O'Donnell falsely suggested Schumer advocates "legislation to stop Arab ownership" of U.S. shipping terminals
SUMMARY: NBC News White House correspondent Kelly O'Donnell, apparently referring to a bill offered by Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-NY) that would block the acquisition of control over six U.S. ports by Dubai Ports World, falsely said that the bill would "stop Arab ownership" of U.S. port facilities. In fact, the legislation does not target "Arab ownership" of U.S. shipping terminals.
On the March 10 broadcast of NBC's Today, NBC News White House correspondent Kelly O'Donnell -- in an apparent reference to a bill offered by Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-NY) that would block the acquisition of control over six U.S. ports by Dubai Ports World (DPW) -- falsely said that the bill would "stop Arab ownership" of U.S. port facilities. In fact, Schumer has proposed legislation that would prevent any company owned or controlled by a "foreign government that recognized the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan" from controlling U.S. port facilities. The legislation does not target "Arab ownership" of U.S. shipping terminals, as O'Donnell said.
O'Donnell mentioned the legislation in the context of reporting a decision announced March 9 by DPW, a state-owned company in the United Arab Emirates (UAE), that it would divest itself of its leases to terminals at six U.S. ports. NBC aired video footage from a press conference at which Schumer and several other Senate Democrats pressed for a vote on Schumer's legislation. As the footage aired, O'Donnell stated that "[s]ome lawmakers say new legislation to stop Arab ownership may still be needed." O'Donnell's statement was followed by a video clip of Schumer speaking at the press conference, then by a video clip of Gen. John Abizaid, commander of U.S. Central Command, who stated that he was "very dismayed by the emotional responses that some people have put on the table here in the United States that really comes down to Arab- and Muslim-bashing."
From the March 10 broadcast of NBC's Today:
O'DONNELL: The way out came in a three-sentence statement from the Arab-owned company and read on the Senate floor saying that to preserve its strong relationship with the U.S. it will find an American company to take over management of six U.S. ports. Some lawmakers say new legislation to stop Arab ownership may still be needed.
SCHUMER [video clip]: We need to make sure that all U.S. operations are totally removed from the United Arab Emirates and Dubai Ports World control.
O'DONNELL: Visiting Capitol Hill, the top military commander in Iraq defended the UAE as a vital partner.
ABIZAID [video clip]: I'm very dismayed by the emotional responses that some people have put on the table here in the United States that really comes [sic] down to Arab- and Muslim-bashing that was totally unnecessary.
But contrary to O'Donnell's report, Schumer's legislation does not specifically target "Arab ownership" of U.S. port facilities. The legislation states:
In the interest of national security, effective immediately, notwithstanding any other provision of law and any prior action or decision by or on behalf of the President, no company, wholly owned or controlled by any foreign government that recognized the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan during the Taliban's rule between 1996-2001, may own, lease, operate, or manage real property or facilities at a United States port.
As United Press International noted on October 20, 2003: "Prior to the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, along with the United Arab Emirates, were the only countries that recognized and aided Afghanistan's Taliban regime." Privately owned companies from these three countries would not be affected by Schumer's legislation, nor would companies run by governments from nations -- Arab or otherwise -- that did not recognize the Taliban.
as now companies won't invest here. false. what it will do is send a message. the uae may or may not be cooperating as much as we think now. but the fact is that in the past this is a country whose royal families and top officials had connections to the taliban and bin ladin. the message to them and other countries: keep yourselves away from any connection to terrorism.
After nearly five years of using the spector of 9/11 for partisan political advantage and shamelessly playing to paranoia based on xenophobia this right-wing bunch now distorts and outright misrepresents to accuse democrats and liberals of bigotory! This bunch constantly (and falsely) accuse its critics of being race-baiters but it sure looks to me like its them (and their media allies at FOX) playing the race card.
From a Reuters article [link to today.reuters.com] which indicates that the House will indeed keep the DPW ban attached to the supplemental that they are to consider next week (the Senate has not yet signaled their intentions on the matter); from that article:
[Bush said he was concerned the opposition sent a worrying message to Middle East allies.
"In order to win the war on terror, we have got to strengthen our relationships and friendships with moderate Arab countries in the Middle East," Bush told newspaper editors.]
Think of of it now: We have supposed "allies" and "friends" in the Middle East who, upset that they cannot manage our Ports (have we asked to manage theirs?), would do less or little or nothing to prevent a terrorist attack, or assist in getting Justice were an attack to happen; is that what the President is implying?
Think of it now: Is that the kind of "ally" or "friend" we would want managing our Ports anyway? Who would trade the U.S.'s National Security concerns away, over the price of the Port's 'deal'?
I think not.
And I'm surprised that the President would make such an assumption about supposed "allies" and "friends", that they might do less or little or nothing to prevent a terrorist attack, or assist in getting Justice were an attack to happen.
Wait a minute.
Now that I think of it, I'm not at all surprised at the President's assumption.
Aren't his "good friends" the Saudi Royal Family?
Think of it now.
Schumer's bill does not target Arabs.
It only targets countries that recognized the Taliban, has brown skinned people, wears turbins, knows what a burqua is, has camels, any people named muhammed or has sand dunes in their country.
Boy, I am glad he didn't target Arabs.
you got one part right. "it only targets countries that recognized the taliban". the rest of your post is just stuff you made up.
"Schumer's bill... targets countries that... has brown skinned people, wears turbins, knows what a burqua is, has camels, any people named muhammed or has sand dunes in their country."
You think anything you post on this subject, or any subject from here on out, has any credibility?
Being ignorant is nothing to brag about; neither is being a liar.
You're disqualified for being either, or both.
Questioning an Arab country equates to targeting all Arabs?
That's a nice way to frame this. Unfortunately it's complete nonsense.