ok with it. But if Rummy was one of the cabinet level people that had to approve it, but didn't know about it until after it was approved...

This is really starting to stink. There's a strong hint of something going on behind the scenes, and it appears this decision is trying to be rammed through without much scrutiny or oversight. Why else would a veto be threatened, other than to try and squelch any discussion on the matter? If he's never used a veto before, why now, and why for this?

hxxp://www.thedenverchannel.com/nationalnews/7323258/detail.html

Bush Was Unaware Of Port Deal Before It Was Approved
Deal To Stand Despite Security Complaints, President Vows

POSTED: 5:50 am MST February 22, 2006
UPDATED: 8:54 am MST February 22, 2006

WASHINGTON -- President Bush was unaware of the pending sale of shipping operations at six major U.S. seaports to a state-owned business in the United Arab Emirates until the deal already had been approved by his administration, the White House said Wednesday.

Defending the deal anew, the administration also said that it should have briefed Congress sooner about the transaction, which has triggered a major political backlash among both Republicans and Democrats.

Bush on Tuesday brushed aside objections by leaders in the Senate and House that the $6.8 billion sale could raise risks of terrorism at American ports. In a forceful defense of his administration's earlier approval of the deal, he pledged to veto any bill Congress might approve to block the agreement involving the sale of a British company to the Arab firm.

Bush faces a rebellion from leaders of his own party, as well as from Democrats, about the deal that would put Dubai Ports in charge of major shipping operations in New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia.


While Bush has adamantly defended the deal, the White House acknowledged that he did not know about it until recently.

"He became aware of it over the last several days," McClellan said. Asked if Bush did not know about it until it was a done deal, McClellan said, "That's correct."

"The president made sure to check with all the Cabinet secretaries that are part of this process, or whose agencies or departments are part of this process," the spokesman said. "He made sure to check with them -- even after this got more attention in the press, to make sure that they were comfortable with the decision that was made."

"And every one of the Cabinet secretaries expressed that they were comfortable with this transaction being approved," he said.

The sale's harshest critics were not appeased.

"I will fight harder than ever for this legislation, and if it is vetoed I will fight as hard as I can to override it," said Rep. Pete King, R-N.Y., chairman of the Homeland Security Committee. King and Democratic Sen. Charles Schumer of New York said they will introduce emergency legislation to suspend the ports deal.

Another Democrat, Sen. Bob Menendez of New Jersey, urged his colleagues to force Bush to wield his veto, which Bush -- in his sixth year in office -- has never done. "We should really test the resolve of the president on this one because what we're really doing is securing the safety of our people."

McClellan dismissed any connection between the deal and David Sanborn of Virginia, a former senior DP World executive whom the White House appointed last month to be the new administrator of the Maritime Administration of the Transportation Department. Sanborn worked as DP World's director of operations for Europe and Latin America.

"My understanding is that he has assured us that he was not involved in the negotiations to purchase this British company," McClellan added.

"In terms of David Sanborn, he was nominated to run the Maritime Administration because of his experience and expertise," the spokesman said. Sanborn is a graduate of the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy. He is an operations professional.

Capitalism is about making the most money. Not neccessary cutting costs (budgeting, yes). R&D is the backbone of capitalism. Can you show me some articles/links about the history?

Bingo. Flasch's notion of capitalism is very strange and one I don't think I've ever heard before.

Bush said:
And Dutch cut and pasted the McClellan press conference saying the same thing.

From what I hear, day to day security will be handled by Dubai. Furthermore, what are the costs of having the FBI and the CIA all over the company both here and internationally? That doesn't give an American company a competitive advantage?

Let's assume this is true. So what? Would we have given the Soviet Union this contract in 1980? Would you care if Iran got this contract? The truth is that there is more of a connection to an attack from the UAE than from Iran or even the Soviet Union. I'm sure the UAE is great people, but do we want them in charge of an aspect integral to our national security? It's like outsourcing our southern border security to the Mexicans.

I definitely have more of a problem with the UAE than with Britian, because more people hate us in the UAE than in Britian. I think that's natural, and logical.

history of the countries record on security, including traspo.?

Let's look at some of the things we know.

The UAE refuses to recognize Israel and has a group named after and funded by the UAE president that claims the holocaust was caused by Jews and 9/11 was a Zionist plot

Numerous members of the UAE royal family spent time in Afghanistan with Bin Laden. On at least one occasion we stopped an attack on Bin Laden because he was with so many members of the UAE royal family

The FBI and CIA both have shown how money to fund 9/11 went through the UAE banking system

Nuclear weapons material shipped to Libya, North Korea and Iran went through UAE ports

The Committee charged with approving this deal either never met or met without Rumsfeld

The deal was legally required to have a 45 day investigation that apparently didn't happen

The White House today said the President knew nothing about the deal until it had already been approved

Port security, or lack of it, was clearly pointed out in the 9/11 commission report

The White House has at least two officials with financial ties to the port company

Neither Congress or affected Governors were briefed on the transaction

Looks to me like there were two big sides the President had to chose between.

On one hand, there is Homeland Security, the Department of the Treasury, the US Coast Guard and multiple other agencies that followed the process and investigated and did the actual risk analysis without and before any political theatrics.

On the other hand, you have Congress. Remember kids, if pro is the opposite of con, what's the opposite of progress?

:)

Dutch I can't wait to see if you have the same faith in an all-powerful executive when Hillary is in power.

Dutch says that the process was followed completely. Who is right?

EDIT: Well, I didn't want to pre-judge, but unsurprisingly it turns out to be JPhillips.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/22/politics/22port.html

scott mclellan just said we have to have faith that on the other end of a shipment, at the other ports that the safeguards are followed when the cargo was initially loaded....thats not good.

Yeah, but the next post provided it. I'm just not too aware of UAE's link.

Did you guys also know that no American is allowed more than 49% ownership of a business or piece of land in the UAE? Its UAE law. just thought id toss that out there for the people who think "...if a British company can run an American port, then why cant....". Besides the fact that the Brits actually recognize Israel and havent funded and spawned a 9/11 terrorist.

This whole port deal is a giant steamy pile of doo. Bush didnt even know who would be controlling 6 of the most vital ports in America before approving the deal. Now thats just plain ole fucked up. There are 20+ American owned and operated companies that are currently operating American ports.... why not one of them? How hard is it to give it to Americans first? This is all to simple, anyone who thinks Bush is right, is just wrapped up in defending a political "side" - (and dont forget he signed off on this BEFORE even knowing about it, wtf???).

*giggle*

And I expect more dissent from you, of course.

And we saw how well the government handled Katrina...

In all honesty, I hope the Democrats nominate Hillary. It would be good for the Party. The historic ass-kicking that she would recieve is maybe the only thing left that could wake up the Party, and clear out some of the denser elements, and lead to a more coherent opposition.

I also think the government should be administered by someone other than Bush.

Why do you think she would get an "historic ass-kicking"?

I don't know that the process was followed completely. However, I see no reason to believe it wasn't.

I think there is a way to make this deal work, but ther's no question it demands exra scrutiny. The UAE has to recognize that their history demands that this deal can't be business as usual. For me to be satisfied there need to be some extra regulations and regular reviews for a few years. I guess I'm thinking of something like a probationary period.

What makes me so angry is that not only did the government make no extra effort, they didn't even follow the legally mandated process. Like we see time after time, they just did what they wanted to do regardless of the law or public opinion. I want answers about how the deal was apporved and why the legal process was subverted.

I don't believe a deal can't ever be done, but as it currently stands its clear that the administration is being negligent with Homeland Security.

Dutch: How about the White House admitting the legal process wasn't follwed? Or how about Rumsfeld admitting that he didn't know about a deal he was legally required to review?

What? Here is the law:

http://www.treasury.gov/offices/inte...s/exon-florio/

Here is admin officials admitting to not following the law:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/22/politics/22port.html

What more do you need?