Dubai deal had Coast Guard at sea - pol



BY KENNETH R. BAZINET and MICHAEL McAULIFF
DAILY NEWS WASHINGTON BUREAU

WASHINGTON - The Coast Guard feared it didn't have enough intel to
decide whether Dubai's purchase of U.S. port operations posed a
terrorist threat to the nation, a Republican senator revealed
yesterday.
"There are many intelligence gaps, concerning the potential for DPW
[Dubai Ports World] or P&O [Peninsular and Oriental] assets to support
terrorist operations, that precludes an overall threat assessment,"
says a Coast Guard memo released by Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine).

Collins revealed the contents of the declassified memo at a Senate
homeland security hearing as the White House hinted it could kill any
legislation aimed at stopping Dubai Ports World from buying facilities
now run by England's P&O ports.

The Coast Guard last night said the document Collins cited was written
early in its initial review and does not reflect the final, classified
analysis.

"This transaction, when taking into account strong security assurances
by DP World, does not compromise U.S. security," a Coast Guard
spokesman, Commander Jeff Carter, said in a statement.

After Collins made her disclosure yesterday, the Coast Guard gave her
and other senators a briefing behind closed doors on its classified
report. But when Collins emerged, she wasn't satisfied by what she
heard.

"I am more convinced than ever that the process was truly flawed," said
Collins.

Rep. Pete King (R-L.I.), her counterpart on the House Homeland Security
Committee, scoffed at the White House's new probe of the port deal.
"They seem to be interpreting 'investigation' as an opportunity to
educate us," he said. "It's a very condescending position."

The latest developments came as the White House showed signs of getting
on top of the furor over the deal, with DP World's agreement over the
weekend to a retroactive 45-day investigation of its purchase.

That news prompted Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) to
soften his stance on the deal after first threatening to deep-six it
with legislation. The White House believes that threat is all but dead.

"Sen. Frist has said that he will ask the Senate to hold off on
legislation," said White House spokesman Scott McClellan.

A source confirmed the administration believes Frist will stop any
bills from coming to a vote, such as a bipartisan measure introduced
yesterday by Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.).

Yeah, I just heard this last night. My question is why did Bush lie about it
when he said everyone was aboard with the plan? Or, was he misinformed,
dumb, or making things up... it just makes no sense. Even Rove would know
that this would come out quickly.

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

"Joe" wrote in message
oups.com...

Dubai deal had Coast Guard at sea - pol



BY KENNETH R. BAZINET and MICHAEL McAULIFF
DAILY NEWS WASHINGTON BUREAU

WASHINGTON - The Coast Guard feared it didn't have enough intel to
decide whether Dubai's purchase of U.S. port operations posed a
terrorist threat to the nation, a Republican senator revealed
yesterday.
"There are many intelligence gaps, concerning the potential for DPW
[Dubai Ports World] or P&O [Peninsular and Oriental] assets to support
terrorist operations, that precludes an overall threat assessment,"
says a Coast Guard memo released by Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine).

Collins revealed the contents of the declassified memo at a Senate
homeland security hearing as the White House hinted it could kill any
legislation aimed at stopping Dubai Ports World from buying facilities
now run by England's P&O ports.

The Coast Guard last night said the document Collins cited was written
early in its initial review and does not reflect the final, classified
analysis.

"This transaction, when taking into account strong security assurances
by DP World, does not compromise U.S. security," a Coast Guard
spokesman, Commander Jeff Carter, said in a statement.

After Collins made her disclosure yesterday, the Coast Guard gave her
and other senators a briefing behind closed doors on its classified
report. But when Collins emerged, she wasn't satisfied by what she
heard.

"I am more convinced than ever that the process was truly flawed," said
Collins.

Rep. Pete King (R-L.I.), her counterpart on the House Homeland Security
Committee, scoffed at the White House's new probe of the port deal.
"They seem to be interpreting 'investigation' as an opportunity to
educate us," he said. "It's a very condescending position."

The latest developments came as the White House showed signs of getting
on top of the furor over the deal, with DP World's agreement over the
weekend to a retroactive 45-day investigation of its purchase.

That news prompted Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) to
soften his stance on the deal after first threatening to deep-six it
with legislation. The White House believes that threat is all but dead.

"Sen. Frist has said that he will ask the Senate to hold off on
legislation," said White House spokesman Scott McClellan.

A source confirmed the administration believes Frist will stop any
bills from coming to a vote, such as a bipartisan measure introduced
yesterday by Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.).

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
Yeah, I just heard this last night. My question is why did Bush lie about
it when he said everyone was aboard with the plan? Or, was he misinformed,
dumb, or making things up... it just makes no sense. Even Rove would know
that this would come out quickly.

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

Arrogance. Rove is probably the most arrogant of the bunch.

John Cairns

Probably true, but that didn't address my questions.

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

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 08:28:36 -0800, "Capt. JG"
said:

Yeah, I just heard this last night. My question is why did Bush lie about
it
when he said everyone was aboard with the plan? Or, was he misinformed,
dumb, or making things up... it just makes no sense. Even Rove would know
that this would come out quickly.

I suspect we have here another instance of what we're seeing a lot of
lately--the bureaucrat who voices his views in the process of an agency's
reaching its final conclusion, doesn't prevail in the final analysis, and
decides to take his views to the press. It should definitely not be a
career-enhancing move for the leaking bureaucrat.

Apparently, they are so silly that the deal has been scuttled at least for
the time being.

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

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 17:19:00 -0800, "Capt. JG"
said:

Probably true, but that didn't address my questions.

That's because they were silly questions. Only in your mind does saying
that
all of the departments were in agreement mean that no one in the whole
process of evaluation expressed any reservations. Only in your own mind
would the guy at the top be aware of the individual views of every
bureaucrat who had any input to the decision.

"Capt. JG" wrote
...... My question is why did Bush lie about it .....

Politicians react differently than other people. If I ask -say- your age, your
first response is likely the truth. That's so common that police and courts put
more faith in it (Raes Gestae (sp?) evidence) than other testimony. With
sociopaths like Bush just the opposite is true - their first instinct is to lie.
Oddly, we all know this yet our own tendency toward honesty misleads us into
believing them. Think about it. Given the man's track record of whoppers why
do we expect anything but lies?

"Capt. JG" wrote
...... My question is why did Bush lie about it .....


Vito wrote:
Politicians react differently than other people. If I ask -say- your age, your
first response is likely the truth. That's so common that police and courts put
more faith in it (Raes Gestae (sp?) evidence) than other testimony. With
sociopaths like Bush just the opposite is true - their first instinct is to lie.

I disagree strongly. I don't think President Bush lies
deliberately at all. It's more like what you get if you ask
a precocious 5 year old to solve a calculus equation.

One key point is that Bush *believes* what he's saying. I'm
sure he honestly did think that Saddam's WMD's were the
biggest threat to America. He is at the mercy of his
advisors & what they tell him.

I'm equally sure that he thought his energy policy from 2000
to 2005 was the best thing for America, and sees no
contradiction at all with his statements on energy policy
for 2006 (which sounded like an Al Gore speech from 1999).



Oddly, we all know this yet our own tendency toward honesty misleads us into
believing them. Think about it. Given the man's track record of whoppers why
do we expect anything but lies?


It's not the first time we have had a President who was
largely a figurehead. It's not the first time we have had a
President who was a figurehead for rapacious profiteers.
However, it is the first time (that I know of) we have been
in such a position politically, economically, militarily,
all at once. Bad luck?

DSK

DSK wrote:
It's not the first time we have had a President who was
largely a figurehead. It's not the first time we have had a
President who was a figurehead for rapacious profiteers.

Yeah, but certainly not since WWII and probably not since the 19th
century. I don't think Harding was this bad.

However, it is the first time (that I know of) we have been
in such a position politically, economically, militarily,
all at once. Bad luck?

Criminal negligance on the part of the Silent, Boomer, and post Boomer
generations, namely most of the people born from 1925 to the early
80's. Never have there been so many Americans with their collective
heads up their collective asses.

My Silent generation parents have done what they do best, remaining
silent. My Dad said point blank that he didn't want to know what was
going on. Doesn't prevent them from stating the most idiot ignorance
based opinions possible. Boomers have been incredibly narrowly focused
on their own pet issues to the exclusion of all else, particularly the
right wing 'christians' and their dream of an American theocracy. Post
boomers have done what the Lost generation and all other previous post
Boomer-type generations have done: concentrate on surviving day to day
and trying not to think about the future.

Carter was a lot of things, many of which I disliked, but he wasn't a
puppet.

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

"katy" wrote in message
...
wrote:
DSK wrote:

It's not the first time we have had a President who was
largely a figurehead. It's not the first time we have had a
President who was a figurehead for rapacious profiteers.


You obviously don't remember Jimmy Carter....the puppet Presidnet....
Yeah, but certainly not since WWII and probably not since the 19th
century. I don't think Harding was this bad.


However, it is the first time (that I know of) we have been
in such a position politically, economically, militarily,
all at once. Bad luck?


Criminal negligance on the part of the Silent, Boomer, and post Boomer
generations, namely most of the people born from 1925 to the early
80's. Never have there been so many Americans with their collective
heads up their collective asses.

I disagree with that entirely...those people you speak of are responsible
for the civil rights movement, great scientific gains, and overall
progress....

My Silent generation parents have done what they do best, remaining
silent. My Dad said point blank that he didn't want to know what was
going on. Doesn't prevent them from stating the most idiot ignorance
based opinions possible. Boomers have been incredibly narrowly focused
on their own pet issues to the exclusion of all else, particularly the
right wing 'christians' and their dream of an American theocracy. Post
boomers have done what the Lost generation and all other previous post
Boomer-type generations have done: concentrate on surviving day to day
and trying not to think about the future.

Ah, spoiled brat syndrome. The Boomers were the first to have the guts to
stand up and have their say about a war they felt was unjust. It was a
Boomer who put that computer on your desk and made the technology to send
your post. Justg because you ahve a dad that doesn't want involvement
does not mean that the segment of society that you emntion is the same
way. They aren't. They are the people who raised you, established a
value system for you, and made sure you grew up to be able to have an
opinion of your own. If you post here, you will see that Boomers have
varied opinions. On this list alone we have traditional conservatice,
moderates, liberals, and liberatarians. Very few are unread or
unilluminated about what goes on in this world. Making vast overstatement
is a sign of youth. You'll get over it when you grow up.

katysails wrote:
You obviously don't remember Jimmy Carter....the puppet Presidnet....


???
I do remember Carter as President (in fact it doesn't seem
that long ago). Whose puppet was he?

What I recall of President Carter's political maneuvering is
that he consistently tried to do what would be best in the
long run, and as a result consistently alienated just about
everybody. His whole philosophy was the President should not
work for the benefit of special interest groups.

Sounds great in theory, didn't work so well in practice
(partly, I think, because of Carter's personality).


Criminal negligance on the part of the Silent, Boomer, and post Boomer
generations, namely most of the people born from 1925 to the early
80's. Never have there been so many Americans with their collective
heads up their collective asses.


I disagree with that entirely...those people you speak of are
responsible for the civil rights movement, great scientific gains, and
overall progress....


I think he meant now, not then.

DSK