Emirates PRINT FRIENDLY EMAIL STORY
The World Today - Monday, 20 February , 2006 12:22:00
Reporter: John Shovelan
ELEANOR HALL: The Bush administration is facing criticism from
Republicans and Democrats alike over its decision to allow an Arab
company to run six major US ports.

Senior Republican Senator, Lindsay Graham, says the decision to give
the United Arab Emirates' government-owned ports company control over
the operations of major ports in the United States was "unbelievably
tone deaf".

The UAE was used by some of the 9/11 terrorists as both an operational
and a financial base.

But administration officials say they did impose conditions on the UAE
company before approving the deal.

From Washington, John Shovelan reports.

JOHN SHOVELAN: After the London-based Peninsular and Oriental Steam
Navigation Company was bought last week by the Dubai Ports World, a
state-owned business from the United Arab Emirates, the Bush
administration had to examine the implications for national security.

The Secretary of Homeland Security, Michael Chertoff, said the
Government built in "certain conditions or requirements that the
company had to agree to".

But those conditions and requirements haven't been made public because
they're classified. But the Secretary said the administration was
satisfied with the company's response, and it could go ahead and
operate the important US ports.

MICHAEL CHERTOFF: You know, Richard Reid was British, he was going to
blow up an airliner, and we don't say the British can't buy companies
here.

We've built in and we will build in safeguards to make sure that these
kinds of things don't happen and, you know, this is part of the
balancing of security, which is our paramount concern, with a need to
still maintain a real robust global trading environment.

JOHN SHOVELAN: That approval has resulted in an alliance of
conservatives and liberals who want the deal overturned. Talk radio has
also begun to campaign for a reversal.

Martin O'Malley, the Mayor of Baltimore - one of the major ports which
will now be operated by the Arab company - called for the President to
intervene.

MARTIN O'MALLEY: Can we, as a country, take a gamble by allowing
another country to be in charge of our security? This is not Republican
or Democrat. This is about the safety of our country. We're going to
take this as far as we can, because our national security is at stake.

JOHN SHOVELAN: Respected Republican Senator Lindsay Graham says the
decision is out of touch.

LINDSAY GRAHAM: It's unbelievably tone deaf politically, at this point
in our history, four years after 9/11, to entertain the idea of turning
port security over to a company based in the UAE who avows to destroy
Israel.

So I'm not so sure it's the wisest political move we could've made.
Most Americans are scratching their head, wondering why this company
from this region now?

JOHN SHOVELAN: Californian Democrat Senator Barbara Boxer agreed.

BARBARA BOXER: It is ridiculous to say you're taking secret steps to
make sure that it's okay for a nation that had ties to 9/11 to take
over part of our port operations in many of our largest ports. This has
to stop.

We have to have American companies running our own ports. Our ports are
soft targets, we're very worried about them. Al-Qaeda has said if they
attack, that's one of the places they're looking. So this should be a
no-brainer.

JOHN SHOVELAN: In New York families of victims of the 9/11 attacks went
public to oppose the deal.

Members of Congress say the UAE was a staging post financially for some
of the 9/11 attackers and are concerned al-Qaeda could infiltrate the
company.

At least one congressional hearing is scheduled to examine the deal.

John Shovelan, Washington.
************************************************** *****************

CALL YOUR CONGRESSMAN TODAY!

Put a stop to this insanity!

Joe

Yeah, I heard about that when Shirt-off was on Meet the Press. He really
seems to be a weasel.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Joe" wrote in message
ups.com...
Emirates PRINT FRIENDLY EMAIL STORY
The World Today - Monday, 20 February , 2006 12:22:00
Reporter: John Shovelan
ELEANOR HALL: The Bush administration is facing criticism from
Republicans and Democrats alike over its decision to allow an Arab
company to run six major US ports.

Senior Republican Senator, Lindsay Graham, says the decision to give
the United Arab Emirates' government-owned ports company control over
the operations of major ports in the United States was "unbelievably
tone deaf".

The UAE was used by some of the 9/11 terrorists as both an operational
and a financial base.

But administration officials say they did impose conditions on the UAE
company before approving the deal.

From Washington, John Shovelan reports.

JOHN SHOVELAN: After the London-based Peninsular and Oriental Steam
Navigation Company was bought last week by the Dubai Ports World, a
state-owned business from the United Arab Emirates, the Bush
administration had to examine the implications for national security.

The Secretary of Homeland Security, Michael Chertoff, said the
Government built in "certain conditions or requirements that the
company had to agree to".

But those conditions and requirements haven't been made public because
they're classified. But the Secretary said the administration was
satisfied with the company's response, and it could go ahead and
operate the important US ports.

MICHAEL CHERTOFF: You know, Richard Reid was British, he was going to
blow up an airliner, and we don't say the British can't buy companies
here.

We've built in and we will build in safeguards to make sure that these
kinds of things don't happen and, you know, this is part of the
balancing of security, which is our paramount concern, with a need to
still maintain a real robust global trading environment.

JOHN SHOVELAN: That approval has resulted in an alliance of
conservatives and liberals who want the deal overturned. Talk radio has
also begun to campaign for a reversal.

Martin O'Malley, the Mayor of Baltimore - one of the major ports which
will now be operated by the Arab company - called for the President to
intervene.

MARTIN O'MALLEY: Can we, as a country, take a gamble by allowing
another country to be in charge of our security? This is not Republican
or Democrat. This is about the safety of our country. We're going to
take this as far as we can, because our national security is at stake.

JOHN SHOVELAN: Respected Republican Senator Lindsay Graham says the
decision is out of touch.

LINDSAY GRAHAM: It's unbelievably tone deaf politically, at this point
in our history, four years after 9/11, to entertain the idea of turning
port security over to a company based in the UAE who avows to destroy
Israel.

So I'm not so sure it's the wisest political move we could've made.
Most Americans are scratching their head, wondering why this company
from this region now?

JOHN SHOVELAN: Californian Democrat Senator Barbara Boxer agreed.

BARBARA BOXER: It is ridiculous to say you're taking secret steps to
make sure that it's okay for a nation that had ties to 9/11 to take
over part of our port operations in many of our largest ports. This has
to stop.

We have to have American companies running our own ports. Our ports are
soft targets, we're very worried about them. Al-Qaeda has said if they
attack, that's one of the places they're looking. So this should be a
no-brainer.

JOHN SHOVELAN: In New York families of victims of the 9/11 attacks went
public to oppose the deal.

Members of Congress say the UAE was a staging post financially for some
of the 9/11 attackers and are concerned al-Qaeda could infiltrate the
company.

At least one congressional hearing is scheduled to examine the deal.

John Shovelan, Washington.
************************************************** *****************

CALL YOUR CONGRESSMAN TODAY!

Put a stop to this insanity!

Joe

DID YOU KNOW BILL CLINTON SIGNED THE LEGISLATION THAT MADE FORIEGN OPERATION
OF PORTS LEGAL?

NOW HILLARY OPPOSES IT!!!!!!!

Cronyism:

DP WORLD EXECUTIVE NOMINATED FOR PRESITIGOUS US GOVT POSITION

Dubai, 24 January 2006: - Global ports operator DP World today welcomed news
that one of its senior executives, Dave Sanborn, has been nominated by US
President George W. Bush to serve as Maritime Administrator a key
transportation appointment reporting directly to Norman Mineta the Secretary
of Transportation and Cabinet Member.

The White House has issued a statement from Washington DC announcing the
nomination. The confirmation process will begin in February.

Mr Sanborn currently holds the position of Director of Operations for Europe
and Latin America for the Dubai-based company

Mohammed Sharaf, CEO, DP World said:
"While we are sorry to lose such an experienced and capable executive, it is
exactly those qualities that will make Dave an effective administrator for
MarAd. We are proud of Dave's selection and pleased that the Bush
Administration found such a capable executive. We wish him all the best in
his new role."





"Joe" wrote in message
ups.com...
Emirates PRINT FRIENDLY EMAIL STORY
The World Today - Monday, 20 February , 2006 12:22:00
Reporter: John Shovelan
ELEANOR HALL: The Bush administration is facing criticism from
Republicans and Democrats alike over its decision to allow an Arab
company to run six major US ports.

Senior Republican Senator, Lindsay Graham, says the decision to give
the United Arab Emirates' government-owned ports company control over
the operations of major ports in the United States was "unbelievably
tone deaf".

The UAE was used by some of the 9/11 terrorists as both an operational
and a financial base.

But administration officials say they did impose conditions on the UAE
company before approving the deal.

From Washington, John Shovelan reports.

JOHN SHOVELAN: After the London-based Peninsular and Oriental Steam
Navigation Company was bought last week by the Dubai Ports World, a
state-owned business from the United Arab Emirates, the Bush
administration had to examine the implications for national security.

The Secretary of Homeland Security, Michael Chertoff, said the
Government built in "certain conditions or requirements that the
company had to agree to".

But those conditions and requirements haven't been made public because
they're classified. But the Secretary said the administration was
satisfied with the company's response, and it could go ahead and
operate the important US ports.

MICHAEL CHERTOFF: You know, Richard Reid was British, he was going to
blow up an airliner, and we don't say the British can't buy companies
here.

We've built in and we will build in safeguards to make sure that these
kinds of things don't happen and, you know, this is part of the
balancing of security, which is our paramount concern, with a need to
still maintain a real robust global trading environment.

JOHN SHOVELAN: That approval has resulted in an alliance of
conservatives and liberals who want the deal overturned. Talk radio has
also begun to campaign for a reversal.

Martin O'Malley, the Mayor of Baltimore - one of the major ports which
will now be operated by the Arab company - called for the President to
intervene.

MARTIN O'MALLEY: Can we, as a country, take a gamble by allowing
another country to be in charge of our security? This is not Republican
or Democrat. This is about the safety of our country. We're going to
take this as far as we can, because our national security is at stake.

JOHN SHOVELAN: Respected Republican Senator Lindsay Graham says the
decision is out of touch.

LINDSAY GRAHAM: It's unbelievably tone deaf politically, at this point
in our history, four years after 9/11, to entertain the idea of turning
port security over to a company based in the UAE who avows to destroy
Israel.

So I'm not so sure it's the wisest political move we could've made.
Most Americans are scratching their head, wondering why this company
from this region now?

JOHN SHOVELAN: Californian Democrat Senator Barbara Boxer agreed.

BARBARA BOXER: It is ridiculous to say you're taking secret steps to
make sure that it's okay for a nation that had ties to 9/11 to take
over part of our port operations in many of our largest ports. This has
to stop.

We have to have American companies running our own ports. Our ports are
soft targets, we're very worried about them. Al-Qaeda has said if they
attack, that's one of the places they're looking. So this should be a
no-brainer.

JOHN SHOVELAN: In New York families of victims of the 9/11 attacks went
public to oppose the deal.

Members of Congress say the UAE was a staging post financially for some
of the 9/11 attackers and are concerned al-Qaeda could infiltrate the
company.

At least one congressional hearing is scheduled to examine the deal.

John Shovelan, Washington.
************************************************** *****************

CALL YOUR CONGRESSMAN TODAY!

Put a stop to this insanity!

Joe

Too Bad Al Capone could not have been apointed head of FBI .
OK thats my opinion of Arabs running our ports.
Richard

DID YOU KNOW BILL CLINTON SIGNED THE LEGISLATION THAT MADE FORIEGN
OPERATION
OF PORTS LEGAL?

NOW HILLARY OPPOSES IT!!!!!!!


Making it "legal" has nothing to do with actually letting it occur. To
make it illegal is clearly wrong, but to allow this now with our
current problems is bordering on treacherous. Bush has been a traitor
since before the 9/11 attacks and lying to America and starting a false
war.

Bin Laden still free and making home videos after his easy attack on US
soil, NO WMDs in a country with no relation to Bin Laden's, many
freshly dead Americans for a useless war that will come to nothing.

Bush WILL be brought up on criminal charges within 24 months. He will
be charged with treason and murder and rightly so.



RB
35s5
NY

Do you think Bin Laden's video system is as good as yours?

Amen!


"Capt. Rob" wrote in message
oups.com...
DID YOU KNOW BILL CLINTON SIGNED THE LEGISLATION THAT MADE FORIEGN
OPERATION
OF PORTS LEGAL?

NOW HILLARY OPPOSES IT!!!!!!!


Making it "legal" has nothing to do with actually letting it occur. To
make it illegal is clearly wrong, but to allow this now with our
current problems is bordering on treacherous. Bush has been a traitor
since before the 9/11 attacks and lying to America and starting a false
war.

Bin Laden still free and making home videos after his easy attack on US
soil, NO WMDs in a country with no relation to Bin Laden's, many
freshly dead Americans for a useless war that will come to nothing.

Bush WILL be brought up on criminal charges within 24 months. He will
be charged with treason and murder and rightly so.



RB
35s5
NY

Do you think Bin Laden's video system is as good as yours?

Bin Laden's been using a Sony 3 chip camera of one type or another for
some time now. The last one I could make out in one of the released
stills looked like it was a 150 series camera costing about 4K. That's
a better video camera than I currently own. Bin Laden is both wealthy
and free. The very idea that anyone is hunting him is plain silly.


RB
35s5
NY

Indeed. Bush said yesterday "We should be working to broaden our
partnership in the broader war on terrorism."
And I agree, but not putting arabs in any area that has anything risk
what so ever to the USA. Let them buy up some more 7-11's or something.
I'm even OK with a chain of King Tut, or Abaulla Bob's gas (petrol)
stations. But somethings stinks with this port deal.

Joe

Bin Laden is protected, not hunted. How much do you think the enthusiam for
the war on terror would wane if OBL was killed?


"Capt. Rob" wrote in message
oups.com...
Do you think Bin Laden's video system is as good as yours?

Bin Laden's been using a Sony 3 chip camera of one type or another for
some time now. The last one I could make out in one of the released
stills looked like it was a 150 series camera costing about 4K. That's
a better video camera than I currently own. Bin Laden is both wealthy
and free. The very idea that anyone is hunting him is plain silly.


RB
35s5
NY