Icon -

Your title is a bit disingenuous. From the linked article:

The committee, which could have recommended that President Bush block the purchase, includes representatives from the departments of Treasury, Defense, Justice, Commerce, State and Homeland Security.

"Treasury, Defense, Justice, Commerce, State and Homeland Security" do not = "Bush". Further, it's a British company that wants to sell its interests.

I, too, am concerned about what the risks might be, but if I can't trust "Treasury, Defense, Justice, Commerce, State and Homeland Security" to do something right, why do I have a government? Pretending this is a "Bush scheme" is silly. It might actually be a good step in being sure that UAE does not overtly, covertly or inadvertently aid & abet terrorists, since it will now have a vested interest in maintaining port security.

The other sign of what a red herring this may be is Charlie Schumer again being the point man for the opposition. If Charlie opposes something, there must be a lot to like about it.

Your title is a bit disingenuous

Maybe, but he supports it.

What ties does the UAE have to 9/11? We should, then, kick Daimler Chrysler out of the US because the hijackers also used Germany as a power base.

I think people should maybe look up the UAE before making a Syria or Iran out of them. They have their problems like any Middle Eastern nation, but they are probably the most moderate of them all.

You also don't bother to define what "control" means. You don't bother to look into whether or not Americans or people from the UAE will be involved in the day to day operation of the ports. For all you know, the company in question may just be a disinterested stock holder in the situation.

This reminds me of the panic-mongering in the 1980's about how the Japanese were buying out America, and soon their evil plot to occupy us would be complete. If the UAE does something wrong we'll have to... just void the contracts. If they do something really heinous, we'll nationalize their assetts here and tell them to screw themselves.

If you have a problem with this, feel free to post why, but you haven't made any effort to even make this scary.

What ties does the UAE have to 9/11?.

Since the Sept. 11 attacks, the FBI has said the money for the strikes was transferred to the hijackers primarily through the UAE's banking system, and much of the operational planning for the attacks took place inside the UAE.Many of the hijackers traveled to the U.S. through the UAE. Also, the hijacker who steered United Airlines flight into the World Trade Center's south tower, Marwan al-Shehhi, was born in the UAE.After the attacks, U.S. Treasury Department officials complained about a lack of cooperation by the UAE and other Arab countries trying to track Osama bin Laden's bank accounts.

Please. Were this a conservative lambasting France with that kind of flimsey crap you'd be all over them. Did the hijackers from Germany have bank accounts there? Do banks know what you are going to spend your money on? There was an australian, even an American caught with the Taliban. I suppose if either of them had been involved in 9/11 we'd have held those nations responsible, too. Oh, wait...

And it is understandable that banks would be hesitant to let intelligence agencies go fishing through people's financial affairs. The bin Laden family wasn't responsible for the attacks on 9/11, OSAMA was. If you want to talk about totally uncooperative banking, those scary Swiss folks need to be taught a thing or two, huh? There are Jews still trying to get their family money that the Nazis hid there.

You also don't talk about what "control" even means here. Is it going to be controlled by an American subcontractor? Is the UAE company part owner, full owner, shareholder? Will they be allowed to magically take the ports back to the UAE with them?

Do you realize how much business China does in the US... A nation with nuclear missles pointed at us 24/7? Don't you realize how utterly transparent and politically motivated this sounds? You want to start barring businesses from unsavory nations from doing business in the US? Great, but you've got a long list, and the UAE is pretty low on it.

Hmmm, I didn't know Prs. Bush owned 6 U.S. ports.


I do understand why this is and issue, but I don't understand why it is so alarming. We have ships from all sorts of countries coming into those ports. Inside the cargo holds of those ships are goods from all over the world. What difference could it make if this portion of the ownership of these ports moves from Great Britain to the UAE? How can it be an example of "America For Sale" if it isn't Americans who own it now?

The deal seems to be being reviewed by all the proper government departments. In a basically free market system the government needs to prove why this group of UAE investors shouldn't be able to by it from the British investors, not the other way around.

It looks like one of the other companies with interest in the ports is doing it's part to fight against the sale though.

"Firm Sues to Block Foreign Port Takeover" Link

We'll see how this one plays out.

We have ships from all sorts of countries coming into those ports. Inside the cargo holds of those ships are goods from all over the world.

And only about 2% of them are opened and inspected.

And only about 2% of them are opened and inspected.

Which has nothing to do with who operates the ports. I agree we have a problem of monumental proportions in screening incoming cargo, but it's a Customs resources issue, not a port operator issue. Sorry, but this kind of political demagoguery is unseemly.

I saw this coming years ago. With an ever deteriorating budget, bad spending practices and a few wars, liquidation was inevitable.

I say go for it.