Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Defense Department Briefing, February 21 (Rumsfeld on ports deal)
U.S. Department of State. Web site | 22 February 2006

Posted on 02/22/2006 8:53:18 AM PST by presidio9

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and General Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, briefed the media February 21 at the Pentagon.

Following is transcript of the Pentagon briefing:

(begin transcript)

U.S. Department of Defense Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Public Affairs) News Transcript

Presenter: Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld and Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff General Peter Pace

February 21, 2006

DoD News Briefing

SEC. RUMSFELD: Good afternoon, folks. We have spoken often about the skill and compassion of the men and women in uniform, and I know the American people recognize that there is something special about a country, like ours, that has the ability and the desire and the willingness to send our finest young people to come to the aid of people all across the globe, people they've never met.

-snip-

Q: Mr. Secretary, I'd like to ask you about government -- the U.S. government's decision to have a company from the UAE run six U.S. seaports. Is that a decision that the Defense Department weighed in on? And what, if any, national security issues do you think that raises?

SEC. RUMSFELD: First, let me say I'm not expert on this subject, and it -- my understanding that I've been told secondhand by others is the following: that there's a process that exists in the government; that six departments and agencies are involved, and five or six offices in the Executive Office of the President and the White House are involved; and there's a time limit of something like 30 days during which this process is to be executed; that the process worked; it was chaired by the Department of Treasury -- the deputy, Bob Kimmitt, is -- was the chairman -- and they -- in the normal order of things, what they do, as I understand it, is they select a lead agency or department based on the substance of it -- and in this case, it was Homeland Security, obviously, because the Coast Guard has the responsibility for the security of ports -- and that the process went forward; and in the course of it, the Department of Homeland Security and the interagency process negotiated a letter with the company that had purchased, I believe, a British company, setting forth exactly how security would be handled. I've not seen it, so I can't describe it, but that's my understanding.

And the -- I guess the only other thing I'd say is that we all deal with the UAE on a regular basis.

It's a country that's been involved in the global war on terror with us, it's a country that we have facilities that we use, and it's a country that was very responsive to assist in Katrina, one of the early countries that did that, and a country that we have very close military-to-military relations as well as political and economic relations.

Do you want to comment?

GEN. PACE: Sir, the military-to-military relationship with the United Arab Emirates is superb. They've got great seaports that are capable of handling, and do, our aircraft carriers. They've got airfields that they allow us to use, and their airspace, their logistics support. They've got a world-class air-to-air training facility that they let us use and cooperate with them in the training of our pilots. In everything that we have asked and work with them on, they have proven to be very, very solid partners. And as the Secretary said, they were the very first country -- a hundred million dollars is what they offered to Katrina victims.

SEC. RUMSFELD: I should add that I wasn't aware of this until this weekend, as I think is the case with Pete.

GEN. PACE: That's correct, sir, on the port --

SEC. RUMSFELD: Yeah. And I'm told that Deputy Secretary of Treasury Kimmitt and others will be briefing on this, who do have the background of the discussions and the information on it.

Q: There was a Defense Department representative in the decision-making process? Is that what you're --

SEC. RUMSFELD: There were Defense Department and -- I think as I said, there were six departments that were involved in the process in one way or another, and the Defense Department was one of them. The lead was the Department of Homeland Security.

Q: Are you confident that any problems with security -- from what you know, are you confident that any problems with security would not be greater with a UAE company running this than an American company?

SEC. RUMSFELD: I am reluctant to make judgments based on the minimal amount of information I have, because I just heard about this over the weekend. I'm told that nothing changes with respect to security under the contract, that the Coast Guard is in charge of security, not the corporation.

And the corporation -- is this correct?

GEN. PACE: Sir, that's true. And there are many companies in various ports around the United States that are not U.S.-owned that help do this kind of cargo handling. And of course, our Coast Guard are the ones who make the judgments about the security of the ports and how that all interfaces. And that was part of the dialogue, as I understand it, that took place amongst the various departments.

SEC. RUMSFELD: And the Coast Guard, of course, has the responsibility for the ports, and they should be the ones who would describe how it would be handled and why it is acceptable, because they signed off on it.


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Culture/Society; Extended News; Foreign Affairs; Government; Miscellaneous; Politics/Elections; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: bushcantbewrongcanhe
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-29 next last

1 posted on 02/22/2006 8:53:19 AM PST by presidio9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: presidio9

Oh those BushBots!


2 posted on 02/22/2006 9:10:08 AM PST by Paradox (Liberalism is Narcissism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: presidio9

"SEC. RUMSFELD: I am reluctant to make judgments based on the minimal amount of information I have, because I just heard about this over the weekend. I'm told that nothing changes with respect to security under the contract, that the Coast Guard is in charge of security, not the corporation.

And the corporation -- is this correct?

GEN. PACE: Sir, that's true. And there are many companies in various ports around the United States that are not U.S.-owned that help do this kind of cargo handling. And of course, our Coast Guard are the ones who make the judgments about the security of the ports and how that all interfaces. And that was part of the dialogue, as I understand it, that took place amongst the various departments.

SEC. RUMSFELD: And the Coast Guard, of course, has the responsibility for the ports, and they should be the ones who would describe how it would be handled and why it is acceptable, because they signed off on it."


End of story right there.


3 posted on 02/22/2006 9:12:34 AM PST by brothers4thID (Being lectured by Ted Kennedy on ethics is not unlike being lectured on dating protocol by Ted Bundy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
And there are many companies in various ports around the United States that are not U.S.-owned that help do this kind of cargo handling.

Yes, it is the Bush Administration's firm policy to sell-out our national security to the Chicoms as well.

Chinese Companies With Ties to Military Encircle U.S. [COSCO]
COSCO, Massachusetts Port Authority Sign Terminal Services Agreement
Treasury Secretary Snow Buys Brooklyn Bridge From Chinese! (Again!)

4 posted on 02/22/2006 9:13:34 AM PST by Willie Green (Go Pat Go!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: presidio9

Wednesday, Feb. 22, 2006 11:24 a.m. EST
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/2/22/112507.shtml?s=ic

Joe Lieberman: Don't Trash Dubai Deal

As the political firestorm was building over the Bush administration's decision to hand over control of six major U.S. ports to a company based in the United Arab Emirates, Sen. Joseph Lieberman was urging caution.

"Dubai and the United Arab Emirates are allies of ours in the war on terrorism," the Connecticut Democrat said, in little noticed comments three days ago on ABC's "This Week."

"So I don't think we want to just because it's a Dubai company, even owned by the government, we want to exclude them from doing business here," he added.

Lieberman reminded: "The more you look at it, the fact is that a lot of terminals in America are already owned not ports, terminals owned by foreign companies."

The former vice presidential candidate's position contrasted sharply with other members of his party - like Sens. Hillary Clinton and Charles Schumer - who immediately saw the ports deal as an opportunity to undermine the President Bush's image of strength in the war on terror.

But Lieberman insisted that the Dubai deal did nothing to increase the vulnerabilities of an already under-protected U.S. ports system.

"The truth is I worry more about the failure to invest enough in port security in America through the Homeland Security Department to detect dangerous items, WMD, coming in here than I worry right now about this, this sale," he told "This Week."



On the face of it, I am disappointed in G.W. over his handling of this. Why couldn't there have been a congressional hearing on this before it was given the OK?

This just gives the Democrats more ammunition to bash Bush.

When I find myself agreeing with Chucky Schumer, It gives me a real uncomfortable feeling.


5 posted on 02/22/2006 9:32:36 AM PST by KeyLargo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
First, let me say I'm not expert on this subject, and it -- my understanding that I've been told secondhand by others is the following: that there's a process that exists in the government; that six departments and agencies are involved, and five or six offices in the Executive Office of the President and the White House are involved; and...

And it's time for you to get your head out of your @$$ and learn something about defending our national security.

Reform CFIUS to Stop Foreign Raiders from Dismantling the Defense Industrial Base

6 posted on 02/22/2006 9:33:05 AM PST by Willie Green (Go Pat Go!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Willie Green
SEC. RUMSFELD: I should add that I wasn't aware of this until this weekend, as I think is the case with Pete. SEC. RUMSFELD: There were Defense Department and -- I think as I said, there were six departments that were involved in the process in one way or another, and the Defense Department was one of them. The lead was the Department of Homeland Security.

Or put another way. I don't, or want to, know what is going on in my Department. Let's all smile.

7 posted on 02/22/2006 9:35:09 AM PST by ex-snook (God of the Universe, God of Creation, God of Love, thank you for life.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: ex-snook

i thought he was supposedly on the committee that made the decision. guess that was just a lie to make it sound like the deal was vetted.


8 posted on 02/22/2006 9:53:48 AM PST by rudabaga
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: rudabaga
So Bush didn't know about it. Rumsfeld didn't know about. Who took it upon themselves to runt this through. That should be the main concern of everyone. Of course, there are those who subscribe to the words of one of the 9/11 hijackers; "Stay quiet and everything will be O K"
9 posted on 02/22/2006 10:04:11 AM PST by isrul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Willie Green

I know it's hard Willie, but please try to stay on topic.


10 posted on 02/22/2006 10:12:33 AM PST by presidio9 ("Bird Flu" is the new Y2K Virus -Only without the inconvenient deadline.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: isrul
DP WORLD EXECUTIVE NOMINATED FOR PRESITIGOUS US GOVT POSITION Dubai, 24 January 2006: - Global ports operator DP World today welcomed news that one of its senior executives, Dave Sanborn, has been nominated by US President George W. Bush to serve as Maritime Administrator a key transportation appointment reporting directly to Norman Mineta the Secretary of Transportation and Cabinet Member.
The White House has issued a statement from Washington DC announcing the nomination. The confirmation process will begin in February.
Mr Sanborn currently holds the position of Director of Operations for Europe and Latin America for the Dubai-based company

Mohammed Sharaf, CEO, DP World said: “While we are sorry to lose such an experienced and capable executive, it is exactly those qualities that will make Dave an effective administrator for MarAd. We are proud of Dave’s selection and pleased that the Bush Administration found such a capable executive. We wish him all the best in his new role.”

Ted Bilkey, Chief Operating Officer, DP World said: “Dave’s decades of experience in markets around the world, together with his passion for the industry and commitment to its development, will allow him to make a positive contribution to the work of the Maritime Administration. We wish him well for the future.”

Mr Sanborn, a graduate of The United States Merchant Maritime Academy, joined DP World in 2005. He previously held senior roles with shipping lines CMA-CGM (Americas), APL Ltd and Sea-Land and has been based, besides the US, in Brazil, Europe, Hong Kong and Dubai during his career. He has also served in the US Naval Reserve.

Mr Sanborn is due to take up his new role based in Washington DC later in 2006. -- ENDS --

And they did not know?
11 posted on 02/22/2006 10:17:01 AM PST by ch.man
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
I know it's hard Willie, but please try to stay on topic.

I am on topic.
CFIUS is the group of government agencies responsible for reviewing foreign investments that Rummy is talking about.
Of course its apparent that Rummy is backpeddling and trying to distance himself from this decision, but it IS HIS JOB to know about this group and it's function.

12 posted on 02/22/2006 10:43:46 AM PST by Willie Green (Go Pat Go!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Willie Green

Willie, you are either lying or you are ignorant. Which is it? CFIUS is under the direction of Treasury, not Defense. Again, if you want to talk about this find a thread and do so, but don't try to hijack mine.


13 posted on 02/22/2006 10:50:46 AM PST by presidio9 ("Bird Flu" is the new Y2K Virus -Only without the inconvenient deadline.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
Willie, you are either lying or you are ignorant. Which is it? CFIUS is under the direction of Treasury, not Defense. Again, if you want to talk about this find a thread and do so, but don't try to hijack mine.

I know that Rummy's babbling is sometimes hard to follow,
but you really should make an effort to read the article that you posted.
You just might learn something if you did.

SEC. RUMSFELD: First, let me say I'm not expert on this subject, and it -- my understanding that I've been told secondhand by others is the following: that there's a process that exists in the government; that six departments and agencies are involved, and five or six offices in the Executive Office of the President and the White House are involved; and there's a time limit of something like 30 days during which this process is to be executed; that the process worked; it was chaired by the Department of Treasury -- the deputy, Bob Kimmitt, is -- was the chairman -- and they -- in the normal order of things, what they do, as I understand it, is they select a lead agency or department based on the substance of it -- and in this case, it was Homeland Security, obviously, because the Coast Guard has the responsibility for the security of ports --
CFIUS is a rather unwieldily organization with 12 members: the Cabinet departments of Treasury, Commerce, Defense, Homeland Security, Justice, and State; and six from the Executive Office of the President, the U.S. Trade Representative, National Security Council, National Economic Council, Council of Economic Advisors, Office of Management and Budget, and the Office of Science and Technology Policy.

Yes CFIUS is headed by the Treasury, but Rummy's Defense Department is part of it as well, and it IS his job to know that.

14 posted on 02/22/2006 11:05:16 AM PST by Willie Green (Go Pat Go!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: presidio9

Useful transcript.


15 posted on 02/22/2006 11:05:33 AM PST by FourtySeven (47)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KeyLargo

A Congressional hearing is not required under the law.


16 posted on 02/22/2006 11:10:02 AM PST by clawrence3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Willie Green

Rumsfeld DID know DoD approved the transfer - see TRANSCRIPT above!


17 posted on 02/22/2006 11:11:52 AM PST by clawrence3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: rudabaga

Do you know how many employees there are in the Pentagon? Do you think Rumsfeld is required to know everything each of those employees know? Are you crazy?


18 posted on 02/22/2006 11:13:47 AM PST by clawrence3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: clawrence3
Rumsfeld DID know DoD approved the transfer

Of COURSE he knew...
If Rummy didn't subordinate our national security to international trade interests, Dubya would boot him out of his job.

The National Interest versus Corporate Interest
Bush Economic Polices Threaten National Security
Is America Too Poor To Remain A Military Superpower ?

19 posted on 02/22/2006 11:49:35 AM PST by Willie Green (Go Pat Go!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Willie Green

Your tin foil hat is on too tight.


20 posted on 02/22/2006 11:51:01 AM PST by clawrence3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-29 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson