Ports Deal 'Pull Out' Is Phony

So we are all supposed to click our heels, grin and give Bush a big ole thumbs up in the next approval poll because he tossed out a bogus bone: The Dubai Port deal "pull out."

The Bushie media are spouting this story as if Bush had "given up" and Dubai Port World had withdrawn from the deal. But look again. DPW is only turning operations over to an American holding company. They are STILL the guys "behind the curtain." This smells very much like a back room deal worked out by Bush and his pals in Dubai/UAE. Just tell let 'em think they won - meanwhile, it'll be the same company, different name on the door.

AP (A.merican P.ropaganda) and Reuters (Neo Con News) both immediately cranked out misleading stories with even more misleading headlines to aid Bush - their bilge was quickly picked up and smeared around the world.[see my expose of these two sorry excuses for news sources later this week] But fortunately, there are some publications where real news can still be found.

disc.server.com...
Here's the real story from Forbes:

"In what could be a last-ditch effort to salvage its deal to operate East and Gulf Coast ports in the U.S., DP World told Congress that it would agree to transfer control to a "U.S. entity," which could simply mean a subsidiary of the Dubai operation.

"In a statement, first read on the floor of the U.S. Senate by Virginia Republican John Warner, DP World said the decision was made to "preserve the strong relationship between the U.S. and the U.A.E." But in fact, it sounded suspiciously like a device carefully crafted by DP World's huge team of lobbyists and lawyers to salvage the deal in some fashion.

"The new entity is supposed to have an American board and American managers, but the ownership was still questionable. Or, as New York's Democratic Sen. Charles Schumer observed, "the devil is in the details." If DP World is in fact merely planning to put its U.S. assets under a U.S.-managed subsidiary with oversight from a U.S.-staffed board, it would be following in a long line of foreign suppliers of defense technology to the U.S.

"This looks like a variant of that," says Clyde Prestowitz of the Economic Strategy Group in Washington. "

www.forbes.com/
Compare this to the intentionally vague and misleading AP crap:

www.signonsandiego.com...

Fortunately, not everyone in Congress is a clueless cluck. Rep. Peter King (NY) wasn't so quick to swallow the bait and said he would reserve any celebrations until he saw the details of the deal. And he's wise to wait - one of the warning signs was Bush brown-noser Bill Frist's too-quick observation: "This [alleged pull out of DPW]should make the issue go away."

Mod Edit: Posting work written by others. – Please Review This Link.




[edit on 10-3-2006 by DontTreadOnMe]

Thanks for posting this. I suspected something like this the moment I heard that the deal "failed" and an American "entity" was involved. Yeah, right.

So what's the issue? It can't be that DPW will still own the business (if true), because I don't hear similar complaints about foreign ownership of our west coast ports.

So it must be that the original complaint was that DPW would handle the day-to-day operations of the ports. That has apparently been addressed with US managers and BOD.

Let's not forget the small percentage of containers that are checked, or the fact that an attack will most likely be shipped into our country, which renders the ownership of the business almost moot.

Let's also not forget the role that the UAE plays as an ally. This relationship may prove to be more valuable in the upcoming months as tensions with Iran escalate.

There's always more than meets the eye, my friends.

What's really funny to me is that when the story of the ports deal first broke a story ran,I don't know how many are actually aware of this,stating that the deal went through without Pres. Bush even knowing about it. Yet,he was still quick to jump on the bandwagon. So what is really going on? What's the real force behind the scenes?

[edit on 10-3-2006 by SpeakerofTruth]

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
What's really funny to me is that when the story of the ports deal first broke a story ran,I don't know how many are actually aware of this,stating that the deal went through without Pres. Bush even knowing about it. Yet,he was still quick to jump on the bandwagon. So what is really going on? What's the real force behind the scenes?

[edit on 10-3-2006 by SpeakerofTruth]

There's a lot at stake in the mideast, and much more than we'll ever know about in terms of security and the WOT. To alienate an ally has big consequences. Imo, Bush had a knee-jerk reaction to the opposition to the deal, much like he'd have if we were to insult Great Britain.

The whole deal was vetted by admin at levels below Bush. Contrary to popular opinion, he cannot possibly be on top of every business deal that goes down in the US. No man can. People want to assign the "every time a wing falls from a sparrow" responsibility to him, but that's unreasonable.

from what I have read, the UAE co. still buys the port rights but management is turned over to a US company with experience operating ports.

I haven't seen or heard who that us company is but I wouldn't be too surprised to read a link between the businessmen in the whitehouse and the business itself.

originally posted by jsobecky

People want to assign the "every time a wing falls from a sparrow" responsibility to him, but that's unreasonable.

How true!! People have not yet figured out that a president is little more than a figurehead of something much larger. A president really has no power other than the veto which is,wait for it folks......, only 1/2 of a vote!!! Mush like the young protestor said to Nixon in the Movie "Nixon": "You are a victim just like us aren't you? You are just like us!! You can't stop the beast that is raging out of control either."

[edit on 11-3-2006 by SpeakerofTruth]

The restructured deal, if it goes through, would alleviate two of Congress' main concerns:

(1) The records of everything going on would be kept in the U.S. and be subject to inspection by U.S. authorities.

(2) The U.S. based company would be subject to all laws & regulations in the U.S.

The restructured deal appears like a small thing to many, but it isn't, the changes are significant.