Wash. Post, NY Times adopted White House port deal claims that contradict own news reporting
SUMMARY: A Washington Post editorial adopted several claims that the Bush administration has made in defense of its agreement to let a company owned by the government of the United Arab Emirates (UAE) manage six U.S. ports, even though those claims are contradicted by the Post's own news reporting. News reports in the Post and The New York Times also cited without challenge the administration claims about the length of the review, even though their own previous reporting directly contradicted the claims.
In a February 24 editorial, The Washington Post adopted several claims that the Bush administration has made in defense of its agreement to let a company owned by the government of Dubai -- a member state of the United Arab Emirates (UAE) -- manage six U.S. ports, even though those claims are contradicted by the Post's own news reporting. The administration claims that the deal with UAE-owned Dubai Ports World was given a three-month review by the Committee on Foreign Investments in the United States (CFIUS), and also says that fears of a potential security threat posed by the deal are exaggerated, given that the U.S. Coast Guard and federal Customs agencies are responsible for security at American ports. In fact, the Post itself has previously reported that the committee only convened once during a 23-day review of the deal, and that the administration claim about the Coast Guard and Customs agencies "overstates the role government agencies play."
The same administration claims about the length of the review were also cited without challenge in February 24 news reports by the Post as well as The New York Times, which has also directly contradicted the claims in its own previous reporting.
In the editorial, titled "How to Lose Friends," the Post argued that concerns about U.S. ports being run by the Dubai government are overblown "because security there is controlled by the Coast Guard and U.S. Customs and Border Protection, no matter who's doing the accounting":
[A]s administration officials testified yesterday, since Sept. 11 the United Arab Emirates has been a valuable ally. Last year, according to Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon R. England, 56 U.S. warships, 590 U.S. Military Sealift Command ships and 75 allied warships were hosted in the United Arab Emirates -- at a port managed by the very same Dubai Ports World. To our knowledge, none of the objecting members of Congress have expressed alarm at the national security implications of that situation. Yet the six ports now in question will be far less dependent on Dubai's goodwill, because security there is controlled by the Coast Guard and U.S. Customs and Border Protection, no matter who's doing the accounting.
But the editorial's assertion was directly contradicted by a Post article published that same day. In an article suggesting that the "real grounds for concern [about port security] lie elsewhere" than the Dubai port deal, staff writers Paul Blustein and Walter Pincus nonetheless noted that the administration claim that "security at U.S. ports is the responsibility" of the Coast Guard and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) "overstates the role government agencies play":
Administration officials have asserted in recent days that security at U.S. ports is the responsibility of the Coast Guard and U.S. Customs and Border Protection, with the terminal operators responsible for little more than transferring containers from ships to railroad cars and trucks.
That overstates the role government agencies play. "They've been saying that customs and the Coast Guard are in charge of security; yes, they're in charge, but they're not usually present," said Carl Bentzel, a former congressional aide who helped write the 2002 act regulating port security.
The private terminal operators are almost always responsible for guarding the area around their facilities, although they must submit their security plans to the Coast Guard, which monitors and inspects them. In some cases, the companies X-ray incoming containers to see whether the contents appear to match the manifest, although customs agents are solely responsible for "intrusive" inspections -- that is, opening containers and examining the cargo. That procedure is performed on about 5 percent of containers entering the United States.
The Post editorial also adopted the administration claim, recently espoused by Deputy Treasury Secretary Robert M. Kimmitt and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, that the CFIUS "examined the deal over a three-month period and found it acceptable," and that senators critical of the deal had little reason to believe the review was "casual" or "cursory":
Twelve government departments and agencies, including the departments of Treasury, State, Defense and Homeland Security, had examined the deal over a three-month period and found it acceptable. Perhaps the White House should have anticipated this week's political storm and prepared for it. But because the objections are irrational, even that complaint is questionable.
At a hearing yesterday, senators complained that they had not been notified of the transaction -- though, as Deputy Treasury Secretary Robert M. Kimmitt noted, the companies involved had issued a press release on the matter in November. Senators complained, in the face of considerable testimony to the contrary, that the government's review had been "casual" or "cursory."
The Post editorial failed to explore why, or even explain how the administration account dramatically differed from the account the administration had previously given to House aides, according to a February 23 Post report by staff writers Jim VandeHei and Jonathan Weisman:
The U.S. government reviews business transactions with national security implications and decided after a 23-day review by mid-level officials that Dubai Ports World posed no threat.
[...]
In a private briefing for House aides late yesterday, administration officials from the departments of State, Defense, Treasury and Homeland Security said the CFIUS met only once during a 23-day review of the sale and that the few objections raised were quickly addressed.
Moreover, Weisman apparently disregarded his own report from the previous day when he uncritically cited, in a February 24 Post article, Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England's claim that the CFIUS review was "definitely not cursory."
In a February 24 article by reporters David S. Cloud and David E. Sanger, the Times also uncritically reported the administration's claims about the length of the CFIUS review. Cloud and Sanger twice noted that Kimmitt said the review had lasted for three months while also noting that Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) said the review had lasted 30 days. But Cloud and Sanger failed to identify the discrepancy in the two accounts, or that the administration version of events contradicted the Times' previous reporting:
Critics of the deal said earlier in the day that a delay was insufficient.
"A simple 30-day cooling off period without the full 45-day review that should have been done from the beginning is not adequate," said Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York.
[...]
The group, led by the deputy Treasury secretary, Robert M. Kimmitt, said that the administration's interagency review of the transaction had taken three months, and that the Dubai company had been willing to address concerns raised by the Department of Homeland Security.
[...]
But Mr. Kimmitt said "all of those concerns were addressed" in the administration's initial, three-month examination of the deal. When the interagency panel charged with reviewing foreign acquisitions met in mid-January -- its only formal meeting on the Dubai Ports World acquisition -- no agency raised further national concerns, Mr. Kimmitt said. That made an additional 45-day review unnecessary, he said.
Like Schumer, a February 21 Times article noted that Rep. Peter T. King (R-NY) also "said the review was conducted in just 30 days."
bill clinton saying he was unaware of something like this.
I'm not sure what it is that you guys want here. If we shut the UAE out, it will based on the fact that they are an Arab company alone. And not just any Arab company but one of our closest alleys. Isn't that a form or racisim? I swear sometimes I feel like there is no winning here. No one complained about the British managing the ports. That was never made public knowledge. I just find it hard to believe that we are in any more danger now than we were before. Not saying, however, that port security shouldn't be an issue. Just saying that who manages the ports ( basically in name only) isn't where the threat is.
if you cannot see the difference between britian and the united arab emirates, you are uninformed. members of the british royal family did not go hunting with osama. nor did england launder money for the 9-11 hijackers and then refuse to cooperate in the investigation. england did not recognize the taliban who were harboring osama.
The 'racist' card is a smokescreen. UAE is not a trustworthy group, no matter how you slice it. In fact, they are even worse... as ME_FIRST says. Much worse.
"We don't deal with terrorists." -- GW Bush
...ah, that is, unless they have tons and tons of money!! Oh boy! Money!!! Weee!! W only sees dollar signs.
That's not the issue, even though certain folks would LIKE to make it so, total hypocrites that they are. Repost from an earlier thread:
"...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; "
As a public service, I will address EACH of your "confusions":
1. "I'm not sure what it is that you guys want here."
ENLIGHTENMENT:
We want several things.
FIRST, we want our own sovereignty unencroached on by another sovereignty. The British company was a publicly traded COMPANY, while this Dubai operation is a FOREIGN GOVERNMENT entity.
SECOND, we want our own government to protect our national security. This requires all "business" transactions -- that might give control of (or easier access to) our vital infrastructure to entities which may not have America's security as a priority -- be intensely scrutinized. This requires both thorough investigation, and TRANSPARENCY.
The way this Administration undertook this crucial responsibility was revealed by the fact that the President, the Secretary of Defense, and all of Congress were unaware of the investigation until it had been APPROVED, in their names. This is unacceptable, and borders on treason.
THIRD, we want THE TRUTH. Telling us the UAE is an "ALLY" without giving a chronological rundown, TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE (so they can make an informed decision on whether to support this "deal") of the UAE's actions in relation to our current enemy, al Queda, is an attempt to pull the wool over American's eyes. As we are discovering, the UAE has not been as staunch an "ally" as represented by the Bush Administration. In truth, they have aided and abetted our greatest enemies. Forgive and forget? Let them earn our trust over time. Turn our infrastructure over to them? No way.
Also, the UAE has monetary interests and connections all over the world, including the Carlyle Group, of which Bush's father is a member. Did the investigation of this "deal" include a rigorous search for conflicts of interest, potential bribery, or influence based on CASH rather than America's national security interests? No, it did NOT.
2. "If we shut the UAE out, it will based on the fact that they are an Arab company alone."
ENLIGHTENMENT: See all above. The "ARAB" aspect of this "deal" was not mentioned ONCE.
3. "And not just any Arab company but one of our closest alleys (sic). Isn't that a form or (sic) racisim?
ENLIGHTENMENT: These are the Bush supporter's talking points, all addressed above. NO, it's not "racism". That is the rhetoric of desperation of the last resort, and totally without basis.
4. "I swear sometimes I feel like there is no winning here. No one complained about the British managing the ports. That was never made public knowledge."
ENLIGHTENMENT: There is no "winning" when the administration lies and deceives, cleaves to secrecy and adopts a monarchial edict mentality. That said, however the British deal was vetted, it's an entirely different situation from allowing a foreign GOVERNMENT to control these ports. It was (and IS) a COMPANY which is based in England, but is not controlled by the government of England. If you don't know why this is an important difference, I can elaborate for you.
5. "I just find it hard to believe that we are in any more danger now than we were before."
ENLIGHTENMENT: You have a point here, but not the one you mean to make. America is in MUCH more danger as a result of the Bush Administration's policies. MORE terrorists have been created. There is MORE unrest and chaos in the Middle East. Bin Laden is still at large. Our cowboy foreign policy of naked aggression, coupled with our new doctrine of "PRE-EMPTIVE WAR" (especially when what we are supposedly "preempting" does not EXIST!) have aliented us in the world, swelling hatred of America across the globe.
That said, you seem to be saying handing our ports over to a foreign government would not lead to MORE danger. I suggest you look into the record of terrorism in proximity to Dubai-operated ports in the rest of the world. You should also look into the record of the role Dubai itself has played in the shipping of materials going to terrorists, nuclear wanna-bes (like Iran), and other enemies of the USA. EDUCATE yourself.
6. "Not saying, however, that port security shouldn't be an issue."
ENLIGHTEMENT: Well, Hallelujah! A concession. Where'd THAT come from?
7. "Just saying that who manages the ports ( basically in name only) isn't where the threat is."
ENLIGHTEMENT: Again, you suggest a TRUTH which is one you don't intend. The REAL threat is from a government which is charged with PROTECTING its people which seems entirely incapable of performing that task. The REAL threat is a government, who in OUR name, embarks on literally THOUSANDS of policies which make us less strong, less safe, less secure, and ever more at risk. The REAL threat comes from "global capitalists"in our government who don't see America's economic strength, labor force, and environment as NATIONAL SECURITY issues. The REAL threat is a government that sides WITH corporate desires and AGAINST the wellbeing of America's citizens EVERY TIME.
So, I agree with you here. The REAL threat is from within, rather than from outside our nation.
The laisses-faire or cavelier viewpoints thrown out by the righties (i.e. "what's the big deal?") are important to refute.
It is a big deal. Trust is given to the trustworthy -- UAE and the Bush party have proven time and again that they must be monitored like children... treacherous children.
Good work.
Whew, Tex, couldn't agree more. but didn't we have a chance to buy stock in P&O. They were listed on the London Stock Exchange, as a public company, so in essence we could have been shareholders, received annual reports and had transparency. Yet now with DPWorld, a private gov't company, listed on the Saudi Exchange, which we, as pedestrian citizens cannot buy into. The premise of an "ownership society" being sold by this administration, as our bright future, seems scarier to me than a terrorist attack, when you realize they intend to control who is allowed to be an owner. Les
If what you say about the UAE is fact, then I would have to seriously reconsider my postition. I have yet to hear any of these things for myself. I'd like to find a site that truely had no spin. I don't have time for radical conspirecies on either side.
Of course, the definition of "radical" comes into play. Some may believe that any group devoted to exposing human rights violations is radical.
[link to web.amnesty.org]
[link to www.antislavery.org]
Sorry if you can't click on the links.
[link to www.state.gov]
You have to scroll down to the UAE portion.
be sure to get back to us when you've checked on all these facts. maybe it says a lot about you when someone who knows nothing about an issue comes on and charges racism right off the bat. meanwhile we await your investigation.
The funny bit of irony about the port story is that much of what is wrong with the deal is symbolic. Arabs guarding our ports?! The thing is, this is the type of symbolism that Bush and the GOP have used to take over the country. It should be hilarious to watch all the Bush apologists explaining the 'nuances' of this deal to us if they weren't the same jerks who railed on Kerry for being 'weak on terror.' It would be funny if in fact allowing these scumbags to take over every branch of government hadn't in fact made us MUCH more vulnerable. Which it has.
Or maybe it says a lot about a person when they can keep an openmind. I never have, and never will claim to have all the right answers, unlike some people on this site. What I did say however, is that according to what I have seen and heard so far on the subject....the only reason to block this deal is because they are an Arab nation. And I still feel, that if that is the only reason ...that is a form of racism. Something that wouldn't be tolerated by the same people who are condoning it now.
"i refuse to do any independent checking of my own. i expect to be spoon fed everything and when you do, i will refuse to listen to and respond to any of it. i will just charge racism and say i have an open mind." guess what, this is not a baby sitting service. if you have a point back it with some facts, instead of proclaiming i'm correct on this even though i'm unaware of the things you're saying. most everyone on here is fully aware of all these facts, whatever their opinion. it does require just a little knowledge to post on here. you are unaware and seem more than content to be that way.
Where did I get those 'unbiased' links? I looked on the internet. If you are able to post to MMFA, you have the means to google "UAE" (which is what I did).
I figured there would be no way a link from the State Department could possibly be construed as 'liberal'... that site was quite harsh to the UAE, I might add.
You are spouting Rove's Talking Point, without looking at the rest of the information on the UAE Issue.
You Say, "according to what I have seen and heard so far on the subject....the only reason to block this deal is because they are an Arab nation. And I still feel, that if that is the only reason ...that is a form of racism."
RESPONSE: You've been given sites to check out the UAE's performance in the recent past. You apparently either refuse to read, or refuse to acknowledge, that the UAE has a record with regard to world terrorism, human rights, and trafficing of illegal cargo, and it is not a GOOD one. The nation's banking practices have aided terrorism, and they have resisted aiding US in hindering terrorism.
You probably are NOT aware ... because you claim your unawareness almost proudly ... but the UAE also refuses to acknowledge Israel as a nation. Is this racist on their part? Whatever you deign to call it, this TOO presents a problem with them having port authority. Do you suppose America gets shipments from Israel? Do you suppose a Nation/Business which refuses to recognize another nation might have a problem processing shipments from that nation? Into OURS?
Now, of course, you could TELL us that you don't believe this would be a problem. Your assurance here, just like GW Bush's assurances, would be worse than even "just an opinion". Because in both cases, the assurance would be based on TRUST ALONE, and that trust would have to be invested in the willfully ignorant.
In conclusion, it's a BAD idea to entrust our ports or any other part of infrastructure that has national security implications, to a foreign GOVERNMENT. It would be opposed if it were ENGLAND wanting to do it. It's terrible with the UAE, because of their historic record.
So, as you hold tight to your conclusion that RACISM is the ONLY reason you can see or think of that this "deal" could be opposed, the FACTS show clearly that there are ample reasons having NOTHING TO DO WITH being "Arab" or not, which would make this a terrible deal. Your failure to educate yourself only gives claims (or opinion) NO level of credibility.
I find the media's reaction to this issue strange, indeed. The Washington Post and the NY Times both publish editorials that contradict their own reporting. Like some posters on this and other threads, their opinions seem not to be based on facts. I expect supporters of this administration to try to play the "race card," but for a major, allegedly liberal news organization to call criticism of the deal "irrational" is just bizarre.
I've also observed a parade of "security experts" make the same claim over the past week. I heard a story on NPR yesterday where the commentator said he hadn't been able to find one security expert who thought the deal could threaten the security of our ports. What about the Homeland Security Dept. official who initially disapproved of the deal before relenting?
The NPR commentator also claimed that there are already foreign state-owned companies operating other American ports. He referred to one Chinese company that, well, wasn't exactly owned by the Chinese government, but it has close ties.
Why is our media being so fuzzy with facts on this issue?
JBH Four and TEX appear to have swayed Ordille 75. It's too bad we don't have JBH Four and TEX working for the MSM to counter these baseless racism claims and we might have even more people coming to see the truth. That's the media's trait exemplified by these Times and Post editorials. In order not to offend the Bush Administration, simply stenograph any claims designed to obfuscate and confuse the entire issue. Relevance and Truth be damned. Good job Media Matters and my hats to its' enlightened bloggers like JBH Four and Tex.
To all,
Another couple of big issues with this whole thing. The fact that Junior could be running around defending a deal he was completely unaware of is an astounding thing. Kind of blows away the rationale of "Bush being the best at protecting America." The deal doesn't require the DPW to keep its' records here in the United States where they would be within reach of court order and doesn't require the designation of an American agent as a go between. There's plenty of potential danger her and when the President, Secretary of Defense, Secretary of the Treasury and Homeland Security Chief (whose department opposed the whole thing) are unaware of the outline of the deal then this does does make misplacing a box of files from the Rose Law firm look a little, well, small. Follow the money through to David Sanborn and possibly John Snow and then the whole deal will be shaken out.
For the record, those "billing" documents that Hillary supposedly kept from discovery? Ken Starr HAD the originals for at least three YEARS. Allegedly, what they were interested in was if there were any "notes on the margins" of Vince Foster's copy.
Once produced, of course, they were scrutinized, and there was no "THERE THERE", after so many allegations and suspicions thrown around in the media.
So, when it's accused that the records were unavailable to investigators, that's just not true. The misplaced copy, though, allowed endless speculations and smearing accusations. I suppose it's a little like shooting a friend, and refusing to be examined and interviewed by the cops until well after time to sober up. Except, in Hillary's case, the documents surfaced, and were able to be examined (yeilding nothing of incriminating interest).
The Carlyle Group, and Daddy Bush, knew all the details of the UAE port takeover. Isn't that enough?
One issue that I haven't seen yet concerning the UAE port issue is whether it would include bringing in UAE workers to replace American workers. We have enough Insourcing of Mexican workers already, and don't need more from the UAE.