Saudi Explosion

[Annie]

Not avoiding the issue at all---you asked me for some possible positive outsomes of the deal succeeding. I gave you some such as the CFIUS having already investigated this company. You inaccurately claim the the treasury Dept has nothing to do with national security.

The more I read on this issue, the more questions I have. With that said, what seems most significant to me is not the UAE alone, but rather the fact that POST 9/11, we, meaning myself and I'm assuming one or two more, were totally unaware that so many of our ports were under the auspices of foreigners. I DID know that it was widely assumed that the ports were our greatest vunerability, in light of 9/11 that combination is saying alot.

In the past week we've found that while I was aware, thanks to blogosphere that this was going to be a big deal, it seems I knew about it before Bush, which doesn't surprise me, since he has a few other things on his plate, (however, he should have listened to the groundswell before threatening his never employed veto power on this issue.)

Seems that Rumsfeld too was not aware of it until last weekend. So too the Secretary of Treasury who has informed us that it never got above mid-level discussions, (perhaps for good reasons in the run of the mill approvals, but way misjudged on this).

Dillo brings up CFIUS, certainly an acronym we are all very familiar with,

Well, it seems they 'sped' it through the approval process, they've only nixed one out of tens of thousands.

In my way of thinking, this issue of the UAE 'company', quotes because it seems it's financed by the government, but laying that aside, to me that is not the main issue. I think post 9/11, it's in our country's interest to control all ports of entrance regardless of what has occurred in the past. It's not just UAE, but also Singapore, China, Japan, and others. That doesn't make them our enemies, but not allies either. There may be other ways of dealing with this, I've linked this elsewhere too:

http://mediamatters.org/items/printable/200602240010

Meanwhile, I found this interesting:

http://mediamatters.org/items/printable/200602240010

Wash. Post, NY Times adopted White House port deal claims that contradict own news reporting

Summary: A Washington Post editorial adopted several claims that the Bush administration has made in defense of its agreement to let a company owned by the government of the United Arab Emirates (UAE) manage six U.S. ports, even though those claims are contradicted by the Post's own news reporting. News reports in the Post and The New York Times also cited without challenge the administration claims about the length of the review, even though their own previous reporting directly contradicted the claims.

In a February 24 editorial, The Washington Post adopted several claims that the Bush administration has made in defense of its agreement to let a company owned by the government of Dubai -- a member state of the United Arab Emirates (UAE) -- manage six U.S. ports, even though those claims are contradicted by the Post's own news reporting. The administration claims that the deal with UAE-owned Dubai Ports World was given a three-month review by the Committee on Foreign Investments in the United States (CFIUS), and also says that fears of a potential security threat posed by the deal are exaggerated, given that the U.S. Coast Guard and federal Customs agencies are responsible for security at American ports. In fact, the Post itself has previously reported that the committee only convened once during a 23-day review of the deal, and that the administration claim about the Coast Guard and Customs agencies "overstates the role government agencies play."

The same administration claims about the length of the review were also cited without challenge in February 24 news reports by the Post as well as The New York Times, which has also directly contradicted the claims in its own previous reporting.

In the editorial, titled "How to Lose Friends," the Post argued that concerns about U.S. ports being run by the Dubai government are overblown "because security there is controlled by the Coast Guard and U.S. Customs and Border Protection, no matter who's doing the accounting":

[A]s administration officials testified yesterday, since Sept. 11 the United Arab Emirates has been a valuable ally. Last year, according to Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon R. England, 56 U.S. warships, 590 U.S. Military Sealift Command ships and 75 allied warships were hosted in the United Arab Emirates -- at a port managed by the very same Dubai Ports World. To our knowledge, none of the objecting members of Congress have expressed alarm at the national security implications of that situation. Yet the six ports now in question will be far less dependent on Dubai's goodwill, because security there is controlled by the Coast Guard and U.S. Customs and Border Protection, no matter who's doing the accounting.

But the editorial's assertion was directly contradicted by a Post article published that same day. In an article suggesting that the "real grounds for concern [about port security] lie elsewhere" than the Dubai port deal, staff writers Paul Blustein and Walter Pincus nonetheless noted that the administration claim that "security at U.S. ports is the responsibility" of the Coast Guard and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) "overstates the role government agencies play":

Administration officials have asserted in recent days that security at U.S. ports is the responsibility of the Coast Guard and U.S. Customs and Border Protection, with the terminal operators responsible for little more than transferring containers from ships to railroad cars and trucks.

That overstates the role government agencies play. "They've been saying that customs and the Coast Guard are in charge of security; yes, they're in charge, but they're not usually present," said Carl Bentzel, a former congressional aide who helped write the 2002 act regulating port security.

The private terminal operators are almost always responsible for guarding the area around their facilities, although they must submit their security plans to the Coast Guard, which monitors and inspects them. In some cases, the companies X-ray incoming containers to see whether the contents appear to match the manifest, although customs agents are solely responsible for "intrusive" inspections -- that is, opening containers and examining the cargo. That procedure is performed on about 5 percent of containers entering the United States.

The Post editorial also adopted the administration claim, recently espoused by Deputy Treasury Secretary Robert M. Kimmitt and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, that the CFIUS "examined the deal over a three-month period and found it acceptable," and that senators critical of the deal had little reason to believe the review was "casual" or "cursory":

Twelve government departments and agencies, including the departments of Treasury, State, Defense and Homeland Security, had examined the deal over a three-month period and found it acceptable. Perhaps the White House should have anticipated this week's political storm and prepared for it. But because the objections are irrational, even that complaint is questionable.

At a hearing yesterday, senators complained that they had not been notified of the transaction -- though, as Deputy Treasury Secretary Robert M. Kimmitt noted, the companies involved had issued a press release on the matter in November. Senators complained, in the face of considerable testimony to the contrary, that the government's review had been "casual" or "cursory."

The Post editorial failed to explore why, or even explain how the administration account dramatically differed from the account the administration had previously given to House aides, according to a February 23 Post report by staff writers Jim VandeHei and Jonathan Weisman:

The U.S. government reviews business transactions with national security implications and decided after a 23-day review by mid-level officials that Dubai Ports World posed no threat.

[...]

In a private briefing for House aides late yesterday, administration officials from the departments of State, Defense, Treasury and Homeland Security said the CFIUS met only once during a 23-day review of the sale and that the few objections raised were quickly addressed.

Moreover, Weisman apparently disregarded his own report from the previous day when he uncritically cited, in a February 24 Post article, Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England's claim that the CFIUS review was "definitely not cursory."

In a February 24 article by reporters David S. Cloud and David E. Sanger, the Times also uncritically reported the administration's claims about the length of the CFIUS review. Cloud and Sanger twice noted that Kimmitt said the review had lasted for three months while also noting that Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) said the review had lasted 30 days. But Cloud and Sanger failed to identify the discrepancy in the two accounts, or that the administration version of events contradicted the Times' previous reporting:

Critics of the deal said earlier in the day that a delay was insufficient.

"A simple 30-day cooling off period without the full 45-day review that should have been done from the beginning is not adequate," said Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York.

[...]

The group, led by the deputy Treasury secretary, Robert M. Kimmitt, said that the administration's interagency review of the transaction had taken three months, and that the Dubai company had been willing to address concerns raised by the Department of Homeland Security.

[...]

But Mr. Kimmitt said "all of those concerns were addressed" in the administration's initial, three-month examination of the deal. When the interagency panel charged with reviewing foreign acquisitions met in mid-January -- its only formal meeting on the Dubai Ports World acquisition -- no agency raised further national concerns, Mr. Kimmitt said. That made an additional 45-day review unnecessary, he said.

Like Schumer, a February 21 Times article noted that Rep. Peter T. King (R-NY) also "said the review was conducted in just 30 days."

 

[dilloduck]

The more I read on this issue, the more questions I have. With that said, what seems most significant to me is not the UAE alone, but rather the fact that POST 9/11, we, meaning myself and I'm assuming one or two more, were totally unaware that so many of our ports were under the auspices of foreigners. I DID know that it was widely assumed that the ports were our greatest vunerability, in light of 9/11 that combination is saying alot.

In the past week we've found that while I was aware, thanks to blogosphere that this was going to be a big deal, it seems I knew about it before Bush, which doesn't surprise me, since he has a few other things on his plate, (however, he should have listened to the groundswell before threatening his never employed veto power on this issue.)

Seems that Rumsfeld too was not aware of it until last weekend. So too the Secretary of Treasury who has informed us that it never got above mid-level discussions, (perhaps for good reasons in the run of the mill approvals, but way misjudged on this).

Dillo brings up CFIUS, certainly an acronym we are all very familiar with,

Well, it seems they 'sped' it through the approval process, they've only nixed one out of tens of thousands.

In my way of thinking, this issue of the UAE 'company', quotes because it seems it's financed by the government, but laying that aside, to me that is not the main issue. I think post 9/11, it's in our country's interest to control all ports of entrance regardless of what has occurred in the past. It's not just UAE, but also Singapore, China, Japan, and others. That doesn't make them our enemies, but not allies either. There may be other ways of dealing with this, I've linked this elsewhere too:

http://mediamatters.org/items/printable/200602240010

Meanwhile, I found this interesting:

http://mediamatters.org/items/printable/200602240010

Cool--Let's nationalize all American ports. It will make us safer and give thousands of Americans jobs.

 

[Annie]

Cool--Let's nationalize all American ports. It will make us safer and give thousands of Americans jobs.

Perhaps. Then again, as I read your way of thinking we could just put them up to the highest bidder, since the Coast Guard is on watch. Bin Laden has as much as a right and could not pose any threat, right?

 

[dilloduck]

Perhaps. Then again, as I read your way of thinking we could just put them up to the highest bidder, since the Coast Guard is on watch. Bin Laden has as much as a right and could not pose any threat, right?

I think the free market system is a pretty decent system. If Americans do not like the idea of foreign countries or companies running port operations then we had better come up with an alternative. Some one is going to have to operate them. Insinuating that Bin Laden would be an acceptable person to operate an American port is ludicrous under our present vetting system (CFIUS).

 

[Annie]

I think the free market system is a pretty decent system. If Americans do not like the idea of foreign countries or companies running port operations then we had better come up with an alternative. Some one is going to have to operate them. Insinuating that Bin Laden would be an acceptable person to operate an American port is ludicrous under our present vetting system (CFIUS).

Not really, they've only rejected one. He could get through if there are no cartoons.

 

[dilloduck]

Not really, they've only rejected one. He could get through if there are no cartoons.

So NOW you even think our vetting process is weak. Makes no sense for another year of investigating then. If we agree we are only going to allow American companies to bid on port operations then there would be no need for any vetting process. Problem solved.

 

[Annie]

So NOW you even think our vetting process is weak. Makes no sense for another year of investigating then. If we agree we are only going to allow American companies to bid on port operations then there would be no need for any vetting process. Problem solved.

FY. When did I ever claim the process wasn't weak? YOU are the one that keeps throwing up CFIUS acronym like everyone knows wtf you are speaking of.

 

[Mr. P]

This is not about "foreign countries or companies running port operations", its about who they are and is it in our best interest. Pretty simple, IMO.

 

[dilloduck]

FY. When did I ever claim the process wasn't weak? YOU are the one that keeps throwing up CFIUS acronym like everyone knows wtf you are speaking of.

I posted links and articles describing CFIUS for those who claimed that the Department of Treasury had no business with national security. On the contrary--you are arguing that the process IS weak.

 

[Mr. P]

I posted links and articles describing CFIUS for those who claimed that the Department of Treasury had no business with national security. ...

Don't twist shit..that's NOT what I said.

 

[Annie]

I posted links and articles describing CFIUS for those who claimed that the Department of Treasury had no business with national security. On the contrary--you are arguing that the process IS weak.

Then again, I never said that Treasury had no role in national security, which is absurd considering that Secret Service falls within its purview.

 

[dilloduck]

Then again, I never said that Treasury had no role in national security, which is absurd considering that Secret Service falls within its purview.

Then again---it wasnt YOU I was talking about. I would be happy to repost a brief description of CFIUS if you think it would aid in this discussion in any way. I thought you might be aware of it by now since you included it in your post.

 

[dilloduck]

Don't twist shit..that's NOT what I said.

then explain please

The Treasure department is NOT in the business of National Security.

post # 10

 

[Mr. P]

Back later...in the mean time...

Amendments. Section 837(a) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1993, called the "Byrd Amendment," amended Section 721 of the Defense Production Act (the "Exon-Florio provision"). It requires an investigation in cases where:

o the acquirer is controlled by or acting on behalf of a foreign government; and

o the acquisition "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."

Seems to me one day of 30 is not enough to cover this......

http://www.treas.gov/offices/international-affairs/exon-florio/

 

[Annie]

Then again---it wasnt YOU I was talking about. I would be happy to repost a brief description of CFIUS if you think it would aid in this discussion in any way. I thought you might be aware of it by now since you included it in your post.

On another thread I posted info concerning said department.

 

[dilloduck]

On another thread I posted info concerning said department.

I'm sorry--- I'm glad we are all at least aware of who has been handling the investigation into this deal.

 

[Annie]

I'm sorry--- I'm glad we are all at least aware of who has been handling the investigation into this deal.

Yeah, in your mind, you. Right? This is so far out of control, the blame lies at the feet of the administration.

 

[dilloduck]

Yeah, in your mind, you. Right? This is so far out of control, the blame lies at the feet of the administration.

Odd---this proposed deal between the US and the UAE has been public knowledge since last November. Have we heard a peep from anyone saying this is potentially a bad deal? Nope. Was the administration supposed to predict the attack from the left and the panic from some of the right? Maybe they should have predicted problems if Cheney went hunting too.

 

[Annie]

Odd---this proposed deal between the US and the UAE has been public knowledge since last November. Have we heard a peep from anyone saying this is potentially a bad deal? Nope. Was the administration supposed to predict the attack from the left and the panic from some of the right? Maybe they should have predicted problems if Cheney went hunting too.

Actually it was a CFIUS memo that broke it, funny though that is. It would have remained quiet if not for that. 23 days of 'investigation' of which there was none.


You are pissed that many are now calling for a review of this and others, yet want to look so 'towing the line' but not tripping over it.

As a very involved GOP person, who has zippo problem saying, "Sorry, not available to help with the primaries because the administration is doing this and the state party is doing this..." I want to say that while I think the heart of the administration is right since 9/11 on WOT, their knee jerk reaction is with oil interests.

 

[dilloduck]

Actually it was a CFIUS memo that broke it, funny though that is. It would have remained quiet if not for that. 23 days of 'investigation' of which there was none.


You are pissed that many are now calling for a review of this and others, yet want to look so 'towing the line' but not tripping over it.

As a very involved GOP person, who has zippo problem saying, "Sorry, not available to help with the primaries because the administration is doing this and the state party is doing this..." I want to say that while I think the heart of the administration is right since 9/11 on WOT, their knee jerk reaction is with oil interests.

Right--doesn't everyone read the CFIUS memos on a daily basis

Review the hell out of it--I could care less. The libs win another one.

(you and Arch are just killing me with that " towing the line " stuff :teeth: