"One is Treasury Secretary John Snow, whose department heads the federal panel that signed off on the $6.8 billion sale of an English company to government-owned Dubai Ports World - giving it control of Manhattan's cruise ship terminal and Newark's container port.

"Snow was chairman of the CSX rail firm that sold its own international port operations to DP World for $1.15 billion in 2004, the year after Snow left for President Bush's cabinet.

"The other connection is David Sanborn, who runs DP World's European and Latin American operations and who was tapped by Bush last month to head the U.S. Maritime Administration..."

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/politics/13922695.htm

“TRUTH IS A CASUALTY” SAYS DUBAI EDIITOR”

In Dubai, a city I recently visited, the newspapers are amused by the response, first because they are based in a firmly pro-western, pro-Capitalist country that is actually recycling some of their oil money back into western hands. Mohammed A. R. Galadari, editor of Khaleej Times, comments that “While the issue is taking many strange twists, truth, it appears, is a casualty.” He believes that US TV networks are generating more heat than light and distorting the story:

”For, if security is the issue, what no one is explaining is that DP World or Dubai will have nothing at all to do with security aspects at these ports. It is a commercial deal, pure and simple. The works that the Dubai firm would do are in respect of management of the facilities in the US ports, among others around the globe. It has nothing to do with security. Security will be America’s own job at those ports.

“To DP World’s credit, there are no two opinions about the competence of the UAE firm to undertake a vast global operation of this kind. “It could be perfectly qualified to operate the ports around the world”, admits none other than Senator Chuck Schumer, who was among the first to raise concerns over the DP World forays into the US shores. Those concerns are, he says, based (only) on matters of US internal security.

“The problem, prima facie, is that the Senators and others who are raising a hue and cry over the Dubai moves are, deliberately or otherwise, confusing people about the role of an international port operator like DP World. They do so by ignoring the fact that matters of security at these ports will be firmly in the hands of the US security personnel and US systems.”

COMPANY TO TRY TO CALM POLITICOS

“The company is dispatching a team to the US to try to sprinkle some facts on an emotional controversy. Here’s how the Financial Times explains what the global company does:

”The US is the only one of the 19 countries where P&O operates container terminals where the £3.92bn ($6.83bn) takeover of the UK container ports and ferries operator has caused serious controversy. Politicians have claimed that it presents an unacceptable security risk for a company based in the United Arab Emirates - which they allege had significant links with the September 11 2001 attacks on the US - to have control of US ports.

“The DP World team is set to explain that the P&O business controls only the leases of container terminals at the ports It says security at the ports is mainly the responsibility of outside bodies, including the US Coast Guard.

DEAL IS FINAL SAYS THE WHITE HOUSE

” Representatives of the White House and the Treasury Department said they had given their approval for Dubai Ports World to do business in the United States after a rigorous review. The decision, they said, was final.

Saying it is final does not make it so because of all the noise this has generated. No less a Bush spokesperson than Karen Hughes is trying to put the fire out. AP reports:

”In a discussion with reporters, Undersecretary of State Karen Hughes said she didn’t believe the gathering objections represent a general Islamophobia among American lawmakers, as a Dubai newspaper’s opinion article Monday alleged.

“I would hope that is not the case,” Hughes said. “I hope the people of the United Arab Emirates and the government will understand that in a democracy, there is a process of debate.”

RACIAL PROFILING?

The irony is that the Busheviks are experiencing the very backlash against the Arab World that they have instigated. David Eland of the Independent institute does see a component of racial profiling in the hysteria on the issue:

”Some members of Congress, exhibiting post-9/11 jingoism and paranoia, are pressuring the Bush administration to reconsider its decision to allow Dubai Ports World, an Arab company, to take over operations at six U.S. ports. The approval should stand.

“Congressman Peter T. King (R-NY), Chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee and, more importantly, a Congressman from an area near two of the ports that will be operated by Dubai Ports World, expressed this xenophobic view about Dubai’s acquisition of the British company that is currently operating the ports: “In the post-9/11 world, there should have been a presumption against this company.”

“Why? Because two of the 9/11 hijackers happened to be from the United Arab Emirates (UAE), the country in which the company is based. Yet the British company, Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company, was allowed to operate the ports in New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, Philadelphia, Miami, and New Orleans despite Richard Reid’s (the infamous “shoe bomber”) British citizenship. And American companies are permitted to operate some U.S. ports despite the fact that Timothy McVeigh, Jose Padilla, and other U.S. citizens are convicted or accused terrorists. For that matter, how do we know that even an American company running the ports would be immune from terrorist infiltration?

“In fact, since two of the 9/11 hijackers were from the UAE, Dubai Ports World might even have a stronger interest in operating safe and secure ports than companies from other nations. Dubai has a worldwide presence, an extensive history of operating ports, and a reputation to uphold. If a terrorist incident occurred in one of its ports, the company would probably lose more business worldwide than a non-Arabic company would under the same circumstances.

http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1677

BUSH SHIFTS ON OIL

Meanwhile as this deal goes through, the Bush Administration seems to be distancing itself from Arab oil suppliers and hinting at “startling breakthroughs on energy:”

Feb. 20 (Bloomberg) — President George W. Bush said the US needs to reduce crude oil imports and diversify its energy consumption so the world’s largest economy isn’t “held hostage'’ by oil-rich countries that may not be allies. …

ICH: Silence the War Drums

Congressman Ron Paul Speaks Out:

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this very dangerous legislation. My colleagues would do well to understand that this legislation is leading us toward war against Iran.”

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11995.htm

ISRAELI CRITICIZES ISRAELI STANCE TOWARDS HAMAS

Gideon Levy offers a perspective in Ha’aretz we are getting”

”Even if we put aside the awful political inanity of pushing Hamas into a corner instead of giving it a chance to change its ways, and even if we ignore the fact that Israel plans to confiscate tax revenues that do not belong to it, the policy of the Kadima government raises questions about its humanity. Where do we get the right to abuse an entire people this way? Is it only because of our great power and the fact that the U.S. allows us to run wild and do whatever we want? . . .

“What country would dare to exacerbate the living conditions (which are so miserable in any case) of the residents of a territory under its occupation? What was the sin of the 4,000 lucky people from Gaza whom Israel still allowed to work within its borders, and to whom it is now closing the gates? Did the decision-makers call to mind the sight of these downtrodden people, crowded and humiliated at the Erez crossing on their way home from an exhausting day of work?

“More than half of all Palestinians are already living in poverty according to the last United Nations report, published in December. Last year, 37 percent had difficulties obtaining food and 54 percent of the residents of the “liberated” Gaza Strip cut back the amount of food they consume. Child mortality rose by 15 percent and the average unemployment rate reached 28 percent. To travel in the West Bank, the Palestinians have to traverse no fewer than 397 checkpoints and, in addition to this, Israel now wants to wield an even heavier hand. . .

www.haaretz.com//hasen/objects/pages/PrintArticleEn.jhtml?itemNo=684258

WATCH FOR NEW DEMOCRATIC IRAQ WITHDRAWAL “PLAN”

The Boston Globe reports that Democrats are rallying behind a new plan drawn up by a Republican:

” After months of trying unsuccessfully to develop a common message on the war in Iraq, Democratic Party leaders are beginning to coalesce around a broad plan to begin a quick withdrawal of US troops and install them elsewhere in the region, where they could respond to emergencies in Iraq and help fight terrorism in other countries.

“The concept, dubbed ‘’strategic redeployment,” is outlined in a slim, nine-page report coauthored by a former Reagan administration assistant Defense secretary, Lawrence J. Korb, in the fall. It sets a goal of a phased troop withdrawal that would take nearly all US troops out of Iraq by the end of 2007, although many Democrats disagree on whether troop draw-downs should be tied to a timeline.”

Http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/02/20/democrats_may_unite_on_plan_to_pull_troops/