Another Look At the Port Deal-Follow the Money

[GrnNatlFan]

On the Waterfront

New York Sun Editorial
February 22, 2006

Somehow, it doesn't add up. Senators Menendez, Clinton, Lautenberg, Schumer, Dodd, and Boxer are up in arms over the Bush administration's decision to allow Dubai Ports World, a company owned by the United Arab Emirates, to take over operations at ports in New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami, and Philadelphia. So are Reps. Vito Fossella and Peter King. One has to wonder, what makes this group, not particularly known for its hawkishness - in some cases known for abject dovishness - suddenly more hawkish than President Bush? It turns out their objections look to be less and less about American national security and more about plain old politics and political money and a labor union notorious for its ties to organized crime on the waterfront.

None of these politicians, so far as we recall, made a peep when the government of the United Arab Emirates donated $200,000 to fund a professorship in Middle East studies at Columbia University that was filled by a virulently anti-Israel and anti-Bush professor named Rashid Khalidi. That issue was aired by the August 5, 2004, editorial in The New York Sun, "What the UAE Bought." Nor, so far as we can tell, did they protest when, after the death of the president and founder of the UAE, Shaykh Zayid bin Sultan Al Nahayan, Mr. Bush issued a statement on November 4, 2004, mourning the passing of "a great friend of our country," "a close ally," who built the Emirates "into a prosperous, tolerant, and well-governed state."

Nor do we recall any protest from Mrs. Clinton or Mr. Schumer or Ms. Boxer when President Clinton and Vice President Gore announced in May 1998 that America was selling 80 F-16 fighters to the UAE. Nor did these politicians protest back in December 1996, when the Clinton administration's assistant state secretary, Robert Pelletreau, went on UAE television to announce: "On the international stage, the UAE is universally respected for its generosity and commitment to regional security and fair-dealing. These qualities reflect the exceptional character of Shaykh Zayid, who is truly the father of his country, and a respected statesman." Mr. Pelletreau went on, "We were pleased that the U.S. could offer His Highness Shaykh Zayid medical treatment earlier this year while he was here. President Clinton telephoned him to welcome him and placed the White House at his disposal to make his stay comfortable and productive."

So what, one wonders, accounts for the sudden turnabout and interest of all these politicians in the UAE as a potential terrorist threat? The answer got a lot clearer yesterday afternoon when the International Longshoremen's Association, the AFL-CIO-affiliated union that represents workers at the six ports that would be affected by the Dubai deal, issued a statement praising the politicians complaining about the deal. The union's statement expressed "great concern" about the transaction. From there, it's easy to just follow the money - documented by The New York Sun's examination of Federal Election Commission records - from the political action committee of the International Longshoremen's Association into the pockets of the protesting politicians.

Mr. Schumer, the first to raise the alarm about the deal? He's collected $4,500 in campaign contributions from the trough of the Longshoremen. Rep. Peter King, the chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, who was one of the first big-name Republicans to break ranks with the administration over the deal? The Longshoremen's political committee donated $5,500 to the King campaign. It turns out that nearly every politician who has been at the forefront of the opposition to the Dubai deal is on the receiving end of some Longshoreman largesse.

Senator Clinton's campaign took $4,500. Senator Dodd, $2,500. Congressman Fossella, $9,500. Senator Boxer, $6,000. Senator Lautenberg, $9,000. Rep. Jerrold Nadler, a Democrat from New York who is another outspoken critic of the Dubai deal, has accepted $22,500 from the Longshoremen since March of 2000. Senator Menendez, a leader of the opposition to the Dubai deal, has taken in fully $39,500 in campaign contributions from the Longshoremen's political action committee. It puts a different spin on the statement yesterday from the president of the International Longshoremen's Association, John Bowers, who said, "We echo United States Senator Robert Menendez who correctly notes that our ports are the front lines of the war on terrorism." It raises the question, for example, of whether the Longshoremen are echoing Mr. Menendez, or whether Mr. Menendez is echoing Mr. Bowers, who has been so generous to his campaign.

Mr. Bowers has been president of the ILA since 1987, having previously served for 24 years as executive vice president of the union, its second highest position. He was charged with racketeering and named as an associate of the Gambino organized crime family in a July 2005 civil complaint filed by federal prosecutors in Brooklyn. Whatever objections the politicians have to the UAE and its leadership - and we are not, by any stretch, fans of the emirates - they're no more serious than the charges in the racketeering suit brought against the ILA and Mr. Bowers by the United States attorney for the Eastern District of New York, Roslynn Mauskopf.

The FBI's assistant director in charge in New York at the time, Mark Mershon, said, "The hard-working rank-and-file members of the ILA were denied the right to fair and honest representation when members of the Gambino and Genovese crime families conspired to fix the selection of certain union officers. Pension and health plans intended to benefit the union membership were pillaged for the unjust enrichment of those corrupt, self-dealing union officials and their mob associates." Mr. Bowers, who earns an annual salary of $413,556 from the 59,000-member international union and $154,467 from the Atlantic coast district, for a total annual compensation of $568,023, according to filings at the federal Department of Labor, has called the racketeering charges unjustified by the law or the facts. This, in any event, is the union whose political action committee has been bankrolling the politicians who all of a sudden have taken a disliking to the UAE.

It puts in a different light President Bush's statement yesterday. The president said, "If there was any question as to whether or not this country would be less safe as a result of the transaction, it wouldn't go forward. But I also want to repeat something again, and that is, this is a company that has played by the rules, that has been cooperative with the United States, a country that's an ally in the war on terror, and it would send a terrible signal to friends and allies not to let this transaction go through." The secretary of homeland security, Michael Chertoff, hinted at the issues involved when, on "Meet the Press" Sunday, he said, "Without getting into classified information, what we typically do if there are concerns is we build in certain conditions, or requirements, that the company has to agree to make sure we address the national security concerns."

If a bomb or weapons were to be smuggled in by terrorists via the Dubai controlled American ports and used to attack America after those sorts of guarantees by Mr. Bush and Mr. Chertoff, the political consequences would be devastating. We just have a hard time doubting Mr. Bush's sincerity when it comes to protecting American security - he feels it is his God-given calling, and he has demonstrated a vigilance that earns our respect, far more so than the politicians questioning Mr. Bush's judgment. On top of all else is the question of the rights of the owner of the docks company to find a buyer, which counts for a lot with us. Mr. Bush's critics would have more credibility in the middle of this war if they hadn't been on the receiving end of lucre from a labor union with a history of corruption and mob ties.

[Pronto]

So did the ILA pay off the Republican governors, southern senators and congressmen as well as ones from other parts of the country the are not in favor of this deal?

[suprbuick7]

He would be scared of the Washington Post , so this GOP mouthbreathing TROG relies on a neocon wastepaper to tell him what to think.

[BlownZ]

Originally Posted by suprbuick7

He would be scared of the Washington Post , so this GOP mouthbreathing TROG relies on a neocon wastepaper to tell him what to think.

Superbuick...and everyone that has been stirred into a frenzy lately...knock it off and let's cut the personal attacks.

[suprbuick7]

Arab Co., White House Had Secret Agreement By TED BRIDIS, Associated Press Writer
22 minutes ago



WASHINGTON - The Bush administration secretly required a company in the United Arab Emirates to cooperate with future U.S. investigations before approving its takeover of operations at six American ports, according to documents obtained by The Associated Press. It chose not to impose other, routine restrictions.
ADVERTISEMENT

As part of the $6.8 billion purchase, state-owned Dubai Ports World agreed to reveal records on demand about "foreign operational direction" of its business at U.S. ports, the documents said. Those records broadly include details about the design, maintenance or operation of ports and equipment.

The administration did not require Dubai Ports to keep copies of business records on U.S. soil, where they would be subject to court orders. It also did not require the company to designate an American citizen to accommodate U.S. government requests. Outside legal experts said such obligations are routinely attached to U.S. approvals of foreign sales in other industries.

"They're not lax but they're not draconian," said James Lewis, a former U.S. official who worked on such agreements. If officials had predicted the firestorm of criticism over the deal, Lewis said, "they might have made them sound harder."

The conditions involving the sale of London-based Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co. were detailed in U.S. documents marked "confidential." Such records are regularly guarded as trade secrets, and it is highly unusual for them to be made public.

The concessions — described previously by the Homeland Security Department as unprecedented among maritime companies — reflect the close relationship between the United States and the United Arab Emirates.

The revelations about the negotiated conditions came as the White House acknowledged President Bush was unaware of the pending sale until the deal had already been approved by his administration.

Bush on Tuesday brushed aside objections by leaders in the Senate and House. He pledged to veto any bill Congress might approve to block the agreement, but some lawmakers said they still were determined to capsize it.

Dubai Port's top American executive, chief operating officer Edward H. Bilkey, said the company will do whatever the Bush administration asks to enhance shipping security and ensure the sale goes through. Bilkey said Wednesday he will work in Washington to persuade skeptical lawmakers they should endorse the deal; Senate oversight hearings already are scheduled.

"We're disappointed," Bilkey told the AP in an interview. "We're going to do our best to persuade them that they jumped the gun. The UAE is a very solid friend, as President Bush has said."

Under the deal, the government asked Dubai Ports to operate American seaports with existing U.S. managers "to the extent possible." It promised to take "all reasonable steps" to assist the Homeland Security Department, and it pledged to continue participating in security programs to stop smuggling and detect illegal shipments of nuclear materials.

The administration required Dubai Ports to designate an executive to handle requests from the U.S. government, but it did not specify this person's citizenship.

It said Dubai Ports must retain paperwork "in the normal course of business" but did not specify a time period or require corporate records to be housed in the United States. Outside experts familiar with such agreements said such provisions are routine in other cases.

Bush faces a potential rebellion from leaders of his own party, as well as a fight from Democrats, over the sale. It puts Dubai Ports in charge of major terminal operations in New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia.

Senate and House leaders urged the president to delay the takeover, which is set to be finalized in early March. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist of Tennessee said the deal raised "serious questions regarding the safety and security of our homeland." House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., asked the president for a moratorium on the sale until it could be studied further.

In Saudi Arabia, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said the agreement was thoroughly vetted. "We have to maintain a principle that it doesn't matter where in the world one of these purchases is coming from," Rice said Wednesday. She described the United Arab Emirates as "a good partner in the war on terrorism."

Bush personally defended the agreement on Tuesday, but the White House said he did not know about it until recently. The AP first reported the U.S. approval of the sale to Dubai Ports on Feb. 11, and many members of Congress have said they learned about it from the AP.

"I think somebody dropped the ball," said Rep. Vito Fossella (news, bio, voting record), R-N.Y. "Information should have flowed more freely and more quickly up into the White House. I think it has been mishandled in terms of coming forward with adequate information."

At the White House, spokesman Scott McClellan said Bush learned about the deal "over the last several days," as congressional criticism escalated. McClellan said it did not rise to the presidential level, but went through a government review and was determined not to pose a threat.

McClellan said Bush afterward asked the head of every U.S. department involved in approving the sale whether there were security concerns. "Each and every one expressed that they were comfortable with this transaction going forward," he said.

Commerce Secretary Carlos Guiterrez told the AP the administration was being thoughtful and deliberate approving the sale.

"We are not reacting emotionally," Guiterrez said in an interview Wednesday. "That's what I believe our partners from around the world would like to see from us is that we be thoughtful. That we be deliberate. That we understand issues before we make a decision."

[UNGN]

Super7, you've lost it.

Bush is secretly making the Dubai company perform MORE security checks than one from say, China or Singapore and you post it like that's a bad thing.

Reading Comprehension.

Look into it.

[GrnNatlFan]

SuprStupid, are you a longshoreman or just a union member? Let's be honest here.......

[chevyII]

I think a few grang here and there for campaign contibutions isnt exactrly buying them off. I think it would take 5-10,000 dollars just to have lunch. Try again.

[GrnNatlFan]

Originally Posted by chevyII

I think a few grang here and there for campaign contibutions isnt exactrly buying them off. I think it would take 5-10,000 dollars just to have lunch. Try again.

For a chance to look tough on security (won't work) and a chance to make Bush look bad, and a $100 campaign contribution, the Democrat leaders would sell their soul, that is if they had one.

[chevyII]

dont need to make him look bad he does just fine on his own....Look tough on security might want to check the heading of this thread again

[Pronto]

Bush looks real tough in his cheerleading outfit. RA RA SHISH BOOM BA.

[2quiktocare]

It is laughable for those on the left to always cry how stupid Bush is, and then turn around and say he is always fooling them into believing so many things. So who is really stupid here?

Seems with all this talk over a deal about six docks, when the Chinese control over 80, distracted all the lefties long enough for Bush to get the Patriot Act renewed with only 8 votes against it. Seems he took your energies and diverted them to a true security concern. Shame on all you lefties, you let the country down again by not watching what George was doing.

You have been owned once again, and by someone you still consider stupid. So what does that make all of you? DUH???????

[Pronto]

I still think he looks silly in his cheerleading outfit, that's as close to gay as you can get.

[chevyII]

Hey Quick to care I like you mentallity of you let us down again HA HA. Last time I check did you live in the US? Thats right If he screws me hes screwing you to DA.

[2quiktocare]

The only screwing I see is that Bill Clinton was a major player in brokering this deal his wife is deamonizing so intently. So you have to ask yourself, is Hillary not aware of what her husband is doing?, is Bill selling out his country to give his wife an issue to make her look tough?, or is it that Bill realizes it is a good business deal and not harmful to the country? Answer that question and you can proceed to think this thing thru.

[Pronto]

Although I wouldn't want to see it, Hillary can wear a cheerleading outfit. Boy George+cheerleading outfit=bellybutton sniffer.

[weester87]

Check this Reps name..............LMAO!


WASHINGTON - A leading House Republican plans to push legislation Wednesday against a Dubai company's effort to take over some U.S. port operations, probably defying President Bush with an effort to block the deal.

Rep. Jerry Lewis, chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, plans to attach a provision to a spending bill for wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and aid for Gulf States recovering from Hurricane Katrina.

The move reflects election-year unease among the GOP rank-and-file about a foreign-owned company managing American ports. The government of Dubai, part of the United Arab Emirates, controls the company.

In a statement Tuesday, Lewis, R-Calif., said he had been working with Republican leaders and committee chairmen to write an amendment "to address these concerns."

[weester87]

Republicans: Ports Deal Doomed in Congress

WASHINGTON - Republican congressional leaders told President Bush Thursday his plan allowing a company owned by the government of Dubai in the United Arab Emirates to take control of some U.S. port operations faces certain defeat in Congreess, GOP officials said. Bush, however, insisted again that he would veto the legislation if it reaches his desk. The GOP leaders conveyed the news one day after a House comittee voted 62-2 to block the deal and Senate Democrats demanded a vote.