Did the law firm of Robert Strauss encourage The United Arab Emirates to buy the US Ports?
952142
No, it was the Carlyle Group.
140305
Why would it?  Security at US ports remains the responsibility of the US Coast Guard and US Customs and Border Protection.\n\nThe company previously running those ports is a British company.  DPW bought out the British company and the rights to the ports along with it.  Why does it matter where the profits go to?\n\nThey aren't in charge of security.  Repeat. They aren't in charge of security.
119597
Bush wants to wiretap Americans on a wild goose chase for terrorists - yet he allows 6 ports to be placed under the operational control of a company from UAE, home to 2 of the 9/11 hijackers.\n\nGee, yeah, Bush is doing "a heck of a job".
358930
I hope your business handling acumen is a whole lot better than your language ability. Are you asking: Are there any American businesses in St. Petersburg? or; Is it possible to have an American business operate there? or; Is it practical and could it be profitable to develop an American owned business there? or; Is it possible, even practical, to get the local people to invest in an American idea?
900847
That would go to Halliburton on a no bid contract.  They have oil too.
137126
Protection of our domestic borders are probably the weakest link in our current defenses against terrorism. I can't agree to turn over management of our largest ports to a country from whom terrorists and terrorist funding has come.\nNo matter how confident you are of those whom are in charge, everyone has their price and thus are prone to corruption. I simply would feel more confident if those in charge were not from the United Arab Emirate...that's all!~
195905
United Arab Emirates?
873893
Here's some links:\n\nhttp://www.scowcroft.com/\nhttp://www.usrbc.org/council/strauss%20bio.htm\n\nWas there something specific you wanted to know?
173199
I think George W Bush is possibly the worst president ever, but in this case I tend to agree with you.  There is no reliable way to say it is ok for some countries to manage ports, but for others it isn't.  It does seem to be a case of a phobia of arab nations and a quick way for both sides of the aisle to disingenuously try and gain political points for doing what they paint as the "pro-American anti-terrorism" move in blocking it.
495871
Yes he was!!! The Bin Laden's including Osama have lot's of $$$$$$ invested in the Carlyle Group! What does that mean??? \n\nWell Saudi's and primarily the Bin Laden Family have $$$ invested in our Defense and security. So when something bad happens to our Country like 9/11...the Government spends more for the defense and security inturn ranking in dough for the Saudi's and Bush!!
1032133
Cited from the source below:\n\nAmerican merchant fleet started to sail in the Mediterranean beginning 1773. Back then the whole Mediterranean was under the control of the Ottoman navy.\n\nOttomans ruled the waves through a fleet operating out of Algeria. The Americans had no alternative but to cut a deal with the Ottoman force in Algeria in order to be able to continue trading in Mediterranean. The American naval fleet, whatever of it existed, was nowhere enough to protect the American merchant fleet in the Mediterranean.\n\nSuch a treaty between the Ottoman Empire (represented by the Bey of Algeria) and the United States of America was signed on September 5, 1775.\n\nAccording to this treaty written in Ottoman Turkish, The United States accepted to pay 642,000 gold dollars and 12,000 Ottoman dollars annually to the Bey of Algeria.\n\nAllegedly this treaty is the only one the United States has signed which was written in a language other than English.\n\nIt also happens to be the only US treaty by which America accepted to pay taxes to a foreign power.\n\nThe treaty, signed by George Washington for the United States and Algeria Beylerbey (Governor) Hasan Pasha for the Ottoman Empire, was declared null and void in 1810.\n\nA copy of the treaty is still kept at Naval Museum in Istanbul and National Archives in Washington D.C.
148942
Personally, I think it is a poor decision.  However, whether we agree or not, here is some logic to it.  The company is only getting a contract to manage these ports.  Even the hiring is primarily controlled by the unions and the security is controlled by the United States Government.  This company also has heavy experience in this and has demonstrated friendship with the United States.\n\nAs individuals we may not agree that this is a good decision, but cursing President Bush and defining him with expletives does little to change the situation.  If anyone disagrees, look into it and develop some facts that support your suggestions to change it.    Contact your Congressional Representatives and make your point of view known.  Develop lobbying groups in your community and have them all work together to change this situation.\n\nWithout such an effort the current situation will prevail.
120343
Yes !!! I live in New ORleans (one of the ports). My family has been hear long before the LOuisiana Purchase. We are Americans rather that French today only because the America of 1803 had enough sense to realize the port of New ORleans was critical to the survival of the United States. During the War of 1812 we fought the Battle of New Orleans to stop the British from taking the port. During the Civil War the the first move of the Union Andaconda Plan was to seize the port of New Orleans and during WWII the first place combat occured between the U.S. and Germany was with German submarines trying to close off the port of New Orleans. Now, in 2006, we sell our ports to a country which helped produce the 9/11 highjackers? What is going on in Washington these days?
1003888
Bush supported a plan to allow a company in Dubai (not the UAE government) to provide security services for ports.  He did not try to "sell the ports."  As to why, it's probably lobbyists.  You will find that shipping companies are multi-national entities, with companies from all over the world handling the work.  For example, the port at Long Beach is run by the Hanjin corporation, which is Korean.\n\nAt some point, the world is going to have to do business with Middle Eastern companies, and maybe someone thought this was a good way to go.  However, the security of a port should be undertaken by local government, not by a commercial entity.  To bad local governments may not have the money to do so.
916234
An Honest Answer:\n\nAkin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld\n\nArab nations that used this law firm are not being threaten by the United State.\n\nClients\n\nThe U.S. Embassy of the government of Colombia: According to its 2001 FARA return the "registrant contacted congressional and executive branch officials to discuss U.S. policy towards Colombia." . It was paid "$86,129.04 for the six month period ending June 24,2001," the return states. \n\nGovernment of British Columbia: According to its 2001 FARA return the "registrant communicated with U.S. Government officials regarding trade in softwood lumber." [4] It was paid " $350,607.26 for the six month period ending June 24,2001." \n\nRepublic of Georgia: According to its 2001 FARA return the "registrant provided advisory services in preparation for Georgia's framework negotiations with the Paris Club group of creditors". [5]. No payment was reported. \n\nKingdom of Saudi Arabia: According to its 2001 FARA return the "registrant provided legal advice and strategic counsel with respect to the foreign principal's proposed accession to WTO". [6] It was paid "$6,770.50 for the six month period ending June 24,2001." \n\nCNOOC Ltd (Chinese National Oil Corpooration) \n"President Bush's top independent intelligence adviser met last winter with investment bankers in China to help secure his law firm's role in lobbying for a state-run Chinese energy firm and its bid for the U.S. oil company Unocal Corp., according to his law firm, Akin Gump. \nThe involvement of James C. Langdon Jr., chairman of the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board and a major Bush fundraiser, underscores the tangled Washington connections beneath CNOOC Ltd.'s bid... \nLangdon's involvement, given his dual role as Bush intelligence adviser and energy lawyer at the law firm Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, may prove politically problematic, some security experts said. Members of the intelligence board, known as PFIAB, are granted the highest security clearance and develop top-secret advisories and reports for the president, most of which are not even available to members of Congress." [7] \n\nContact details\nRobert S. Strauss Building \n1333 New Hampshire Avenue, N.W. \nWashington, DC 20036-1564 \nPhone: 202.887.4000 \nFax 202.887.4288 \nWeb: www.akingump.com \n\nIn 1968 Strauss began his long association with the national Democratic Party when Connally appointed him to the Democratic National Committee.
479608
It is probably not likely. I say this because of the countries it surrounds, but it still is possible. They have been to the UAE before, which is near some dangerous countries for Americans.
237176
for reference on the UAE see Wikipedia entry here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Arab_Emirates\n\nthe article also has links to other websites for more specific information.