Scramble to Back Port Deal: Making of Political Disaster
By ANNE E. KORNBLUT
Published: February 25, 2006
WASHINGTON, Feb. 24 — Carol M. Browner and Thomas J. Downey, a classic Washington power couple, are not used to being rebuffed. But that is what happened when those two Democratic advisers approached Senator Charles E. Schumer last week about their client, Dubai Ports World.
Strategists across town have marveled at the mismanagement of the transfer, placing most of the blame on the administration for failing to recognize the potential for danger. One explanation is that to some administration officials the deal may have seemed routine. Several people involved had worked with Dubai Ports and might not have seen the transfer as provocative.
Days before, Mr. Schumer, Democrat of New York, had issued an early complaint about the deal to put several American ports under the control of Dubai Ports World, owned by the United Arab Emirates. Mr. Schumer demanded to know what would protect the United States "if a terrorist organization decided to infiltrate this company."
Initially, the question seemed like a bump that could be handled with a few calls to the senator. Instead, it snowballed into a political disaster, one that has become a paradigm of failed crisis prevention here. It has also spawned bizarre alliances, putting President Bush on the same side as two former members of Bill Clinton's cabinet and at least briefly pitting former Senator Bob Dole against his wife, Senator Elizabeth Dole, Republican of North Carolina.
Snip...
Lawyers and lobbyists at Alston & Bird, the big law firm based in Atlanta, put together the commercial deal for Dubai Ports, quietly helping win approval from the Committee on Foreign Investments in the United States of the $6.8 billion acquisition of the Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation Company, the British company that has contracts to manage several United States ports.
No one, it appears, mapped a strategy to break the news to Congress that the country where two Sept. 11 attackers were born would be running ports here, an obvious thicket, even if it posed no real security risk.Snip...
At another point, Ms. Browner contacted Joe Lockhart, a press secretary for President Bill Clinton, about taking up the Dubai Ports cause. That arrangement would have added an even more unusual alliance. But Mr. Lockhart said he declined. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/25/politics/25lobby.html No real security threat? That's not what Corzine said in his radio address:
snip...
"Dangerous men, tainted blood money and nuclear technology have moved across UAE borders," said Corzine, who is suing to block the government-approved acquisition by Dubai Ports World, a state-run company.
"We were told that the president didn't know about the sale until after it was approved. For many Americans, regardless of party, this lack of disciplined review is unacceptable," Corzine said.
more...
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/02/25/dems.radio.ap/That's not what Tom Kean said. That's not what the port owners who are suing are saying...
The news reports state that Homeland Security put up a red flag when it first heard about the deal. That's a red flag.
In the early 1990s (during the BCCI affair), Bush Sr. accepted a $1 million donation for his library from the ruler of Abu Dhabi (a whole chapter in the BCCI report is dedicated to this Emirate). Wasn't that accepting money from a terrorist banker? Hillary Clinton evidently returned donations to her campaign from Arab groups. Bill Clinton later accepted similar funds for his library.
The whole thing is crazy. This is a business deal, and given that the rules were not followed, national security didn't play a major role in the decision.
If this was a business with a history of past dubious dealings would they go through with the deal? So why go through with a deal involving a foreign government that openly supported terrorist, including two who participated in the 9/11 attack?
I get the feeling this is all being smoothed over. If I think about the Bush Sr. incident and then 9/11, the Bush Jr. crap and Iraq, then this situation, I can't help but imagine that if this deal goes through, at some point there will be another "I told you so" moment. You can't stop everything from happening, but don't help it along.
Albright, Clinton, none of them can claim superior foresight, and certainly not the Bush administration (after ignoring a note given directly to them), otherwise 9/11 would never have happened.
So the argument is: trust us.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
