And this year's award for the most misleading headline goes to... the Associated Press.
Check out this headline: Arab Co., White House Had Secret Agreement
That damned secretive White House at it again. First Cheney, now this... Tonight we learn the administration had a "Secret Agreement" with the Arab company they sold the ports to. Or then again, maybe not....
Arab Co., White House Had Secret AgreementThe Bush administration secretly required a company in the United Arab Emirates to cooperate with future U.S. investigations before approving its takeover of operations at six American ports, according to documents obtained by The Associated Press. It chose not to impose other, routine restrictions.
As part of the $6.8 billion purchase, state-owned Dubai Ports World agreed to reveal records on demand about "foreign operational direction" of its business at U.S. ports, the documents said. Those records broadly include details about the design, maintenance or operation of ports and equipment.
The administration did not require Dubai Ports to keep copies of business records on U.S. soil, where they would be subject to court orders. It also did not require the company to designate an American citizen to accommodate U.S. government requests. Outside legal experts said such obligations are routinely attached to U.S. approvals of foreign sales in other industries.
"They're not lax but they're not draconian," said James Lewis, a former U.S. official who worked on such agreements. If officials had predicted the firestorm of criticism over the deal, Lewis said, "they might have made them sound harder."
The conditions involving the sale of London-based Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co. were detailed in U.S. documents marked "confidential." Such records are regularly guarded as trade secrets, and it is highly unusual for them to be made public.
They didn't have a "secret agreement" they had an agreement to keep trade secrets. The difference between the two is about as large as the difference between Billy Ocean and the Atlantic Ocean.
The agreement (by the idiot reporter's own admission) was "routine." The exact terms of the deal were not made public. Imagine that. Terms of deals like this are never made public. Heck, terms of your average lawsuit in civil court are not made public.
The headline and the writer conspire to make you think the White House had a nefarious deal that the AP exposed when nothing could be further from the truth.
I tell ya, I didn't support this deal in the beginning but when I see the same people pulling the same stunts, it really makes me want to back Bush on this one.
Permalink | Linking Blogs | Sphere: Related Content | Digg this! | FARK It!
Filed under:
Media Whores
Comments (17)
I'm embarassed by the knee-... (Below threshold)1. Posted by King of Fools | February 23, 2006 1:51 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
I'm embarassed by the knee-jerking.
1. Posted by King of Fools | February 23, 2006 1:51 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on February 23, 2006 01:51
2. Posted by mantis | February 23, 2006 2:46 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Let me get this straight. You're saying that Bush has a secret deal to sell the White House to Billy Ocean?!
I'm calling my editor.
2. Posted by mantis | February 23, 2006 2:46 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on February 23, 2006 02:46
3. Posted by Omni | February 23, 2006 6:10 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Could they try any harder to CREATE cloak and dagger and problems? grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
(hates the MSM)
3. Posted by Omni | February 23, 2006 6:10 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on February 23, 2006 06:10
4. Posted by Christopher | February 23, 2006 6:48 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
I saw that too! Unbelievably misleading.
4. Posted by Christopher | February 23, 2006 6:48 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on February 23, 2006 06:48
5. Posted by DeWaun | February 23, 2006 8:13 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
I didn't support this either, at first. But since hearing the Tony Snow radio show, last night on Fox, I understand for the first time, what it's all about. And Blogs4Bush has a few myths exposed that helped me understand it too. Now I can say I support the deal, and actually hope the hype hasn't hurt the chances of this transaction from going through.
5. Posted by DeWaun | February 23, 2006 8:13 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on February 23, 2006 08:13
6. Posted by tongancat | February 23, 2006 8:19 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
It amazes me that Bush gets criticized for his lack of "nuanced diplomacy"...and yet when he shows he CAN do "n.d.", he gets attacked by idiots on the left AND right! Bottom line...we either trust Bush to have our best interests at heart when it comes to security, or we don't! If we don't trust him...who? Hillary? She would probably sell us out for a campaign contribution...Bill did, and more than once!
6. Posted by tongancat | February 23, 2006 8:19 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on February 23, 2006 08:19
7. Posted by ed | February 23, 2006 9:41 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Hmmm.
Frankly I blame Michelle Malkin for this knee-jerk response. It's the same kind of hysterical nonsense that got us Frist. And what a wonderful trade that was.
Not to pound any nails into anybody here but perhaps it might be a good idea for Republicans to think twice before allying with Democrats to attack the President.
I think I'll suggest to the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy that perhaps we shouldn't be quite so eager to eat our own.
7. Posted by ed | February 23, 2006 9:41 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on February 23, 2006 09:41
8. Posted by ed | February 23, 2006 9:43 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Hmmm.
WTF??
Jesus H. Christ you liberals have lost your frigging minds.
8. Posted by ed | February 23, 2006 9:43 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on February 23, 2006 09:43
9. Posted by Paul | February 23, 2006 9:50 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
ed I deleted that noise.
9. Posted by Paul | February 23, 2006 9:50 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on February 23, 2006 09:50
10. Posted by Mark | February 23, 2006 10:04 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Thank God I dont have to think about the Cheney shooting for now....
Oopa there is my copy of Newsweek in the mail......
10. Posted by Mark | February 23, 2006 10:04 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on February 23, 2006 10:04
11. Posted by Phinn | February 23, 2006 11:10 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
This is called a "confidentiality agreement," or a "non-disclosure agreement," not a "secret agreement." I'd think this was a matter of common English usage.
Which means that the reporter is both biased and barely literate!
11. Posted by Phinn | February 23, 2006 11:10 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on February 23, 2006 11:10
12. Posted by McGehee | February 23, 2006 11:38 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Increasingly, both traits seem to be prerequisites for a job in the establishment media.
12. Posted by McGehee | February 23, 2006 11:38 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on February 23, 2006 11:38
13. Posted by Nathan | February 23, 2006 2:17 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
I wouldn't be too hard on the reporter. He may or may not have had anything to do with the headline.
13. Posted by Nathan | February 23, 2006 2:17 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on February 23, 2006 14:17
14. Posted by Gizmo | February 23, 2006 3:30 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
I've got a question as I listen to the latest round of hyperventilating on Capitol Hill. Can anyone tell me the what sort of national security secrets can be gleaned from a port operator? What information about the operations and running of a port can't be had be someone just working on-site? Think of our airports. What facets are there with regard to the loading and unloading of passengers, checked baggage, and such that aren't routinely known by people frequenting airports?
So how's someone with access to the company files at DPW gonna know more about the workings of a port than someone working as a longshoreman?
14. Posted by Gizmo | February 23, 2006 3:30 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on February 23, 2006 15:30
15. Posted by srl | February 23, 2006 3:48 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Those are exactly the questions I would like to have answered as well Gizmo.
To me this seems like one of those instances that is made for bad publicity, but is in fact not really an issue. The more I learn about this the more benign it sounds. Though I would still like those questions to be answered.
15. Posted by srl | February 23, 2006 3:48 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on February 23, 2006 15:48
16. Posted by Will Franklin | February 23, 2006 10:13 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
It's funny, because a couple of weeks ago I was just talking to a neighbor who lived in Dubai for several years, and we were discussing how great it is that Dubai is becoming such a beacon for economic freedom in the Middle East. Also, how great it is that they are diversifying their economy. And then this hits. It's crazy that this issue got so distorted by the demogogues.
16. Posted by Will Franklin | February 23, 2006 10:13 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on February 23, 2006 22:13
17. Posted by Jon Swift | February 24, 2006 10:29 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Here's the real reason Bush supports the port deal.
17. Posted by Jon Swift | February 24, 2006 10:29 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on February 24, 2006 10:29