NBC's Gregory uncritically reported White House claim of Dubai company's "extra security concessions"
SUMMARY: NBC's David Gregory reported that the Bush administration "extracted extra security concessions from Dubai Ports World [DPW] as a condition for the $7 billion contract" through which the company would assume control of six major U.S. seaports. Gregory did not mention that these "extra security concessions" appear to be little more than pledges to comply with U.S. law, nor did he report that the administration exempted DPW from other obligations typically required by the United States.
On the February 23 broadcast of NBC's Nightly News, NBC chief White House correspondent David Gregory reported that the Bush administration "extracted extra security concessions from Dubai Ports World [DPW] as a condition for the $7 billion contract" through which the company -- which is owned by the government of Dubai, a member state of the United Arab Emirates (UAE) -- would assume control of six major U.S. seaports. Gregory did not mention, however, that these "extra security concessions" appear to be little more than pledges to comply with U.S. law, nor did he report that the administration exempted DPW from other obligations typically required by the United States.
From the February 23 edition of NBC's Nightly News:
GREGORY: Still, the administration extracted extra security concessions from Dubai Ports World as a condition for the $7 billion contract. As for security risks at the ports, one former Bush administration official notes the UAE is among the world's largest seaports to allow the inspection of cargo prior to leaving its ports.
Gregory was referring to a secret deal between the United States and DPW outlining conditions by which the company would assume control of the six U.S. ports. As the Associated Press reported on February 23, the administration "secretly required" DPW "to cooperate with future U.S. investigations." The AP also reported that the administration "chose not to impose other restrictions" that are typically enforced, such as requiring DPW to keep copies of its business records on U.S. territory. According to the AP:
The administration did not require Dubai Ports to keep copies of business records on US soil, where they would be subject to court orders. It also did not require the company to designate an American citizen to accommodate US government requests. Outside legal experts said such obligations are routinely attached to US approvals of foreign sales in other industries.
[...]
Under the deal, the government asked Dubai Ports to operate American seaports with existing US managers ''to the extent possible."
It promised to take ''all reasonable steps" to assist the Homeland Security Department.
The administration required Dubai Ports to designate an executive to handle requests from the US government, but it did not specify this person's citizenship.
As The New York Times reported on February 24, the secret "assurances" the administration drew from DPW (as detailed in the AP report) were centered primarily on compliance with U.S. laws:
In the Jan. 6 letter to the department, the company agreed to operate the terminals ''to the extent possible with the current U.S. management structure'' and to maintain existing security policies. But most of its assurances centered on compliance with existing United States law.
The MSM has to support Bush as best they can.
Anytime the administration "secretly" does anything, start asking questions. While I have no concern with Dubai owning US container operations, those operations should be under the same scrutiny and security as other foreign owned operations...and any other port operations.
And Maybe means Maybe Not.
According to this article, [link to www.afterdowningstreet.org] , that explains that this aquisition is more than just 6 ports. This is a merger of an additional 21 ports on US soil that the UAE would manage.
<The article cont. . .
Now, seing the history of the UAE and terrorist support and their global port domination and the untold REAL story behind the story that we're being told, America should be concerned.
The article cont. . .
But then again, A head stuck in the "watching the news media" sand, never can hear the truth.
David Gregory. Mmmmm the same David Gregory that had a "spat" with McClellan over the Cheney hunting accident and then apologized for his behavior....
Well it appears Davey is now doing penance by promoting the administration's VERSION of the truth on this matter...or he's been WARNED he'd better toe the line. Either way...another one bites the dust
Gregory is just another actor in this silly play. He blusters and struts when he needs to build his "credibility," then folds like a house of cards when the really tough questions about the really tough issues need to be asked.
Gregory, I knew Helen Thomas. Helen Thomas was a friend of mine. You, David Gregory, are no Helen Thomas...
This is the only guy in the white house press core with any balls.(other than Helen Thomas of course) He is consistently critical of this administration. No wonder there are so few comments on this one. David Gregory rules!
poindej, let me tell you upfront that I'm a Republican/Conservative, BUT let me also add that doesn't mean I support the CURRENT administration. I was never a huge Bush supporter, BUT he pretty much lost me completely when he invaded Iraq on the "pretence" of WMD's. I felt, as MOST here do, that we should have allowed the UN Inspectors to complete their work.
I'm also not hoodwinked by Fox News and have never pretended that they weren't a propaganda arm of the GOP...and the Bush Administration in particular. I prefer to hear BOTH sides of an issue. There have been times (and I've been posting here for over a year) that I felt that MMFA and SOME Democrats/Liberals posting here were overly paranoid or petty about what they considered "Conservative Mis-Information"...BUT not always...and certainly NOT this time.
I want journalists/media to investigate and report truthfully&without bias...and then let the chips fall where they may. THIS administration has repeatedly conducted itself in a manner that should raise RED FLAGS. And for that reason I'd prefer to see Gregory and others that occasionally have the balls to go after them, not falter or get complacent now.
I'd like to see David Gregory badger McClellan over the deal with the UAE's Dubai Ports World the way he did the Cheney "incident". The fact that he hasn't (thus far) is a disappointment.
*BTW, Helen Thomas rocks...great feisty lady...unfortunately she's been muzzled by THIS White house.*
I don't understand why the media is not questioning the administration on this new convenient "offer" from the Dubai Ports World to be reinvestigated. Isn't it likely that this was instigated by the White House, as it is their only possible way out of this political fiasco?
why have two or more (Georgie and Rummie) regime officials admitted that they did not know about this port deal? These guys NEVER admit to not knowing anything (Sorry, double negative).
So why are they sooo willing to admit a lack of knowledge about the port deal now? It just doesnt pass the smell test. But, in order to believe in Rovian port sale trickery here, Georgie, Rummie, et al, would have to be willing to stumble out to a podium and willingly, knowingly admit to a lack of knowledge of the port deal while actually knowing otherwise.
Both options sound wierd... seems more Rovian by the day.
This contraversy allows for Congressional Repugs to appear to "stand strong" on security and demonstrates their ability to side against the WH on important issues. Why are Hastert and Frist not towing the line on this issue when they have done so on so many other outrageous policy initiatives?
Just seems too easy. Feels a bit manipulative.