W aides' biz ties to Arab firm (Admin in bed with Dubai Port World)

[norml]

W aides' biz ties to Arab firm


BY MICHAEL McAULIFF
DAILY NEWS WASHINGTON BUREAU

Breaking news update: Top Republican leader against ports deal

WASHINGTON - 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 agency 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 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 9/11 hijackers.


snip


http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/393375p-333478c.html

[electropop]

1. Just when we think they couldn't top the last scandal...

they go and pull a bigger one. These people have completely lost their minds. They're playing with fire. Nuclear fire.

[underpants]

2. See? I TOLD you guys there was nothing here

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x479483

:spank:

[fooj]

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

Peace.

[KoKo]

4. I was very worried about you when I read your post this a.m.

Was worried the "dark side" had started to befuddle your brain. Was glad to see that once more info was forthcoming on that thread...the dark clouds seemed to clear. :D

[underpants]

5. No I still stick by that

This changes it again only in a political sense. I really don't think that there is a security risk here. I do however see that it appears to just be business as usual for these dolts.

[senseandsensibility]

6. follow the money

I knew there was money and corporate cronyism involved, and I haven't even been following this story. Now, is the nydailynews a right wing rag? I apologize for my appalling lack of knowledge of new york media, but I'm a californian and I don't follow the east coast media. If a right wing rag is saying this, it's significant. This is an important story, and I hope it moves mainstream. People need to know that chimp and his cronies are doing this for the same reason they do everything: MONEY ! And, needless to say, money for themselves, not us. They don't give a flying ___ about "security".

[norml]

7. The Dirty Little Secret Behind the UAE Port Security Flap

Tuesday, February 21, 2006
The Dirty Little Secret Behind the UAE Port Security Flap

Politicians and the media are loudly decrying the Bush administration's proposal to turn over port security to a firm owned by the United Arab Emirates (UAE) - a country with ties to terrorists. They are talking tough about national security - but almost no one is talking about what may have fueled the administration's decision to push forward with this deal: the desire to move forward Big Money's "free" trade agenda.

How much does "free" trade have to do with this? How about a lot. The Bush administration is in the middle of a two-year push to ink a corporate-backed "free" trade accord with the UAE. At the end of 2004, in fact, it was Bush Trade Representative Robert Zoellick who proudly boasted of his trip to the UAE to begin negotiating the trade accord. Rejecting this port security deal might have set back that trade pact. Accepting the port security deal - regardless of the security consequences - likely greases the wheels for the pact. That's probably why instead of backing off the deal, President Bush - supposedly Mr. Tough on National Secuirty - took the extraordinary step of threatening to use the first veto of his entire presidency to protect the UAE's interests. Because he knows protecting those interetsts - regardless of the security implications for America - is integral to the "free" trade agenda all of his corporate supporters are demanding.

The Inter Press Service highlights exactly what's at stake, quoting a conservative activists who admits that this is all about trade:

"The United States' trade relationship with the UAE is the third largest in the Middle East, after Israel and Saudi Arabia. The two nations are engaged in bilateral free talks that would liberalise trade between the two countries and would, in theory at least, allow companies to own and operate businesses in both nations. 'There are legitimate security questions to be asked but it would be a mistake and really an insult to one of our leading trading partners in that region to reject this commercial transaction out of hand,' said Daniel T. Griswold, who directs the Center for Trade Policy Studies at the Cato Institute, a Washington-based libertarian think tank."

Look, we've seen this before. Just last year, Congress approved a U.S. taxpayer-funded loan by the Bush administration to a British company to help build nuclear technology in Communist China. Despite major security concerns raised - and a legislative effort to block the loan - Congress's "free traders" (many of whom talk so tough on security) made sure the loan went through so as to preserve the U.S.-China free trade relationship that is allowing lawmakers' corporate campaign contributors export so many U.S. jobs.


snip


http://www.davidsirota.com/2006/02/dirty-little-secret-behind-uae-port.html