SwiftVets.com

[shawa]

Thanks for that link, jwb7605. Outstanding!!

You know when this whole deal first broke in the media, I felt some alarm. Then I realized I was buying into the LSM hype and dramatic overkill. I just could not believe that this President, who is committed to the very depths of his soul to keeping the citizens of our country safe, would okay anything as risky as the port deal was being presented.
I went looking for FACTS rather than the half truths and the usual knee jerk panic.
There are many good explanations, I will try to go back and find some of the links.

For one, Jack Kelly's blogpost yesterday was good, and I look forward to reading his article which will be published Sunday.

Also AJ Strata has been running some very good commentary.

Be sure to check out this link from AJ's commentary which demonstrates the ally that the UAE has been:
The Tragic Treatment of the UAE Ports Deal
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htmurph/articles/20060224.aspx


Some more FACTS from John Hindraker at Powerline:

[Doll]

Ok, I guess I am one of the few dissenting here. I do not like the UAE deal, do not approve of it and believe this is just an open portal deal that Al-Qaeda et al are waiting for. I am concerned about the reports that Bush did not know until later. Were that true, then why so quick to veto any legistlation the Senate and Congress wanted to put forth to examine the deal further? Of course of late, Bush blinked and said he would not veto but allow an investigation to go through delaying the deal for 45 days.

I do not think the liberals are using this issue this time against Bush. So many Republicans are not for this deal, and I have concluded the concerns are valid from both parties.

I am very disappointed with Bush regarding this issue, furthermore, I have never been one who followed blindly, 'just because the President says it is good or safe' that we should just run with that alone. Let the deal be truly investigated. If all parties are satisfied that it would be safe, then so be it, but before that is done I must say off the top I do not like this deal at all. This is a government run business, not like the Brit company out of London which is private owned. That alone is a very BIG difference and should be of the utmost concern. No matter what is reported pro or con it should be remembered any company, government owned or not would be privy to our security matters.

I do not get this deal at all. I feel it is an insult to all that has been done to safeguard the US after 9/11. I wish I could agree with you all, but I do not.

Obviously just mho.......

Note: Fox News reported this morning that a week before the deal was to go through that the UAE gave a large amount of money for the Katrina repair fund. One-hundred million to be exact. Why not when Katrina happened? Rather suspect if you ask me.
_________________

The HILL Chronicles

Soldiers' Angels
"Wednesday Hero - Google It!"

[joeshero]

When any government official says. "Trust me", that's an alarming sign to show skepticism. "Read my lips", said Bush Sr. Yeah, we knew the story. Basic common sense dictates that this deal should have not taken place in the first place. But conlict interests among individuals might have overriden the whole thing.

The notion that we should not alineate the so-called "moderate" Muslims in the war on terror is so appaling. The reason is simple. The "moderates" do not see or realize any suicidal threat posed by Islamofacists. For a simple example, did we see demonstration from the moderates on the cartoon fiasco? Nada. People were died and churches were burned. The "moderates" are silent. Extend this behavior to the war on terror, you got pretty much similar situation. By any rational reason, it is the "moderates" that should have launched counter measures to fight against the "radicals".

So to pretend that the government of UEA is a long time, and continue to be a loyal and reliable ally in the war on terror and this port deal is some sort of "payback", in my view, don't make sense at all.
_________________
All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.

[jwb7605]

[Schadow]

There appeared on Brit's show tonight a senior VP of Dubai Ports World. His name is Michael Moore, but I won't hold that against him. Guess what? No turban. No beard. No AK-47.

He calmly explained, among other things, that the entire senior management that would be in place in the ports consists of the current Peninsular & Orient management team which currently runs the operations. He reiterated that they would have no oversight on security matters. He also expressed full cooperation with a delay for further investigation.

The hysteria over this venture produced a Rasmussen poll today in which only 17% of Americans thought the idea was a good one. In a way, this is a good sign. It highlights the fact that Americans really do seem to care about terrorism, a fact that is sometimes hard to clearly see.

I still can be counted among the 17%. I believe that this venture will not have a negative effect on us and may be a geopolitical plus to be doing business with an ally, albeit an Arab state.

Schadow
_________________
Capt, 8th U.S. Army, Korea '53 - '54

[Uisguex Jack]

[OKLady]

Concerning the comment on UAE donating money to the Katrina Fund. Accoring to the Fox News, the money was donated on Sept 21st which was within one month of the storm.

The company contacted Treasury on Oct 17th to discuss the proposed purchase and the formal inter-agency review started on Dec 16.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,185884,00.html


And I caught a bit of Hannity & Colmes last night and Colmes was interviewing port security somewhere, probably NJ. One point that surprised me (and Colmes) was that every container was screened in some fashioned.

The ship had to send information 24 hours prior to arriving as to the contents of the containers. If the paperwork raised a flag as suspicious, then that container was identified for special screening - radiation, xray and possible physical search.

All - 100% - of the containers went through a radiation check. Those tested positive went through additional screening of x ray with a possibilty of a complete emptying of the container and a physical search.

So the statement by the port security was that 100% of the containers went through some form of a review/search and I think the number for a complete physical search was in the 15-17% range (if I remember correctly).

Whenever I hear the 5% number referred to, it is implied that 95% of the containers are off-loaded without any form of a review/search.

It was interesting to hear that information.


Finally, here is a press release from the Treasury Department with the procedure explained.

February 24, 2006
JS-4071

CFIUS and the Protection of the National Security in the
Dubai Ports World Bid for Port Operations

History of the Dubai Ports World proposed acquisition of P&O

All members of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) understand that their top priority is to protect our national security, including homeland security.

On November 29 of last year, two companies publicly announced a proposed transaction: Dubai Ports World (DPW), a state-owned company located in the United Arab Emirates, proposed to acquire The Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company (P&O), a British firm that operates in a number of U.S. ports and other ports around the world. The acquisition would include terminal port operations at a number of U.S. ports – not the ports themselves. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), particularly the Coast Guard and U.S. Customs and Border Protection, is in charge of port security.

DPW and P&O believed that this proposed transaction could raise national security issues that should appropriately be reviewed by the U.S. Government. The companies contacted CFIUS on October 17 and voluntarily told the Committee of their intention to file a notification with CFIUS for a national security review. They also held a complete briefing for DHS and other CFIUS members with security, defense, or law enforcement responsibilities on October 31.


Each of the CFIUS 12 members (departments and agencies) conducts its own internal analysis. In this case, the Departments of Transportation and Energy were also brought in to the CFIUS review to widen the scope and to add the expertise of those agencies reviewing the transaction.

On November 2, well before DP World and P&O filed with Treasury, CFIUS requested an intelligence assessment of the foreign acquirer. A little more than 30 days later -- still well before the companies formally filed with CFIUS or the review began -- the intelligence community provided CFIUS with a threat assessment regarding whether the foreign acquirer -- DPW – has the intention or capability to threaten U.S. national security.

On December 6, the companies held another pre-filing briefing for all CFIUS agencies.

On December 16, the companies officially filed their formal notice with CFIUS, requesting a review. The 30-day formal review began on December 17. During that 30-day review period, DHS, which is the CFIUS agency with specific expertise on port security, negotiated an assurances letter with the companies. DHS also consulted with all other CFIUS members before the assurances letter was finalized on January 6.

On January 17, roughly 90 days after the parties to the transaction first approached CFIUS about the transaction and roughly 75 days after a thorough investigation of the transaction had begun, all CFIUS members agreed that this particular transaction should be allowed to proceed, pending any other regulatory hurdles before the companies.

Background on the Committee (CFIUS):

CFIUS operates under the authority granted by Congress in the Exon-Florio amendment (Section 721 of the Defense Production Act of 1950).

CFIUS brings together twelve department and agencies with diverse expertise to ensure that transactions are considered from a variety of perspectives and that all national security issues are identified and considered in the review of a foreign acquisition.

The Secretary of the Treasury serves as the Chair of CFIUS. Other CFIUS member agencies are: The Departments of State, Defense, Commerce, Homeland Security, and Justice, and the Office of Management and Budget, the Council of Economic Advisors, the National Security Council, the National Economic Council, the Office of Science and Technology Policy, and the US Trade Representative.

The Departments of Energy and Transportation, the Nuclear Regulatory Agency, and other U.S. agencies sometimes participate in the consideration of transactions that have an impact on the industries under their respective jurisdictions.

Treasury receives notices of transactions, serves as the contact point for the private sector, establishes a calendar for review of each transaction, and coordinates the interagency process.

The intelligence community also provides CFIUS with an independent assessment of whether the foreign acquirer poses a threat to the national security.

Upon receipt of a filing, CFIUS conducts a 30-day review, during which time each CFIUS member agency conducts its own internal analysis of the effects on national security implications of the notified transaction, and particularly an analysis of the foreign acquirer. The agency(ies) with primary concern with a particular transaction will take the lead in negotiations with the foreign company.

All CFIUS decisions are made by consensus of the entire committee. The review process allows for any agency that sees a potential threat to the national security, as is its obligation, to raise those concerns within the review process. In such a case, an extended 45-day investigation period would commence.

The Exon-Florio amendment prohibits disclosure to the public of any documents or information about a transaction that is provided to CFIUS or the President pursuant to Exon-Florio. Federal employees could be subject to criminal and other sanctions for making an unauthorized disclosure of such information.

G:ITICFIUS Case 05-60 Dubai-P&OE-F Fact Sheet wit

http://treasury.gov/press/releases/js4071.htm

[Doll]

Take note of the date Sir Winston Churchill wrote this. This was long before he became Prime Minister.

Winston Churchill on Islam
by Sir Winston Churchill
The River War, Vol. II, pp. 248-50, London; Longman, Green & Co., 1899

Deleted by Admin Lew: This is not the forum for espousing religious prejudices. Let's get this thread back on track discussing the merits, or lack thereof, of the sale of P&O Steam Navigation Company to DP World.

Hey Lew! Opps! I apologize. I certainly did not mean to get off track or appear to be bashing religion. I was only trying to make a point which would have been better said that it seems according to history that there have been many conflicts between the Westerners and Arab Nations.
I will be more diligent and mindful to keep it on track in future posts.

Flame
_________________

The HILL Chronicles

Soldiers' Angels
"Wednesday Hero - Google It!"

[Schadow]

All weekend long, the pundits have been making the same declaration, essentially that, "No US port should be owned by a foreign government." Well, here is a pretty good summary of the current state of foreign involvement in US port ownership/management.

(Source) (emphasis added)

[kate]

I'll admit I've been on the fence about this ports issue, but with more and more information, the more it seems reasonable. This tidbit may help some that are still on the fence. - A letter from Al-Jihad Qaida to the United Arab Emirates, complaining about them sympathizing with America after 911, and even threatening them. W said something to the effect of the UAE was not on our side before 911, but it has been since then. This note from A-Q supports that statement.

[Uisguex Jack]

Very usefull links Kate, thanks.

[Doll]

Yes very useful links Kate thank you. However, I am still wary to believe anything out of the Middle East other than Israel.
_________________

The HILL Chronicles

Soldiers' Angels
"Wednesday Hero - Google It!"

[kimberly]

[Guest]

43% polled think the dems should be handling national security.
roflmfao

[Schadow]