And I wrote that I agreed with you and that it may not be the case.

I'm not accusing anyone of anything.

But that wsn't my question.

It looks like New York's Republian Governor George pataki has jumped on the growing bi-partisan bandwagon opposing this deal.

From today's New York Post:

EX-HOMELAND CHIEF HITS PORT DEAL

By Deborah Orin, Fredrick U. Dicker and Ed Robinson

February 21, 2006 --

Gov. Pataki has ordered the Port Authority to "explore all legal options" concerning the controversial deal to hand over New York's port operations to a company owned by the United Arab Emirates, as criticism of the takeover mounted yesterday.

"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," the governor said in statement yesterday.

Pataki, still hospitalized following an emergency appendectomy, joined a a chorus of critics questioning the deal, including President Bush's former Department of Homeland Security secretary, Tom Ridge.

Dubai Ports World is a UAE government-run company looking to take over operations of the ports in New York, New Jersey, Philadelphia, Baltimore, New Orleans and Miami from British-controlled P&O.

Pataki directed the Port Authority "to explore all legal options that may be available," while asking the Department of Homeland Security to provide all information about the deal, which a federal panel, led by the Treasury Department, approved.

The PA could try to break its contract with P&O, but a spokesman for the agency said such speculation is premature.

But another Republican governor, Robert Ehrlich of Maryland, said he's considering killing P&O's contract for the Port of Baltimore.

"We have a lot of discretion in the contract," Ehrlich said.

Ehrlich said he was upset that he received no advance notice from the Bush administration about the purchase.

"We needed to know before this was a done deal, given the state of where we are concerning security," he said.

Ridge said the president must do a better job addressing concerns about the purchase.

"I think the anxiety and the concern [over the deal] that has been expressed by congressmen and senators and elsewhere is legitimate," said Ridge, who served as Bush's homeland security chief from 2001 to 2005.

"The bottom line is I think we need a little bit more transparency here. There are some legitimate concerns about who would be in charge of hiring and firing, security measures, added technology in these ports," Ridge told CNN.

White House press secretary Scott McClellan yesterday insisted there has been a "rigorous review process," but didn't rule out the possibility that Bush might intervene.

House Homeland Security Chairman Peter King (R-L.I.), normally a Bush loyalist but a major critic of the deal, said he's considering all options, including a lawsuit to stop it.

King told The Post, "The Treasury Department [is] saying our lawyers are looking at this and they think it can't be blocked — but the fact that they are looking at it tells me they aren't so sure."

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) yesterday told Fox News Channel he's so worried about security risks that he'd rather see the ports run by Halliburton.

deborah.orin@nypost.com

**********

And this article, about Dubai, the country where this Arab company is based:

DIRTY DUBAI DEALERS HELP FINANCE TERRORISTS

By Niles Lathem, Post Correspondent

February 21, 2006 --
WASHINGTON —

Tens of billions of dollars are laundered every year through banks in the United Arab Emirates, financing evildoers like al Qaeda, Afghan drug lords and even Iran's outlaw nuclear program, according to U.S. intelligence reports.

The controversy over the takeover of ports in New York and five other U.S. cities has shed a white-hot spotlight on the UAE, a country long considered the arms-smuggling and money-laundering capital of the Middle East. U.S. officials say it has an improving — but still shady — record in the war on terrorism.

"It's a mixed and questionable record. They are making progress but not enough to allow a contract like this to go through without the most thorough and complete vetting," House Homeland Security chairman Rep. Peter King (R-L.I.) told The Post.

The country's notoriously lax banking laws, poor control over its legendary gold brokers and low taxes have made money-laundering a $30 billion-a-year business in the UAE.

U.S. intelligence officials said some financing for terrorists in Iraq moves through banks and informal transfer centers known as hawalas in the UAE.

The port in Dubai — managed by Dubai Ports World — has been used as a transshipment center for the movement of arms and guerrillas into Iraq, King said. He added there is no evidence of complicity in this scheme by Dubai Ports World.

niles.lathem@nypost.com

**********

And finally, this editorial:

PORT STUPIDITY

February 21, 2006 --

Gov. Pataki last night hinted broadly that he would seek to extract the Port of New York and New Jersey from the federal contract that hands control of six U.S. harbors to a firm based in the United Arab Emirates. It remains to be seen whether he has the power to kill the deal, but he certainly needs to try.

Pataki and Maryland Gov. Robert Ehrlich both expressed grave doubts on the deal; Eherlich suggested he'd try to exempt the Port of Baltimore from the new pact, too.

Let's be clear: It's an unnecessary, and exceedingly dumb, deal.

The UAE capital, Dubai, is a breeding ground for Mideast terrorism — and was where the 9/11 hijackers planned most of the World Trade Center attacks.

For that reason alone, turning U.S. ports over to Dubai Ports World — following its $6.8 billion purchase of the British-owned Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation Co. — is insane.

Beyond New York/New Jersey and Baltimore, ports at Miami, New Orleans and Philadelphia are at issue.

Still hospitalized after emergency surgery, Pataki issued a news release to say, "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."

"I have directed the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey to explore all legal options that may be available to them," he added.

Meanwhile, Rep. Peter King (R-L.I.), chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, is similarly perplexed: "It puts the New York ports at risk when you have a company coming out of a country where al Qaeda has such a strong presence."

He added, quite accurately: "The ports are always going to be the weakest part of our homeland security. You have to ask yourself, if something does happen, how could you explain to a 9/11[-like] commission that we just let it happen?"

Good question.

King also notes that Dubai Ports World wasn't exactly fastidious when it comes to security in its home port — through which weapons flowed to Iran.

The Bush administration's tone-deafness on this issue is inexplicable. The idea has been met with bipartisan opposition on Capitol Hill; Democratic Sens. Bob Menendez of New Jersey and Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, who are readying legislation to block foreign firms from running U.S. ports.

Its only defender seems to be Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, who claims that a background inquiry "cleared" the deal.

No disrespect to Chertoff, but nuts to that.

America's ports are critical strategic assets. As it is, security at the facilities is at best problematic. Introducing yet another element of operational risk makes no sense whatsoever.

Maybe the Port Authority doesn't have the legal standing to pull out of the pact. But we bet Congress not only has the horsepower to get the job, it won't hesitate to use it.

The White House would be wise to check which way the wind is blowing, and to cut its losses.

**********

My prediction is that the Bush administration will (thankfully) find some way to squash this deal.

If they don't it will be politicl suicide.

And if he doesn't do it soon, he's running the risk that as the outrage over the deal increases, there's a chance that if there is some nefarious reason (read: money) that helped this deal along through the secret meetings of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the U.S., that reason will come out as well.

PLaw,

I know of this story, and with all the political stories I am following, I suppose I should have been following this one more closely. Only since your post have I been paying a little more attention to it.

I can't understand the line of thinking making such a move. I mean, just on the surface alone, it's not a good idea. Would this make us feel safer??? I heard yesterday that I believe only 6 per cent of cargo is actually checked, which is a very scary thought no matter who's in charge.

I am glad that even some who support Bush are being logical and not playing "follow the leader" on this matter, and for our country's sake hope this is squashed.

TIS

I'd be among those, TIS. I don't like it one iota. I definitely think the man should rethink this fiasco.

What party you belong to should not matter here. This is a matter of national security for all of us and I dont understand what in the world Bush is thinking. This has to be stopped.


DS

Bush is digging in, saying there is nothing wrong with this deal.

Can he spell POLITICAL SUICIDE??

Just saw that. You must've been watching the same news show I was, SC.

Bush went on to say how (paraphrasing here) "Dubai has been our ally in the war against terror, and to stop the deal would send the wrong message to other countries who are our allies."

Like who? Saudi Arabia?

We could put them in charge of the airports. :rolleyes:

This is stupid. I think Bush has lost it. What is he thinking here? Its only been 5 years since 9-1-1 why doesnt he finally try to fix the boaders and make sure that the US is more safe instead of letting a State owned company from the middle east control our ports. I want to know whos making money off this? This is outrageous!

DS

With all due respect, what does he care from a political angle? He's not running for anything else. And I don't think he's too concerned how things affect others, even within his own party.

Regardless of political preference, this is one of the most irresponsible things he's done. Working with the Arab Emerites is an abomination considering one of the 19 hijackers was found to have been financed by the UAE. Then again, should we be surprised? Bush continues to work with the Saudis despite their connection to 15 of the 19 hijackers.

Let's be fair here...(PL defends the Bush administration from DS ).

So far I'm willing to attribute all of this to stupidity and incompetence.

I'll wait until all of the facts are made public before I figure that there's malfeasance involved as well.

This same guy?;

That was just one month ago!

With his announcement today to plan to veto anything passed by Congress to prevent this...I have to conclude that the Bush Admin knows something we don't and that it's ok to let the deal go through.

Apple

Let's be fair here...(PL defends the Bush administration from DS ). [/b][/quote]The world must be comeing to an end!

If that's the case, then fine (maybe).

Don't you think that the American people should know - particularly the senators, congressmen, and governors who, regardless of their party affiliation, are objecting to this deal - what it is that Bush knows and we don't?

This is what people complained about with the Cheney incident.

Not that he shot someone accidentally, but that the administration has such a penchant for secrecy.

The hearings on this deal were held in secret, and now you suggest the existence of aome secret reason that makes this deal OK.

Perhaps you'd like to speculate as to what that reason might be?

No? I didn't think so.

Well, no matter. This deal will never happen.

It's gone from being a footnote ten days ago to becoming the lead story in the news.

Opposition is growing by the minute, public outrage is on the rise, even among the president's supporters, and Bush could not possibly be so unwise as to think that it would be smart to let this go through.

As the days go by, Dubai will continue to receive more bad press, some real dirt regarding the reasons why Bush is so anxious to see this happen may possibly emerge, and everyone will wind up so pissed off at the president that no matter what reasons he eventually comes up with for letting this happen it won't make a difference.

This issue, I think, will become so explosive that if it doesn't topple the present administration it will certainly lead to a massive Republican defeat in the 2006 midterm elections, and the 2008 presidential one.

Which, actually, may be a good thing.

I've stayed fairly quiet about this whole thing since the story originally came out as I wanted to try and get all the information that I could before commenting on it.

Well now I've had enough information to digest.

I think that this is an outrage! The administration is acting in an irresponsible manner and is compromising our safety and well being. What are they thinking here?

Today I read a story that quoted President Bush as saying "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?"



Well Mr. President, I'd be glad to step up if you would give a common civilian the opportunity to do so! First let me ask you what planet have you been living on for the past 4 1/2 years? The British did not resort to terrorist attacks against us. The British did not funnel money through their banks to support terrorism. The British stood by our side from the moment that our country was attacked. The United Arab Emirates is an area of the world that will never be attacked or be victimized by terrorism. Want to know why Mr. President? Because these terrorist organizations funnel their monies through some of the finanacial institutions in Dubai, and they launder their illegaly obtained monies by investing in the development of Dubai and The United Arab Emirates, which all of a sudden in the last 4 years has become one of the fastest growing regions of the world. That's one of the reasons why. And our country was attacked on 9/11 by Arab men who were financed by monies laundered through several financial institutions from that area of the world.

Our government and your administration is fully aware of this and the risks that are involved in allowing a company from that region of the world to run and oversee the security of our ports. Why is it that all of a sudden, Mr. President, you want to be politically correct with foreign policy? Where and when did you lose your moxy?

By supporting this you are now handing control of the henhouse over to the fox!

This is truly an act of negligence on the part of you and your administration. And I for one have to wonder what the real motives are in your insistance of allowing an Arab company to oversee and run one of this country's most vulnerable areas of infiltration! To quote a good friend of mine, you are truly entering the "slippery slope." What next? Are you going to allow this company to oversee the security and operation of our Airports? What's the difference?

While I may have voted for you twice and supported your fight against terrorism, your quest to spread democracy in the middle east, and defended your actions on many occassions, it does not mean that I have to "follow the leader" and sit back when I know that you are doing something that gives our enemies the ability to infiltrate and attack our country. It does not mean that because I am a republican, a member of your political party, that I have to sit back quietly by not showing my displeasure with you on certain issues. Because this is not an issue of political party, this is not an issue of repblican vs. democrat. This is a humanity issue, one that affects the security and future of each and every one of us who belong to the human race.

Yes Mr. President, this time you are out of line. And in your imperial hubrus you've overlooked the obvious, and more improtantly you've shown a complete disregard for the people of the country that you've sworn to protect and serve !


Don Cardi

As reported, Bush says he'll veto any attempt to stop this move. Someone in the know, refresh my memory. If Bush vetos any attempt to halt this, then what??? Can Congress override his veto?? Does it take a majority. He doesn't have the authority to snub congress right???? Or perhaps he'll have just enough backing to go through with it. In short, what would be the next logical step to take by the oppposers, if any????

The more I read about this the scarier it is.

TIS

FWIW: Take note, not ONE dig to Bush. (I'm biting my tongue, as so far this is more or less a civil discussion . I'll mark my calendar. :p

Yep, sounds like we can't trust any of those mother F'ers.
Take them all and shoot them on contact. The whole f'en race. Every single one of them. Don't leave one alive.
After all, the only good one is a dead one!
How dare they think they can oversee commercial port operations. Let's start with them, and then we can move on to the next problem group!

The congress!

Well.
Glad you saved me the effort of answering that!

Apple

ps: plaw, I'm beginning to suspect you have a blind
hatred for G.W. Bush

TIS 2/3 majority in the Senate overrides a veto

Well.
Glad you saved me the effort of answering that!

[/b][/quote]Um, excuse me.....

Talk about taking statements out of context. :rolleyes:

There were two questions in there:

Don't you think that the American people should know - particularly the senators, congressmen, and governors who, regardless of their party affiliation, are objecting to this deal - what it is that Bush knows and we don't?


Then I went on to say

This is what people complained about with the Cheney incident.

Not that he shot someone accidentally, but that the administration has such a penchant for secrecy.

Then, I asked the second question:

The hearings on this deal were held in secret, and now you suggest the existence of aome secret reason that makes this deal OK.

Perhaps you'd like to speculate as to what that reason might be?

Clearly, my "No? I didn't think so" remark apllied to the second question only.

If it wasn't clear, allow me to clarify that point now.

So......again:

Don't you think that the American people should know - particularly the senators, congressmen, and governors who, regardless of their party affiliation, are objecting to this deal - what it is that Bush knows and we don't?

I'm really not interested in what you think he may know that we don't. I'm merely interested in knowing whether you think we're entitled to know it or not.

If you suspect that, you haven't been reading my posts very carefully.

Abso-f*ckin-lutley!

I've been doing some research and found this link that is kind of interesting. I haven't gone thru the whole thing yet. It lists some interesting facts and has links to various stories. The intro is not long, but you can skip it if you want. I'm gonna read up on it now.



TIS


web page

Not to mention that 96% of our containers coming into our ports are not inspected! Sure most of them are inspected before they get here but come on now, who really wants to take the word of another country that the cargo in these containers are ok? I dont. Lets be honest here and lets all say that if this goes threw then we could be in for some hurt down the road. How can we expect the UAE to have the security of our ports in their best interests? If only 4% of the containers are being inspected and the UAE knows this and someone for the terrorists gets in good with someone for the UAE whats to stop that group from smuggling in some kind of weapon knowing we will not find it?

I am shocked that we would be outsourcing the operation of our ports to any country. What no one seems to recognize is that the British operation that ran them previously was a private company, owned by shareholders. The Dubai operation is owned by that country's GOVERNMENT. This is the same government that helped launder al aqaida money, that allowed some of thr 9/11 hijackers free passage, and the same government that is sometimes cooperative with the US and sometimes not.

Also, some of the proponents are claiming that the Dubai ownership group has nothing to do with security, yet one administration spokesperson has said that in doing the deal we made them make extra concessions regarding their operation of certain aspects of security. So which is it?

How this could have slipped through the cracks this far tells me once again that George Bush is asleep at the switch. He is not leading this country. He has delegated it to aides, and because of it thereis no central authority that would stop such bonehead moves in the future. It looks like the senate may well muster enough votes to override a veto because this has become a bipartisan issue.

I don't know that for sure.
In the last ten years, 4,500 people in the Western world died due to Jihadi terrorism, compared to 650,000 Muslims.

Don Cardi

Via the news this morning (pick a source), it doesn't look like the prez is budging. I don't know what he's thinking. Are we sure he didn't catch a few pellets from a shotgun?? This is worse than Frist's doing his about-face on the stem cell thing, but I suppose that's a whole other topic. Anyway, all my left-wing comrades here can make a note that this port thing is one subject on which the Snakester vehemently disagrees with the prez!

BTW, nice cartoon, DC!

Duly noted.

Here's a little background on the rapid growth of banking, investments and the financial world itself over the last several years within Dubai:


The Dubai Financial Market, AKA the DFM, opened in the year 2000 and within 4 years had 14 listed companies. It reported an increase in trading volume of 49 percent between 2002 and 2003. The Abu Dhabi Securities Market, which has been linked electronically to DFM since 2004, reported an increase in trading volume of 176 percent between 2002 and 2003!!!

The Shuaa Capital UAE General Index has shown exceptional growth. It rose by 103 percent in 2004 and at the end of April 2005 was up 87 percent since the beginning of the year. Terrorism is financed using the banking system in two primary ways: through money laundering and through financial transactions in the hawala system, which is a traditional alternative remittance system that operates outside the control of the conventional banking sector. The hawala finance system is thought to be the conduit for much of the funding earmarked for terrorist activities. Although hawala operators are now licensed in the UAE and required to report suspicious transactions to the UAE government, it is unclear whether this regulation is enforced.

A commodities exchange is currently being developed in Dubai where contracts of Oil, Natural Gas, Gasoline and Heating oil will be traded and will compete with the New York Mercantile Exchange which is in America and currently trades these same oil contracts.


Don Cardi