The Dubai/UAE Port illegally boycotts Israel...

[Air Force Cane]

Hmm, so not only does the government of the UAE:

Recognize the Taliban regime but not the country of Israel,

not only votes AGAINST the United States at the UN 67% of the time,

but also participates in breaking US Commerce Department legislation by conducting an illegal boycott of Israeli products.

Just who we want running our most important strategic ports :applause:

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1139395502196&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

[@DCGoldPants]

I would still like to know who made the decision that this was alright?

I mean, the President didn't know, neither did the head of Homeland security, or Rummy.

Who's running this place?

[Air Force Cane]

mid level bureacrats at the Treasury Department who okayed the deal because it raises foreign capital..

[rictus58]

I would still like to know who made the decision that this was alright?

I mean, the President didn't know, neither did the head of Homeland security, or Rummy.

Who's running this place?

And that is the scariest thing of all. The President should be the one to know first. I doubt he knew until it was on Foxnews.

[rictus58]

I heard on The Ed Norris show (talk radio in baltimore on WHFS), that there were financial ties to this UAE company and Bush/Cheney. I haven't read this to be true. does anyone else know one way or the other if this is true?

[Air Force Cane]

no there weren't any financial ties between the UAE company and the administration. there are only 5 companies in the world that do this- and the UAE company bought out a BRITISH company.

Bush did not even know about it until he read it in the papers. it is called bureaucracy..

[Art Monk Fan]

I'd like to take this opportunity to point out that the mid-level career beauracrats who made this decision are exactly the folks we've been told over-and-over again should be listened to instead of appointed "cronies." At least a political appointee would be "political" enough to see the negative PR ramifications of this deal.

[rictus58]

UAE ties to the White House

Dubai company set to run U.S. ports has ties to administrationBY MICHAEL MCAULIFFNew York Daily NewsWASHINGTON - The Dubai firm that won Bush administration backing to run six U.S. ports has at least two ties to the White House.

One is Treasury Secretary John Snow, whose department heads the federal panel that signed off on the $6.8 billion sale of an English company to government-owned Dubai Ports World - giving it control of Manhattan's cruise ship terminal and Newark's container port.

Snow was chairman of the CSX rail firm that sold its own international port operations to DP World for $1.15 billion in 2004, the year after Snow left for President Bush's cabinet.

The other connection is David Sanborn, who runs DP World's European and Latin American operations and who was tapped by Bush last month to head the U.S. Maritime Administration.

The ties raised more concerns about the decision to give port control to a company owned by a nation linked to the Sept. 11 hijackers.

"The more you look at this deal, the more the deal is called into question," said Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., who said the deal was rubber-stamped in advance - even before DP World formally agreed to buy London's P&O port company.

Besides operations in New York and Jersey, Dubai would also run port facilities in Philadelphia, New Orleans, Baltimore and Miami.

The political fallout over the deal only grows.

"It's particularly troubling that the United States would turn over its port security not only to a foreign company, but a state-owned one," said western New York's Rep. Tom Reynolds, chairman of the National Republican Campaign Committee. Reynolds is responsible for helping Republicans keep their majority in the House.

Snow's Treasury Department runs the Committee on Foreign Investment in the U.S., which includes 11 other agencies.

"It always raises flags" when administration officials have ties to a firm, Rep. Vito Fossella, R-N.Y., said, but insisted that stopping the deal was more important.

The New York Daily News has learned that lawmakers also want to know if a detailed 45-day investigation should have been conducted instead of one that lasted no more than 25 days.

According to a 1993 congressional measure, the longer review is mandated when the company is owned by a foreign government and the purchase "could result in control of a person engaged in interstate commerce in the U.S. that could affect the national security of the U.S."

Congressional sources said the president has until March 2 to trigger that closer look.

"The most important thing is for someone to explain how this is consistent with our national security," Fossella said.

[ChocolateCitySkin]

Did not the state department complain that the treasury dept will look the other way on national securities concerns when enough money is thrown their direction?