Luke_Wilbur

I personally believe that our Federal government needs to monitor American ports completely. As Karl Rove would say.... This is post 911 and not the 80s where business could take over a government responsiblity. The Bush administration should pay Dubai Ports World the current value of the ports. Give Department of Defense, Intelligence, and justice departments complete jurisdiction over the security. Homeland Security then could give current port employees government contracts. Eventually the Postal Service could be expanded to manage the transaction and distribution process. Cheney and Bush should focus their energy on convincing American Business to purchasing port businesses abroad is the capitalistic ideal. This would bring government jobs and security to these regions and give a sense of pride that as a country we are doing everything possible to preserve the American way of life.

Is this this what you are trying to describe. $2500/week draw + car 1yr 16 Yr Old High Profit Co/No Exp Req Nat9l Accts/Great Exec Opp/$75K Req http://www.colorall.com The Little Gym Franchise Have fun, help kids develop & be your own boss. Request info http://www.thelittlegym.com Exciting, Fun, Profitable Exclusive Area- Retail Sign Biz Patent Pending , No Competition http://www.babrep.com Serious Home Business Opportunity, $650K+ /yr Your Take Top Producer Mentoring, not MLM http://ClassyOnlineBusiness.com

Here is Feb. 22, 2006 White House Press Briefing by Scott McClellan about the port decision. ************************************************************* Q Scott, you said this morning that the President wasn't made aware of the ports decision until the last several days, until after the decision had been made. Does the President wish that he'd been brought into the deliberations sooner, that he knew about it before it became a big political controversy? MR. McCLELLAN: Let me mention a couple of things. First of all, there is a congressionally mandated review process that is put in place for transactions like this. It is a national security review process. It's called the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States -- the CFIUS process -- that oversees such transactions. And you have some 12 departments and agencies that are involved and thoroughly reviewing such transactions and closely scrutinizing such transactions to make sure that it meets all national security concerns, to make sure that there is no national security threat. So this was a transaction that was closely scrutinized by the experts -- by the counterterrorism experts, by the intelligence community, and those who are responsible for protecting the American people. No one in those departments objected to this transaction going forward. Now, we have seen some concerns expressed by some members of Congress and others, and that's understandable, given that they have seen some coverage that has seemed to suggest that this company, an Arab company, would be in control of our ports. And that is a false impression. That's why it's important that we continue to talk with members and others about the facts, and that they understand the safeguards that are in place, and they understand how closely scrutinized this was. And that's what we will -- that's what we will continue to do. I mean, in hindsight, when you look at this and the coverage that it's received and the false impression that it has left with some, we probably should have briefed members of Congress about it sooner. And we are talking with members of Congress about it. There were some briefings last week; I know there are some additional briefings occurring today and there will be some additional briefings in the days going forward, so that they can have a full understanding of the facts, because when you look at the facts, we believe it should be clear to people that all the national security issues were addressed during this review process that was mandated by Congress. That is our top concern, the safety and security of the American people. And that's why it goes through a process like this. Q But Scott, does the President think that he should have learned about it sooner in the process? MR. McCLELLAN: Well, one thing that the President did, Terry, one thing the President did -- and even after all this press coverage of this transaction -- was go back to every Cabinet member whose department is involved in this process and ask them, are you comfortable with this transaction going forward? And each and every one expressed that they were comfortable with this transaction going forward. We are confident in the congressional process that was put in place, because it looks at all these security issues relating to a transaction like this. Last year -- I think in any given year, there's some 50 to 300 transactions that go through this national security review process. And this process is designed with one thing in mind: to make sure that there are no national security concerns. Last year, there were some 65 transactions that went through this process. This was a matter that was reported in the press going back to, I think, late October. The financial press was covering this possible transaction. And despite the fact that it's been covered in the press and that there are some 65 transactions that go through this process every year, we feel like Congress probably should have been briefed on this matter sooner, particularly in light of some of the false impressions that have been left in the minds of members of Congress. Q Scott, you talk about false impressions and that the coverage, the media coverage somehow drove that. The reality is, you had members of Congress -- like Peter King of New York and others -- who are familiar with the process, who knew about this, who didn't necessarily sound misinformed, who, nevertheless, still object to the deal. So was it a case of leaving a false impression, or the fact that you just have people who are opposed to this? MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I think it could be both. But clearly there are some that have been left with a false impression, because you have some people that have gone out there and said that the Arab company would be in control of our ports and be in control of security of our ports. That's not the case. This is not about control of our ports. This not about the security of our ports. And let me be very clear: One thing we will never do is outsource to anyone the control and security of our ports, whether that's Dubai or any other entity that operates terminals at our ports. And let's put this in a different perspective. If this transaction were blocked, this would not change port security one iota. The Coast Guard and the Customs and Border Patrol remain in charge of our security. The Coast Guard remains in charge of physical security. The Customs and Border Patrol remains in charge of cargo security. And there are a number of safeguards and security measures that we have put in place to make sure that cargo is screened before it reaches our shores. Q Let me just follow on this point. There's bipartisan consensus that monitoring the ports, the seaports, is very difficult, and it's a vulnerable area of our homeland security strategy. Karl Rove said, memorably, recently, that Democrats have a pre-9/11 view of the world; Republicans and this President have a post-9/11 view of the world. So a lot of people wonder on both sides of the aisle, how is it the President could allow a sale like this to go through with country that has clear ties to terrorism? MR. McCLELLAN: The President doesn't view it as a political issue. The President views it as the right principle and the right policy. We should not be holding a country from the Middle East or a company from the Middle East to a different standard from a company from Great Britain. And the President believes very strongly that all these issues were addressed during the review process. That's why he checked with his Cabinet Secretaries -- all the national security issues. We shouldn't -- so it's a matter of principle. It's a principled position that the President is taking. We also have to take into account the broader foreign policy implications something like this could have. The United Arab Emirates is a strong ally and partner in the global war on terrorism. General Pace, just yesterday, talked about how the UAE is providing superb military-to-military cooperation, and how they are a very solid partner in the global war on terrorism. They provide access to their ports for our aircraft carrier, they provide access to our Air Force planes over their airspace and at their airports. The UAE is someone we have worked very closely with to crack down on terrorist financing. They work very closely with us in sharing important intelligence. And so I think you have to also look at it in that context. But the principle -- Q But if we don't go through on this and they could retaliate, that relationship would be harmed -- MR. McCLELLAN: I wouldn't describe it that way. I mean, first of all, this is about a principle. And the principle is that we shouldn't be holding a Middle Eastern company to a different standard than a British company. They went through a very thorough review process before this transaction was allowed to proceed forward. And let me also mention that when it comes to Dubai Ports, there are security safeguards in the agreement that they signed with us. They committed to enforcing security standards under the Container Security Initiative, and under the Customs Trade Partnership Against Terrorism. Now, let me mention what those are. The Container Security Initiative allows for the Customs and Border Patrol to inspect 100 percent of all high-risk containers at foreign ports before they are loaded onto vessels and headed into the United States. The Customs Trade Partnership Against Terrorism is a public/private partnership with some 7,000 companies, that do regular business with the United States. And what they must do is increase their security to prevent terrorists from compromising their shipments. That's not only the company that's shipping this cargo, but the company that is providing the services, as well. And I would also point out that Dubai Ports was the first Middle Eastern entity to join the Container Security Initiative. So the Customs and Border Patrol work very closely with Dubai customs to screen containers that are coming to the United States. And this is a company that operates in many countries around the world. It's a company that we are very familiar with. Q Scott, one more about the review process; then I want to ask you about lessons learned. Out of the 65 or so similar transactions that were reviewed last year, how often is one turned down? MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I think you can probably direct that to the Treasury since they're the chair of that process at this time. And -- Q -- not very often -- MR. McCLELLAN: No, I think it's not often, but there are some that are denied. And I think you should direct that to the Treasury Department. They can probably provide you additional information on that. Q A follow-up on the lessons learned. What is the -- how effective can a review be when it's conducted -- of the administration -- when it's conducted by somebody who is a member of the administration? MR. McCLELLAN: You'll see how thorough it is tomorrow. It is a very comprehensive review. Every Cabinet department and agency was involved in this review. Everybody had a part in this. And what we want to do is take a close look at what worked and what didn't work, and then apply those lessons to the future. The number one priority for this President is the safety and security of the American people. That's why this lessons learned review is so important. There was some great work done by many people in the immediate aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. The Coast Guard comes immediately to mind. They were sitting there rescuing people off rooftops and rescuing people in the floods. They saved some 33,000 people, and they should be commended for that. But there are other areas where all levels of government fell short -- the federal, the state, and the local. And what the President wanted to make sure happened was that we take a very close look at this and that we learn the lessons so that we can apply those to future responses and do a better job in the future. This was a hurricane of unprecedented scope and magnitude. It covered some 90,000 square miles. The devastation was enormous, not only to property, but to the people who lost their -- people lost their -- a number of people lost their lives. Q But why have someone in-house do that -- MR. McCLELLAN: It's her responsibility. Well, there are two things. One, we've worked closely with Congress also on their investigations and provided them all the information they need to be able to do their job. And so that -- we'll take a look at the Congress' review, as well, and their recommendations. But it's important that we move forward and apply these lessons learned. And I think you will see tomorrow that this is a very comprehensive review that has been conducted. And the recommendations are very sound recommendations. So I think if you look at the report, it will stand on its own. Q Scott, when did the President actually learn of this transaction? And why don't we own our own -- I mean, why don't we control and run our own ports? Isn't that more -- in terms of security. MR. McCLELLAN: We do. We do. That's not correct. We do control our ports, and we do oversee -- Q I don't think many people knew that the British were running our -- MR. McCLELLAN: Now, this is what I'm talking about. Some people have left -- been left with the wrong impression. And that's why it's so important to understand the facts and understand that there is a process in place to look at this -- Q -- that somebody else is going to run our -- MR. McCLELLAN: The one that you just stated, that someone else would be in control of our ports and oversee security. That's not -- that's not correct. Q Managing -- MR. McCLELLAN: Now, in terms of the President, the President -- Q Why aren't Americans managing the ports? MR. McCLELLAN: Well, let me answer your first question, and then we'll get to your next two or three questions. The President learned of this recently, he became aware of it. Q How recently? MR. McCLELLAN: And there was no objection raised by any of the departments during the review process, or any concerns expressed about potential national security threats. And that's why it didn't rise to the presidential level. Q When did he find out? Q Scott, talk a little bit about -- one of the problems here is it's a secretive process, and understanding that some things concerning national security are done in secret -- MR. McCLELLAN: Well, it's not just that. I mean, there's proprietary information, as well. And I think that what we're working to do is make sure that we can provide as much information as possible about this transaction. Because, as I pointed out, one thing that is key is that this company agreed to additional security measures that they would take beyond what some others do in transactions like this. And I pointed out what those are. Q You talked about checking cargo and that they say they'll allow cargo to be checked. There's clearly not the manpower to check cargo. About 5 percent to 7 percent coming in this country are ever checked. So what does the U.S. need for this company to do? Hiring and firing? Do they vet people? Do you know all that? MR. McCLELLAN: This is the company that manages the terminals. They'll manage the terminals -- Q So can they hire and fire? MR. McCLELLAN: -- the forklifts that lift the cargo off or load the cargo on to ships. And that's what their responsibility is. But that's why I pointed that there were additional security safeguards that were put in place in an agreement with Dubai Ports. And that's important to understand. And in terms of -- let me back up and make sure that people have a clear understanding of the security measures that are in place, because I think in your question you ignored some key aspects of this. First of all, we secure cargo before it gets to our shores. The Customs and Border Patrol and the Coast Guard are in charge of security for our ports, and they do a great job. And there are a number of steps and measures that we have put in place over the last few years to improve security at our ports and to strengthen security at our ports -- as I pointed out, the Container Security Initiative. Under the Container Security Initiative, the Customs and Border Patrol inspects 100 percent of all high-risk containers. And they do that at foreign ports before they're loaded on to the ship and headed to the United States. A hundred percent of all cargo is screened, using intelligence and using cutting-edge technology. Technology is very important. Technology is very important -- Q -- all of it -- MR. McCLELLAN: No, 100 percent of cargo is screened. There's a 24-hour rule in place. The Customs and Border Patrol is required to screen manifest a day before cargo arrives. So what we're doing is pushing out the security before that cargo comes to our shores. And then I also mentioned the Customs Trade Partnership Against Terrorism, how that's been implemented and how we have more than 7,000 companies participating in that. And then, finally, the technology that is used by the Customs and Border Patrol -- they use large-scale x-ray and gamma ray machines and radiation detection devices to pre-screen cargo coming into this country. So there are a lot of security measures that are put in place. It is the top priority for this administration. Q Scott, would you just go back to the hiring? So who is running the forklifts? Do we have any control over that, or does that matter? MR. McCLELLAN: Well, that's why the agreement was signed with this company. That's why I just pointed that out. Sure, it matters. And that's why it was looked at very carefully during this review process. This review process looked at all the national security issues relating to this very matter. Q When specifically did the President -- how did he find out about this -- and when specifically? Was it last week when this blew up? He read it in the paper? MR. McCLELLAN: No, it was coming out last week, and he learned about it over the last several days. I couldn't pinpoint the exact time, but last several days, recently. And -- but I think it's important to keep in mind when you're reporting back to the American people what I just said. This transaction was closely scrutinized to make sure that there were no national security threats. There were no objections raised by any of the departments that are charged with being involved in this process. And that's why it didn't rise up to the presidential level. But even in spite of that, with all the attention that this transaction has received, the President felt it was very important to go back to each Cabinet Secretary who has responsibility for this process, and ask them, are you comfortable with this transaction proceeding forward. And they all said, yes. And I'm sure it's for the reasons that I spelled out to you in this very room, because of the agreements that were put in place, because of the working relationship that we have with this company, and because there were no national security threats raised. Q So he found out through the news coverage, is that what you're saying? How did he find out about it? MR. McCLELLAN: Yes, I think, initially, Steve, when this was becoming more -- it was getting more press coverage, that's how he found out about it. Q Scott, top Republicans turned on the administration faster than Nancy Pelosi. What do you make of that? MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I think you have to ask people their reason for opposing this transaction. It's up to them to explain their reason for it. The President does not think we should be holding this company to a different standard from the British company that currently manages these terminals. Q Politically, your own party turned on this White House aggressively -- MR. McCLELLAN: I wouldn't look at it that way. You're looking at it in the political context. The President is not looking at it in the political context. I understand and appreciate you looking at it in that context, but the President is looking at this as what I said it is -- this was the right principle, and it's the right policy. Q Scott, it sounds like the President has lost control of the party on the Hill. It sounds like they're campaigning against George Bush. MR. McCLELLAN: No, I don't think that's accurate. You're talking about this specific issue? This specific issue -- let's clarify that -- no, I think -- the President just came back from a House Republican conference just a short time ago, and they talked about important national security priorities, and they talked about the tools we're using to protect the American people like the terrorist surveillance program. And at the end of that comment -- end of those remarks, he received a standing ovation. So I think there is strong, united support for the policies that we are putting in place and that we are pursuing to make America more prosperous and to make America safer. This President has made his number one priority winning the war on terrorism. And so let's keep in mind that the United Arab Emirates is a key partner and ally in the global war on terrorism. They work very closely with us. Partnerships are key to winning the war on terrorism. And they have followed the rules. They went through this review process, a thorough review process, that involved national security experts, that involved counterterrorism experts. They looked at all these issues and they said they were comfortable with this transaction going forward. And we shouldn't be creating a different standard here. But if you're going to try to block something like this, you also need to look at it in the context of those broader foreign policy concerns. It could have a real negative impact on our relations with countries like the UAE, and other allies who are following this issue very closely -- allies who have helped us to save lives and prevent attacks. Q Scott, at any point has the administration or administration members of the CFIUS process briefed members? MR. McCLELLAN: I'm sorry? Q Briefed members. Has the administration -- other than discussions that have ensued since this controversy has erupted, did the administration or any of the administration interaction with the CFIUS process actually brief members of Congress? And insofar as there are a lot of ports that are pretty important to economic -- MR. McCLELLAN: You're talking about in this transaction? Q Absolutely. MR. McCLELLAN: Yes, I think there were some briefings that occurred last week to some members, or at least to their staff. And there are some additional ones that are going on, I believe, today, and then I think Senator Warner has a hearing tomorrow, and his committee. Q -- prior to last week? MR. McCLELLAN: I'll have to double-check that, Carl. The ones I know of were some last week and then again some additional ones this week. And there are additional discussions going on. It's important for members of Congress and governors and others who have raised concerns to have a full understanding of the facts. Senator McCain said we shouldn't be rushing to judgment here; we should understand what the facts are. As he said, he supports the President and he knows fully that this President is going to do everything he can to make sure that the American people are protected, and that includes in a situation like this. And that's why -- and Congress shares that concern. I mean, this is a shared issue here when it comes to the overall concerns. Congress is the one that mandated this process, for this very reason, and it's a process that we take very seriously. And that's why you have those departments involved in it, and that's why you have the counterterrorism experts involved in looking at these issues. The intelligence community did an assessment to make sure that there were no national security threats with this transaction going forward. It wouldn't go forward if we had concerns to our nation's security. Q So insofar as the Speaker yesterday suggested a moratorium on this deal and that Senator Frist has also spoken out in opposition to it, are they just ill-informed? MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I think you have to ask them their reasons for opposing it. I'll let them explain that. I'm not going to try to speak for members of Congress. Members of Congress have the right to do what they feel is necessary. But that's why I said we are going to continue talking to them and providing them with the facts and making sure they have a clear understanding of the facts here. As I indicated, I mean, it's understandable why people have expressed some concerns when they feel like an Arab company is going to control our ports, or they see a headline to that effect. And that's why we're going to continue reaching out to members and briefing them about it. Q So is the administration concerned that the rancor on the Hill over this sends an inappropriate message overseas and that the U.S. government is divided? MR. McCLELLAN: The President is concerned about the mixed message that could be sent on this matter. He said that yesterday. It sends a terrible message to our allies when you say a company from the UAE, an Arab country that has been a good ally in the war on terrorism, should be held to a different standard than a company from Great Britain, particularly when it followed all the rules, and when it went through this review process. Q So insofar as the President heard about it just recently, and the Cabinet Secretaries and the CFIUS process led the no objections, does the White House feel let down that nobody spotted a potential political pitfall here? MR. McCLELLAN: Well, as I said, I mean, we're looking back in hindsight on this issue. And there are some mischaracterizations of what this transaction is about. There is a false impression left with people. All you have to do is look at their comments to know that there were false impressions left. I mean, we had one in here earlier, we had a reporter earlier in the day suggesting that this company would be in control of the ports. That's just not the case. And that's why it's important to understand the facts. And that's why I said that we probably should have briefed members of Congress sooner, but that's looking at it in hindsight, given the attention it has received. Q Scott, there were some questions raised about information flow to the President during Hurricane -- after Hurricane Katrina and questions about when he learned that the Vice President had shot a man. And now there are questions about when the President learned about this. Is there some sort of systematic issue here where information -- MR. McCLELLAN: I think there's a systematic over-analysis sometimes in this room, and I think that's over-interpreting things and drawing the wrong conclusions, Peter. Q Will that be -- MR. McCLELLAN: -- false impression on each of those issues. I'll be glad to address each of those issues individually, but I think it's totally wrong to try to draw conclusions and over -- overanalyze this thing in that manner. Q -- should be looked at in the report coming out tomorrow about information flow to the President during Katrina? MR. McCLELLAN: Well, you will have the report tomorrow, and you'll hear the briefing tomorrow from Fran Townsend. You'll have an opportunity to ask her questions about it. Q Scott, you've said on several occasions, in hindsight that you could have alerted Congress earlier. Is that a view that the President shares? And when did the White House come to that conclusion? MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I think it's clear from the concerns that have been raised by members that they didn't have a clear understanding what the facts are. That's why we're trying to provide them with the facts. And, yes, that's the view that we're expressing from the White House, and I'm expressing on behalf of the President. Q And also, you said that part of this process is not political, but you're looking at ways to be fair to Arab allies in the war on terror. But at what point does it begin where there are American sensibilities that have to be recognized, that there should be somebody who brings up, perhaps, the alarms that might go off? Do you believe that there -- MR. McCLELLAN: They were during the review process. They looked at all the national security issues. You're leaving a false impression that would suggest that these issues weren't looked at, because they were looked at very thoroughly. Q But do you believe that there should be a point person or a part of that process to bring this information to the White House and say -- MR. McCLELLAN: The White House agencies are part of this process, like the National Security Council and the Office of Management and Budget. So there are 12 departments and agencies that are involved in this process, and there are representatives who are in place to look at all these issues. And there are counterterrorism experts and intelligence experts who look at these matters to make sure all the national security concerns are thoroughly looked at. And no one raised any objection about this transaction going forward, after looking at all these national security concerns to make sure that they were met. Q -- national security concerns, the people in the White House or NSC who saw this and said this might be a political problem, this might be a perception problem? You talk about the fact that people are not understanding this. Do you believe that there should have been -- MR. McCLELLAN: I don't think anybody during this process was looking at it in any way other than the national security standpoint because that's what they're charged with doing under this process that was mandated by Congress. This was created by members of Congress to make sure that these issues were thoroughly looked at before approval was given for the transaction to move forward. And as the President indicated yesterday, that's part of the reason why he believes the transaction should go forward. Q In light of that fact, then, do you believe it was a mistake that that wasn't examined, that wasn't looked at? Because obviously members of Congress are very -- MR. McCLELLAN: Well, you heard from the President yesterday. He's not looking at this from a political context. But with that said, we -- as I indicated -- should have been briefing members of Congress sooner, given all the attention that has been focused on this, and given the fact that it has been mischaracterized. Q Has the President reached out to Frist or Hastert? MR. McCLELLAN: Well, we stay in touch with their offices. We stay in touch with governors and mayors, as well. And we will continue to, but there's no update in terms of any legislative calls he's made.

Here is a DP World press release on Dave Sanborn ************************************************************** 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 -- For further information please contact: Bell Pottinger Communications Dubai: Tom Mollo +9714 367 2256 +9715 0550 4203 tmollo@bell-pottinger.co.uk London: Dan de Belder +44 207 861 3232 ddebelder@bell-pottinger.co.uk Notes for the editor: DP World is a leading global port operator with a portfolio of operations in Asia, Australia, Europe, Latin America, and the Middle East. The company has 22 container terminals in 15 countries. DP World is the result of the integration of Dubai Ports Authority (“DPA”) and DPI Terminals (“DPI”) in September 2005. This new entity continues the tremendous success of the DPA and DPI businesses, which have been at the forefront of Dubai's extraordinary transformation into one of the world's leading trade and commerce hubs. DP World manages the commercial and operational aspects of the port network, formerly developed and managed by DPA and DPI. In 2005, the terminals operated by DP World handled an estimated 13 million TEU which include ports on five continents from the Americas to Asia. DP World's unique cross-sector expertise offers solutions in all aspects of port operations, ultimately driving efficiency and financial returns for port users. DP World will continue to provide the same high level of service that customers have come to expect. DP World continues to provide a superior level of service to shipping lines at its flagship domestic operations of Port Rashid and Jebel Ali which has been voted “Best Seaport in the Middle East” for 10 consecutive years. Dubai is ranked as the 10th largest port operation in the world and DP World is the 7th largest global operator. There are a number of significant projects in the pipeline that will strengthen the DP World network, including developments in Asia, Europe, and the Middle East. In February 2005 an agreement with the Cochin Port Trust (CoPT) was signed to construct, develop and operate an international container transshipment terminal at Vallarpadam, Kochi, India. It is the largest single operator container terminal currently planned in India and the first in the country to operate in a special economic zone. The new terminal will make Kochi a key centre in the shipping world reducing India’s dependence on foreign ports to handle transshipment. One cornerstone project, which underlines DP World’s position as a major player in Asia, is the development of Pusan Newport, South Korea. DP World has a 39.55% interest in and management contract for this 9-berth facility, which has a capacity of 5.5 million TEU. The first phase of this development was opened in January 2006. In March 2005, DP World was awarded a 30 year concession to develop and operate the container terminal at the Port of Fujairah, in the UAE. This was followed in July 2005 by the awarding of a management contract for Mina Zayed Port, Abu Dhabi. These concessions will enable DP World to streamline operations at the major container facilities of the UAE, and further increase the choices available to its customers. In June 2005 DP World was short listed as preferred bidder to operate the container terminal at the Port of Aden. In November 2005 DP World also announced agreements to develop new container terminals at Yarimca, Turkey and Qingdao, China. On 29 November 2005, DP World announced the terms of a recommended cash offer to acquire all of the issued and to be issued Deferred Stock of the P&O Group. When completed, this deal will make DP World a top three global port operator. DP World also has interests in logistics businesses in Hong Kong and China, notably ATL, the market leading logistics operator based at Kwai Chung, Hong Kong.

A federal judge has ordered the Department of Justice to release records from the program by March 8th. From the article: "In ordering the Justice Department to expedite the FOIA request processing, Judge Henry Kennedy Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, said that the department's opinion that it could determine how much time is needed was 'easily rejected ... Under DOJ's view of the expedited processing provisions of FOIA, the government would have carte blanche to determine the time line for processing expedited requests.

Here is a statement from the President about this issue. Read the National Strategy for Maritime Security http://www.whitehouse.gov/homeland/maritime-security.html Roundtable Interview of the President by the Press Pool Aboard Air Force One En route Andrews Air Force Base, Maryland

Next Generation Awareness Foundation, Inc. (501©(3)) (NGAF) is pleased to announce Newark's Essex County Community College as the location for its Picking Up The Pieces Series, the second tour-stop for this year's highly-anticipated 3rd Annual National Black History Month Film & Discussion Series, also marketed as the Urban Film Series Tour. The program will take place on February 25th from 12:00 noon till 9:00pm. Complimentary tickets are currently available for senior citizens, students and area churches. The month-long fundraising event is part of NGAF's Coordinated Awareness Believing In Achievement Through Skills Development and Uplift philosophy (the "Can-I-Ask-U" program). Partial proceeds to benefit the Jersey Urban Debate League. ABOUT THE NEWARK SERIES The Newark production, named Picking Up the Pieces, will be a very special program. Not only will audiences witness award-winning documentaries and shorts, such as Say Amen Somebody, The Untold Story of Emmett Louis Till, The Last Colored Caddy, Standing on Our Sister's Shoulders, and Special Day, but they will also have intimate conversations with filmmakers, actors, actresses, historians and authors. In addition to providing a culturally rich presentation, the program takes different approaches to covering a great wealth of urban issues. Films such as Driving While Black: An Instructional Video , The Adventures of Super N*****: Episode I, The Final Chapter, Latter Rain, and Golddigger Killer, will take on many tough topics with a light, comedic and horrific approach. The Newark production, named Picking Up The Pieces, is a homecoming of sorts. Newark is the hometown of NGAF's Founder and Executive Director, Corey Jennings. "This year, I am particularly proud to bring the Series back to my hometown of Newark, New Jersey, a place where the social revitalization of many families has lagged behind the recent economic improvements following the 1967 riots," says Jennings. NGAF is currently awaiting word from John Amos, Jr. (Good Times) and Bill Bellamy as to whether they will join him and U.S. Congressman Donald M. Payne (D-NJ) for the program. Brent Ferrand, director of the Jersey Urban Debate League has made it possible for participants to witness a debate between Jersey's top high school debate teams over a choice of racial profiling and Limiting the 'sneek and peek' powers permitted under the Patriot Act, this year's Urban Debate League topics and "hot" topics for urban America. Filmmakers, actors, actresses, authors and artists from New Jersey and New York City metropolitan area will be on hand. Attendees will enjoy an all-day Bazaar, featuring an Author's Row and vendors. For more information, the complete schedule and to see prior press coverage of the program, visit www.UrbanFilmSeries.com. ----------------------------- Who: Next Generation Awareness Foundation, Inc. What: 3rd Annual National Black History Month Film & Discussion Series, a/k/a, the Urban Film Series Tour Where/When: Newark, New Jersey – "Picking Up The Pieces" Series February 25th, 12pm –9pm @ Essex County Community College Ticketing: Students: $5/session or $10/all-day pass; Adults: $10 per session or $20 all-day pass; Complimentary tickets are available for Seniors, Churches and Students - Email our marketing team at VIP@InsiderEntertainment.com. Partial proceeds to benefit the Jersey Urban Debate League. Visit www.UrbanFilmSeries.com or www.InsiderEntertainment.com for more and to learn about the cities, films, themes and participants selected for this year's tour. Press/Media: Members of the press should contact us at press@urbanfilmseries.com or (202) 409-7240. Please forward us your media credentials (media source, circulation/viewership, affiliation, title, and complete contact information) and state your request(s) as exact as possible (interview, article, pictures, attendance). Vendors or Authors: Vendors and authors wishing to participate in this year's Vendors or Authors Row, please contact us at info@ngaf.org. Sponsors: Sponsorship, signage and other marketing opportunities are available. Name sponsor opportunities are still available. Contact us at info@ngaf.org. ----------------------------- About the Series NGAF has been fortunate to have participation from some of America's most meaningful actors, actresses, filmmakers and legends, including Vanessa Williams, TC Carson, Mark Brown, Yvette Freeman, Andrea Kalin, Russell Williams, Ed Shockley, Tim Greene, members of the cast of HBO's The Wire, Negro League Baseball Players, Association of African-American Vintners, Tuskegee Airmen, Great Blacks on Wax Museum, American Civil War Memorial Museum, Buffalo Soldiers, and many others. NGAF continues to produce the Series for underserved communities that can benefit most from the program. In 2004, the Series focused on legacies and legends and was produced weekly throughout February in Washington DC. In 2005, the first significant expansion year, the Series expanded to Richmond, Virginia and Baltimore, Maryland and focused on modern films and personalities. NGAF included an Authors Row, Vendors Row and Poetry Expo. The 2006 Series will emphasize meaningful presentations and discussions about modern urban problems and solutions in the U.S. and Africa. The inclusion of Africa represents the many quality submissions that demonstrate that exposure to the black experience in Africa, America and other countries could benefit the general public in attendance. Viewers can expect the same high-powered, high-quality discussions and participants that they have now grown accustomed to with the Series. Hear firsthand from witnesses to tragedies and triumphs. Listen to the families that sacrificed as well as the filmmakers with cast and crew to discuss their experiences, their work and the motion picture industry.

BlingBling, That is incorrect. The Vice President did have a hunting permit. What he did not have is a game bird permit. This is the first year that it was introduced publically. The Vice-President may or may not have been aware of it. Since the game bird stamp is a new requirement this year people are just getting first time warnings and are encouraged to get one immediately.

I am sure the Vice President was worried about the condition of his friend. ****************************************************************** The Vice President was told when he arrived at the White House this morning that doctors had decided, based on overnight monitoring, to perform a cardiac catheterization on Mr. Whittington. The Vice President's chief of staff passed him a note at about 12:30pm ET to inform him that Mr. Whittington's doctors would brief in Texas about 1:00pm ET on complications in Mr. Whittington's condition. The Vice President was on Capitol Hill when he received this information. When the Vice President returned to the White House, he was able to watch part of the press conference. At about 1:30pm ET, the Vice President called Mr. Whittington and spoke to him. The Vice President wished Mr. Whittington well and asked if there was anything he needed. The Vice President said that he stood ready to assist. Mr. Whittington's spirits were good, but obviously his situation deserves the careful monitoring that his doctors are providing. The Vice President said that his thoughts and prayers are with Mr. Whittington and his family.

Joe, Thanks for sharing your thoughts to our online community. You are a now a Guru that we all can strive to be.

Here is a release from the American Bar Association. ******************************************* American Bar Association President Michael Greco says there's a need to aggressively deter terrorism but he finds the president's domestic surveillance program deeply troubling. Greco spoke Friday at an ABA conference in Chicago and said Americans shouldn't be frightened into sacrificing their freedom. Greco says a Harris phone pole has found that 77% of Americans reject President Bush's claim that he along can suspend constitutional freedomes without any check or balance. Greco says an ABA task force has come up with a preliminary report on the legal issues surrounding the National Security Agency's power to eavesdrop on the communications of Americans suspected of ties to terrorism. The task force's recommendations include urging President Bush to comply with the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. It says -- if that act is inadequate -- Bush should seek amendments from Congress.

Rees promised me that he would stop slandering other people. He broke his promise and that is the end of story.

In a 9-4 vote the DC Council reversed its earlier decision and approved a stadium lease on the following conditions. The Nationals to pay half their normal rent for RFK Stadium if the new ballpark is not completed by spring 2008. Under the orginal agreement with baseball the Nationals would not have to pay rent 2007 season under the original lease. The Nationals will give city more community benefits, including 10,000 free tickets each year for disadvantaged youth. The lease agreement also obligates the team to work with the sports commission and other D.C. charitable groups to develop a dedicated year-round baseball training and recreational facility in the city. As part of the agreement, the council passed legislation capping the city's costs at $610.8 million. Now we just have to wait to see if Major League Baseball will agree to it.

I was a long time Baltimore Orioles fan, but when the Nationals came to town I switched jerseys. Last year my wife and I got season tickets and really had a blast. View some of the photos. http://dcpages.com/gallery/view_album.php?...ionals-Baseball We would take friends to the games and stumble into the Capitol Lounge or other local pubs. I cannot tell you how much money we laid down in the District, but it was pretty significant. I am thinking of doing it again, but I think the DC Government is going to do it again to us. Just like what they did to the now Prince George's Redskins. I hope everyone who fumbled this opportunity to build up the District get run out of town. I joked with a few Congressmen that the only way the Disctrict would get representation is our local governement start making some money and improve our living conditions. Tourism is a large revenue stream, but the Washington DC Metro Community is much greater.

Here is some food for fodder. The Congressional Research Service, a nonpartisan research arm of the Library of Congress, released a detailed memo on January 5, 2006 regarding the NSA electronic surveillance of communications, concluding that "it appears unlikely that a court would hold that Congress has expressly or impliedly authorized the NSA electronic surveillance operations" and that the Administrations reliance on executive power was not "well-grounded." View that attached memo. WarrentlessSurveillance.pdf

I am going to have to check out. I love BBQ.

What did you do to your bathroom?

Just to clarify the exact message I sent to Pam. What you wrote is slander and I will not allow it. I do not know who Austermuhle even is? I spoke with Rees about is coming on DCMessageboards.com. He apoligized and promised to only post issues in the future and not slander. Luke Wilbur -----Original Message----- From: Pebbles Johnson [mailto:pj20007@yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2006 3:21 PM To: luke@dcpages.com Subject: Posting So you take away my posting privileges because I dare to post a real email Austermuhle sent to Rees which he circulated stating that you were cooperating with him? Is that being even handed? Didn't you know that Bfrank was linked by others who I am not allowed to say to the notorious District Information? Austermuhle knows what he wrote and he did implicate you as helping him to expose Rees. When you allow others to attack but shut down any opposition you have compromised your fairness. Pamela

Pam I do not take sides on this boards. I do monitor people that do not follow the Posted Guidelines. I have noticed that the ip you have posted with 213.251.135.49 is the same as Tammy Bresloff.

Human, I just got back from winter vacation. I tried to contact the person that was writing as a guest, but I did not receive an email response. It is our policy not to editing guest messages without knowing who wrote them. At this point of the thread the guest began writing about Central American Intelligence rather that the stated topic, 'Iraq Prewar Intelligence.' I can make a change to this topic if you send an email to luke@dcpages.com stating you are the person who posted as guest Human. I will have to edit this statement and my edit will be shown on the board. But I cannot delete other remarks without the permission of the other posters.

Patrick Ramsey saved our butts against the Giants, but right now Mark Brunell is our man. Three special shout-outs! One to Marcus Washington, who has been named the NFC Defensive Player of the Month for December! A second shout-out to Mike Sellars, named NFC Player of the Week for Special Teams (that's the fourth week in a row, one of the Redskins has been named an NFC Player of the Week!) And finally, a very special shout-out to Assistant Head Coach/Defense Gregg Williams! On behalf of all the Redskins fans, thanks for the vote of confidence in the team and in the city! Hail to the Redskins!

Here is what they wrote me. They did not even take inconsideration that they ruined a trip. I even offerred to pay them the difference. That is pretty pathetic. I will never use Priceline again.

I have contacted Priceline by email once again. They are This what I have received from Priceline so far.

I planned to take the DCpages staff out to Las Vegas to watch the Superbowl. I decided to use Priceline Vacation packages. The problem is that one of my staff would be Traveling from San Francisco to Las Vegas. I was wondering how I could do the vacation package to include two different departure routes so I went into the web site and then spent time creating an itinerary. When I realized I could not do it myself I called Priceline reservations. I explained how I was going to Las Vegas to watch the Superbowl and having a mini convention with our community staff members. I further explained that I would like our company to pay for the air fare and trip. I then told the gentleman the airfare time and date I wanted. He told me to pay for the one fair, because the prices change all the time. So I booked a 11:30 pm flight out of Las Vegas to Washington. He then told me to use SFO instead of Oakland to Las Vegas. I got the price called my staff member to confirm the date and I then booked my second flight. Here is my problem.... When I got my email I found out that my flight was no longer a Red Eye back to Washington. Priceline instead picked a flight that starts before kickoff of the Superbowl. This one email has ruined our whole trip. I followed the Priceline instructions and spoke with Jesse 7090. He told me that the Priceline representative should have told me to review the contract before I booked my flight. He is right. DO NOT TRUST WHAT A PRICELINE RESERVATION AGENT STATES. Jesse 7090 told me there was nothing he could do, but I can try to contact Lisa Gillianham. I asked Jesse 7090 for her email he stated that she has none. He then told me to look in invester relations. Lisa Gillingham Senior Vice President, Customer Service and Operations Lisa Gillingham was promoted to Senior Vice President, Customer Service & Operations, for priceline.com in March 2001. She joined priceline.com in April 2000 as Vice President, Customer Service. Prior to joining priceline.com, Ms. Gillingham was e-Commerce Director, Interactive Group at AT&T. Before that, she served in a number of finance, product management, advertising, marketing and program management positions for AT&T in both business-to-business and business-to-consumer categories.

Thanks for taking the time to clarify this issue Martin.