AccessMyLibrary provides FREE access to over 30 million articles from top publications available through your library.
Create a link to this page
Copy and paste this link tag into your Web page or blog:
NEW YORK, MARCH 10
ANALYSIS of the aborted ports deal begins and ends with political questions. Vin Weber, former congressman and now a lobbyist for the emirates, acknowledged that public pressure in the matter was "unprecedented" in his experience. Mr. Weber had for several days been counseling Dubai to back off from the deal, and signals were buzzing about in the capital at a feverish rate.
On Thursday, the climactic day, everyone in Washington was bound to or from the White House, the Senate, the Department of Homeland Security, or to a TV talk show ... when, suddenly, the calm voice of the sheik came across. Mohammed bin Rashid al-Maktoum, emir of Dubai, said in effect: "Look, if you people want so bad to operate the ports we took over from Peninsular & Oriental in Great Britain, well, go ahead. Round up a few American capitalists who want to buy us out for the $6.8 billion we were willing to pay."
President Bush was understandably indignant at the suggestion that he was indifferent to U.S. security. Ironically, when word got out that the White House hadn't even been aware of the pending deal until late last month, critics rushed to the conclusion that here was evidence of presidential insouciance. But it wasn't that. It was evidence that the machinery of government was humming along, everyone doing his duty.
John Negroponte, director of national intelligence, had surveilled the proposed sale and found no objection to it. The Committee on Foreign Investments in the United States, an interagency committee that passes judgment on foreign acquisitions, had approved the shift. The Coast Guard was unconcerned.
There was nothing inherently wrong with the deal, and the president's involvement became purely political. House majority leader John Boehner said it in so many words: "House Republicans were obligated to take action to respond to the concerns Americans have expressed about the proposed deal." This is different from saying that Congress had to act to ensure national security. The American public was almost overnight induced to be edgy about a deal that would give administrative control in six major port facilities to a company in ...
Source: HighBeam Research, Ports without a home.(on the right)(US ports and security)