Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Tom Friedman on Bush Port DB Issue

Expand Messages
  • Gregory
    This is the second half of an amazing column by Tom Friedman. I think he nailed it right on the head. I copied only the lower half for quicker reading and
    Message 1 of 4 , Feb 24, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      This is the second half of an amazing column by Tom Friedman. I
      think he nailed it right on the head. I copied only the lower half
      for quicker reading and this is where the tire meets the road.

      ####

      But while I have zero sympathy for the political mess in which the
      president now finds himself, I will not join this feeding frenzy. On
      the pure merits of this case, the president is right. The port deal
      should go ahead. Congress should focus on the N.S.A. wiretapping. Not
      this.

      As a country, we must not go down this road of global ethnic
      profiling — looking for Arabs under our beds the way we once looked
      for commies. If we do — if America, the world's beacon of pluralism
      and tolerance, goes down that road — we will take the rest of the
      world with us. We will sow the wind and we will reap the whirlwind.

      If there were a real security issue here, I'd join the critics. But
      the security argument is bogus and, I would add, borderline racist.
      Many U.S. ports are run today by foreign companies, but the U.S.
      Coast Guard still controls all aspects of port security, entry and
      exits; the U.S. Customs Service is still in charge of inspecting the
      containers; and U.S. longshoremen still handle the cargos.

      The port operator simply oversees the coming and going of ships,
      making sure they are properly loaded and offloaded in the most cost-
      effective manner. As my colleague David E. Sanger reported: "Among
      the many problems at American ports, said Stephen E. Flynn, a retired
      Coast Guard commander who is an expert on port security at the
      Council on Foreign Relations, 'who owns the management contract ranks
      near the very bottom.' "

      What ranks much higher for me is the terrible trend emerging in the
      world today: Sunnis attacking Shiite mosques in Iraq, and vice versa.
      Danish caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad, and violent Muslim
      protests, including Muslims killing Christians in Nigeria and then
      Christians killing Muslims. And today's Washington Post story about
      how some overzealous, security-obsessed U.S. consul in India has
      created a huge diplomatic flap — on the eve of Mr. Bush's first visit
      to India — by denying one of India's most respected scientists a visa
      to America on the grounds that his knowledge of chemistry might be a
      threat. The U.S. embassy in New Delhi has apologized.

      My point is simple: the world is drifting dangerously toward a
      widespread religious and sectarian cleavage — the likes of which we
      have not seen for a long, long time. The only country with the power
      to stem this toxic trend is America.

      People across the world still look to our example of pluralism, which
      is like no other. If we go Dark Ages, if we go down the road of
      pitchfork-wielding xenophobes, then the whole world will go Dark Ages.

      There is a poison loose today, and America — America at its best — is
      the only antidote. That's why it is critical that we stand by our
      principles of free trade and welcome the world to do business in our
      land, as long as there is no security threat. If we start exporting
      fear instead of hope, we are going to import everyone else's fears
      right back. That is not a world you want for your kids.
    • Greg Cannon
      Thank you for the column, I agree with him. My congressman, Democrat Silvestre Reyes, has now joined in attacking the port deal. Here s a letter signed by him
      Message 2 of 4 , Feb 24, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        Thank you for the column, I agree with him. My
        congressman, Democrat Silvestre Reyes, has now joined
        in attacking the port deal. Here's a letter signed by
        him and a few dozen other Democrats, and independent
        Bernie Sanders.

        http://www.newshorn.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=884&Itemid=120

        Melancon to Bush: Stop the Port Deal
        Contributed by Alexander James Outhuse
        Thursday, 23 February 2006


        MELANCON TO BUSH: STOP THE PORT DEAL

        U.S. Rep. Charlie Melancon today joined nearly
        two dozen of his colleagues in a letter to President
        George Bush, asking him to halt the pending deal with
        the United Arab Emirates-owned company, Dubai Ports
        World.

        "Though I've only been in Washington for just over a
        year, I've seen very few issues that are truly
        bipartisan. The opposition to this port deal is one
        of those and I am sure that Democrats and Republicans
        in Congress are going to come together quickly on
        this," said Melancon.

        "Though initial reports focused only on six ports,
        including New Orleans, I am very concerned about the
        effects this deal would have on the Ports of Baton
        Rouge and Lake Charles as well. They are two of
        twenty American ports whose operations would be
        affected if this deal goes through."

        Following is the text of the letter:

        Dear Mr. President:

        We are writing to urge the Administration to halt
        the pending deal for the United Arab Emirates (UAE) to
        gain control of significant operations at 20 major
        U.S. ports on the East and Gulf Coasts of the United
        States - in the post 9-11 world in which security is
        paramount. Since September 11th, our national port
        security is of vital interest; and a contract to a
        foreign national company over the operation of our
        nation's major ports is an inherently bad idea at this
        moment in time.

        The decision by the Committee on Foreign
        Investment in the United States (CFIUS) to allow the
        sale of port operations to a foreign government raises
        serious security concerns. We understand CFIUS did
        not include background checks of senior managers of
        Dubai Ports World or a study of how the company
        screens its workers. The failure to conduct such
        basic evaluations during this time of heightened
        national security concerns demands a more thorough
        vetting. This seems particularly easy to understand
        given at least two of the 9/11 hijackers lived in the
        United Arab Emirates prior to the attacks on the World
        Trade Center and the Pentagon, and that money that
        helped to finance the attacks on American soil came
        from the UAE.

        This is not a trade issue, as the Administration
        has claimed; and far more ports are involved than has
        been reported. If the UAE wants to buy from us, they
        are welcome to do that. The 20 ports include the
        major East Coast ports and those along the Gulf
        coasts, through which the nation's food and oil pass
        daily. Having a foreign government in control of
        critical port functions like securing cargo and the
        hiring of security personnel is too high of a risk for
        the American people at vulnerable U.S. ports.

        We expect Congress to act on this at the first
        opportunity; on Monday or Tuesday of next week. We
        believe bipartisan legislation will have the support
        of nearly all members of Congress. And we hope you
        will cease the talk of vetoing any legislation
        Congress will pass in the national interest. Congress
        and the President are co-equal branches of government.
        It is important to note that 270 members of the House
        of Representatives and 67 Senators can override a veto
        we determine to be opposed to the national interest.

        This is unquestionably not in the national
        interest, and most certainly cannot be done beyond the
        public eye. We respectfully request you stay the
        decision on this matter and conduct a more thorough
        review of this particular purchase with such
        gargantuan access to vulnerable infrastructure and
        insights into our port security.

        END OF LETTER

        Other signatories to the letter included: Chet Edwards
        (D-TX), Ed Markey (D-MA), Charlie Gonzalez (D-TX),
        Grace Napolitano (D-CA), Ed Towns (D-NY), James
        McGovern (D-MA), Frank Pallone (D-NJ), Silvestre Reyes
        (D-TX), Mike Ross (D-AR), Mike McNulty (D-NY), Neil
        Abercrombie (D-HI), Robert Brady (D-PA), Bernie
        Sanders (I-VT), Chaka Fattah (D-PA), Gene Green
        (D-TX), Jim Marshall (D-GA), Ruben Hinojosa (D-TX),
        Solomon Ortiz (D-TX), Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX),
        Robert Andrews (D-NJ), Joe Baca (D-CA), Jerry Nadler
        (D-NY), and Bill Clay (D-MO).

        --- Gregory <greggolopry@...> wrote:

        > This is the second half of an amazing column by Tom
        > Friedman. I
        > think he nailed it right on the head. I copied only
        > the lower half
        > for quicker reading and this is where the tire meets
        > the road.
        >
        > ####
        >
        > But while I have zero sympathy for the political
        > mess in which the
        > president now finds himself, I will not join this
        > feeding frenzy. On
        > the pure merits of this case, the president is
        > right. The port deal
        > should go ahead. Congress should focus on the N.S.A.
        > wiretapping. Not
        > this.
        >
        > As a country, we must not go down this road of
        > global ethnic
        > profiling � looking for Arabs under our beds the
        way
        > we once looked
        > for commies. If we do � if America, the world's
        > beacon of pluralism
        > and tolerance, goes down that road � we will take
        > the rest of the
        > world with us. We will sow the wind and we will reap
        > the whirlwind.
        >
        > If there were a real security issue here, I'd join
        > the critics. But
        > the security argument is bogus and, I would add,
        > borderline racist.
        > Many U.S. ports are run today by foreign companies,
        > but the U.S.
        > Coast Guard still controls all aspects of port
        > security, entry and
        > exits; the U.S. Customs Service is still in charge
        > of inspecting the
        > containers; and U.S. longshoremen still handle the
        > cargos.
        >
        > The port operator simply oversees the coming and
        > going of ships,
        > making sure they are properly loaded and offloaded
        > in the most cost-
        > effective manner. As my colleague David E. Sanger
        > reported: "Among
        > the many problems at American ports, said Stephen E.
        > Flynn, a retired
        > Coast Guard commander who is an expert on port
        > security at the
        > Council on Foreign Relations, 'who owns the
        > management contract ranks
        > near the very bottom.' "
        >
        > What ranks much higher for me is the terrible trend
        > emerging in the
        > world today: Sunnis attacking Shiite mosques in
        > Iraq, and vice versa.
        > Danish caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad, and
        > violent Muslim
        > protests, including Muslims killing Christians in
        > Nigeria and then
        > Christians killing Muslims. And today's Washington
        > Post story about
        > how some overzealous, security-obsessed U.S. consul
        > in India has
        > created a huge diplomatic flap � on the eve of Mr.
        > Bush's first visit
        > to India � by denying one of India's most
        respected
        > scientists a visa
        > to America on the grounds that his knowledge of
        > chemistry might be a
        > threat. The U.S. embassy in New Delhi has
        > apologized.
        >
        > My point is simple: the world is drifting
        > dangerously toward a
        > widespread religious and sectarian cleavage � the
        > likes of which we
        > have not seen for a long, long time. The only
        > country with the power
        > to stem this toxic trend is America.
        >
        > People across the world still look to our example of
        > pluralism, which
        > is like no other. If we go Dark Ages, if we go down
        > the road of
        > pitchfork-wielding xenophobes, then the whole world
        > will go Dark Ages.
        >
        > There is a poison loose today, and America �
        America
        > at its best � is
        > the only antidote. That's why it is critical that we
        > stand by our
        > principles of free trade and welcome the world to do
        > business in our
        > land, as long as there is no security threat. If we
        > start exporting
        > fear instead of hope, we are going to import
        > everyone else's fears
        > right back. That is not a world you want for your
        > kids.
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
      • THOMAS JOHNSON
        I just happened to read this AP report before seeing these posts. It was all over Air America today (so consider the source) that the UAE banking system is
        Message 3 of 4 , Feb 24, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          I just happened to read this AP report before seeing
          these posts. It was all over Air America today (so
          consider the source) that the UAE banking system is
          renowned for it propensity for money-laundering and
          that the country itself is heavily into slave-trading.
          Please don't take this as any type of debate or
          position on the issue... I just thought it was germane
          to the discussion. Excerpted from an AP report late
          Fri. night:


          Thomas Kean, a former Republican governor of New
          Jersey who led the bipartisan probe of the Sept. 11
          attacks, said the deal was a big mistake because of
          past connections between the 2001 hijackers and the
          UAE.

          "It shouldn't have happened, it never should have
          happened," Kean said in a telephone interview with The
          Associated Press.

          The quicker the Bush administration can get out of the
          deal, the better, he said. "There's no question that
          two of the 9/11 hijackers came from there and money
          was laundered through there," Kean said.

          Kean acknowledged the UAE is now being helpful by
          allowing the United States to dock ships in its
          country's waters, and helping the U.S. with
          intelligence.

          "From our point of view, we don't want foreigners
          controlling our ports," Kean said. "From their point
          of view, this is a legitimate company that had a
          legitimate bid and won, and here are all these
          congressmen saying all these things about not wanting
          this company. It looks to them like it's anti-Arab."

          "I think this deal is going to be killed," Kean said.
          "The question is how much damage is this going to do
          to us before it's killed."

          Kean's comments threatened to overshadow moves by the
          company and the White House to appease critics by
          delaying the takeover.

          "Governor Kean knows as much as anyone how risky it is
          to deal with the United Arab Emirates," said Rep.
          Peter King (news, bio, voting record), R-N.Y.,
          chairman of the House
          Homeland Security Committee and a leading opponent.

          "This just proves that no real investigation was ever
          conducted, and it's unfortunate that he and the other
          9/11 commissioners were not contacted before the
          government approved this."

          The former head of the
          CIA's
          Osama bin Laden unit joined in the criticism.

          "The fact that you are putting a company in place that
          could already be infiltrated by al-Qaida is a silly
          thing to do," said Mike Scheuer, who headed the CIA
          unit until 1999.

          The U.S. operations generating the protests represent
          about 10 percent of a global $6.8 billion acquisition
          by the state-run company.

          Republicans and Democrats in Congress have denounced
          the Bush administration for approving the deal through
          a secretive review process designed to protect
          national security in big corporate mergers.

          Lawmakers led by King and Sen. Charles Schumer (news,
          bio, voting record), D-N.Y., plan to introduce
          legislation next week that would put the deal on hold
          while the government conducts further investigation.

          Hoping to forestall such legislation, Dubai Ports said
          Thursday night it would postpone its action
          indefinitely to give Congress more time to look at the
          deal.



          --- Greg Cannon <gregcannon1@...> wrote:

          > Thank you for the column, I agree with him. My
          > congressman, Democrat Silvestre Reyes, has now
          > joined
          > in attacking the port deal. Here's a letter signed
          > by
          > him and a few dozen other Democrats, and independent
          > Bernie Sanders.
          >
          >
          http://www.newshorn.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=884&Itemid=120
          >
          > Melancon to Bush: Stop the Port Deal
          > Contributed by Alexander James Outhuse
          > Thursday, 23 February 2006
          >
          >
          > MELANCON TO BUSH: STOP THE PORT DEAL
          >
          > U.S. Rep. Charlie Melancon today joined nearly
          > two dozen of his colleagues in a letter to President
          > George Bush, asking him to halt the pending deal
          > with
          > the United Arab Emirates-owned company, Dubai Ports
          > World.
          >
          > "Though I've only been in Washington for just over
          > a
          > year, I've seen very few issues that are truly
          > bipartisan. The opposition to this port deal is one
          > of those and I am sure that Democrats and
          > Republicans
          > in Congress are going to come together quickly on
          > this," said Melancon.
          >
          > "Though initial reports focused only on six ports,
          > including New Orleans, I am very concerned about the
          > effects this deal would have on the Ports of Baton
          > Rouge and Lake Charles as well. They are two of
          > twenty American ports whose operations would be
          > affected if this deal goes through."
          >
          > Following is the text of the letter:
          >
          > Dear Mr. President:
          >
          > We are writing to urge the Administration to
          > halt
          > the pending deal for the United Arab Emirates (UAE)
          > to
          > gain control of significant operations at 20 major
          > U.S. ports on the East and Gulf Coasts of the United
          > States - in the post 9-11 world in which security is
          > paramount. Since September 11th, our national port
          > security is of vital interest; and a contract to a
          > foreign national company over the operation of our
          > nation's major ports is an inherently bad idea at
          > this
          > moment in time.
          >
          > The decision by the Committee on Foreign
          > Investment in the United States (CFIUS) to allow the
          > sale of port operations to a foreign government
          > raises
          > serious security concerns. We understand CFIUS did
          > not include background checks of senior managers of
          > Dubai Ports World or a study of how the company
          > screens its workers. The failure to conduct such
          > basic evaluations during this time of heightened
          > national security concerns demands a more thorough
          > vetting. This seems particularly easy to understand
          > given at least two of the 9/11 hijackers lived in
          > the
          > United Arab Emirates prior to the attacks on the
          > World
          > Trade Center and the Pentagon, and that money that
          > helped to finance the attacks on American soil came
          > from the UAE.
          >
          > This is not a trade issue, as the
          > Administration
          > has claimed; and far more ports are involved than
          > has
          > been reported. If the UAE wants to buy from us,
          > they
          > are welcome to do that. The 20 ports include the
          > major East Coast ports and those along the Gulf
          > coasts, through which the nation's food and oil pass
          > daily. Having a foreign government in control of
          > critical port functions like securing cargo and the
          > hiring of security personnel is too high of a risk
          > for
          > the American people at vulnerable U.S. ports.
          >
          > We expect Congress to act on this at the first
          > opportunity; on Monday or Tuesday of next week. We
          > believe bipartisan legislation will have the support
          > of nearly all members of Congress. And we hope you
          > will cease the talk of vetoing any legislation
          > Congress will pass in the national interest.
          > Congress
          > and the President are co-equal branches of
          > government.
          > It is important to note that 270 members of the
          > House
          > of Representatives and 67 Senators can override a
          > veto
          > we determine to be opposed to the national interest.
          >
          > This is unquestionably not in the national
          > interest, and most certainly cannot be done beyond
          > the
          > public eye. We respectfully request you stay the
          > decision on this matter and conduct a more thorough
          > review of this particular purchase with such
          > gargantuan access to vulnerable infrastructure and
          > insights into our port security.
          >
          > END OF LETTER
          >
          > Other signatories to the letter included: Chet
          > Edwards
          > (D-TX), Ed Markey (D-MA), Charlie Gonzalez (D-TX),
          > Grace Napolitano (D-CA), Ed Towns (D-NY), James
          > McGovern (D-MA), Frank Pallone (D-NJ), Silvestre
          > Reyes
          > (D-TX), Mike Ross (D-AR), Mike McNulty (D-NY), Neil
          > Abercrombie (D-HI), Robert Brady (D-PA), Bernie
          > Sanders (I-VT), Chaka Fattah (D-PA), Gene Green
          > (D-TX), Jim Marshall (D-GA), Ruben Hinojosa (D-TX),
          > Solomon Ortiz (D-TX), Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX),
          > Robert Andrews (D-NJ), Joe Baca (D-CA), Jerry Nadler
          > (D-NY), and Bill Clay (D-MO).
          >
          > --- Gregory <greggolopry@...> wrote:
          >
          > > This is the second half of an amazing column by
          > Tom
          > > Friedman. I
          > > think he nailed it right on the head. I copied
          > only
          > > the lower half
          > > for quicker reading and this is where the tire
          > meets
          > > the road.
          > >
          > > ####
          > >
          > > But while I have zero sympathy for the political
          > > mess in which the
          > > president now finds himself, I will not join this
          > > feeding frenzy. On
          > > the pure merits of this case, the president is
          > > right. The port deal
          > > should go ahead. Congress should focus on the
          > N.S.A.
          > > wiretapping. Not
          > > this.
          > >
          > > As a country, we must not go down this road of
          > > global ethnic
          > > profiling � looking for Arabs under our beds the
          > way
          > > we once looked
          > > for commies. If we do � if America, the world's
          > > beacon of pluralism
          > > and tolerance, goes down that road � we will
          > take
          > > the rest of the
          > > world with us. We will sow the wind and we will
          > reap
          > > the whirlwind.
          > >
          > > If there were a real security issue here, I'd join
          > > the critics. But
          > > the security argument is bogus and, I would add,
          > > borderline racist.
          > > Many U.S. ports are run today by foreign
          > companies,
          > > but the U.S.
          > > Coast Guard still controls all aspects of port
          > > security, entry and
          > > exits; the U.S. Customs Service is still in charge
          > > of inspecting the
          > > containers; and U.S. longshoremen still handle the
          > > cargos.
          > >
          > > The port operator simply oversees the coming and
          > > going of ships,
          > > making sure they are properly loaded and offloaded
          > > in the most cost-
          > > effective manner. As my colleague David E. Sanger
          > > reported: "Among
          > > the many problems at American ports, said Stephen
          > E.
          > > Flynn, a retired
          > > Coast Guard commander who is an expert on port
          > > security at the
          > > Council on Foreign Relations, 'who owns the
          > > management contract ranks
          > > near the very bottom.' "
          > >
          > > What ranks much higher for me is the terrible
          > trend
          >
          === message truncated ===
        • greg
          I heard some of the same reports on Air America, particularly about the UAE royal family being friendly with Osama bin Laden in 1999. That is worrisome. A
          Message 4 of 4 , Feb 24, 2006
          • 0 Attachment
            I heard some of the same reports on Air America, particularly about
            the UAE royal family being friendly with Osama bin Laden in 1999. That
            is worrisome. A friend of mine on another list sent in this article,
            which argues that corporate control of the ports is a bigger problem
            than foreign control.

            http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat?bid=1&pid=62081

            BLOG | Posted 02/21/2006 @ 08:46am
            Corporate Control of Ports Is the Problem -- UPDATED

            The problem with the Bush administration's support for a move by a
            United Arab Emirates-based firm to take over operation of six major
            American ports -- as well as the shipment of military equipment
            through two additional ports -- is not that the corporation in
            question is Arab owned.

            The problem is that Dubai Ports World is a corporation. It happens to
            be a corporation that is owned by the government of the the United
            Arab Emirates, or UAE, a nation that served as an operational and
            financial base for the hijackers who carried out the attacks of 9-11
            attacks, and that has stirred broad concern. But, even if the sale of
            operational control of the ports to this firm did not raise security
            alarm bells, it would be a bad idea.

            Ports are essential pieces of the infrastructure of the United
            States, and they are best run by public authorities that are
            accountable to elected officials and the people those officials
            represent. While traditional port authorities still exist, they are
            increasing marginalized as privatization schemes have allowed
            corporations -- often with tough anti-union attitudes and even
            tougher bottom lines -- to take charge of more and more of the basic
            operations at the nation's ports.

            In the era when the federal government sees "homeland security" as a
            slogan rather than a responsibility, allowing the nation's working
            waterfronts to be run by private firms just doesn't work. It is no
            secret that federal authorities have failed to mandate, let alone
            implement, basic port security measures. But this is not merely a
            federal failure; it is, as well, a private-sector failure. The
            private firms that control so many of the nation's ports have not
            begun to set up a solid system for waterfront security in the more
            than four years since the September 11, 2001 attacks. And shifting
            control of the ports of New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans,
            Miami and Philadelphia -- along with control over the movement of
            military equipment on behalf of the U.S. Army through the ports at
            Beaumont and Corpus Christi -- from a British firm, Peninsular and
            Oriental Steam Navigation Co., to Dubai Ports World, is not going to
            improve the situation.

            Unfortunately, the debate has been posed as a fight over whether Arab-
            owned firms should be allowed to manage ports and other strategic
            sites in the U.S. Media coverage of the debate sets up the
            increasingly ridiculous Homeland Security Secretary, Michael
            Chertoff -- who babbles bureaucratically about how, "We make sure
            there are assurances in place, in general, sufficient to satisfy us
            that the deal is appropriate from a national security standpoint" --
            against members of Congress -- who growl, as U.S. Rep. Peter King, R-
            New York, did over the weekend about the need "to guard against
            things like infiltration by al-Qaida or someone else,"

            There are two fundamental facts about corporations that put this
            controversy about who runs the ports in perspective.

            First: Like most American firms, most Arab-owned firms are committed
            to making money, and the vast majority of them are not about to
            compromise their potential profits by throwing in with terrorists.

            Second: Like most American firms, Arab-owned firms are more concerned
            about satisfying shareholders than anything else. As such, they are
            poor stewards of ports and other vital pieces of the national
            infrastructure that still require the constant investment of public
            funds, as well as responsible oversite by authorities that can see
            more than a bottom line, in order to maintain public safety -- not to
            mention the public good of modern, efficient transportation services.

            --- In prezveepsenator@yahoogroups.com, THOMAS JOHNSON <AVRCRDNG@...>
            wrote:
            >
            > I just happened to read this AP report before seeing
            > these posts. It was all over Air America today (so
            > consider the source) that the UAE banking system is
            > renowned for it propensity for money-laundering and
            > that the country itself is heavily into slave-trading.
            > Please don't take this as any type of debate or
            > position on the issue... I just thought it was germane
            > to the discussion. Excerpted from an AP report late
            > Fri. night:
            >
            >
            > Thomas Kean, a former Republican governor of New
            > Jersey who led the bipartisan probe of the Sept. 11
            > attacks, said the deal was a big mistake because of
            > past connections between the 2001 hijackers and the
            > UAE.
            >
            > "It shouldn't have happened, it never should have
            > happened," Kean said in a telephone interview with The
            > Associated Press.
            >
            > The quicker the Bush administration can get out of the
            > deal, the better, he said. "There's no question that
            > two of the 9/11 hijackers came from there and money
            > was laundered through there," Kean said.
            >
            > Kean acknowledged the UAE is now being helpful by
            > allowing the United States to dock ships in its
            > country's waters, and helping the U.S. with
            > intelligence.
            >
            > "From our point of view, we don't want foreigners
            > controlling our ports," Kean said. "From their point
            > of view, this is a legitimate company that had a
            > legitimate bid and won, and here are all these
            > congressmen saying all these things about not wanting
            > this company. It looks to them like it's anti-Arab."
            >
            > "I think this deal is going to be killed," Kean said.
            > "The question is how much damage is this going to do
            > to us before it's killed."
            >
            > Kean's comments threatened to overshadow moves by the
            > company and the White House to appease critics by
            > delaying the takeover.
            >
            > "Governor Kean knows as much as anyone how risky it is
            > to deal with the United Arab Emirates," said Rep.
            > Peter King (news, bio, voting record), R-N.Y.,
            > chairman of the House
            > Homeland Security Committee and a leading opponent.
            >
            > "This just proves that no real investigation was ever
            > conducted, and it's unfortunate that he and the other
            > 9/11 commissioners were not contacted before the
            > government approved this."
            >
            > The former head of the
            > CIA's
            > Osama bin Laden unit joined in the criticism.
            >
            > "The fact that you are putting a company in place that
            > could already be infiltrated by al-Qaida is a silly
            > thing to do," said Mike Scheuer, who headed the CIA
            > unit until 1999.
            >
            > The U.S. operations generating the protests represent
            > about 10 percent of a global $6.8 billion acquisition
            > by the state-run company.
            >
            > Republicans and Democrats in Congress have denounced
            > the Bush administration for approving the deal through
            > a secretive review process designed to protect
            > national security in big corporate mergers.
            >
            > Lawmakers led by King and Sen. Charles Schumer (news,
            > bio, voting record), D-N.Y., plan to introduce
            > legislation next week that would put the deal on hold
            > while the government conducts further investigation.
            >
            > Hoping to forestall such legislation, Dubai Ports said
            > Thursday night it would postpone its action
            > indefinitely to give Congress more time to look at the
            > deal.
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.