Breaking: Dubai divests itself of all American interests (ports deal dead)

[librechik]

now breaking on CNN--link to come

Dubai Ports World to find American company as front, so as to save Bush embarrassing veto which would be over-ridden. (according to CNN reporter)

more from AP:

AP Photos MDSR101-102
By ANDREW TAYLOR
Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) -- A Dubai-owned company said Thursday that it
was prepared to give up its management stake in some U.S. ports, a
move made as congressional leaders warned President Bush that both
the House and Senate appeared ready to block the takeover.
It was not immediately clear whether the announcement would be
enough to cool widespread sentiment in Congress to pass legislation
blocking the deal, which has become an election-year nightmare for
Republicans.
(no link--hot off wire)

This announcement mere minutes after DPW announces closing P&O deal--complete reversal!

another link:
http://breakingnews.iol.ie/news/story.asp?j=175465004&p=y754657yx

I like this related link: GOP Leaders tell Bush Port Deal is Dead"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/09/AR2006030900982.html

Imagine the screaming!

[NYC]

1. A front company?

That's just a facade. We need a lot more details about this.

[marmar]

28. Exactly....

There are huge piles of B.S. surrounding this one.

:think:

[LuckyTheDog]

73. I smell a contract for Halliburton

What do you bet, eh?

[thinkingwoman]

121. I told my hubby 2 weeks ago to wait and watch

that halliburton, or one of their shadow companies, will run these ports in the end.

I think it will happen.

[maxrandb]

92. Vito Corleone would be proud!

Seriously, isn't a "front" company something that gangsters, drug dealers and rackateers use? Are they basically admitting, with the concurrence of the Bush gang, that they are no better than "gangster, drug dealers and rackateers"???

Isn't a "front" company what your Uncle Louis runs as a barber shop in front, and a whore house in back?

One things for sure, if the Bush gang, the Republicans, or our media are involved, there's a whore in there somewhere.

[CrispyQ]

126. Vito Corleone!

LOL! I see some good campaign slogans in that one!

;)

[NYC]

127. You left out the CIA.

Though they sometimes call their front companies cut-outs.

You have described a front company perfectly. Why did they admit it?

[Just Me]

140. Yep. It's a COVER.

In this case, a COVER for their investors, one of whom is the Carlyle Group --> BushCO run.

And YES they do conspire to funnel money into a few hands and to do so without legal attachments e.g. they escape laws that protect common folks from abuses and exploitation.

This is how the multi-national corporations, in control of our country and oppressing peoples EVERYWHERE, have operated for at least thirty years. THIS is global fascism and our government supports this shit.

EW!!!

[spanone]

118. Senator Schumer 'the devil is in the details'

n/t

[NYC]

129. At least he has been saying it.

After 9/11, all we heard from Bush was "terra, terra, terra!" We must have Homeland Security. Don't forget the TIPS program (spy on your neighbor).

But, when it was said that only 5% of incoming stuff is checked, all we hear is that it is too expensive. Spending less money on BushCo's friends would leave more money for port security. But then, it would also leave more money for Katrina.

Bush's motto is something akin to: Never do anything good for the country.

[NoodleyAppendage]

2. Who??? Who will they LEASE the ports out to??? Carlyle Group??

I wouldn't be surprised to see that the supposed "American" group will be heavily invested by Arab interests. Something stinks here...

JB

[librechik]

9. CNN reporter says they have no company yet to name

but they will name an American buyer.

[NoodleyAppendage]

35. Ahh...so it's a SHELL COMPANY! This is such BULLSHIT.

Dubai WILL STILL OWN the ports defacto through a US shell company. Will the US company documents be housed in Dubai or US?

This shell company move will be just enough to confuse the Repuke lemmings into supporting the deal.

JB

[librechik]

38. no doubt--just to silence congress! The pukkkes should be mad at this too

but they'll shut up and take it, and the cover up is on.

[Just Me]

39. That's my biggest beef: will we (our courts) have access to,....

,...company documents? If not, the deal should be off. Even if this new "front company" is incorp in the U.S., both that company and the Dubai company MUST BE SUBJECT TO U.S. laws.

[Higans]

78. Don't you mean a "Shill" company? N/T

[katty]

99. Probably

[Delphinus]

10. Haliburton, of course.

Bet they had this up their sleeve the entire time.

[Theres-a]

42. You betcha.Wait for it.

Bastards.

[seafan]

61. Yes, watch Halliburton step up, grinning evilly in the shadows.

http://www.villagevoice.com/blogs/bushbeat/archive/images/cheney,-bill-thomas-ss.jpg

[tinfoilinfor2005]

132. Evilly?

:rofl: You made that up...:bounce: :bounce: :bounce:

[memory]

62. That was my first thought. Amazing.....

:mad:

[wordpix2]

71. Halliburton-KBR-Carlyle Group-and-subsidiaries clusterfuck

[katty]

100. yea the Harriett Meirs strategy-bait and switch

[Serial Mom]

119. mmmmm.... $$$$$$$$$$$$ .... money!!!!!

They are seeing dollar signs dance in their heads! All the mf's!

[smirkymonkey]

18. Is this another "Harriet Meyers-esque" bait-and-switch?

Wouldn't surprise me one bit.

[0007]

30. 'Tis looking that way. This is starting to stink to high heaven

[ToolTex]

112. Remember Prince Bandar is now CEO of Carlyle Group.

What could posubly be more Amurcan than the Carlyle Group?

[Just Me]

3. How is locating an American front company "divesting all American,...

,...interests". Does that make any sense to you?

:shrug:

[greyl]

47. Doesn't really make sense, no.

I was taking it to be referring to the "Dubai threat to hit back" story from earlier today, which concerned Dubai cancelling multi-billion dollar purchases of aircraft from American companies. Nothing in this story corresponds to the headline.

:shrug:

[Kagemusha]

4. I still don't get how Congress can block this deal.

You can't just write a law and say that all companies except Dubai Ports World can handle US port operations can you? Or was the intent to block all foreign companies from handling US port operations, which would mean effects similar to a Depression-era trade war? Or what?

[Mithras61]

15. I think that what they are writing is...

a law that would require a 45-day security review of a takeover of any U.S. facility by a company owned by a foreign government. The fact that this is perceived as blocking the takeover of port operations by Dubai Ports World says a great deal to me about the REAL status of security as currently implemented.

I keep hearing BS about how this will have no effect on port security from Bushbots, but what they keep failing to acknowledge is that while security is technically provided by the Coast Guard, Customs & DHS, the implementation of security directives is done primarily by port operators.

They don't really want anyone looking too closely at how things are REALLY done because they know the public would be outraged that they have outsourced our national security to the highest bidder. They've spent the last several years demonizing the oil countries (both ME and Venezuela), and the oil countries are always going to be able to bid higher than anyone else if they really want the deal.

[librechik]

22. yes--they were desperate to avoid the review, that's why they sneaked

behind the scenes--(among other reasons, no doubt)

[muriel_volestrangler]

88. It was "anyone who ever recognised the Taliban"

Democrats tried to press their advantage Wednesday in the Senate. Senator Charles E. Schumer of New York surprised Republicans with an amendment to a lobbying bill that would ban any company "wholly owned or controlled by any foreign government that recognized the Taliban" from managing port facilities. The company at issue, DP World of Dubai, fits that description.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/03/09/america/web.0309congress.php

In effect, that's DPW and anything wholy owned by the Saudi Arabians or Pakistan.

[dogfacedboy]

19. Blocking ALL foreign companies from handling US ports is the right thing.

The US should not have foreign companies handling US ports PERIOD. I equate that with Canada or Mexico controlling border security, or a foreign nation controlling defense operations.

[zucchini234]

57. they can!

Actually, yeah, congress could make a law that says "anybody but Dubai"...

[The Wielding Truth]

128. zucchini 234 *** Hello and Welcome! ***

:kick: :hi:

[wookie294]

5. LOL

Dubai is taking its ball and going home. It's hilarious that people act like this issue will hurt America. I swear, our government is nothing but a WHORE for big business.

[lovuian]

6. No More Money!!! No more power wielding HONEY!!!

Bring it on Shieks!!!

[madrchsod]

7. -------SOME-------

not---ALL-----more----BULLSHIT-----

[OKNancy]

8. Dubai Ports World has agreed to turn over all of its operations at U.S. po

Dubai Ports World has agreed to turn over all of its operations at U.S. ports to a United States entity, said Sen. John Warner, reading a statement from DP World. He said the reason is "to preserve" the strong relationship between the United Arab Emirates and the United States.

cnn.com home page

[Just Me]

17. Warner? I don't trust that bastid as far as I can throw him.

I want more facts.

[wordpix2]

74. Warner is a BushCo shill

[woodsprite]

11. Ready now? Let's go! Gimme an "H", gimme an "A", gimme a "LIB",

gimme a "U", gimme an "R", gimme a "TON".

HALIBURTON, HALIBURTON,
Who else but HALIBURTON

[OhioChick]

That's my guess, as well. n/t

[Marie26]

70. If it's Halliburton,

I'm going to scream.

[OKNancy]

12. LA TImes link - short nothing new

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-030906dubai_wr,0,6566547.story?coll=la-home-headlines

Dubai Firm to Divest Some U.S. Port Interests
From Associated Press

10:54 AM PST, March 9, 2006

WASHINGTON — A Dubai-owned company said today that it was prepared to give up its management stake in some U.S. ports, a move made as congressional leaders warned President Bush that both the House and Senate appeared ready to block the takeover.

It was not immediately clear whether the announcement would be enough to cool widespread sentiment in Congress to pass legislation blocking the deal, which has become an election-year nightmare for Republicans.

[GOTV]

84. Why isn't the title....

... Dubai Firm Insists on Retaining Control of Some US Port Interests?

[rocktivity]

13. This isn't over

until put the ports are put back in American hands through a PUBLIC BIDDING PROCESS, and there is a Congressional investigating why the deal was made without the knowledge or consent of the U.S. government.

:headbang:
rocknation

[librechik]

14. absolutely--if there's any justice--

which is questionable

[brentspeak]

21. Public bidding, definitely.

Dems need to get on this, pronto.

[northzax]

29. I'm sure they will sell the contracts to the highest bidder

that meets the terms of the deal.

Or were you suggesting that the individual contracts be unilaterally cancelled and put up for re-bidding? they were competitively bid in the first place.

[CAcyclist]

52. No, the ports need to be nationalized.

We need the US government to control the ports and keep them out of all corporate hands. I don't trust our American corporations , either.

[wordpix2]

72. OMG---a "public bidding process?" What's THAT? BushCo hates that kind of

thing, prefers Halliburton-KBR--Carlyle Group clusterfuck

[alcibiades_mystery]

16. They do this all the time

You put the management of the ports in a trusteeship: Dubai Ports World still gets the profits, but remains at one level removed from any day-to-day decision making. It is, of course, a half-assed solution at best, but it is fairly common whenever there are "security concerns" and other conflict of interest issues. Quiter frankly, I'm not sure why this wasn't proposed earlier. Would have dsaved the Bushies a lot of embarrassment.

[TankLV]

81. This is EXACTLY what happens when non-minority firms bid on minority firm

contracts - the minority firm is only a shell corporation - all the real power and profits go directly to the parent company.

It stinks.

[FooFootheSnoo]

136. I've been wondering why they didn't do this myself

[librechik]

20. now will Dubai (and its friends) "hit back" at us now?

hunker down, folks--these people don't deal above the boards.

[Just Me]

26. Earlier, they were threatening us. Apparently, this is a BushCO-generated

,...deal to save face: "we'll just find a front company with an American face for ya' fellas --- no worries ---we WILL make sure this is lucrative for all involved."

[HuffleClaw]

23. a smokescreen i think

like how companies 'flag' their vessels in liberia.

[Mithras61]

24. Y'know, the thing that keeps me up at night...

is that we STILL don't know who is really responsible for handling security in this country.

We have secret deals on ports operations, we have countries holding billions of US$ and buying up assets in the USA, and we have rumors that the Iranian Oil Bourse will be trading in Euros which will likely do great harm to the almighty dollar, and cause a flood of dollars to return to the USA.

In the middle of all of this, I find myself asking "If THEY (whoever THEY are) own all these assets in the USA, and we have all these secret deals going on, WHO is doing WHAT to protect us, and HOW is it being implemented?" All we really have is the gov'ts word on it that security is good or bad or something else, and they've been sneaking crap like this past us.

:tinfoilhat::tinfoilhat::tinfoilhat::tinfoilhat::tinfoilhat::tinfoilhat::tinfoilhat::tinfoilhat::tinfoilhat::tinfoilhat:

I don't really want to be a tinfoil hatter, but it really makes me wonder...

[NYC]

41. If it's profitable, they'll protect us.

If not, well, would you really expect a corporation to act against its own stated objective of making a profit? You wouldn't expect that, would you?

For a long time, Chuck Schumer (Senator, NY) has been complaining about the lack of port security. Pretty much, the response has been that it's too expensive.

So much for security.

[Mithras61]

48. You have to define "profitable", "interests", and "objective"...

for this to be a complete answer. You also have to remember that Dubai Ports World isn't just ANY old company, but a wholly owned creature of the UAE government.

What do they consider profitable? Apparently, laundering money and funding terrorists qualifies.

What are their interests? Apparently, driving Israel intot he sea qualifies.

As to their objectives, we don't really know what those are anymore than we know what the al Saud's objectives are. Remember that while the al Saud's proclaim that we are their friends, they are founding and funding Wahhabbi Islam schools - the most radical of all forms of Islam and the source of the vast majority of terrorists. We know that ONE of their objectives is staying in power, but there are many more than that.

The problem isn't so much that they are foreign owned as it is that they are an entity of a foreign government and any time US/UAE interests fail to coincide, whose interests do you suppose Dubai Ports World will back? At what point can we really expect to be thrown under the bus?

[NYC]

56. Profitable means putting money in your personal pocket,

and to hell with the country.

I think Bush's objective is to make money. I assume Dubai shares his objective. I assume none of this has anything to do with governing well or promoting/protecting the American people.

We can expect to be thrown under the bus when we stand between BushCo. and profits. (Money in Bush's pocket.)

Edit (since I had to fix a typo): Name one thing that Bush has done to benefit America or the American people.

[Mithras61]

59. I think we're arguing from the same side of the street here...

to continue the "bus" metaphor. :D

It's certainly about the money (to some extent, anyway).

It's also about the access to US port operations, though. I'm simply never going to be comfortable allowing a foreign government to control our port operations, when we have history that shows they are willing to be an obstacle to us and history that shows they support the opposition (terrorists). They are our "buddies" right this second, but they (like Saudi Arabia) rarely are our "buddies" for long or when their interests don't coincide with ours.

Can you, for example, imagine a circumstance in which their interests run in such a way as to cause them to allow access to or through our ports when it isn't in our interests? I don't have much difficulty coming up with such a scenario, and I'm not terribly creative. Imagine, for example, that some rich middle-easterner (like OBL, fer example) decides that smuggling a half-dozen dirty explosive devices (e.g. - radioactive waste laced bombs) into the US is worth a few million dollars to him. Will Dubai Ports World ensure that the ports are closed to him for this purpose? They could make quite a bit of pure profit, and so long as there's no proof that they allowed it to happen, they would still control the ports. Since they have blocked tracing of financial transactions through their country before to assist terrorists, they could easily do so again, and we wouldn't have any way to demonstrate that they had let it happen (no motivation).

[NYC]

66. We are.

..."I'm simply never going to be comfortable allowing a foreign government to control our port operations..."

Who would? However, if you got to pocket $$$$$, and had no scruples, what would you care? You wouldn't be at the port when it blew up (or when the smuggled drugs came through). You'd be in a secure, undisclosed location. Yes? Bush & Co. have lots of security for themselves, while they sell our security for their own personal profit. When we trace the flow of money, we'll see.

Resources are also being sold. It enriches the few, while impoverishing the American people in general. Some government we've got.

[newblewtoo]

25. Smells like Nationalization

Chimp can now say if you want me to take over the ports, I will. This is a slippery slope. They are crazy to break unions, what better way?? Nationalize the ports and put the longshoremen under NSPS. See, National Security, the will of the people. Washing hands.........Smells like a setup.

[Atman]

32. This whole fucking thing is a set-up!

It's several set-ups in one, as a matter of fact! The GOP is giving itself an big "National Security" campaign stroke, the UAE gets our ports no matter what, John Snow still makes a brazillion dollars selling us out, it's a set-up all around. The whole thing stinks to high heaven.

[librechik]

33. what are you crazy? That would be gulp SOCIALISM

and the pukkkes would rather cut off their own dicks than do anything with the faintest whiff of THAT--even though it is the most sensible and cost saving in the end for things like ports, railroads, healthcare...a nationalized option would save our butts, but NO! The Nazis would wet their little panties rather than do that in an election year (or anytime--corporations are KING with them, screw logic and the budget)

[newblewtoo]

43. Think TSA

Pretty much what they did with airport security. Nationalized it. It was private, now its not. The Neo Cons want to 'control' the borders....you hear it all the time. I may be crazy or just paranoid but I just don't like the way this is going.

[CAcyclist]

58. I disagree vehemently with you.

TSA may not be well-run, since nothing is well-run under Bush, but public ownership is far better for us than private. Guess you're not a Californian and didn't suffer under the Enron fiasco.

[newblewtoo]

85. No, not from CA

Was the power problem all Enron? I did not follow it. I have no problem with the TVA.... My concern is with this administration taking control of the ports under the guise of "national security".

[CAcyclist]

55. Why would nationalization be a bad thing?

Government employees are all unionized - nationalization wouldn't break the unions, it would ensure them.

[newblewtoo]

83. Google NSPS n/t

[bvar22]

69. Better way to break Unions?....

...Selling ownership to an overseas Country run by a King is the BEST way to break unions.

Can you imagine taking a workplace grievance to the King of an Arab nation?
Didn't think so.

The ONLY way Unions can have an effective voice is if the Corporation is a US Corporation subject to US Laws.

The Democratic Party is a BIG TENT, but there is NO ROOM for those
who advance the agenda of THE RICH (Corporate Owners) at the EXPENSE of LABOR and the POOR.

[Atman]

27. RED FLAG ALERT

"A Dubai-owned company said Thursday that it
was prepared to give up its management stake in some U.S. ports,..."

Not good enough.

How about ALL U.S. ports? How about NO fucking foreign government managing ANY of our ports?

[northzax]

31. they are giving up their stake in some ports

all the ports they operate in. they don't have operations in all ports.

[Atman]

36. There were 21 ports total, not 6. What about the rest?

No one talks of them anymore, right? I think this is part of the sham. As they divest themselves of "SOME" of the ports...like, 6...what about the other 15?

[northzax]

40. it probably depends on the operations at some of the ports

they are giving up management stakes, in ports where the don't have management stakes, maybe they aren't doing that.

[anotherdrew]

86. 22 facilities were listed in an AP story yesterday

I don't know where this 6 vs 21/22 shit is coming from, I'm guessing it has something to do with a technical definition of "port" but if you say "shore based facility for loading/unloading ships, 22 it is.

[Mithras61]

89. I think the difference is between...

ports where they would have relatively exclusive control and the total number of ports in the deal (but I'm not certain of that). I've read a few stories that imply that the 6 ports are where they would have major operational control, though.

[Atman]

134. I learned the difference tonight...

21 TERMINALS in 6 ports. Not 21 ports. A port has several docking terminals.

[Just Me]

37. Yep. My guess is the BFEE has created a smoke screen on behalf,...

,...of their authoritarian super-wealthy corporacrat buddies. Those threats these "corporacrat buddies" threw about earlier had to do with the plans of the profiteering PNAC regime. Can't let that happen.

[Mr_Spock]

44. It's all a scam to make it look like they are giving something up

It'll be a temporary measure and they will over time move right into the drivers seat...

This is BS!!

[NYC]

46. Is this why we kept hearing 6 ports instead of 21?

If they give up 6 ports, will people think they gave up all? It has been very strange that after all this time, it is still referred to as 6 ports.

[ThoughtCriminal]

110. As far as security is concerned

It only takes one.

[NVMojo]

34. you bet there will be a front company! The assholes will be back!

[Mr_Spock]

45. Company based in UAR ready to give up attempt to take management stake in

Company based in UAR ready to give up attempt to take management stake in U.S. ports

By David Espo and Andrew Taylor | March 9, 2006

WASHINGTON --A Dubai-owned company said Thursday it is giving up its management stake in some U.S. ports, a move made as congressional leaders warned President Bush that both the House and Senate appeared ready to block the takeover.

It was not immediately clear whether the announcement would be enough to cool widespread sentiment in Congress to pass legislation blocking the deal, which has become a burdensome election-year problem for Republicans.

Sen. John Warner, chairman of the Armed Services Committee, took the Senate floor to read to colleagues a company press release disclosing its new stance.

"Because of the strong relationship between the United Arab Emirates and the United States and to preserve that relationship, DP World has decided to transfer fully the U.S. operation of P&O Operations North America to a United States entity," DP World's chief operating officer, Edward H. Bilkey, said in the statement that Warner relayed to other senators. The announcement did not specify which American company would be involved.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/03/09/company_based_in_uar_ready_to_give_up_attempt_to_take_management_stake_in_us_ports/

[Mithras61]

49. What country is the "UAR"?

Or is it just a typo that should have been caught (as in piss-poor editing in their rush to get the story out)?

[Atman]

51. R next to E on the keyboard...

;-)

[Mithras61]

54. I know...

That's why I threw in the question about editing. The editor should have caught this, and didn't.

[LiberalHeart]

50. Company Ready to Give Up Attempt to Manage Some US Ports (Poor George!)

A Dubai-owned company said Thursday it is giving up its management stake in some US ports. The move came as congressional leaders warned President Bush that both the House and Senate appeared ready to block the takeover.

Much, much more at:
http://www.wtol.com/Global/story.asp?S=4609573

[LiberalHeart]

63. oops ... AP is now saying ALL.... (no text)

[LiberalHeart]

53. According to AP, not ALL ports...

I posted about the AP story; hope it doesn't get deleted as a dup.

[Megahurtz]

60. Well ya really blew it this time

didn't jya George?:popcorn:

[Mithras61]

64. Interesting first paragraph in the WaPo...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/09/AR2006030901144.html

Dubai Port Company to Divest Itself of American Holdings

By Jonathan Weisman and Daniela Deane
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, March 9, 2006; 1:57 PM

The United Arab Emirates company that was attempting to take over management operations at six U.S. ports announced today that it will divest itself of all American interests.

In the business world, doesn't "divest" mean the same as "sell off"? Think of Bell & divestiture...

I also wonder how all their "all" is in this case...

[slingsam]

65. Dubai Port World pulls a Harriet Meiers?

Its a bait and Switch, I tell you......Its a bait and switch!!!!!

Did we get Alitoed?

[mom cat]

67. I wonder how Dubai's rage will affect the rush to war with Iran?

[wordpix2]

77. Iran & Dubai are intimately connected. See this from earlier thread

Dubai Ports World is government-owned

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: February 20, 2006
1:00 a.m. Eastern


© 2006 WorldNetDaily.com

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=48907

snip:
Dubai has been far from faultless in the War on Terrorism. The 9-11 Commission Report documents how al-Qaida and the 9-11 terrorists who flew the airplanes into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon used Dubai as a banking facility and a country of transit. Dubai continues to work actively with the radical religious clerics ruling Iran, serving both as a vacation home and a capital haven to many of the wealthy mullahs and their families, including former Prime Minister Hashemi-Rafsanjani, who is the first mullah to be considered a billionaire while the Iranian per capita GDP continues to be calculated at around $1,800.

By the end of 2006, Dubai calculates that some $300 billion will have been moved from Iran to Dubai by over 400,000 Iranians. Iranians who travel to Dubai for business are estimated to constitute 25 percent of Dubai's population. The Dubai Chamber of Commerce shows that more than 6,500 Iranian-owned companies are now registered in the UAE under Iranian nationality. Some 10,000 Iranian students live and study in Dubai. Some 20 percent of the investments in Dubai shopping centers are now registered under Iranian names. In one week, at the end of June 2005, Iranians bought 31 percent of the luxurious villas of Al Hamra tourism-residential complex, located in Ras Al Khaimah, north of Dubai. The UAE is a popular tourist location for those Iranians lucky enough to have the funds to travel, with many visiting several times a year, spending considerable sums on shopping, hotels and the beach.

[mom cat]

95. I wonder if Dubai will allow its ports and air strips to be used in any

attact on Iran after this episode.

[MADem]

68. Well, during WW2, the mob did a pretty good job re: port security

Of course, they always took a little off the top, but they did keep the docks safe!!
http://www.militaryhistoryonline.com/general/articles/officestrategicservices.aspx

The OSS played little role in the July 1943 invasion of Sicily, a stepping-stone to mainland Italy. The Allied high command thought OSS activity, particularly sabotage, would alert the Germans to the pending attack. The OSS may have helped negotiate a deal with New York gangster Lucky Luciano, for the Mafia gangsters to gather intelligence in Sicily and to help protect the New York waterfront against Nazi agents. Luciano, in prison, would be released from a lengthy prison sentence at the end of the war and deported to Italy. There is little indication of what the deal accomplished – a familiar problem with intelligence history is lack of documentation. However, not long after the war ended Luciano was released from prison and deported to Italy.

The old "enemy of my enemy is my friend" at play! The more things change, the more they remain the same...same shit, different mobsters!

[annabanana]

75. in "some" U.S. ports....

Just the big six?
15 out of the whole 21?
All of them except the big six?

LOTS of Devils in these details, methinks..

[TankLV]

76. I smell a rat - they gave up WAY to easily.

I trust this as far as I trust bunkerboy or any repuke - NOT AT ALL.

[mirandapriestly]

79. Carlyle Group is involved with Dubai

no surprise
http://www.dubaiic.com/portfolio.htm

[Just Me]

120. Aw shit!!!! Just what I was looking for!!! THANK YOU!!!

I knew it!!! I knew it I knew it I knew it!!!!

[mirandapriestly]

122. and their dealings are not public record because

they don't buy public companies. Here we go again...

[VaYallaDawg]

80. You gotta admit - "election year nightmare" has a certain ring to it!!!!

[w4rma]

82. Why does the headline say "all" while the text says "some"? (nt)

[Betsy Ross]

87. Yeeee Ha

Things are heating up. You know we'll get screwed somehow, but at least * will have to work for it. And it is a sign that the repukes are thinking twice before jumping on the *Co bandwagon. So I'm going to enjoy this episode while I can.

[Marie26]

91. Till we find out who the company is, at least. nt

[truthout]

90. I guess Ex-Prez Clinton's consultation to the Dubai Ports company...

didn't help them in this deal. Maybe Dubai should ask for their consulting fee back from him. And to also have him tell his wife to shut her big trap next time. Or at least fill her in on what he is doing from time to time.

[Mithras61]

93. Maybe (just maybe) WJC told 'em...

it wasn't going to go through, and that they should simply divest themselves of the US components of the deal. I don't KNOW that's what happened, 'cause I wasn't in the meetings, but considering the sequence of events and such, it seems a possibility...

[truthout]

97. Actually WJC has been on this deal since the start...

And this deal has been going on since last September and was run through all the normal Federal Governmental channels with approval here in the US by December. But it's strange that now all of a sudden everyone is running around with their heads cut off and not using their brains. Just doing some simple research of this deal will give you the above info. It's not hard folks. Use some grey matter, it won't hurt I promise.

[Mithras61]

98. How long he's been in on it is irrelevant...

regarding what he told them. He's plenty smart enough to realize it wasn't going to fly and telling the UAE so...

[truthout]

101. This is odd......

Why are people assuming of what Clinton said in consultation to the Dubai ports company? And why is it that people are dismissing that Clinton was even in on this deal to begin with? This was pretty much a done deal by the end of December which Clinton's consultation of how to get through the layers of bureaucracy in the federal government was invaluable. Why isn't it giving credence and credibility to the company that he was consulting? I figure if he was willing to help out the company in going through with the deal, they must be an OK company or he wouldn't put his "reputation" on the line. Right??????

[Mithras61]

103. Not even close to "right" for me...

There are quite a few things I respect WJC for, but his business sense and ethics aren't on the list. His political sense, however is quite keen, and I believe he's smart enough to see the writing on the wall. He was paid to help them negotiate the process, and he did. Word got out about the deal, though, and there's almost certainly nothing in his agreement with DPW about convincing the US public about anything about them.

You're assuming that because we like one aspect of him that we like all aspects of him. I don't think anyone here is quite so shallow.

[progressivebydesign]

105. HE DID NOT GET PAID TO HELP THEM!

Sheesh.. nothing like a right wing talking point. He answered a phone call. That's it. He didn't negotiate jack shit for them. At another point in time, he spoke in Dubai for his usual speaking fee. ALL president do that. Wierd how the Clinton haters are coming out of the woodwork today. Agenda much?

[Mithras61]

107. I'm not a Clinton hater...

but I don't endorse everything he does by knee jerk either.

I don't know what level of involvement he had with this deal, I'm just saying that what he did (or didn't) do as part of any supposed contract to help get the agreement through CFIUS may (or may not) have had his help, but that convincing the rest of us of anything was almost certainly not part of any contract or agreement with UAE or DPW he may (or may not) have had.

I also said that I don't agree with everything he has done simply because it was him. How is any of this Clinton hating?

[progressivebydesign]

104. Why are you here trashing Bill Clinton? Just wondering...

Clinton answered a phone call, made by the company. As a SUCCESSFUL and RESPECTED ex-President, he has many contacts around the world. He was asked what their best tact would be, he said that they needed to submit to the full review if they wanted a chance. That is it. Why were you wiretapping him and know what the conversation was??? He didn't go to bat for them, he didn't push the deal through (He's not Abramoff!), he answered a question over the phone. That's it.

[wordpix2]

109. hey, question man: why don't you focus on what we KNOW about Bush's lies

re: reasons to go to war in Iraq in the first place? And his LIES about torturing POWs, the NSA spying and "tax breaks (for the rich} will provide greater revenue."

[progressivebydesign]

102. Are you referring to Bill Clinton? He took a phone call.

He told them to submit to the full review. Why are you making it sound as though he had a stake in this?

[progressivebydesign]

106. there were no "meetings". It was a phone call. One phone call. n/t

[truthout]

113. Just one phone call???....

Fine... read this if you think it was just ONE phone call....
AP:
"Late Friday, Department of Justice lawyers in the Office of Legal Counsel were attempting to determine if former President Bill Clinton had registered as an "Agent of a Foreign Principal."

Federal statute requires that anyone -- even a former President -- doing political or public affairs work on behalf of a foreign country, agency or official must register with the Department, and essentially update his status every six months. It was not clear the Clinton had done so.

If his status is less clear, here is what we do know: If Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton did not know about her husband's standing with the United Arab Emirates and with Dubai World Ports, members of her Senate staff most assuredly did.

"There were enough people in the Clintons' orbit who were potentially going to be part of the deal," says an employee of a firm that does work for both Clintons. "We were pursuing work on the ports deal, and we cleared our participation with Clinton's office. We didn't want there to be a conflict."

In fact, at least two senior outside advisers to Senator Clinton were attempting to get business out of the Port Deal, and President Clinton was the go-between. Associates with the Glover Park Group, which houses just about the entire shadow staff for Hillary's run-up to a Democratic presidential bid, were attempting to get a slice of the DPW deal before the deal was made public about three weeks ago. According to current and former President Clinton staff, Hillary Clinton's Senate office was aware that Glover Park was in the running to do work on the DPW deal.

"She was also very much aware of President Clinton's financial arrangements with the UAE," says a former Bill Clinton staffer. "We're talking about more than a million dollars, some of paid out soon out after they left the White House. That income helped the Clintons buy the properties that allow them to live both in New York and Washington, D.C. This was not an insignificant financial arrangement."

What is not clear is whether or not the junior Senator from New York was aware that Clinton was acting as an agent of a foreign principal, which Clinton clearly was. According to sources with knowledge of the deal, President Clinton was advising members of the DPW buyout team in the UAE, London, and Washington before the deal hit the headlines. He encouraged them to hire a number of people working in consulting firms based in Washington with whom he had both personal and financial ties: The Cohen Group, the Albright Group, and the Glover Park Group. Other sources claim that longtime Clinton confidante and golf partner Vernon Jordan's name was also suggested as potential helpful fixer in the capital."

[Mithras61]

115. How about...

an actual link (and how about not inserting more than four paragraphs of the original, as required by the guidelines of this site)...

[pinto]

117. Just an fyi - You overlooked the source link here.

It really does help provide background for the discussions. Thanks.

[KnaveRupe]

146. Sourced incorrectly,.......

not from the AP... from the AMERICAN SPECTATOR.

From their WASHINGTON PROWLER gossip page.


http://www.spectator.org/dsp_prowler.asp


In fact, a Google News search of the whole first sentence turns up just two hits - the American Spectator rumor piece, and the Rush Limbaugh site.

Muy Credibility!

Nice try, Freeper. Now go toddle back to the kiddies' table... the grownups are discussing important stuff.

[Higans]

94. UAE Gave up to cover up the real issue: Lack of Port Security.

That's what Bush-co is afraid of. He is going to set up a front co. to handle the ports. He will blame Americans as being Racist. then it will be Business as usual, and the real issue of Port Security will go un touched.

He is trying so hard to set up another terrorist act on American soil for the 08 Selection that it is getting to obvious. and then when a dirty bomb goes off in one of our ports, he will say "No one could have imagined that this would happen."

Well I would like to go on record right now and say that I can imagine that possibility if our port security is not greatly improved. would any one like to go on record with me?

This is not a threat. I'm simply saying that with everything I have scene and read, I believe it to be a possibility. I'm not a terrorist, but it does not take an american citizen to figure out how secure our ports are.

I'm sick of Bush-co saying No one could have imagined Planes flying into buildings. no one could have imagined the Levies being breached. I'm sick of it, and I don't whant to here "No one could have imagined a terrorist might sneak a bomb into an American port."

FUGWB Give us our Country back Mother F---er.

[wordpix2]

108. agree--we should not let go of this issue--BushCo has f**$$d up on port

security in favor of his "War-Is-Easy" incompetence in Iraq.

[peaches2003]

96. Front company

At the very least the American company will be a spin-off or a front for Halliburton. This smells to high heaven and when hasn't the Bush Adm feathered its own nest at every turn.

[Tight_rope]

111. Good take your money and Get out!

I know a take-over when I smell one!

[yy4me]

114. We all know how this will pan out. Is there anything that this

regime does that does not have a hidden agenda, some bait and switch tactic? Nothing is what it seems, and the ploy is getting tiresome. In fact, tiresome is too lame a word. We're all mad as heck. I hope the port deal and its twisted future will be enough to wake up a few more people. How long will the **** supporters keep believing this administrations' baloney? What do we need, more things like the port deal to be brought up in order to see ***'s supporters finally see the light?
And by the way, how come Dubai gave up so quickly. Something in rotten in Denmark. The more I think about this deal and now, with todays news that they will be backing out, the more suspect I become. Any guesses about whats next?

[Felix Mala]

116. Tune to FOX tonight to see how the Democrats will be blamed for this.

[rustydad]

123. You are all missing the big issue!!

Look what's going on here is really simple. We, the USA, buys more from the rest of the world than they buy from us. Once *free trade* became the mantra and tariffs eliminated it was bound to happen. We now owe over 7 trillion to the rest of the world and the trend is that there is no end in sight. We get those dollars back and issue government notes in exchange. Now if you hold a bunch of those notes and you worry about the ability of ever cashing them in why not buy something of real value instead? Why not buy ports? After all the massive imports that create the imbalance in the first place need ports to unload at. That's the real deal folks. We borrowed against our assets and now the creditors want the assets or something besides funny paper. Remember that the only way out of our debt situation is bankruptcy or hyper inflation. The only safe place under either or both scenario is to own something real. Gold would do but also ports, parks, airports, buildings, forests, etc. As to the issue of port safety think this. Sure you can put a nuc in a shipping container and maybe get it into the US. But you can put one on a foreign fishing boat or a sailboat and go right into any US port unimpeded. Bob

[Mithras61]

124. Which is part of how this ties into Iran...

and their opening of their own Oil Bourse that will trade in Euros. When they start accepting euros and not $ for their oil, then foreign governments will no longer have a reason to keep $ in their treasury's hedge funds & such, and they'll want to turn them into something tangible. We can't do that and still be able to keep our economy stable & growing, so we'll start selling off assets.

The fact is, we're "mortgaged" to the hilt as a nation, and the repo man is coming...

[Sydnie]

125. Remember that blivet** already said that the "paper in the filing

cabinets in Parkersburg WV (the t-bills that were the social security fund) are not worth anything" as far as he was concerned. He said they were not money, just pieces of paper.

We have fallen to junk bond stage with our federal bonds, have we? If we can't back them up, we are screwed!

[MetaTrope]

131. Iran and Dubai are becoming quite friendly

http://www.tehrantimes.com/Description.asp?Da=3/8/2006&Cat=2&Num=006

The Sheikh Mohammad ben Rashid al-Maktoum mentioned in the story happens to have controlling interest in Dubai Ports World.

[Old and In the Way]

142. I agree......cashing Petrodollars for tangible assets.

Lots of illiguid dollars parked in the ME and no one wants them. Sweet deal. I think Big Oil is helping to move US assets to the Royal families as a way to keep them from dumping huge amounts of dollars....which would not help our economy very much, might even jumpstart a depression.

[superconnected]

130. me thinks they give up too easily.

[Eurobabe]

133. GOP claiming credit for all this

such fucking bullshit.

[rossmonster]

135. Read Statement from Dubai Ports carefully...

Here is the link to it as provided by CNN:

http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2006/images/03/09/dpw.statement2.pdf

Interesting part is:

"DP World will transfer fully to the U.S. operations of P&O Ports of North America, Inc. to a United States entity. This decision is based on an understanding that DP World will have time to effect the transfer in an orderly fashion and that DP World will not suffer economic loss. We look forward to working with the Department of the Treasury to implement this decision."

Ok,

1) This is an understanding... and understanding between DP and who? Which person? Which entity in the US government is this understanding with? Someone did this deal but who? or What? Just a general understanding??? Dunno.

2) My finance background (and basic economics) tells me that this will be akin to a fire sale of sorts. DP aquired these port interest as part of a larger P&O takeover. First a value has to be worked out for these ports alone. Second you cant give them back to P&O as it effectively doesnt exist anymore and wasnt a "US entity" anyway. You therefore have to sell the ports to a US company, or hive off a company which has the ports as assets and then sell that. This will take some time and any buyer is going to know that DP is essentially in a "must sell" situation. The buyers know they can bid low. Its akin to those ads in the paper where someone is selling their car as they are moving overseas, you know they are going to take anything for it in the end.

So,
This sale is going to take quite a while, both to set up and to get any reasonable bids. Dont expect DP to divest real soon me thinks.

They could also only partially divest, say set up a company to own the ports, sell 51% of it to someone who was still friendly to them. Or sell 51% but to several shareholders so they are still the biggest single one. Theres lots of structures that could probably be used.

As for the department of treasury comment, you guys tell me as im not sure exactly the US financial setup and why they would be invovled and how. I would imagine the SEC may be invovled somehow but thats just a guess?

Food for thought

Cheers

[gasperc]

138. smells like a red herring, the deals going through, IRAN

someone over at Buzzflash had a very interesting point. The deal must go through because it is allowing for the positioning of our warships to guard oil shipments throught the strait of Hormuz if and when we stike IRAN. This administration believes IRAN should not exist and wants to smash it's government into bits. Bush Inc. is convinced that the bombing of certain key sites will cause the government to collapse and apparently solve the insurgency problem in Iraq and an unfriendly government in IRAN in one swoop. The master miscalculaters are making their biggest miscalculation yet.

[antonialee839]

137. No way this is over.

[high density]

139. CBS News graphics comparison

February 21:


Today:


I think they're rather amusing for some reason.

[AnnieBW]

141. Helmsley Hotel

Does this mean that they're selling Leona Helmsley's hotel in NYC, too? Because the Emiratis own that, too.

[mvd]

143. Sounds like a weaselly back-room deal to..

keep the Repukes in Congress happy while not giving Bush a major political defeat.

[lovuian]

144. No Money No Power and thanks for the memories!!!

You'll be back ... you have no army to protect all your money!!!

[Dream of the Flood]

145. FReepers in meltdown!!!

There's a war on between the FReepers who supported the ports deal and those who didn't. It's gonna be fun to see how this plays out in the midterms. This could be the one that drives the wedge between them, splitting them into two factions. Can I hear a 25% approval rating anyone? As they say on The Majority Report, still too high! Who are the 25% who haven't seen the light yet?

[cornermouse]

147. Did they also sell CSX railroad and terminals?

Think about that one for a minute.