Rats, Sinking Ship, Etc.

WaPo: Halliburton to move headquarters, CEO to Dubai

And why are they moving? According to this diary at dailykos, to skirt the laws of the United States by locating in the UAE where they can sell arms and nuclear technology to countries like Iran and Libya.

All of which is illegal in the US. Halliburton, subverting democracy in the pursuit of profit. Your federal dollars from the Iraq war at work.

Dick Cheney (Halliburton CEO 1995-2000; Halliburton unindicted conspirator, 2000-continuing) is only public enemy number two because Chimpy McMembersOnlyJacketWithThePresidentialSeal is public enemy number one.

Told You He'd Do It: Bush Approves Sale of Defense Contractor to Terror Funders

NYTimes: Bush Set to Approve Takeover of 9 Military Plants by Dubai

WASHINGTON, April 27 — President Bush is expected on Friday to announce his approval of a deal under which a Dubai-owned company would take control of nine plants in the United States that manufacture parts for American military vehicles and aircraft, say two administration officials familiar with the terms of the deal.

[]

[T]he plants in question are owned by Doncasters Group Ltd., a British company that is being purchased for $1.2 billion from the Royal Bank of Scotland Group by Dubai International Capital, which is owned by the United Arab Emirate government.

Because the plants make turbine blades for tanks and aircraft, the deal was reviewed by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, which sent it on to Mr. Bush himself for a decision, a step used only when the potential security risks or political considerations are particularly acute.

[]

One official who was briefed on the Doncasters transaction said there would be provisions in the agreement protecting American military secrets. But it was unclear whether that would satisfy Congressional objections. With nine Doncasters plants in Georgia and Connecticut making parts for American military contractors, the prospect of a takeover by the Dubai company has already caused nervousness among some lawmakers.

Representative John Barrow, Democrat of Georgia, likened the Doncasters deal to "outsourcing" part of the nation's industrial-military complex.

Yes, George "I'm the Decider" Bush has decided to let the foxes run the henhouse. The Dubai company taking over Doncasters is owned by the government of the UAE. These slimy bastards, according to the 9/11 Commission, met with Osama bin Laden in 1999. Money was transferred to the 9/11 hijackers through the UAE banking system, and after 9/11 the UAE refused to cooperate with the US in tracking down Osama bin Laden's bank accounts. And these are the people George Bush thinks are appropriate to let into our military plants.

Moron of all morons.

Previous posts: Will Bush Outsource Defense Contracting to Dubai? (April 25, 2006)

Sale of Defense Contractor to Dubai Company in Bush's Hands (April 14, 2006)

Now We're Gonna Sell Our Tank Parts Manufacturing to Dubai (April 12, 2006)

Sale of Defense Contractor to Dubai Company in Bush's Hands

UAE Vice President and Prime Minister and Ruler of Dubai Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid al-Makhtoum owns the majority stake in Dubai International Capital. (Photo: Reuters)
Looks like we are going to allow the sale of a major defense contractor to a company owned by the government of Dubai. The only news organization actively covering the story is Reuters. This article was picked up and republished in a few news outlets, but no other journalist seems to be following the story.

Reuters: Bush to make decision on Dubai defense purchase

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A U.S. panel that reviews foreign investments behind closed doors was sending President George W. Bush a recommendation on Thursday on a Dubai-owned company's proposed $1.24 billion takeover of Doncasters, a British group with U.S. plants that supply the military.

Doesn't this make you feel secure?

Bush "will thoroughly review the findings and recommendations of CFIUS, he will make a determination within the 15-day period and send a report to Congress as required by statute," he said.

Previous post:

Now We're Gonna Sell Our Tank Parts Manufacturing to Dubai (April 12, 2006)

Criteria for Approving UAE/Ports Deal

Do this first:

Let’s Outsource the Secret Service to the UAE

Why not abolish the Secret Service and let U.A.E. guard the President? Now this would show our Arab allies that we trust them.

I agree. If there’s no problem with letting them hire the longshoremen in our ports, then while we’re at it, let’s put them where they could really do some good.

Everybody Hates the Port Deal; Was It Bought and Paid For?

Tom Kean (former head of the 9/11 Commission, former governor of New Jersey):
Former Sept. 11 commission chairman blasts ports deal

WASHINGTON -- The former chairman of the Sept. 11 commission blasted the offer by a United Arab Emirates company to run operations at six major U.S. seaports, saying it should never have been brokered in the first place.

"It shouldn't have happened, it never should have happened," Thomas Kean said Friday during a telephone interview with The Associated Press.

Kean, who also is a past governor of New Jersey, said the quicker the Bush administration can get out of the deal, the better. He also criticized the administration, saying "somebody has a tin ear over there."

"We're in a no-win situation," Kean said, referring to the United Arab Emirates. "There's no question that two of the 9/11 hijackers came from there and money was laundered through there."

Clark Kent Ervin, the inspector general of the Homeland Security Department from 2003 to 2004 (and a great name!):

NYTimes: Strangers at the Door

WHO could have imagined that, in the post-9/11 world, the United States government would approve a deal giving control over six major American ports to a country with ties to terrorism? But this is exactly what the secretive Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States has done.

Since 1999, the ports of New York, Baltimore, Philadelphia and other cities have been operated by a British concern, P & O Ports, which has now been bought by Dubai Ports World, a company controlled by the government of the United Arab Emirates. Defenders of the deal are claiming that critics, including the Republican and Democratic leaderships in Congress, are acting reflexively out of some bias against Arabs.

This is simply not true. While the United Arab Emirates is deemed by the Bush administration to be an ally in the war on terrorism, we should all have deep concerns about its links to terrorists. Two of the 9/11 hijackers were citizens of the emirates, and some of the money for the attacks came from there. It was one of only three countries in the world that recognized the Taliban regime. And Dubai was an important transshipment point for the smuggling network of Abdul Qadeer Khan, the Pakistani scientist who supplied Libya, Iran and North Korea with equipment for making nuclear weapons.

Most terrorism experts agree that the likeliest way for a weapon of mass destruction to be smuggled into our country would be through a port. After all, some 95 percent of all goods from abroad arrive in the United States by sea, and yet only about 6 percent of incoming cargo containers are inspected for security threats.

It is true that at the ports run by the Dubai company, Customs officers would continue to do any inspection of cargo containers and the Coast Guard would remain "in charge" of port security. But, again, very few cargo inspections are conducted. And the Coast Guard merely sets standards that ports are to follow and reviews their security plans. Meeting those standards each day is the job of the port operators: they are responsible for hiring security officers, guarding the cargo and overseeing its unloading.

The Port Authority of New York has filed a lawsuit against the deal. A US company at the Port of Miami, Eller & Co., has filed lawsuits in Miami and in the High Court of London claiming that the deal will make it an 'involuntary partner' of the UAE:

Lawsuits Filed to Stop Ports Takeover, Deal on Hold

The UAE gave $100 billion to the US for Katrina aid, weeks before the port deal. Coincidence? Right:

UAE gave $100 million for Katrina relief

The administration said the request for U.S. approval of the $6.8 billion ports deal and the UAE contribution were not related.

"There was no connection between the two events," said Adam Ereli, the deputy State Department spokesman.

The U.S. government the money it received from the United Arab Emirates was nearly four times as much as it received from all other countries combined. Other nations, including some in the Middle East, also pledged large contributions but have not yet sent the money.

Previous posts:
UAE Company to Run Six Ports? Try Twenty-One Ports.

Bush's Blink

What's The Big Secret?

Why Take That Chance?

Bush Prepares for Blink on UAE/Port Deal

UAE Port Security Takeover Update

So Who Did Review the UAE/Ports Deal?

Terrorist Funders Would Control US Military Equipment Shipments As Well As US Ports

If Terrorist Funders Run Our Ports, Terrorists Win

Privatization Gone Wild - Bushco Puts Terrorist Funders in Charge

UAE Company to Run Six Ports? Try Twenty-One Ports.

UAE terminal takeover extends to 21 ports

WASHINGTON, Feb. 24 (UPI) -- A United Arab Emirates government-owned company is poised to take over port terminal operations in 21 American ports, far more than the six widely reported.

The Bush administration has approved the takeover of British-owned Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation Co. to DP World, a deal set to go forward March 2 unless Congress intervenes.

P&O is the parent company of P&O Ports North America, which leases terminals for the import and export and loading and unloading and security of cargo in 21 ports, 11 on the East Coast, ranging from Portland, Maine to Miami, Florida, and 10 on the Gulf Coast, from Gulfport, Miss., to Corpus Christi, Texas, according to the company's Web site.

Previous posts:

Bush's Blink

What's The Big Secret?

Why Take That Chance?

Bush Prepares for Blink on UAE/Port Deal

UAE Port Security Takeover Update

So Who Did Review the UAE/Ports Deal?

Terrorist Funders Would Control US Military Equipment Shipments As Well As US Ports

If Terrorist Funders Run Our Ports, Terrorists Win

Privatization Gone Wild - Bushco Puts Terrorist Funders in Charge

Bush's Blink

Arab Firm Offers to Delay Deal On Seaports
Senators Challenge Legality of Approval

Facing unrelenting political and national security concerns, an Arab maritime company offered late last night to delay part of its $6.8 billion deal to take over significant operations at six U.S. ports, after White House aide Karl Rove suggested that President Bush could accept some delay of the deal.

Previous posts:

What's The Big Secret?

Why Take That Chance?

Bush Prepares for Blink on UAE/Port Deal

UAE Port Security Takeover Update

So Who Did Review the UAE/Ports Deal?

Terrorist Funders Would Control US Military Equipment Shipments As Well As US Ports

If Terrorist Funders Run Our Ports, Terrorists Win

Privatization Gone Wild - Bushco Puts Terrorist Funders in Charge

What's The Big Secret?

Two points about this port story today: The whole thing was done with a secret side deal, which exempted the Emir's company from routine requirements in similar cases. Second, although the Bushies claim the Dubai company running US ports won't affect national security, the deal contains provisions requiring the company to do certain things regarding security. Which they wouldn't need if the deal didn't affect security, right?

WaPo: Arab Co., White House Had Secret Agreement

WASHINGTON -- The Bush administration secretly required a company in the United Arab Emirates to cooperate with future U.S. investigations before approving its takeover of operations at six American ports, according to documents obtained by The Associated Press. It chose not to impose other, routine restrictions.

As part of the $6.8 billion purchase, state-owned Dubai Ports World agreed to reveal records on demand about "foreign operational direction" of its business at U.S. ports, the documents said. Those records broadly include details about the design, maintenance or operation of ports and equipment.

The administration did not require Dubai Ports to keep copies of business records on U.S. soil, where they would be subject to court orders. It also did not require the company to designate an American citizen to accommodate U.S. government requests. Outside legal experts said such obligations are routinely attached to U.S. approvals of foreign sales in other industries.

[]

Under the deal, the government asked Dubai Ports to operate American seaports with existing U.S. managers "to the extent possible." It promised to take "all reasonable steps" to assist the Homeland Security Department, and it pledged to continue participating in security programs to stop smuggling and detect illegal shipments of nuclear materials.

The administration required Dubai Ports to designate an executive to handle requests from the U.S. government, but it did not specify this person's citizenship.

It said Dubai Ports must retain paperwork "in the normal course of business" but did not specify a time period or require corporate records to be housed in the United States. Outside experts familiar with such agreements said such provisions are routine in other cases.

Previous posts:

Why Take That Chance?


Bush Prepares for Blink on UAE/Port Deal

UAE Port Security Takeover Update

So Who Did Review the UAE/Ports Deal?

Terrorist Funders Would Control US Military Equipment Shipments As Well As US Ports

If Terrorist Funders Run Our Ports, Terrorists Win

Privatization Gone Wild - Bushco Puts Terrorist Funders in Charge

Why Take That Chance?

Steve Gilliard at the News Blog is right:

No one gives a shit

I don't give shit about the nuances here, nor do most New Yorkers.

To let the UAE run American ports is simply unacceptable.

Why?

Because Bush fucked up airport security on 9/11. His promises to protect the ports are useless.

We'll just get some more excuses when an LNG tanker takes out Baltimore. Ooops my bad isn't really an explanation.

Most New Yorkers don't dwell on 9/11, but when I heard this deal, I said I just don't want to take a chance.

On 9/11, I woke up and was listening to Howard Stern when the first plane hit. I saw the second plane hit live on TV and instantly knew it was Bin Laden.

When I went out later that day, I saw an F-15 flying over Central Park at 2000 feet, armed.

Jen woke up to ashes flooding her then Brooklyn Heights apartment.

So forgive me when I don't take Bush at his word on this. If he's wrong, his cowardly ass is going to fly on Air Force One and Cheney is going to a bunker. We're the ones who live with the mistake.

The UAE has too many links with terror, and I don't give a flying fuck how many white men in suits they send to cover for them. Because these people got the Bin Laden family out of the US when no one else could fly, asking a question about Uncle Osama was too much for them to bear.

If this pisses off Arabs, well, yeah, I guess they're pissed, although I think they have far more compelling reasons to be pissed at us.

Previous posts:

Bush Prepares for Blink on UAE/Port Deal

UAE Port Security Takeover Update

So Who Did Review the UAE/Ports Deal?

Terrorist Funders Would Control US Military Equipment Shipments As Well As US Ports

If Terrorist Funders Run Our Ports, Terrorists Win

Privatization Gone Wild - Bushco Puts Terrorist Funders in Charge

Bush Prepares for Blink on UAE/Port Deal

Backpedaling furiously for the inevitable moment when this "deal" goes down in flames:

WaPo: Bush Unaware of Ports Deal Before Approval

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.

'I didn't know nothin 'bout selling port security to them A-rabs, Mr. Hastert!'

Previous posts:

UAE Port Security Takeover Update

So Who Did Review the UAE/Ports Deal?

Terrorist Funders Would Control US Military Equipment Shipments As Well As US Ports

If Terrorist Funders Run Our Ports, Terrorists Win

Privatization Gone Wild - Bushco Puts Terrorist Funders in Charge

UAE Port Security Takeover Update

George Bush has never vetoed a bill in his five disastrous years in office. Yet, despite the fact that this deal stinks to high heaven (the US never conducted the mandatory investigation before approving it), now Bush is ready to veto. Anything for his great and good friends the UAE.

Mr. "We'll get bin Laden, dead or alive" once passed up a chance to get bin Laden. Why? Because Osama was hanging out with his friends the UAE royal family.

This deal stinks. Will Congress have the spine to scuttle the deal?

ThinkProgress: Administration Failed To Conduct Legally Required Investigation Before Approving UAE Port Deal

The law [] makes the 45-day investigation mandatory in cases like the Dubai World Ports transfer.

[]

Yet, the investigation never happened. Bush administration officials “could not say why a 45-day investigation did not occur.”

Eschaton: Jolly Old Pals

From March, 2004:

The Central Intelligence Agency did not target Al Qaeda chief Osama bin laden once as he had the royal family of the United Arab Emirates with him in Afghanistan, the agency's director, George Tenet, told the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks on the United States on Thursday.

Had the CIA targeted bin Laden, half the royal family would have been wiped out as well, he said.

I don't see how it's a good idea to hand over ports to Bin Laden's pals.

Again, this is not about an "Arab company," this is a company owned and controlled by the hereditary oligarchy of the UAE, many of whom, apparently, were Bin Laden's jolly old pals.

New York lawmakers stunned by Bush's ports veto threat
The six ports include NY and NJ


Previous posts:

So Who Did Review the UAE/Ports Deal?

Terrorist Funders Would Control US Military Equipment Shipments As Well As US Ports

If Terrorist Funders Run Our Ports, Terrorists Win

Privatization Gone Wild - Bushco Puts Terrorist Funders in Charge

So Who Did Review the UAE/Ports Deal?

Secretary of Defense Rumsfield is supposedly on the Committee on Foreign Investments in the United States, which supposedly unanimously approved the deal allowing a United Arab Emirates company to take over security at six US ports on Monday, February 13th. Problem? Rumsfield now claims he just heard about the deal this weekend. So how did he vote for it? Or did they just not invite him to the meeting? Maybe the invite is in his email. (That's a joke; Rummy doesn't have email.)

This gets fishier and fishier.

From Thinkprogress:

BREAKING: Rumsfeld and Pace Not Consulted On Transfer Of Port Operations To UAE

Previous posts:

Terrorist Funders Would Control US Military Equipment Shipments As Well As US Ports

If Terrorist Funders Run Our Ports, Terrorists Win

Privatization Gone Wild - Bushco Puts Terrorist Funders in Charge

Terrorist Funders Would Control US Military Equipment Shipments As Well As US Ports

The corporate media has jumped into the UAE company's takeover of US ports story. Here's a new wrinkle: That company, Dubai Ports World, also has a contract to transfer US military equipment.

UAE Would Also Control Shipments of Military Equipment For The U.S. Army

There is bipartisan concern about the Bush administration’s decision to outsource the operation of six of the nation’s largest ports to a company controlled by the United Arab Emirates (UAE) because of that nation’s troubling ties to international terrorism. The sale of P&O to Dubai World Ports would give the state-owned company control of “the ports of New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia.”

A major part of the story, however, has been mostly overlooked. The company, Dubai Ports World, would also control the movement of military equipment on behalf of the U.S. Army through two other ports. From today’s edition of the British paper Lloyd’s List:

[P&O] has just renewed a contract with the United States Surface Deployment and Distribution Command to provide stevedoring [loading and unloading] of military equipment at the Texan ports of Beaumont and Corpus Christi through 2010.

According to the journal Army Logistician “Almost 40 percent of the Army cargo deployed in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom flows through these two ports.”

Thus, the sale would give a country that has been “a key transfer point for illegal shipments of nuclear components to Iran, North Korea and Lybia” direct control over substantial quantities U.S. military equipment.

Previous posts:
If Terrorist Funders Run Our Ports, Terrorists Win

Privatization Gone Wild - Bushco Puts Terrorist Funders in Charge

If Terrorist Funders Run Our Ports, Terrorists Win

Everyone in Congress should object to this:

WaPo: Some in Congress Object to Arab Port Operator
Company Based in United Arab Emirates Set to Manage 6 East Coast Facilities After Takeover

Fortunately, two US Senators -- Democrats, natch -- are filing legislation to stop this insanity:

Reuters: Democrats plan bill to block Dubai port deal

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Two U.S. Democratic senators said on Friday they would introduce legislation aimed at blocking Dubai Ports World from buying a company that operates several U.S. shipping ports because of security concerns.

Robert Menendez of New Jersey and Hillary Clinton of New York said they would offer a measure to ban companies owned or controlled by foreign governments from acquiring U.S. port operations.

"We wouldn't turn the border patrol or the customs service over to a foreign government, and we can't afford to turn our ports over to one either," Menendez said in a statement. The Senate Banking Committee also plans to hold a hearing on the issue later this month.

P&O, the company Dubai Ports World plans to buy for $6.8 billion, is already foreign-owned, by the British, but the concern is that the purchaser is backed by the United Arab Emirates government.

The UAE company would gain control over the management of major U.S. ports in New York and New Jersey, Baltimore, Philadelphia, New Orleans and Miami and that has sparked national security concerns among lawmakers.

Previous post: Privatization Gone Wild - Bushco Puts Terrorist Funders in Charge

Privatization Gone Wild - Bushco Puts Terrorist Funders in Charge

Why is the Bush Administration poised to turn over the operations in the Port of New York to an United Arab Emirates company? This is crazy.

Via Brilliant at Breakfast [Fox, Meet Henhouse], this is from yesterday's WaPo:

United Arab Emirates Firm May Oversee 6 U.S. Ports

A company in the United Arab Emirates is poised to take over significant operations at six American ports as part of a corporate sale, leaving a country with ties to the Sept. 11, 2001, hijackers with influence over a maritime industry considered vulnerable to terrorism.

[]

The $6.8 billion sale could be approved Monday and would affect commercial port operations in New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia.

Brilliant points out that the WaPo omitted this portion of the original, AP article:

Critics of the proposed purchase said a port operator complicit in smuggling or terrorism could manipulate manifests and other records to frustrate Homeland Security's already limited scrutiny of shipping containers and slip contraband past U.S. Customs inspectors.

"When you have a foreign government involved, you are injecting foreign national interests," Kreitzer said. "A country that may be a friend of ours today may not be on the same side tomorrow. You don't know in advance what the politics of that country will be in the future."

Does this pose a national security risk? I think that's pushing the envelope," said Stephen E. Flynn, who studies maritime security at the New York-based Council on Foreign Relations. "It's not impossible to imagine one could develop an internal conspiracy, but I'd have to assign it a very low probability."

Changing management over the U.S. ports "doesn't offer al-Qaida any opportunities it doesn't have now," said James Lewis, who worked with the U.S. committee at the State and Commerce departments. "It's in Dubai's interest to make sure this runs well. There is strong economic incentive to be sure these worries never materialize."

[snip]

Since the Sept. 11 attacks, the FBI has said the money for the strikes was transferred to the hijackers primarily through the UAE's banking system, and much of the operational planning for the attacks took place inside the UAE.

Many of the hijackers traveled to the U.S. through the UAE. Also, the hijacker who steered United Airlines flight into the World Trade Center's south tower, Marwan al-Shehhi, was born in the UAE.

After the attacks, U.S. Treasury Department officials complained about a lack of cooperation by the UAE and other Arab countries trying to track Osama bin Laden's bank accounts.