DHS objected to ports deal, then changed, and Dubai firm issued ultimatum

[ProSense]

Homeland Security Objected to Ports Deal

Homeland Security Objected at First to Ports Deal, Then Went Along With Others
By TED BRIDIS

WASHINGTON Feb 25, 2006 (AP)— The Homeland Security Department objected at first to a United Arab Emirates company's taking over significant operations at six U.S. ports. It was the lone protest among members of the government committee that eventually approved the deal without dissent.

The department's early objections were settled later in the government's review of the $6.8 billion deal after Dubai-owned DP World agreed to a series of security restrictions.

Snip...

Some lawmakers have pressed for a new and intensive review. Despite persistent criticism from Republicans and Democrats, the president has defended his administration's approval of the ports deal and threatened to veto any measures in Congress that would block it. Hearings are to continue this week.

A DP World executive said the company would agree to tougher security restrictions to win congressional support only if the same restrictions applied to all U.S. port operators. The company earlier had struck a more conciliatory stance, saying it would do whatever Bush asked to salvage the agreement.

more...

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=1661530&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312

Unbelievable!

[Inland]

1. Congress was told the opposite in YESTERDAY'S hearings.

Yesterday, Clinton and Levin et al were told by the admin representatives that an objection to this deal just hadn't occurred to anybody. It was the complete lack of any red flags that justified foregoing the 45 day statutory waiting period and not telling Congress or the local authorities.

What happened was that the matter was bulled through over opposition in the admin and kept secret until it was a done deal to prevent opposition from Congress from being able to stop it.

[ProSense]

3. Lying, of course. What's unbelievable is that

anyone would admit that a Dubai company (foreign government) is issuing ultimatums to the U.S. government about the security of its ports.

[JDPriestly]

2. Baloney

Once the UAE controls the ports, who is to enforce the security regulations?

[Armstead]

4. Saw an amazing quote from Chertoff yesterday

It was in passing as a graphic on one of the news channel. He was reassuring about security and saying that the UAE would have to abide by our conditions "because we have the guns and the military force to take control the ports if we need to."

It's amazing. It's "so pre-9-11" to recognize a potential problem, but still go ahead and uneessarily create the conditions for a possible problem to arise.

[Inland]

5. All they really want is the post-attack military response.

It's the only arrow in the quiver because it's what they really wanted all along. It's the LIHOP all over.