Reports on Bush administration review of UAE port deal failed to mention Rumsfeld "just heard about this over the weekend"
SUMMARY: In detailing the evaluation process the Bush administration purportedly undertook before agreeing to permit a company owned by the government of the United Arab Emirates (UAE) to manage port terminals in six major U.S. cities, several media outlets reported that the administration approved of the deal only after a thorough review by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS). But none of the reports noted the glaring inconsistency in the administration's account: that Donald Rumsfeld, a key member of CFIUS, acknowledged in a February 21 press conference that he possessed "minimal information" about the deal because he had "just heard about this over the weekend."
In detailing the evaluation process the Bush administration purportedly undertook before agreeing to permit a company owned by the government of the United Arab Emirates (UAE) to manage port terminals in six major U.S. cities, major media outlets -- including The New York Times, The Washington Post, and the Los Angeles Times -- reported that the administration approved the deal only after a thorough review by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS). The Post further reported that Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld persuaded Sen. John Warner (R-VA) that "the proper procedures were followed" in evaluating the deal. But none of the reports noted a glaring inconsistency in the administration's account, highlighted by the weblog Think Progress: that Rumsfeld, a key member of CFIUS, and one to whom national security considerations would presumably be highly relevant, acknowledged in a February 21 press conference that he possessed "minimal information" about the deal because he had "just heard about this over the weekend."
It follows, then, that none of those reports raised the question of how the CFIUS could have signed off on the deal if at least one of its members had never heard of it.
The CFIUS was frequently cited in news accounts as the key component of the Bush administration's review of the deal with UAE-owned company Dubai Ports World. For example, The New York Times reported on February 22:
The administration's review of the deal was conducted by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, a body that was created in 1975 to review foreign investments in the country that could affect national security. Under that review, officials from the Defense, State, Commerce and Transportation Departments, along with the National Security Council and other agencies, were charged with raising questions and passing judgment. They found no problems to warrant the next stage of review, a 45-day investigation with results reported to the president for a final decision.
A February 22 article in the Los Angeles Times similarly noted that the CFIUS had "approved" the deal. Moreover, a Post editorial that day cited CFIUS approval of the deal to completely dismiss concerns about the agreement raised by both Democrats and Republicans:
None of the U.S. politicians huffing and puffing seem to be aware that this deal was long in the making, that it had been reported on extensively in the financial press, and that it went through normal security clearance procedures, including approval from a foreign investment committee that contains officials from the departments of Treasury, Commerce, State and Homeland Security, among other agencies.
A February 22 Post news report went even further, reporting not only that the deal had "passed muster" with the CFIUS, but that after Rumsfeld had briefed Warner, "The senator said he was satisfied that proper procedures were followed on the deal."
But despite highlighting the committee's approval to downplay concerns about the deal, none of the reports noted a glaring revelation that appears to undermine the administration's claim that CFIUS thoroughly vetted the agreement's national security implications: Rumsfeld, one of the few members of CFIUS whose position is directly related to national security issues, said in a February 21 press conference that he didn't know enough about the deal to "make judgments" about whether it would threaten national security, because he had only learned of the deal "over the weekend." The Post report made no mention of Rumsfeld's acknowledgment even while reporting that Rumsfeld had satisfied Warner that the deal had been properly evaluated.
From the February 21 Department of Defense press conference with Rumsfeld and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Peter Pace:
RUMSFELD: I should add that I wasn't aware of this until this weekend, as I think is the case with Pete.
PACE: That's correct, sir, on the port --
RUMSFELD: Yeah. And I'm told that Deputy Secretary of Treasury [Robert M.] Kimmitt and others will be briefing on this, who do have the background of the discussions and the information on it.
REPORTER: There was a Defense Department representative in the decision-making process? Is that what you're --
RUMSFELD: There were Defense Department and -- I think as I said, there were six departments that were involved in the process in one way or another, and the Defense Department was one of them. The lead was the Department of Homeland Security.
REPORTER: Are you confident that any problems with security -- from what you know, are you confident that any problems with security would not be greater with a UAE company running this than an American company?
RUMSFELD: I am reluctant to make judgments based on the minimal amount of information I have, because I just heard about this over the weekend.
Our Secretary of Defense, the leader of this purported "war on terror", had just heard about this??? Pitiful.
Who's making these deals? Why on earth would we want a government-run UAE company in charge of our port security? Does this make sense to anyone?
And, spare us McClellan's bit about "trust"... why don't we just give them the keys to the White House while we're at it.
Let's see Bush didn't know, Rummy didn't know...
Jeter, Don't forget that Rummy is not told about every decision made by the under secretaries and such. I know you may think, "heck, this is the UAE" but then again we do make regular port visits there. They are allies and all just like the UK. Those ports are currently run by a UK company. I am all for this deal being checked and double checked but lets not get crazy about what exactly is happening here.
That argument doesn't work here. This wasn't a decision about what brand of pencil to order or whether to have turkey pot pie in the DOD commissary. Rummy was on the CFUIS. Either he did know about the deal, which means he's lying, or he didn't, which means he's not doing his job. There's no way to spin out of that.
If, as you say, Bush was just recently informed of this port deal, then why is he so adamant in defending it? He just promised he would veto anything Congress did about it.
then what are the morning staff meetings for ? to figure out where to go hunting quail ??????
It is unreal how many problems/controvercies are coming out of this administration. Rumsfield...NOT KNOWING about this NATIONAL SECURITY issue?!!?? I can already hear the pr people now...'It was the job of the OTHER department to do blah-blah-blah... With so much oversight, Rumsfield didn't NEED to know all the particulars...WHAT?! Attack free enterprise and global capitalism?!? You must be with Al-Quida!'
Also, I haven't read too many financial papers recently, but in the past I have heard nor read any mention of this deal being brokered. Anyone else hear of this before this weekend?
Please, don't take my G00gLe away.
[link to www.defenselink.mil]
[link to www.treasury.gov]
Scott Mc-Laugh-lan just said the White House carefully studied the port issue but president Bush claims he just heard of the deal. Hmmmmmmmmm are these guys in the same planet ???
Tomorrow the pentagon comes out with a spin job claiming Rummy knew sll about this plan bit simply hadn't heard it had been "finalized" until this weekend.
the lousy spelling. Got in a hurry.
of the bush administration. the secretary of defense, that's right the guy in charge of....defense, hadn't heard about this. especially after the points that the 9-11 commission made about our inadequate port security recently. don't worry though, the homeland security dept is on the job. the same idiots who can't catch a clue. just watching some of wolf blitzer. almost the whole show was adopting the administration line on this. the only critic, some republican congressman, didn't get a whole lot of time.
Maybe Bush should spend less time riding his bike and more time paying attention to the things that are really important - our security! I am so sick and tired of the Right Wing telling us that the Left is soft on National Security while they sell our ports, open our borders, provide sub par amor and military equipment to our soldiers. The next time some Right Wing nut job tries to tell me that I only have "Pre 911 thinking" I'm just going to smile and say " got any ports to sell!"
"Pre-9/11 thinking" is a vague, emotionally-charged buzzphrase that is intended to depict anyone who engages in rational discussion of a subect as foolish, to cover the other side's weak arguments. We see it all the time from conservative posters here. See also "cut and run," "culture of life," "war on terror," etc. etc. etc. Or just listen to a WH "press conference" if you can stand hearing McClellan lie over and over again.
Here are just a couple of aspects to this whole 9-11/pre 9-11 rationale:
1. Conservatives mock supposed pre 9-11 thinking in order to inocculate people to the idea of perpetual war.
2. 9-11 is the catchall pretext for conservatives in the government so they explain away any failure or self-servingly suspend the normal rules indefinitely until the world "returns to normal" (which they hope never happens). This allows conservatives to ostensibly defend their reprehensible actions by claiming we are at war and those actions were necessary. Any challenge is met with charges of collaborating with the enemy or treason of some sort.
Here's another good one by Treasury Secretary John Snow, "...failure to complete the transaction would send the wrong message overseas... The implications of failing to approve this would be to tell the world that investments in the United States from certain parts of the world aren't welcome..."
DO YOU HEAR THAT OSAMA? YOU AND YOUR TERRORIST FRIENDS ARE FREE TO INVEST IN U.S. SECURITY FIRMS THAT PROTECT OUR NUCLEAR POWER AND CHEMICAL PLANTS!
Ahhhh, I feel safer already! That's because it's not the Nomeland Insecurity Agency who are in charge of our protection. Outsourcing, made in the USA!
Do you not understand how this government of ours is supposed to work? Or are you to busy learning your Civics info from Fox Opinion?
Yes, the under-secrataries do most of the leg work (i.e. the meetings, the group forums, the paying off, the sucking up)
But I can assure you that at no time could an under-secratary make a decision like this on his own! Or any kind of decision and certainly couldn't implement them even if he wanted too!
If Rumsfield didn't know about this like he claims - then it only shows another example of the incompetance of this group that people like you voted in.....again!!
Congrats on doing this country a disservice by re-electing these a$$clowns......
Ironic that Karl Rove once said that we liberals live in a pre-9/11 world and repubs/conservatives live in a post-9/11 world.....
It is and has been since 9/11 the liberals that have spoken of going after the terrorist the right way.....follow the money stupid!!
Bush & Co (Fox Opinion included) have gone so completely out of their way to lie and distort reality that they can't all even keep up with all their lies and keep their stories straight!
They used to be real good at it...... but now their days are numbered.......but I worry that for some like you BEN it may be to late to see the light!!
Perhaps not though.....the founder of this site....David Brock is an exception to that rule!
But to equate a UAE government run company to that of one run by our best foreign friend (ENGLAND) as equal ALLIES in trust and honor....... defies even a right-wingers logic!
When will you regular Joe-conservatives take back your personal beliefs and stop allowing these (f)uck$ to destroy and hijack the way the world is shown to us?
Sorry to burst your bubble.....but it isn't as easy as Black & White......and no...I'm not saying that being a progressive liberal (like me) is the right answer (though I believe it is) but if you would stop following blindly and actually attempt to read between their lies.....you might actually come to your senses!!
The reasons for invading Iraq (WMD's...What WMD's!) Terrorism (namely....where it originated from?) USAPATRIOT Act I (Nothing gets the blood boiling more than a law that sounds that good that claims to protect us but basically says "screw you and the constitution" and how many people still defend this one?) The Environment (Texas was like 14th dirtist in the USA in 1994.....in 2000 when Bush went to DC.....it was dead last...way to go!!) Corporations (Enron, WorldCom, Adelphia, Tyco) SocSec (Need I say more) Education (NCLB.......where 8 out 10 children are left behind...whoo hoo!! Dick Cheney shot a guy (from 30 yards....no 30 feet...no..it was the victims fault.....) Jack Abramoff (Ok then......and no...not one dem took or got his dirty money...though some are real happy they didn't!) Tom Delay & San Diego "Duke" (Can't think of his last name) ((How many more will fall?) Lets not forget.....(the days leading up to and just after 9/11 and all the not so public details on it)
I could go on.......but I doubt to many Bush lovin' right-wingers have made it this far in my post...so whats the point!
First of all I did not vote for Bush so you were wrong there, people like me did not vote him in.
You don't seem to understand what exactly a port operator does. They unload and load ships and put the cargo on trucks. Firm A (from UK) used to do it and now Firm B (from UAE) will do it. CJCS and Sec Def don't really monitor that sort of transaction as it is not something that is would normally reach that level of interest.
As far as me seeing the light, lets examine the deal and let the light shine. This is a company that runs ports around the world. Your attitude reminds me of the individuals in "Rising Sun" that could not stomach the Japanese having defense contracts even though the Germans and French had such. Your racism is showing.
As far as the rant there at the end, wow. I hope you get the help you need.
...firm a the british company is unlikely to have al qaeda sympathizers, while firm b the uae firm is owned by a government known to have bin ladin adherents among it's royal family. there is a definite difference. i'm sure there will be people from the company allowed entrance at our ports, and it's hard to read minds and intentions. i don't care to take the chance particularly since one of the biggest threats that has been identified is someone bringing a nuclear "dirty bomb" into this country. not to mention our homeland security dept is as clueless as the rest of this administration.
...Brits, Indians and an Aussie. Now why would Ted Bilkey, DP World's COO and a US citizen, be any less concerned about security than his British counter-part at P&O Ports? Why should the US Coast Guard be any less vigilant with security at DP World operated ports, than say US ports operated by Singapore? We do have a security issue at US ports, but that has more to do with the inept management of the Bush administration than with who owns the ports.
CD
We do have a security issue at US ports, but that has more to do with the inept management of the Bush administration than with who owns the ports.
Amen. Here we are after enduring four years of 9/11 tough talk from this administration, and yet a nuclear weapon shipped into the U.S. in a cargo container still has a 95% chance of making it into the country undetected. The ports are America's soft underbelly, and it's amazing they haven't been exploited yet (if, in fact, they haven't). But by gum I have to take my shoes off in the airport. Priorities, anybody?
I worked on ships military and maritime for the first decade of my teen & adult life. I have worked with longshoremen in off loading of cargo in many ports on both shores. I am not an expert on port security, yet, the origin of cargo from a port the likes of Dubai is beyond the pale of national security sanity. Having Dubai as a begining manifest of cargo, is like trusting the demons from hell will do no evil should we just let them amoung us.
A smugglers & terrorist paradise at this point, that operates under the protection of American Naval Security, trades in un-traceable gold, while laundering money for many illegal enterprises in the world. A nation notorious for Slave Trading, Indentured Servitude, and is such a corrupt society that most of it’s actual residents don’t come from their country, or even the Arab Pennisula.
The overwhelming number of residents, whom are not citizens, and have little more rights than a disposable beer can, live in a repressive, cruel servitude that gives slavery a bad name. They trade in humans like they trade in camels, and value camels far more than the foriegnors they rely on for just about every chore, service, and function of their society. These are our loyal allies in the War on Terror??
Do we need the U.A.E to consent to letting us use their ports? Do we need their money so bad we’ll sell them anything to apease them?? I want to know how a Dubai own cargo ship, of oil tanker may sail unmolested throughout the world without American Naval protection?? Why do we need to placate to these people at all??
The thing we need to be afraid of most is the policies, and consequences of the Neo-Con agenda whom disregards with what their skeems for power has and will cost our nation for generations to come.
Forgetting the USS Cole, and 18 dead sailors, anybody whom ever had the displeasure, of visiting the Yemeni’s, or the U.A.E. ports realize there is an insanity to the idea our security will be assured by a cruel, backward, and criminal state. A country found of stupid oil-rich emir’s with strong sympathies with the Taliban, and Osama Bin Laden, as well as fielding two of the the 19 highjackers while funding the attack should own the operations of 6 of our eastern shipping ports.
If that doesn’t sizzle your mustache, tell me why the President thinks nuclear proliferation around the world is the greatest threat, while facilitating the very country caught red handed smuggling nuclear technology and components for A.Q. Khan?
This in the face the ‘Pre vs Post 9-11’ campaign rolled out by Turd Blossom. When did Karl become a geopolitical strategist? Why should Karl have any credentials on the subject at all?? His military experience?? His intelligence community experience?? His many years in the foreign service?? What?? His expertise in winning elections should keep us secure???
Wake up Republicans, if you believe in a strong, proud, honorable, and secure American Democracy, and free enterprise, how on earth could you in good conscience vote for a Republican being lead by the nose by a Turd Blossum???
DO THE RIGHT THING, BE A GOOD REPUBLICAN, SAVE AMERICAN DEMOCRACY, AND VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT IN ’06!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
"Wake up Republicans, if you believe in a strong, proud, honorable, and secure American Democracy, and free enterprise, how on earth could you in good conscience vote for a Republican being lead by the nose by a Turd Blossum???"
The "Conservatives" also turned on Reagan when he "negotiated" with Gorbachov. Reagan turned out to be right, helping "our winning" the Cold War by simply opening up ties and dialog with Russia as much as anything else.
I think Bush will go down in history as the worst President ever, but I am siding with him on this port issue, as the only argument against UAE is that of fear and racism, not of LOGIC.
They did not know about the possibility of planes being used as weapons, they did not get the WMD memo, New Orleans and Katrina had to hear it on the news, and now this did not know. What in the name of all that is holy is in the daily briefing papers for these guy word jumbles, find Waldo scenes, or just blank doodling pages. I am mystified please if someone has access to these papers send me one -- I want to know. And don't worry about national security because obiviously nothing is in them!!!!!!!!!
I've always known that Duhbya was in bed with those stinking, smelly, greasy, beard lice-infested Arabs.
Gee, What a typically American bigotted thing to say?
Hey, since we are bring Democracy to Iraq, wouldn't it be OKAY for Iraqi companies to start buying bit of America too?
So many other countries have been buying bits of American properties and operations for DECADES! Many, many many! For DECADES.
And only NOW, when it's an ARAB country, America gets upset??!?!??!!?!??!?!?!?!??!?!?!??!?
And why do so many in the Middle East hate us?
Certainly there is a religious fundamental movement from Islamisists that is horribly wrong! But, one must understand how America (and Americans) treat and have treated those "filthy Arabs" for DECADES.
Exactly which post are you commenting on? Your post reads as if you are commenting on two different ones ....
First, I didn't even mention about port operators? So why are you bringing them up?
Second, Where within my post do you see any form of racism? It's simple logic that dictates that a country like UAE is in a position to NOT BE TRUSTED no matter how much they have helped us in the "War on Terror"......
Most of the leaders of that country are the same ones from the 9/11 days that were found to have sent money to the 9/11 terrorists of that faithful day (not to mention two of them were from there!). Same with Saudi Arabia! As I said in the other post.....Follow the money stupid!!
And so what if they do this sort of security around the world.... I'm happy for them......The security of our ports should be given to (if not Britain or other real trustworthy allies ) Americans......Period!
And I sincerly hope that Bush makes his very first VETO the one that blocks legislation to prevent this from happening! That would be one for the history books!!
What! Are we to forgive them all their sins simply because they are helping now? Thats like saying that Scott Petterson should be let out of prison and absolved of his own crime simply because he lead the police to the killer of another murder!
I know that there are many wonderful and trustworthy Arabs in the world that could and can be trusted......but this isn't about race.....its about the safety of America(n's) ports, borders, cities, & way of life!
But I absolutely believe that this idea of the UAE being trusted to run security at our ports is a joke! They would be in charge of hiring those port operators you spoke of!
As for what you call simply a rant.......I simply call it a sample listing of the many lies and distortions!
It is intended to open the minds of those that think that Bush & Co care about you, me, or this country, or real security, or arresting/killing those responsible for 9/11!!.......(And no...those at Gitmo had zero to do with 9/11.....if they did they would have spoken long ago!)
All they care about are PROFITS, GREED, & POWER.......
Constitution and freedom be dam(n)ed
"UAE being trusted to run security..."
But they are not. Your argument is completely wrong.
I was commenting on port operations because that is what this firm does, not port security which is what the Coast Guard does. There is no reason to bar the UAE any more than a US company. A corporation works for its own self interest. That is why companies can be hurtful to society because they have one focus, profits. The reason to bar a UAE company is because of the race and religion any other reason fails on its face. UK had home grown terrorists that attacked their own country so why would they not attack the US? Regardless though this is a company responsible for taking cans off ships and putting them on trucks and off trucks and onto ships. That is all. There are strong unions so operations won't change too much. I am all for following the money. I want to see if everything happened the way it should have. If so and it was still an improper deal then the system is broken and we should fix it. Lets not get ahead of that.
I would have preferred we not have entered Iraq etc. but I don't see how that is germane to this discussion.
By destroying the enemies capacity to wage war and by exploiting their weaknesses. Any nation that outsources it's security, is putting one more weak link in the security chain. It's not racist to suspect that a nation that owns the company supplying security for our ports could allow their guard to drop at any given time. How secure is the government of the UAE? Could they be overthrow from inside or by external forces? Could they be subverted? If a nation outsources security to another nation, the nation is only as secure as the nation providing the security.
"Any nation that outsources it's security..."
What country is doing that?
The UAE are going to operate the ports. The security regulations will still be regulated by the Coast Guard but the operations and day to day security, the hiring of the security people at the ports etc. will be done by the company who was given the contract. The company is owned by Dubai of the UAE. I would say that our security will be in the hands of another nation, not our own. Your security and mine is now nothing more than a commodity in George W. Bush's America. I also just heard on the radio that one of the men who was responsible for granting the contract to the UAE was a Bush appointee who had formerly worked for the UAE company before he was appointed by GW Bush. Sounds a little Cheyneyesque or Haliburtonish to me.
a list of all those who signed off on this deal on behalf of the US and names in the group that OK'd it in the first place.
I'ts interesting that in spite of what's looking like an overwhelming bipartisan opposition to this deal from just about everywhere, the MSM still isn't going after this very aggressively. Most of the coverage seems fairly soft. What are they afraid of?
Cargo needs to be checks at a MUCH HIGHER cross section than 5%. That's 1 in 20. Ship 20 bombs in 20 crates, port security will find 1. Plus, and here's the dirty secret they will NEVER bring up, most of the port security is still geared toward thwarting drug shipments from entering the country. Drugs. Who cares? The government doesn't care if smoking or booze or over the counter pain-killers or prescription drugs kill you, it's your life. But don't dare self-destroy with THESE unapproved poisons. It's a stupid, random, senseless policy. And if we are TRULY serious about the war on terrorism, the ridiculous drug war must end.
If you want to know what guides GOP policy these days all you need to do is follow the money trail. Congress should immediately call secretary Snow up to the Hill and ask him about the $100,000,000 package he got from this Dubai firm. Snow never should have been in the position to negotiate this deal - a clear conflict of interest.
The likelihood of a terrorist infiltrating a UAE company operated post would be the same as the likelihood of a terrorist infiltrating an INSERT NAME HERE company operated port, while the security remains under control of the U.S. Government.
all that needs to be said right there. the gang that can't tie it's own shoelaces.