Jon Stewart announced that the Dubai deal is off, but actually

[Eric J in MN]

DP World is just claiming that they won't MANAGE the ports, not that they won't own the ports.

Even if they don't manage the ports at first, they can take over management when public attention is elsewhere.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060310/ap_on_go_co/ports_security

WASHINGTON - A Dubai-owned company abruptly abandoned its plan for managing operations at six U.S. ports Thursday, defusing an election-year showdown between
President Bush and the Republican-controlled Congress over an issue that had become a political land mine for the GOP.

[FreedomAngel82]

1. So what's the difference?

:shrug:

[Eric J in MN]

2. I mean it's just a promise from a company owned by royals

who are friends with Usama bin Laden.

[magellan]

7. And of Dimson.

Thick as thieves, and we're supposed to believe any of them?

[CrazyOrangeCat]

3. Move along . . . nothing to see here anymore . . .

[Maat]

5. Doesn't matter where the owning company is incorporated ..

I guarantee you that these UAE guys will be the majority stockholders. Or, they could contract out 'management.' It doesn't matter; they'll still get their loot.

Just trying to get us to take our eyes off of the ball.

Shameless. No Boooosh family buddy left behind.

Ah ... on edit .. so they lost out on a 'management' contract, and they have agreed to bow out. Do we have any guarantee that they won't own shares of the final 'managing' company? Or that there won't be a U.S. government payout?

[napi21]

8. Dubai said they would divest themselves of Am. interests.

IF that report is right, they would have NO influence on the ports. IF, as some other reports have said, they will turn over ports to an American owned business, that means DPW would be the parent company ans still be able to know info on the was security is done, what's looked at, and who's doing what.

There's a big difference.

[Zen Democrat]

4. They weren't buying the ports, just operating them.

I think they buy leases for a period of time to manage the operations of the port.

I think the kink in this deal is that DP World said they will withdraw from the deal as long as they don't lose any money over it. Now what does that mean? Do they want to be compensated for the money they would have earned over the term of the lease? There's a lot of devil in these details, me thinks.

[spindrifter]

6. They won't "own" the ports under any scenario.

Just manage operations.

[Eric J in MN]

13. Who does own the ports? nt

nt

[spindrifter]

15. In Seattle it is

a municipal corporation.

[carolinalady]

9. No the word they used was divest=they will divest from the 6

ports. Now we have to figure out what divest means to them.

[Eric J in MN]

10. The article says it's "t was unclear how the company would manage"

...its planned divestiture."

My question is, will they still own leases on the ports, or sell the leases?

[NastyRiffraff]

11. They're divesting AMERICAN interests

The company they bought is British. Plus, the first article the WaPo put up today had Scotty saying that Bush's position hasn't changed...he'd still veto any law Congress passed to kill the deal. Now, that's mysteriously gone from the article.

[cynatnite]

12. Is there an expiration date on that?

I mean, could they come in later, when we're all bored of this Dubai business and start managing?

[Eric J in MN]

14. That's my concern.

Are they truly giving over control and letting another company lease the ports, or just playing Three Card Monte with us?

[Canuckistanian]

16. I don't think they could slip that under the radar

There'd be an uproar from the anti-UAE crowd. Some of these guys have looooong memories.

[wordpix2]

17. Wolffe of Newswk agreed with Tweety when he suggested maybe Halliburton

would take over ports. Wolffe said it's a possibility.