text:
"Squeaker" McCarthy
Only Democrats have agency, apparently.
And we're all out of bubblegum.
An almost top 10,000 blog!
Fuck these fucking interesting times.
Impressively dumb. Congratulations.
Tick tock motherfuckers!
Give the craziest people you know everything they want and hope they don't ask for more? Great plan.
Battle won, war still ongoing.
The truth is, these are not very bright guys, and things got out of hand.
Nothing worth doing is easy.
Peak wingnut was a lie.
You are here: Home / Politics / Open Port Security Thread
Open Port Security Thread
by Tim F | February 21, 2006 6:39 pm | 195 Comments
This post is in: Politics
I don't have much to add to this story except to agree that it's amusing to see Bush threaten a veto, his first ever, when practically everybody agrees that he's wrong.
Overriding objections from Republicans and Democrats alike, President Bush endorsed the takeover of shipping operations at six major U.S. seaports by a state-owned business in the United Arab Emirates. He pledged to veto efforts in Congress to block the agreement.
The president on Tuesday defended his administration's approval of the sale of London-based Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co. to Dubai Ports World despite concerns in Congress that it would increase the possibility of terrorism at American ports.
The transaction will allow Dubai Ports World to run major commercial port operations in New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia. "If there was any chance that this transaction would jeopardize the security of the United States, it would not go forward," Bush said.
Bush might do well to remember what Twain (almost) said, that it's better to pocket the veto pen and let people think you're an unpopular lame duck with a shrinking base, than to whip out your pen and prove it.
For an interesting juxtaposition I point to Malkin's outrage and Greenwald's skepticism. I'm leaning Malkin, with a bit of Greenwald because I don't actually know that much about this story. Let's hear what you think.
Previous Post: « Abramoffapalooza
Next Post: Leadership Test »
I think its a great idea. Is there a better way to show just how useless the federal gov't is?
I wrote about this yesterday but things have gotten so much juicier since then…
Republicans are running from Bush on this one like he just shit in the pool. Frist says he'll do whatever it takes to stop the deal. Opposition is coming from both parties at every level of government, and Bush's response is to grab his pool-turd and use it as his first-ever veto stamp.
stickler
Let's hear what you think.
Okay, here goes: it's got all the political savvy that the Miers nomination had. In the bigger picture, it's annoying and vaguely disturbing that a foreign-gubmint-owned firm will be playing any kind of role in our woefully-unsecured ports. But the UAE isn't exactly a hotbed of Islamism, so who knows.
But what's for damned sure is that this couldn't have been better targeted to cheese off the GOP base. Just look at the checklist for a Miers-like mess:
Unprotected borders and ports? Check! Foreign-owned company? Check! ARABS??? Check! Arrogant demands for Republicans to toe the line on a political disaster? Check! Threatening a veto on something that has nothing to do with abortion or massive defecits? Check!
Cue Republican infighting in three … two … one …
While I agree that it's probably not the best idea to outsource port security to a state-owned company in the UAE, I'm somewhat struck by the Republican reaction to this. Apparently on this issue, we need more oversight, and we need it yesterday.
However we apparently didn't need that sort of oversight into 9/11, that was stalled for years. Nor on the war that has cost us literally hundreds of billions of dollars and thousands of lives. Not on unverified voting and voter disenfranchisement. Not on torture. Not on extraordinary rendition. Not on warrantless spying. Not on the outing of a CIA operative allegedly working on Iranian WMD proliferation. Not on the canning of an FBI translator who allegedly uncovered a nest of corruption. Not on warrantless spying allegedly performed by the NSA on American citizens. Nope. Just this.
And we need it now, after six years of not securing our ports. After the 9/11 commission told us we weren't secure. After they told us that we haven't become more secure. But now, it's an emergency. Now that Bush's popularity is tanking. Right before the mid-term elections. Now, they want to do something?
It's a little late, guys. But thanks for noticing, I guess.
leefranke
DougJ,
Don't take this as an insult, but was this you on Michelle Malkin's site?
What, have you all caught a case of Bush Derangment Syndrome? Is this michaelmoore.com or michellemalkin.com? Now that the MSM (mainstream MOONBATS haha!) is running stories on this I know it's just another hatchetjob, oversimplifying a complex issue just to besmirch the people who are trying to protect us! The Bush Team knows what they're doing! Do you honestly not trust them with safeguarding our OWN ports when they've done such an amazing job in protecting us from Al-Qaeda in Iraq? Your questioning of this decision simply provides succor to our enemies! I mean if right wing conservative patriots won't back the administration, what message does that send to them and our troops?
It seems way to trite for one of your posts, but I could not help but think of you when I read it.
shecky
Ironically, this may be one of Bush's most reasonable decisions, yet is a political turd, possibly most among his red state base.
Could be worse. He could have handed the ports to the French… ;)
That sounds more like GOP4Me on a good day.
This one's got all the Bush Hallmarks…
Cronyism:
Treasury Secretary John Snow, whose agency 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.
Incompetence:
Donald Rumsfeld, as Secretary of Defense, is a member of Committee on Foreign Investments in the United States. As such, he was one of the people who, according to the Treasury Department, unanimously approved the sale on February 13. How could do that when he didn't even find out about the sale until last weekend?
Secrecy:
And in response to Homeland Security secretary Michael Chertoff's insistence that the administration made a rigorous check — without disclosing details — of the security implications of the deal, California Democratic Senator Barbara Boxer said "It's ridiculous to say you're taking secret steps to make sure that it's okay for a nation that has ties to 9/11 to take over part of our port operations."
And more Cronyism:
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.
He threatened to veto before in the case of the anti-torture bill. But when he saw that there would be an overriding majority, he didn't do it and chose to add a memo of presidential understanding to it. Well, it simply said that he doesn't understand that he should be bound by law and that he'll proceed as usual. I guess this will happen with a port security bill, too. And then what are those lawmakers gonna do, impeach him?
Bob In Pacifica
So they had connections to al Qaeda? The U.S. had connections to al Qaeda (well, its antecedents). I don't know if it's a great idea for ports to be run by foreign nations, when did that start happening, but I'm not convinced it's inherently evil to have the Emirates running the ports. After all, they have to buy something with all that oil money we've been pouring into their coffers.
MN Politics Guru
There's gotta be something we are all missing here. He is so hell-bent on doing this that it is just unexplainable given the current facts. Either he is hiding a very big reason why he wants this done post-haste, or he has reached the point where he thinks that nobody is allowed to question his presumed godlike reasoning on any issue.
If he is so delusional that he can't see anything wrong with this plan and he thinks opposition is just the work of "liberal" out to get him, then we are screwed.
Great post Mr.Furious but I'm disappointed that there is no Darrell? No Stormy? No MacBuckets? come on all you Bush apologists we're all waiting for your defense of the boy emperor. Don't hide, we can't wait to see how you spin this one for the Moron-in-chief.
If you do not trust our ports to the United Arab Emirates the terrorists have already won.
The Other Steve
Am I the only one who doesn't think this is a security issue, but is appalled that the Federal Government would be handing out a contract to a foreign company? Just from the standpoint of jobs and profits going overseas.
DougJ
I guess this answers the question: if you have an infinitely incompetent White House and an infinitely malleable Congress, can the White House commit a blunder so great that the Congress will object to it?
The Other Steve,
Appalled, sure, but not surprised. Kerry was the guy against outsourcing, whereas the Bush administration came up with some sort of Orwellian justification for it. Anyhow, I agree with the Bush administration that outsourcing does "create jobs"–just not here.
You're joking, right? Trust this ramshackle parody of a federal state? What will happen if there's a revolution tomorrow? Are you really sure that the arab problem of corruption won't spread to this company,too? How do you prevent the company from becoming infiltrated by radical islamists? How fast can you transfer port security to another competitor? Trust is good, control is better.
You're joking, right?
Meet Perry Como. He's like DougJ, but with 20% less calories!
Otto Man
On the bright side, the president has finally managed to unite the nation. We all agree this is a stupid fucking idea.
Pls check rawstory headline on that issue. The whole affair seems to be another case of incredible cronyism…
Hmm, I don't have weight issues, so I have no problem with the original. But good to know, this explains a lot. OK, better fakes than no opposing voices in this discussion at all! :)
Richard 23
At least it gives republicans an issue they can point to in the 2006 elections to show that they aren't lockstep Bush Administration apologists. Fun for everyone.
Don't hide, we can't wait to see how you spin this one for the Moron-in-chief.
They are still trying to make sense of the three hour radio lesson from Rush on how awesome this deal is.
This make me wonder if there was a secret deal made with the UAE for something. Some very helpful information perhaps.
Murray2805
Of all the moronic ideas. He must be out to lunch to think the American People are gonna buy this one. Pretty sad when your President opens the door to the henhouse and says come on in boys help yourselves to some chickens they wont know what hit em. Whose side is he on anyways. Boy oh Boy this idea is and was incredibly stupid.
Never seen us so united here and at the rest of the blogosphere, too. There are only very few dissenters, listed at tbogg.
I'm surprised to see that Dennis the Peasant, the popular pajama critic, is among them. And I was inclined to think he's a reasonable guy…
Richard Bottoms
The deal is wrong because it is a state owned company of a country that doesn't recognize Israel.
It will be fun watching the blood run in streets over this blunder. Metophorically speaking of course (this for the dumbells who don't understand metaphor).
Time for some popcorn.
SoCalJustice
But the UAE isn't exactly a hotbed of Islamism
It's a hotbed of lunacy, though.
The Zayed Centre for Coordination and Follow-Up (ZCCF)
The Zayed International Centre for Co-ordination and Follow-Up, based in Abu Dhabi, UAE, was established in 1999. The centre was named in honour of UAE President Shaikh Zayed bin Sultan Al Nahyan with the aim of funding Islamic Cultural, Scientific research, health and educational institutions.
A book published by the centre claiming that the American government masterminded the September 11 attacks, hosted notorious Holocaust deniers, and featured a lecture by a Saudi professor who claimed that Jews use gentile blood for holiday pastries.
Cool, a think tank run by the government of the UAE published a book saying the U.S. gov't was behind 9/11. Which is actually fairly progressive for that part of the world, because usually they like to blame the Mossad (AND praise Osama/al-Qaeda for standing up to the infidel Great Satan – a neat trick).
Let's give one of their companies control of port security.
Zayed Centre for Coordination and Follow Up
But then there's this:
W aides' biz ties to Arab firm
WASHINGTON – The Dubai firm that won Bush administration backing to run six U.S. ports has at least two ties to the White House.
One is Treasury Secretary John Snow, whose agency 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.
The other connection is David Sanborn, who runs DP World's European and Latin American operations and was tapped by Bush last month to head the U.S. Maritime Administration.
The ties raised more concerns about the decision to give port control to a company owned by a nation linked to the 9/11 hijackers.
Nothing like a little $$$ to make you overlook the fact that leading UAE (gov't sanctioned) "intellectuals" published a book that 9/11 was an inside job.
The Zayed Centre was great at spreading $$ around. They even got Clinton, Carter and Gore to speak at their conferences to gain Western legitimacy – before they were forced to close their doors after people started noticing how hateful, anti-semitic and conspiracy driven it was.
Matthew, yeah. But even that doesn't make sense unless the UAE is physically handing us OBL when they officially take charge. Even that I'm not sure I do, because we couldn't find something less integral to security than our ports to give them in return?
And if this statement doesn't peg your cluelessness meter…
I want those who are questioning it to step up and explain why all of a sudden a Middle Eastern company is held to a different standard than a Great British company.
Off the top of my head, I can think of 19, but that's just me being racist, right?
Hmm, maybe even Rummy is against his boss' decision this time…
And let me add that it's not just a ME company, but a ME Country. I'm sure they're lovely people, but what's next renting out the White House to Malaysia?
President Bush never misses a chance to play the race card. If you're against the UAE deal, you must have something against Arabs. If you're against Social Security phase-out, you must have something against black people because they die sooner, or you must think "some people" aren't smart enough to invest their own money.
Kinda makes you wonder if all that conservative outrage over Democrats playing the "race card" back in the day was just jealousy.
Zerthimon
How do people think blocking the UAE would look to the people in the middle east? If we're focusing on "winning hearts and minds" of Arabs, isn't blocking the UAE a stunningly bad move?
This isn't new though. The Republican party blasted Bush because he says that Islam is a peaceful religion. This is just the Republican party continuing to show how out of touch they are.
From what I've seen, it's part of the great web of corruption. Somebody with connections to Dubya is making money on this. That's always part of the deal, a pal getting a slice of the action.
If anything, the deal points to how little Bush has done to bulk up our port security.
I know that two of The Nineteen came from the United Emirates. I suppose we can stop them from owning American businesses right after we stop the Saudis from spending their money here.
Face it, with the huge deficits we're running, every oil-producing nation is going to hold a lot of our IOUs. What do you want them to buy instead? Yellowstone? The Interstate Highway system?
The first step in national security is a balanced budget.
Someone snapped a photo of part of the vetting process.
searp
I was struck by the level of racism and xenophobia in the reaction. There may be perfectly good reasons why our ports should never be managed by foreigners, but none of this surfaced until an Arab country, an Arab company, got the contract.
I normally despise most everything done by Bush, but he may be right on this, and I sure do not like the counterarguments, which seem overblown, filled with irrelevancies, and tinged with prejudice.
RobertL
I'd be very interested in knowing who is handling all the other U.S. ports (i.e. Los Angeles, Seattle, etc.) My guess is that it is either Hutchison (Hong Kong based company with very strong ties to China)or Temasek (partially or completely controlled by the Singaporean gov't/dictatorship). Since American companies have gotten out of this line of business I would think the discussion is a) do we want foreigners controlling our ports or b) do we want to nationalize port operations. It seems a reasonable debate that is not yet happening. Not sure what other countries have done but would guess most have opted for A.
Sure, absolutely. Of course, invading a country full of Arabs probably pissed off a few people in the Middle East, too, so it's a little late to start worrying about our PR. You can't decide out of the blue that "hearts and minds" suddenly trumps every other consideration.
It's kind of odd that the president who swore up and down that he would never impose a "global test," etc., etc., suddenly cares so much about whether other people will think we're being fair. Like I said above, it's a cheap card to play.
Paul Wartenberg
What amazes me is how dedicated Bush is to getting this port deal done and done, even with members of his own party asking for at least a delay in getting the deal made. A sensible politican would see the big warning signs here and back off from the deal as congenially as possible. The only explanation is that Bush owes these Dubai people big time for something and that they've called in their IOU, and indeed there are threads to those stories here. Okay, so how many screw-ups/acts of cronyism/brain-dead decisions does this make now for these guys? I swear, if this were the Pope making all these screwups we'd have every Catholic re-thinking that whole 'infallibility' stuff…
There may be perfectly good reasons why our ports should never be managed by foreigners, but none of this surfaced until an Arab country, an Arab company, got the contract.
searp, see my second post above, it's not just an Arab country, but an Arab government. It may not be the world's worst idea ever, but that doesn't mean it's good.
er Arab country should equal Arab company.
It's kind of odd that the president who swore up and down that he would never impose a "global test," etc., etc., suddenly cares so much about whether other people will think we're being fair. Like I said above, it's a cheap card to play
Why did Bush emphasize constantly that Islam was a peaceful religion after 9/11? Wasn't part of that to give the impression to the middle east that we weren't waging a war against Islam? This concern for "hearts and minds" isn't new.
I don't think you can seriously argue that having a British company manage our ports is exactly the same as having a UAE company manage them, and that anyone who says there's a difference is racist.
As for the larger issue, yeah, it is funny in some ways how this is the incident that suddenly made people care about our ports. Democrats like Chuck Schumer have been fighting every day since 9/11 for better port funding and security, but everyone dismissed him as a raving moonbat, and the Bushbots continued to insist that Republicans are the only part that takes national security seriously. Now that this deal has been proposed, yeah, the right wing finally sits up and expresses concern about whether our ports are safe. The timing is kind of funny, when you look at it that way.
Jane Finch
Your ports were run by a foreign company before and I don't recall the usually hysterical Ms. Malkin saying a word. Come to think of it, I don't recall any word from anyone about it…doubt anyone cared. "National security" has been largely cosmetic….all the time that you are having your handbags swabbed and your shoes xrayed and your libraries screened for internet porn viewers, airplane and ship cargo is entering the country unscanned. A Dubai company isn't going to make a darned bit of difference about the fact that your security sucks and you are not prepared for any, much less a major, terrorist attack.
You have several public authorities, many under the auspices of DHS, who are responsible for security…the company is responsible for operations. And the company of ownership hasn't changed the fact that your own American public authorities haven't done their jobs.
So what's the big deal now?
I never said it was new, I said you can't pick and choose when you're going to care about it. Invading and occupying an Arab country is a far bigger "hearts and minds" issue than the awarding of a contract to the UAE. Indefinite detention of innocent Arabs without trial is a far bigger "hearts and minds" issue than the awarding of a contract to the UAE. Torture is a far bigger "hearts and minds" issue than the awarding of a contract to the UAE. But yeah, Bush has said nice things about Islam, so I guess he must really care about those hearts and minds.
Yes, but the issue of hearts and minds is ofen weighed with other issues, such as national security. I agree that Bush's handling on the issues of torture and indefinite detention has been horendous, but that doesn't mean that they didn't take into consideration whether it would undermine our attempt to win hearts and minds. Just that in the end they decided (incorrectly) that it was better to err on the side of security.
Theseus
President Bush said today
"I don't understand why it's OK for a British company to operate our ports but not a company from the Middle East when we've already determined security is not an issue," Bush said.
Well, first of all, the British company was a privately owned company, not owned but the British government.
Secondly, the government in question, that owns the company is the UAE, and while it is one of the more "liberal" (from an Arab perspective anyway) and business friendly of Arab autocracies (with the exception of Lebanon and hopefully Iraq), it is an unelected, unaccountable monarchy that reigns supreme (some of whom have ties or sympathies with Islamic radicalism). D'uh.
Instapundit has a comment which defends the deal as such
Bush is going to take some ugly political flak for a better cause. The USA needs to strengthen ties with Arab nations. Period. The UAE is not Switzerland, but it's not Afghanistan either, and yes they recognized the Taliban government. They're politicians too. If we can do business with Pakistan, and we must, the UAE is as good an Islamic business partner as we're going to get.
To take away the deal from the UAE now, for no other reason than their religion, would rightly insult all Muslims, and do irreparable damage to our long term interests. This would not even be an issue if the ports were secure. That should be the focus of conservative attention, not who gets the deal to run the port.
Which is all well and good EXCEPT that trying to win hearts and minds should not be placed ahead of national security. And frankly, allowing a foreing government, let alone an Arab autocracy manage port security defies credulity. Might as well leave the Mexican government and army in charge of policing the southern borders. And at this point and especially after the little Cartoon Jihad, I don't give a flying fuck about "offending" poor Muslim sensibilities or "Islamophobia", which essentially amounts to any kind of criticism whatsoever of Muslims or Islam, the so-called "Religion of Peace" and "tolerance". Fuck that. It's embarrasing to watch the Bush administration engage in this pathetic politically correct nonsense.
Obviously "hearts and minds" also deals with national security. So I didn't mean to seperate the two. My point though was that in weighing all their options they decided that they would be safer by continuing the torture and detention policies, and were willing to risk how it would hurt our image.
But "hearts and minds" IS an issue of national security. Since pissing off Muslims is what caused them to fly planes into the World Trade Center. Not to mention how it's undermining our attempts in Iraq.
And Islam is a peaceful religion. That's not being politiclly correct. That's stating a fact.
I think at the end of the day, the administration cares far more about PR than they care about actually doing the right thing. They get all exercised because some whistleblower went to the press, or because Newsweek upset the Arab world with a story about Koran abuse (which was poorly sourced, but true, after all). The idea that maybe we simply shouldn't DO things for no reason that piss people off never seems to occur to them. It's always the fault of the leaker, not the bad actor.
Viewed in this light, the only reason the UAE deal is a potential problem at all is because the administration decided to pursue it and dig in its heels. Even so, whatever PR hit we take on this issue pales in comparison to something like Abu Ghraib, there's just no question about it.
Well, I didn't say that every counterargument was racist, I just noted that many of the commentators I have heard on the subject fixated on the fact that the problem was, specifically, that the company (country) was Arab. They really didn't go any deeper than that.
I suppose that I'd prefer that our critical infrastructure be run by American companies under contract to the American government, but we seem to have adopted another policy some time ago. I don't know enough about it to be in a lather.
Port security, on the other hand, is clearly very important. I dabble in it, and I think the government also dabbles in it. The stuff I have seen is a joke, but I am a research scientist looking at research, not an operations type.
Would it be racist to prefer a Canadian company over a Mexican company in a bidding contest if we were outsourcing our border security?
Both borders are far from perfect, one is much more problematic than the other.
Stupid and sad that we are even outsourcing Port security. The threat from the U.K. and the threat from the Middle East are very different. The official think tank of the UAE had to be shut down – at our behest – last year because it was a cess pool of conspiracy and hate. (Perhaps the Bush administration knew deals would be in the offing, and they couldn't have that nasty little ZCCF around when the real money was ready to change hands).
And yes, there are good companies in the Middle East and crap ones in Europe and the U.K.
Yet it's still kind of funny to watch people defend Bush by playing the race card.
Please read the story about his cronies' ties to the company in question.
Should the deal have happened in the first place? I don't think it should have, since this is taking jobs away from Americans. Dock workers are a struggling and diminishing class (as anyone who has seen season two of The Wire knows), and this just continues that trend. Plus it's obvious there was some cronyism involved.
However, should the deal be blocked now? I don't think so, since I think from a PR standpoint it would be dangerous to do so.
I suppose I'd think the response was more informed if someone pointed me to a problem with the company – dodgy board of directors, slavering Islamofacists in middle management, etc. Failing that, it seems to me that the negative responses are, in fact, partly motivated by a belief that all Arabs are inherently anti-American security risks.
I almost hate to be in this position, but I really do see the reaction as due to the simple fact that it is an Arab company, period.
I'd support Menendez' legislation, but I wish it would have passed years ago. No way to avoid some bad PR now for what is a perfectly reasonable policy change.
Honestly, I'm still surprised a British company was in charge. The fact that it just got bought by the UAE isn't really pertinent in my opinion.
Unless we're talking about some US govt holding overseas where it makes sense to hire the local labor, I just don't think we ought to be handing out contracts to foreign countries. For security reasons, for national pride reasons, for a host of reasons.
If it was a Russian company my feelings would still be the same, and last I checked they are predominately Caucasian, and my girlfriend hails from there. So which kind of bigotry are you going to accuse me of now? I will let Tatiana know, so she can be sure to beat it out of me.
I do kind of have to chuckle to hear Bush using liberal arguments against liberals. That you all opposed Harriet Meirs because you're mysogynist, and you oppose democracy in Iraq because you don't think brown people ought to have the right to vote.
But seriously, if that's your basis for support, I think you've already lost.
All due respect, Muslims have been pissed off for a long, long time. Couple of centuries. That's what happens when you live in politically, economically, culturally, socially backwards and stagnant countries ruled by theocrats, thugocracies, autocracies and dictatorships. For a very long time, it won't really matter what we do until those issues are resolved, until they're no longer held captive by the past and begin to look towards the future. Until then, all the bitterness, resentement and anger will be channeled, by our good "friends" in the region towards the West, more specifially the US and Israel. Simple as that.
Stupid and sad that we are even outsourcing Port security.
This isn't Port security. That's still handled by the Coast Guard.
They just say this is management, but my guess is it the logistical part of the operation. Keeping track of which ships are in port, where they can dock, when they can unload, yada yada… that sort of thing.
They've been pissed off at Europe for a long time now. But in the early part of the 20th century the Middle East and America had good relations. Partly because they viewed us as being an obstacle against Europe's imperial ambitions. As the century progressed though and we began to have a more vested interest in the region, then we began to take actions that enraged the Muslim community. Such as establishing bases in their holy land, Saudi Arabia. There's tons of work we have to do to fix that, but we had good relations before. I don't see why we can't again.
This isn't a publicly traded company. It's state-owned. So it's actually the UAE govt who would be in charge of our ports.
I won't discount that is the reaction of some. But I find it baffling that you'd agree to a foreign govt being given a contract for something like this. Arab or not.
It's not just a UAE company — it's fucking owned by the UAE government. It's insane. I wouldn't want the Russian or Chinese government running our ports either. Frankly, I'm not even sure I'd want the Canadian government running our ports. It makes no sense to have another country's government run your ports. It's just crazy
If it were just a privately owned company incorporated in the UAE, this would be different….but it's not!
Wow… over 60 posts and still no sight of Darrell…. or Stormy…. or MacBuckets…. Maviva….. curious isn't it? Even the stallworth bush toadies and apologists can't spin this one.
Totally vacuous decision. How does the administration come to this? They have no credability left.
From the quote on Instapundit:
To take away the deal from the UAE now, for no other reason than their religion, would rightly insult all Muslims, and do irreparable damage to our long term interests.
Muslims are not going to love us because a UAE-owned company is in charge of our ports.
I doubt that a conversation in an Egyptian Mosque or coffee house involving America's foreign policy towards Iraq, Palestine/Israel, Syria and Iran will end with, "Yes Ahmed, but they let the Sultan of the UAE manage their ports. Maybe they're not all bad."
On the other hand, denial of this contract might lead to self-reflection on the part of the Muslim world if they want to have better relations with us. Our double dealing with Saudi Arabia and the Wahhabists over oil is bad enough and does very little – if anything – to discourage anti-American sentiment in the Arab/Muslim world.
I wouldn't want the Russian or Chinese government running our ports either
Got some bad news for you then — here's a bit from a NYT article quoted by Glenn:
The White House appeared stunned by the uprising, over a transaction that they considered routine — especially since China's biggest state-owned shipper runs major ports in the United States, as do a host of other foreign companies. Mr. Bush's aides defended their decision, saying the company, Dubai Ports World, which is owned by the United Arab Emirates, would have no control over security issues.
I'm going to petition the administration to let the government of Malaysia manage our airports. Anything less would be racist.
When I first heard of this story, I thought this was a stupid move on the president. But the more I think about it, the more I don't know. I need more facts. For example, is this stuff common? What else in this country is owned by the UAE and other Middle Eastern countries? What if foreigners owned power plants or airports? And what does this transition of power mean? Isn't the Coast Guard in charge of securing ports, so what role would the UAE actually play in security? I think Sen. Menendez from NJ makes some important arguments about the possibility of the US and the UAE coming in conflict with one another, but that argument could be made about any foreign company or country. So if we are serious about this, then perhaps the ports should become nationalized.
This all has about zero to do with security. You think your ports would be more safely managed by companies based out of Asia or Europe? Me thinks alot of you really are bigoted about this, and none of you hates GW more than me.
So what if there were two 9/11 terrorists from the UAE? Oh, and money went thru their banks? Ah, they went thru US banks also. Where's the rage?
This is about corporate/state cronyism, that's it. And there's obviously some quid-pro-quo with the UAE. Turn on google maps and look at the bases we have there. They are humongous. Oh, and they just bought $6 Billion in F-16's and $8 Billion in 777's from Boeing.
No wonder the other side keeps winning, y'all can't keep your eye on ball (Rule of Law, maybe?). You just keep chasing crap issues like this.
So if we are serious about this, then perhaps the ports should become nationalized.
Commie.
ppGaz
I guess the fact that we're turning our meat inspection over to Jihad Packers Ltd. is not something to worry about, then?
I was surprised to learn that the ports were sold out long ago anyway, to Britian, China, etc. So I guess I may as well be ambivalent about this sell-off to the UAE since it's too late to fret about it.
As long as Bush cronies make a buck why should I care? Let's sell everything off. Call it the "Yard Sale of the Americas."
You won't be able to for the simple reason that you stated in the same paragraph, which is that America has vested interests in the region that may be perceived to run counter to Muslim concerns, whether they actually do or not. And if America were to magically pull out, other powers would step in and fill the void for two basic reasons: oil and the inherent weaknesses of Muslim states, which make them more susceptible to foreign intervention.
But I think the biggest reason is psychological. I think it's harder as Americans to understand this, especially as America is such a forward looking nation. Whereas much of the Arab and Muslim world is stuck in the past, reliving the glory years when Islamic powers were a force to be reckoned with that ruled lands from Andulusia to India and beyond. Today, the once powerful Islamic world is almost as pathetic as sub-Saharan Africa. If not for oil, they would be almost completely irrelevant. If you lived in or even consider yourself a part of (as many European jihadis do) a society that is economically, politically, culturally and socially backwards and your options for the future looked bleak, especially when you are able to see how others in the world live, wouldn't you be pissed off too? Add the fact that your government, media, elites and religious leaders keep shifting the blame for ALL their own failures on others, ALL the time, each for their own reasons. Like I said, it doesn't really matter what you do. Not really, because it will never be enough to fill that void that can ultimately only be filled by Muslims themselves and not us.
AkaDad
Bush is going to take some ugly political flak for a better cause. The USA needs to strengthen ties with Arab nations. Period.
The U.S. needs to secure its own ports. Period.
This has nothing to with religion. This is entirely about National Security.
We already caused irreparable damage by invading and occupying Iraq, and by committing horrific acts of torture, in the name of America. What a simplistic view to think that this deal could possibly make up for all that.
What do we sell off after all the ports are sold? My sister?
DUBAI AND BITBURG [John Podhoretz]
I have absolutely no inside knowledge about the ports deal, but it's possible that this event is George Bush's Bitburg. A private personal appeal from a world leader may have been the key missing link to what seems like an inexplicably stupid decision. Bush might have been personally prevailed upon by the pooh-bahs in Dubai — who have, it is said, been very helpful in some of the financial aspects of the war on terror — to agree to the ports deal. That would follow the same pattern as Ronald Reagan, who agreed to a personal plea from Helmut Kohl to lay a wreath on the German war dead at Bitburg. Wrath rained down from the heavens upon Ronald Reagan, just as it is right now on George W. Bush. And as was true in the earlier case, it's only going to get worse. A classic second-term blunder.
Via WaMO.
How much for your daughters?
Better jihad than fudge, ppgaz.
What type of royalties are we talking about? =]
First, I don't hate Bush, in fact I support and continue to support most of his foreign policy and some of his domestic policies.
Second, I think it's ludicrous to have an authoritarian government manage your ports, quid-pro-quo be damned. The fact that it's an Arab autocracy frankly makes it worse and Arabs have noone to blame for America's reaction than themselves. Just like we keep hearing that American has an image problem and there are consequences to that, well, guess what, Arabs have a tremendous image problem in the West and it seems like it's only going to get worse. If that concerns them, as it should, it's up to them to improve their image, not us.
CaseyL
Call it the "Yard Sale of the Americas."
Too funny.
Y'know, it's stuff like this that prove Bush lives in his own little world. I have a funny feeling he sincerely believes that selling a few ports to an Arab government really is a good way to show the Islamic world that we're not out to get them. "Look, OK, we invaded Iraq for no good reason, and we're about to launch airstrikes against Iran just because we think they're thinking of developing nuclear weapons; and, sure, we tortured and raped and murdered some of your friends and relatives, and we're imprisoning forever a bunch more who didn't actually do anything – but look! I gave one of your countries a few of our ports! That's gotta count for something, right? Plus I still hold hands with sheiks."
I don't think anyone knows what goes on in Bush's mind. It's a strange little place.
I think a few of his buds or his family's buds stood to make a lot of money, and Bush is always happy to help his buds and his family's buds make money. I'm pretty sure the security issues never occurred to him at all, because this was a Business Deal, and the grownups told him it was a Good Business Deal.
I actually don't know if the UAE running some ports is a worse security risk than all the other countries which run other ports. UAE wants to do business and make money; I doubt they want to wind up shitting in their own nest, so to speak, and are likelier to be extra vigilant against terrorists using their ports as a convenient entry than not. Terrorists might find it easier to infiltrate a port owned by a country that doesn't automatically raise a bunch of red flags. FWIW, I'm not terribly keen on other countries owning any of our ports, for security and economic reasons.
But I'm certainly enjoying the spectacle of Everyone v. Bush.
Al Maviva
Michelle Malkin is a racist bee-atch for suggesting that somebody's race or ethnicity or religion can justify state action against a discrete group when there is a war on, like the Japanese and Japanese Americans in WWII.
Chuck Schumer, on the other hand, is an American Hero for makin' sure nunna them A-rabs get to run U.S. ports.
Meanwhile, all the freighters rolling into the U.S. are Liberian flagged, and governed by the laws of that well-run nation…
9/11 Commission Report (pdf)
pp 121-122:
Yet in September 1998, when the Saudi emissary, Prince Turki, asked Mullah Omar whether he would keep his earlier promise to expel Bin Ladin, the Taliban leader said no. Both sides shouted at each other, with Mullah Omar denouncing the Saudi government.Riyadh then suspended its diplomatic relations with the Taliban regime. (Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and the United Arab Emirates were the only countries that recognized the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan.)
p 137:
Early in 1999, the CIA received reporting that Bin Ladin was spending much of his time at one of several camps in the Afghan desert south of Kandahar.At the beginning of February, Bin Ladin was reportedly located in the vicinity of the Sheikh Ali camp, a desert hunting camp being used by visitors from a Gulf state. Public sources have stated that these visitors were from the United Arab Emirates.
The next day, national technical intelligence confirmed the location and description of the larger camp and showed the nearby presence of an official aircraft of the United Arab Emirates. But the location of Bin Ladin's quarters could not be pinned down so precisely.
The United Arab Emirates was becoming both a valued counterterrorism ally of the United States and a persistent counterterrorism problem. From 1999 through early 2001, the United States, and President Clinton personally,pressed the UAE, one of the Taliban's only travel and financial outlets to the outside world, to break off its ties and enforce sanctions, especially those relating to flights to and from Afghanistan.165 These efforts achieved little before 9/11.
Then there's Marwan al Shehhi and Hani Hanjour.
Whoooeeee, you said a mouthful.
:sheik sheik sheik,
sheik sheik sheik,
sheik your port thing,
sheik your port thing:
Bwaaaaaaahahahaha! You might wanna check in with Bill "Joe E Brown" Frist, numbnuts.
There are many large U.S bases in and around the UAE which would be used in future airstrikes on Iran. Whatever else is involved with this deal, I think it also has something to with ensuring the UAE's cooperation in a strike against Iran, which would cause an even bigger shitstorm in the Middle East than the Iraq war. Bush is paying off the cops for his next big caper in the region.
I'm sure that Homeland Security and other agencies crawling with Bush appointees will do just fine with port security anyway. After all, look at the heck of a job they did with New Orleans with advance warning.
[OT Police] But that's a separate issue.
Maybe this whole thing was cooked up to whip up more anti-Arab hysteria to prepare the nation for our wonderful upcoming war with Iran. Who knows?
Yeah, really brilliant snark, except we're talking here about punitive action against a foreign government, not against a race of people.
I don't see anyone contending that it was racist to hold the nation of Japan responsible for Pearl Harbor. Other than that, truly awesome point, really.
SoCal: Awesome post.
SoCalJustice,
Did you ever stop and think that maybe the reason we knew this:
At the beginning of February, Bin Ladin was reportedly located in the vicinity of the Sheikh Ali camp, a desert hunting camp being used by visitors from a Gulf state
Is because one of these guys:
visitors were from the United Arab Emirates.
Worked for us? Which might explain why we didn't drop a daisy cutter on them?
Y'all might also think about what cover P&O and DPW provide for certain OGAs.
Come on, where are you guys? Gimme something. Clinton did it. Liberals hate Jesus. Anything.
Okay, this is the Double Crostic solution for last Wednesday, right?
Also, ponder this – let's say you have a choice between "corporations" that maintain a world-wide shipping presence and related database on commercial shipping. These corporations are based out of:
2) Belgium
3) Germany
4) China
5) US
6) UAE
Which one is most likely to be your friend, and not be troubled by legal niceties and such?
7) Lilliput
Y'all are the Malkin lovers tonight. Hope it keeps ya warm.
srv,
So they were visiting OBL for us? Maybe we should have had them manage our ports sooner. What took us so long?
Before 9/11, we had several opportunities to drop bombs on/shoot missles at Bin Laden and didn't take them for various reasons.
March 24, 2004 Testimony before 9/11 Comission:
Drones were flown successfully over Afghanistan 16 times in fall 2000. At least twice, the Predator saw a security detail around a tall man in a white robe whom some analysts determined was probably bin Laden. The Predator was spotted by Taliban forces. They were unable to intercept it, but the Afghan press service publicized the discovery of a strange aircraft that it speculated might be looking for bin Laden.
And also, if you read the next text block in my earlier post, you will see that we didn't know exactly where Bin Laden was living anyway, even had we wanted to off him that day.
But we have, on occasion, flung cruise missiles in his general direction.
And you're the George Bush/Cronyism lover. Who cares.
VidaLoca
I imagine that many of you have already seen this, but in case you haven't there's an interesting post up at DKos on this topic. A money quote or three:
To be sure, most Republicans have embraced globalization out of a belief that, in the globalized game of exploitation, Americans would come out the winners. After all, when Halliburton reconstructs Iraq, American businessmen profit. When McDonalds expands into Afghanistan, American businessmen profit there, too. We liberals continue to complain that free-trade has come at the expense of the American worker–but in the moral vaccuum inhabited by Republicans, globalization is good because the American big-wig profits.
The problem, of course, is that free-trade is a two-way street, and even the most progressive or patriotic corporations fall sway to an influence far bigger and more important than loyalty, morality, progressivism, patriotism or even common sense: namely, the bottom line.
And the bottom line dictates that products, services, and yes, even national ports, will be sold off to the higest bidder–no matter which country they are from. Because the World is now Flat.
Thus it is that we now live in a world where Americans build Dubai's oil infrastructure (thus ensuring anti-American sentiment in the region), while Arab Emirates control our port security (thus rendering us vulnerable to terrorism). And no one can even complain. Because to complain would be to challenge the very economic system that our elites believe in almost as a religion.
In this brave new FlatWorld, National Sovereignty is a thing of the past. Your new corporate overlords now dictate your future OVER THE TOP of your government. And if your government tries to stop it, your Corporatist President will just veto your attempt. You're the frog in the boiling pot who has been merrily buying up cheap crap at Wal-Mart, failing to understand that the very system that has allowed you to buy cheap Chinese crap has also ensured the sale of your personal safety to Arab terrorist-connected governments.
Ancient Purple
I think they are MIA on this discussion, so I will fill in for them.
Darrell: You all are unAmerican liars and the WMDs are in Syria!
MacBuckets: You are traitors and you hate the troops.
Al Maviva: (Reduced from 19 paragraphs): I am always right.
Stormy70: You all are all unhinged Democrats and you hate the U.S. and you want terrorists to win. I would provide evidence of this, but I have to watch something on Tivo.
I hope that will tide you over until they show up.
That is GOLD.
There are plenty of Saudi, Omani, UAE, Yemini and other princes who partied with Osama. That doesn't mean that all princes and peoples of these nations are terrorists. We have more evidence of Saddam being behind 9/11 than we do the UAE. But that doesn't stop people from presuming guilt by association.
For Theseus, he believes GW is really interested in winning their hearts and minds, so we should set a good example. Especially when our bombers and fighters patrolling the Strait of Hormuz and bombing Iran in the near future will be operating out of the UAE. Or maybe not… now.
And in the meantime, many keep pumping UAE gas into their cars and yuck-yucking about them damn arabs. Good gawd! The audacity of doing business with these people! Just simply beneath us! Terrorism! Fear! National Security!
Actually I think Stormy would say something, like…
"Ho hum, this is all so boring. Can't you find any real issues to talk about. Like tonight's episode of Lost? It's going to be cool to see the doctor guy finally save the movie star."
Why is it liberals like you and Bush just ignore the points made and accuse people of being disingenuous instead?
many keep pumping UAE gas into their cars
I use UAE only in the lawnmower, and to kill ants.
For those of you who don't know how the system works – here's the point of the sword if you're interested in keeping Iran non-nuclear:
We own this
Not that I personally have any problem with Iran having nukes, but alot of you seem to.
What about all the ports we haven't turned over to a country with ties to Al Qaeda? How come we're not hearing anything about them? The press just wants to focus on the bad things about our ports. Why don't the write about the ports along the great lakes? None of them are run by Middle Eastern countries. But they don't want you to know about that. It undermines the whole "Bush is evil" message.
Does anyone remember the brouhaha when the Chinese took over the port operations at both ends of the Panama Canal. Accusations flew fast and furious from the Ridiculous right because it wouldn't have happened if Jimmy Carter hadn't given away the farm….. By god, if we still owned it we could let the DP bunch operate it.
So, in order not to be Michelle Malkin loving racists, this port sale is the thing we're supposed to begin trusting George Bush with?
Not Iraq/WMD, Katrina, warrantless wiretapping, Plamegate, Jack Abramoff, gay baiting election tactics, "privitization" of social security, huge deficits, Harriet Miers being the most qualified person for the Supreme Court, Cheney's Energy "task force," etc…. and on and on.
Nevermind that stuff, and nevermind two Bush cronies involved in the bid. To acknowledge that – that would be like french kissing Michelle Malkin.
That doesn't mean that all princes and peoples of these nations are terrorists.
Most of them aren't. That's not quite the issue.
I think our relationship with Saudi Arabia is disasterous, and the sole basis for that "friendship" is the fact that they happen to be sitting on the largest oil reserve on the planet. I wouldn't want a Saudi company operating our ports. That's probably racist too.
Thankfully, we have non-racist people like George Bush and Dick "Halliburton" Cheney running the country. They would never have other considerations besides good race relations between Americans and Emeratis (that's what they're called) guiding their business decisions.
Bruce Moomaw
Bush seems to be envious of Cheney. Elmer Fudd never blew off his own toe as effectively as Bush has with THIS one.
Absolutely the only political issue he had left where people preferred him to the Dems was their general belief that he would do a better job of protecting us in general against terrorism (notwithstanding their eventual disgust with the Iraq War). But it was a powerful issue indeed. Now he's given them a gift they never dreamed of getting — we find Hillary siding with Dennis Hastert in saying that the President is being irresponsibly weak in protecting us militarily. Imagine the upcoming campaign TV ads.
Especially if the Supreme Court also obliges us by voting 5-4 that Congress' law outlawing ALL late-term abortions — including those to protect the mother's life — is valid and should take effect. Think what the Dems' TV ads will be able to do with that one. (Of course, there is my mother's sinister theory that the GOP has the electronic voting machines rigged so well by now that they can be confident of winning the official count even if they lose the actual election by a landslide.)
This is all just part of Turdblossom's plan. He knows that he has the least popular president in office since Richard Nixon. And doesn't give a flip, because as long as there is a Republican majority in Congress, then he's President until 2008.
But wait — lots of Democrats are now running basically against Bush, saying, "Republican Senator X voted for Bush's failed policies! Republican Senator X needs to be voted out of office!". What to do, what to do?
I know, create some bogus issues for Republican Senator X to disagree with Bush on! Things like, say, cutting the Social Security death benefit. Or outsourcing the ports' security to a country with connections to 9/11. Things that no Senator or Representative could ever vote for, because they'd get tarred and feathered if they did, thus are doomed to fail, so the Republicans in Congress can feel good about opposing them. Then Republican Senator X can say, "I am not a Bush crony, because I opposed Bush on issues A, B, and C. And my opponent is a deranged moonbat, so there!"
You are all being played, my friends — Republicans and Democrats both. The Mayberry Machiavellis want to stay in power until 2008, and if it requires that their moron-in-chief propose some truly idiotic things in order to get Republicans re-elected to the House and Senate, that's what they're going to do. After all, even if Bush's popularity drops to 8% after all this, that doesn't matter as long as there's a Republican majority in the House and Senate. As long as there's a Republican majority, he is President, no matter how unpopular, because a Republican majority will never impeach him unless he's videotaped in bed having intercourse with a dead girl or a live boy and the videotape leaks to CNN. And even then, I'm sure Rush Limbaugh would assert that it's a vital matter of national security for the President to have intercourse with a dead girl and thus we shouldn't question our Dear Leader…
– Badtux the Cynical Penguin
rilkefan
JFTR, in my experience halal meat is excellent.
On the issue, count me in the "the policy doesn't bother me much on the facts so far available, but the cronyism and secrecy and hypocrisy do" crowd.
U.S. OUTSOURCES HOMELAND SECURITY TO NORTH KOREA
You heard it first here on Balloon Juice.
They would never have other considerations besides good race relations between Americans and Emeratis (that's what they're called) guiding their business decisions.
We (meaning GW, Dick and anyone who will be consuming oil from the ME for the next 40 years) have strategic, political and personal interests. In this case, Friends of GW or Dick have a personal interest. But that (just like Friends of Bill made off with China/etc for those of you on the right) pales in consideration of the strategic interests.
You don't have to like it, that's fine, but be realistic about how these "relationships" work.
If you want the Strait of Hormuz covered, and you want Iran always worrying about our air power, where do you think that is going to be done from? You're pretty much stuck with the UAE, Oman, and the Navy.
We own these countries now, just as much as they own us. Look at my last link and imagine a less stable/friendly Iran, Iraq and SA in the next ten years. Because at least one of them probably will be. What's important, some nebulous unsubstantiated threat by a UAE corporation or a stable supply of ME oil?
This isn't multiple-choice. You piss off the wrong Emir, fuck the wrong Mullah, or stab a Musharraf in the back, and there will be a price.
Aha, I see where you're coming from. The ol' trust us, *wink* *wink*, *nudge* *nudge*. Because, y'know, we've done such a great job already.
Nuh-uh. That is the most obvious reason why these fools need Congressional oversight. It's just sad that the Republicans haven't noticed it until now, and now only on this issue.
Rep Ed Markey (D-Mass):
"Almost none of the cargo that enters our ports is ever inspected. While the federal government is ultimately responsible for security at ports, much of the day-to-day security responsibilities, such as hiring security guards and ensuring adequate access controls and fencing are in place, are delegated to the companies that operate at the port. While oversight of these private operators is the responsibility of the Department of Security [sic], the Bush Administration is nickel and diming our port security by proposing a budget that eliminates millions in port security grants. This is a wrong-headed decision that only leaves our country vulnerable to a devastating attack, such as a nuclear weapon or dirty bomb being detonated in our country."
Yeah, the UAE stuff isn't high enough octane for my car.
Pb,
There are only two (maybe soon to be one) relevant branches of gov't today, and one of them isn't Congress. You're kidding yourself if you think Congress will have any significant impact on our foreign policies in the next generation or so.
I for one hope we get our asses kicked out of the entire ME, but we'll see how that works out for y'all.
MAX HATS
I don't have a problem with this port deal. Our port security is a sham, and most of those trying to score points on this issue have ignored port security in favor of Schiavo and gay marriage and the all important national security interest of subsidies to pharma. However, I don't see how arbitrarily blocking a legitimate government from engaging in this particular legitimate business decision has any real effect on the security of any port.
All that said, I do have a problem with Bush choosing to have a backbone for this, and only this issue. Sometimes, I just have to wonder who he really works for.
We may need that port security pretty soon. One of the holiest sites of the Shia muslims has been destroyed.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_pictures/4738874.stm
Mission Accomplished.
OCSteve
Sigh. Today I'm more with Greenwald. My gut reaction was with Malkin – outrage that we would even consider such a bizarre thing.
Then I read a post by an American living and working in Dubai at Wizbang. He made some interesting points that got me thinking:
The ports had been under foreign control (UK), and would have stayed so in any case (the other company bidding was Singapore).
The Emirates are very pro-American.
We have an AF base there and they let us carry out some important operations.
The population is mostly expats.
On top of that, the US is still in control of security – that aspect is not outsourced. A little research indicates that the UAE is probably our stronger Arab ally in the WoT.
Then last night I caught a segment where O'Reilly was saying it would be a disaster to kill this deal. I had to watch it because his position was exactly opposite what I would have assumed. He was making the point that they were a strong ally, that killing it would be a slap in the face to them and may hurt our relationship with them. He didn't provide details, but said his staff had discussed it with WH sources and they were a strong ally and they were providing us with a lot of help fighting terrorists – but quietly.
If we don't proceed by making friends in the Arab world we are never going to win this thing. We apparently have a friend and a strong ally that we may now alienate for very little cause. Of course they need to be monitored and watched – but I would hope that is the case no matter who is doing the work.
This whole thing does scream of knee jerk anti-Arab sentiment.
The ports had been operated by the UK, they could have been operated by Singapore. Terrorists could infiltrate just as readily from either of those countries – perhaps easier as they would be under less suspicion to begin with.
So I'm not there yet – but I am leaning towards letting the deal stand. If we already have policies in place allowing foreigners to work in such key locations then I certainly hope they are vetted and we watch them closely. It does seem like a bizarre policy, but freaking out because the foreigners are UAE rather than Brits seems like an over reaction.
On the other hand, maybe this works only because these workers are out of public sight. How would I feel if I went to board a flight and the security screeners were all obviously Arab? Would I turn around and cancel?
I believe that there are good arguments for stopping the deal, and the commenters here do a pretty good job of outlining them.
My reference to racism, etc. in my previous posts had to do with things I was hearing on TV and radio. I don't know why it is even controversial to think that a subset of Americans hate Arabs for being Arabs. You may question the size of that population, but personally I think it is very substantial. This view does get reflected in the media.
Port security is (1) very expensive and (2) slow, both of which end up costing us a lot of money. The slow part creates a constiuency that is opposed to increasing security – businesses who depend on rapid international transport of goods. I think this is why we don't have more port security. If you want more (I do), then we need to print some more money and ignore the interest groups. A lot more money. I guess we can do that right after we give ourselves another tax cut.
DecidedFenceSitter
Listening to NPR last night (had an interview with a former Coast Guard who writes a lot about port security), and this morning on the general news; this strikes me as no big deal.
Unfortunately, it is a complex issue – for one, CG and Customs handle port security. Two, we aren't SELLING, we are LEASING. Three, we aren't LEASING the ENTIRE port in each or every case, for example, in the Newark port, there are 6 terminals. The Dubai group will get 1/2 of the stake in one of the 6 terminals at Newark. And it isn't like this will suddenly be run by Arabs at the day to day level; this is closer to an account manager who will gather the profits. So there may be more Arabs in the upper echelons, but not many at day-to-day operations.
But you know what; I think I'm going to sit back and enjoy watching sound-bit politics bite the Bush administration in the ass. This isn't a risk. Well it is a risk; but there are far more important and dire risks out there; but to explain why is complicated and requires nuance.
And politics lately, especially over the last 6 years, has been all about eliminating the nuance. So I shall enjoy my Schadenfreude.
Al Maviva demonstrating once again his brilliant mind:
Hmmmm…. do the bush todies that are now using the "racist" spin to attack those opposed to turning our ports over to the UAE government really believe what they are saying or will the just try and use any ridiculous argument to carry the day? Malkin was for the interning of Japanese-Americans during WW2. That is racism. The US government was at the same time bombing Japan. That was not racism. You see the difference Maviva? Actions against INDIVIDUALS because of their ethnic backgroud would be racist, taking actions againts NATIONS is quite different. If Chuck Schumer said that no ARAB-American could work on our ports that would be racist. But that is not what Schumer or Frist or Hasstert or Peter King are saying. This is not about someone's ethnic background but rather about a foreign GOVERNMENT running our ports. A GOVERNMENT that has a history or supporting terrorism. A GOVERNMENT that has ties to 911 (much more so than Iraq where we theoretically went to war because of tenious ties). A GOVERNMENT that has PAID some of the 911 hijackers. A GOVERNMENT that has recognized the Taliban but not Israel.
So to the little apologists like Maviva it is racism to not let a GOVERNMENT, such as the one above, be in charge of our ports. Yep, right. Guys, don't you have any shame whatsover? lol
GOP4Me
God, that's a lot of words. Sorry I didn't have a chance to weigh in on this thread yesterday, before it joined the epic annals of the great works of discourse of western political history.
Anyway, I think the Administration made a public relations mistake here. They should've known that the Democrats and liberals would make a big issue out of this, and that RINOs would feel compelled to go along or risk incurring the wrath of a Liberal Establishment on the warpath. (As for Michelle Malkin, I don't know what she's thinking. I know she can speak for herself far more cogently and eloquently than I could ever hope to do, but I respectfully disagree with her on this issue.) The Bush Administration, knowing full well that its domestic moonbat critics have been engaging in a smoldering verbal civil insurgency with it since January of 2001, stil chose to give ammunition to its enemies in the form of having dealings with a Middle Eastern Muslim state's national government. That was very foolish of them, I think we can all agree on that. (Including Bush himself, I'd imagine.)
Beyond being a public relations debacle, though, I really don't see what the big deal is. Am I disappointed by the Bush Administration's decision? Yes, of course. I want our ports American, not Arab, Frog, or Brit. But on the other hand, it's not as bad as a Democratic President who shall go unnamed handing over the keys to our military to Boutros Boutros-Ghali for safekeeping. The difference is one of degree. Better to fight Muslim terrorists in our ports than to not have any weapons to fight them with at all because the One World government let China or Libya veto our decision to defend ourselves against said port-running terrorists.
Anyway, I'm aware of the fact that I don't know everything, and the Bush Administration probably had some legitimate reason for letting the UAE man the ports. Maybe it was as simple as creating jobs for Muslims so that fewer Muslims would hate us and want to kill us. Maybe they wanted to lure the terrorists out or something, I don't know. Considering that possibility, though: There's a finite supply of terrorists in the world, I know it's a big number but every terrorist we kill or capture is still one less we have to worry about. Maybe Bush was going to let 15 or 20 of them start plotting to destroy a US port, then nab them and capture all their contacts.
Actually, Al Maviva raised a good point. Half our ships are Liberian anyway. Granted, Liberia isn't a Muslim nation, but it hasn't always been a peaceful one, either. And I believe AQ was shipping conflict diamonds on Liberian boats to raise money- something an unnamed Democratic President received absolutely no politica flak for allowing them to do.
Wow, those are some really great points. Thank you, OCSteve!
Wow, what an amazing, Hall of Fame-caliber, Bushbot. Bill Frist, Denny Hastert, they're nothing but RINOs. Lindsey Graham (Impeachment Manager Lindsey Graham!), Curt Weldon, all the other Republicans who have spoken out against this deal, RINOs, one and all, just for the unforgivable offense of opposing George W. Bush. Sounds like Greenwald was right to call it a cult.
GOP4Me isn't the only member of this cult, mind you. I was struck by many of the comments over at RedState, where the majority of regular posters seem to support this deal for the sole reason that their Dear Leader says it's okay. We're only inspecting 3% of incoming packages at our ports, says one, but that's ok because they're surely the "most suspicious" 3%! Others make the same bizarre arguments advanced by GOP4Me here – it's actually better that the UAE run our ports than Britain, because we'll know to watch the UAE more closely! And the crown jewel of Bush worship, the suggestion that this whole thing must be a super-clever sting operation.
There's not even a pretense that they would make the same arguments if it were President Qerry doing this deal. It's all because they have complete trust in George W. Bush, the only man who can keep us safe from the big bad terrorists. And if you question him, by God, you're nothing but a RINO!
If Malkin is a racist for suggesting that we should be racially profiling arab men, then Schumer is no less so for inflaming hysteria about this ports deal. Payback of allies in the GWOT is an important foreign policy consideration. So is taking some care – at least on the governmental side – not to further radicalize the Muslim world. (What the media and private individuals do is their own damn problem). Did you happen to see the Reuters story yesterday, how Muslims and Arabs in the US and abroad feel like they are under assault because of the way this port mess is devolving? A lot of left liberals around here are the first people to throw stones at conservatives for being dumb and un-nuanced in affairs of the world, but the way that the Dems (and now the me-too Republicans) have turned this into a circus, is a foreign relations disaster.
Is the port deal bad? Maybe. But maybe it isn't. I don't know enough about the facts to say. It might be a good thing if security is properly managed. I'll stick with Joe Lieberman's position and ask for hearings, and withhold judgment until I know the details.
And as for Malkin and Schumer, who are leading the charge here, they're both a couple race baiters when it suits them. We are fools if we take either one of them seriously. What Malkin regularly proposes – the religious and ethnic profiling of Arabs and Muslims all times and places – is wrong as a moral matter, an inefficient use of relatively scarce law enforcement resources, and probably illegal in a lot of specific instances. What Schumer is doing with his over the top hype about shadowy threats posed by this deal amounts to plain old Arab bashing, which I'm sure plays great in substantial portions of downstate New York, but which does a lot harm abroad, and which greatly unsettles Arab-Americans and Muslim-Americans. Are there legitimate concerns there? Yes, absolutely. But not on the scale that Schumer and the right wing bandwagon jumpers have escalated it to. The deal should be evaluated on its own merits. Schumer's hysterical rhetoric only works, and has only caught on so quickly on left and right because many people are willing to believe that in the heart of every Muslim lurks a suicide bomber. This is shameful.
StupidityRules
I hear that Bush is going to allow the BinLaden group (they are still friends of the US depsite the black sheep of the family) to run all nuclear plants in the states that voted for Kerry.
And about Darrell, look who has given money to the Senator… ;)
NeilJ
The Democrats must immediately drop their objection to this port deal. Don't they realize that by opposing it, they are forcing Bush to stand firm and stay the course? If they want to block the port deal they must immediately lend it their support.
Et tu, Al? Do you really want to press the claim that Republicans like Tom Coburn are simply jumping at the chance to follow the Democrats' lead on a national security issue?
Let's take a look at some of Schumer's irresponsible rhetoric:
The bipartisan group of lawmakers today called for the Treasury Department to carefully review the new arrangement and scrutinize all security issues before control is turned over completely.
The Administration needs to take another look at this deal.
On Monday, Schumer sent a letter to Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff asking him to conduct a thorough evaluation of the security ramifications of the take over and present his to report to Congress within one month.
Yes, God forbid we take a closer look at this deal.
I'm pretty offended at the cheap shots taken at Sen. Schumer, to tell you the truth. Here is a guy who has been fighting for increased port security for years, a guy who has been urging that we find the money to inspect more incoming containers and secure our vulnerable ports. Meanwhile, Republicans (the party you can "trust" on national security) repeatedly laughed off the idea of allocating homeland security dollars based on threat level, and shipped those homeland security funds off to red states as pork. And now when Schumer, completely consistent with his longstanding commitment to port security, asks for closer scrutiny of this deal, just as Tom Coburn, Dennis Hastert, Bill Frist, Lindsey Graham, and numerous other Republicans have done, he's simply "Arab-baiting." Give me a break.
What would be craven appeasement under President Kerry is a brave attempt to win hearts and minds under President Bush. Are you people ever planning to treat national security as something more than a partisan club?
Not ALL of them are RINOs. Some of them are merely cowards, or deluded by all the media attention, or involved in tough re-election campaigns. You'd really have to do a case-by-case analysis, but yes, quite a few of them are RINOs. Which ones are RINOs and which aren't is of course open to debate.
And it was 3% under Clinton, too, if not less. Funny how I didn't hear liberals complaining about it then. As for your disparaging view of the Bush Administration's commitment to American homeland security, we had a referendum on that issue in November 2004, and your guy- who thought terrorists were only a "nuisance", I might add- lost by a sizeable margin.
If Qerry (was that intentional, sort of an "Al Qerry" joke? If so, I tip my hat to you, troll) made the same decision and the same argument, and he had a track record of proven effectiveness on the issue of fighting terrorism, I'd give him a chance. But being Al Qerry, he would probably never amass such a record and so we'd never have this discussion.
I feel like I'm suddenly discussing an alternate universe: "What if Franklin Delano Roosevelt's body had Reagan's brain surgically implanted inside it? Would you vote for him then? What if in another dimension Mondale won in 1984, the Cold War was never won, the Soviets never left Afghanistan, and Osama Bin Laden still supported the Americans for arming the mujahideen fighting the Soviets? Would you, in fact, support Bin Laden under such circumstances? If so, then you're objectively pro-terrorist." These discussions entail mutual insanity, Steve. Let us not delve further into insane parallel-universe hypotheticals. Aren't you a member of the vaunted reality-based community? To paraphrase a decent quote you guys love to mock, you debate the reality you have, not the reality you wish you had. If you keep this up, I'm going to start calling you kooks members of the surreality-based community.
Is there anyone here who can't imagine Rush Limbaugh saying, "Kerry cares more about the feelings of the United Arab Emirates than he cares about our national security?" Is there anyone who thinks Kerry wouldn't be derided as a race-baiter if he said opponents of his port deal need to explain why they think the UAE is different from the UK? And yet, when George W. Bush says these things, it's supposedly a respectable policy position. He must just be trying to lure the terrorists into a clever trap so he can capture all their contacts, just as we've captured terrorist cell after terrorist cell since 9/11.
And, more to the point, if you don't place your blind faith in George W. Bush on matters of national security, apparently you're either a coward or you're simply not a "real" Republican. Not only is that sort of blind faith completely wrong on the merits, but taking turns having blind faith in our respective leaders is a shitty way to run a country.
I still don't understand why national pride is now considered racism.
Davebo
And it was 3% under Clinton, too, if not less. Funny how I didn't hear liberals complaining about it then.
Forget inspections. The Homeland Security budget under Clinton was a whopping $0.
He was practically begging the terrorists to attack.
Wonder why they didn't?
And by the way. If you take away the wingnuts eat their own aspect to it, this is really a non story.
If Malkin is a racist for suggesting that we should be racially profiling arab men, then Schumer is no less so for inflaming hysteria about this ports deal
I don't think either is racist, frankly, but nonetheless that is a stupid comparison.
I take it back. This could be a real story.
Anything that causes Mike Savage Weiner to quit whining about able danger and kiss Chuck Schumer's ass has gotta be a story.
Is there anyone here who can't imagine Rush Limbaugh saying, "Kerry cares more about the feelings of the United Arab Emirates than he cares about our national security?" Is there anyone who thinks Kerry wouldn't be derided as a race-baiter if he said opponents of his port deal need to explain why they think the UAE is different from the UK?
I'm sure we're all capable of IMAGINING many things, Steve. I'm capable of imagining Kerry marrying a purple flamingo in a civil ceremony in Vermont, but that doesn't mean I want to base my arguments upon my imaginings. The facts of this matter are that Bush has a proven track record of keeping America safe from terrorists, that the United Arab Emirates has helped us fight terrorists, and that sometimes you need cheese to catch rats (the "cheese", in this case, being a major US port, and the rats, of course, being Michael Moore's pals in the "Minutemen"/insurgency/Al Qaeda). I'd rather not discuss the many possible musings we could have about alternate universes and parallel dimensions where Kerry won the election, where President Taft had the entire United States border ringed with gilded possum carcasses, or where spacemen from Alpha Centauri conquered the Earth after the lackluster Adlai Stevenson President, then enslaved us all and made us work in salt mines. We're capable of imagining quite a bit, you know.
And, more to the point,
Well, that's a relief.
if you don't place your blind faith in George W. Bush on matters of national security, apparently you're either a coward or you're simply not a "real" Republican. Not only is that sort of blind faith completely wrong on the merits, but taking turns having blind faith in our respective leaders is a shitty way to run a country.
Whereas putting your faith in an imaginary Kerry Presidency that never happened, is not happening now, and will never happen is perfectly acceptable. And if you try to deal with reality you're not a member of the "reality-based community," apparently. Good to know.
Oh, wait. They did. Numerous times. Particularly on Sept. 11, 2001, an attack in which most of the training, planning, reconnoitering, and so forth occurred under Clinton's watch.
that's pre-9/11 thinking.
As for your disparaging view of the Bush Administration's commitment to American homeland security, we had a referendum on that issue in November 2004, and your guy- who thought terrorists were only a "nuisance", I might add- lost by a sizeable margin.
1) kerry never once called terrorism a 'nuisance'. he did say that he wanted to reduce international terrorism to such a small level that it would only ever be a 'nuisance.' i understand why you'd have a problem with that idea.
2) 2% isn't a 'sizeable' margin.
other than that, your screed is pretty funny.
The facts of this matter are that Bush has a proven track record of keeping America safe from terrorists
That's odd. I can't think of any other president with a worse track record.
What measure are you using? # of attacks? civilian casualties?
Marcus Wellby
Alpha Centauri conquered the Earth after the lackluster Adlai Stevenson President, then enslaved us all and made us work in salt mines.
That is top-secret!! Are you some kind of crazed whistleblower or something??
Right — because 911 changed everythhing –even what "keeping America safe" means.
Well, consider the source I guess.
It is the same guy that offered up this gem.
There is a long history of pederasty associated with gay marriages
Obviously not the sharpest bowling ball on the rack.
RobR
Except, you know, particularly on Sept. 11, 2001. But not being a RINO or a coward, I'm willing to spot the President a mulligan or two.
What if Franklin Delano Roosevelt's body had Reagan's brain surgically implanted inside it?
Throw in Dick Cheney's trigger finger and Aaron Burr's aim, and I, for one, welcome our new Intelligently Designed Overlord.
Yes, because I want terrorism destroyed, whereas Democrats only want a terrorist attack every 5 years or so, preferably when a Republican is in office so that they can take the blame.
No, it's only 5 or 6 million people.
Only if Clinton counts!
Actually, I thought Gore won in 2000, according to you guys. So technically, 9/11 is his fault, right? Damn that Gore!
They may have to eliminate me. I know too much.
This proves it, though! The tinfoil hats work! The tinf-
so i guess then kerry didn't call terrorism a 'nuisance', did he then, captain wrongy mcwrongerson?
wow, you sure got us pegged. throw in the jews and the one world goverment cia black army helicopters and you've hit the paranoia trifecta.
which in a country of 300,000,000 isn't a 'sizable margin.' but you know that already.
Yeah, and Clinton told GWB not to worry about Bin Laden when he turned over the White House…said OBL was no problem at all.
Oh, wait…nevermind.
I really love that "Take all the credit and place all the blame on previous administrations" tactic. Let me try it.
"9/11 was all Reagan's fault! If he had kept America out of Afghanistan, we wouldn't have been attacked. Damn you, Reagan! You blew it all up!"
Clinton was all over Al Qaeda…GWB dropped the ball, and no amount of revisionism will change that. Nice try, though.
What I really don't understand is why it is so fashionable to bash a federalized or state-run port security system. Obviously the Republicans would privatize everything if they could, and perhaps the Dems would want to over-unionize everything on the other side. But to me, having the DHS run ports makes complete sense.
I've seen accounts that claim this contract is operational aspects of port operation only and the USCG runs the actual security. Coast Guard guys tooling around in the harbor is not security, and I hope that's not what they mean. The threat isn't al queda frogmen attaching bombs to the hulls of ships, its smuggling stuff into the country in containers. A Coast Guard cutter does jack shit about that. This isn't boarding a yacht and searching for drugs, these are huge ships that are essentally miles-long trains at sea.
The security issue here, to me, is inspections first and foremost. We need to inspect more than 3% of the containers. And it makes no sense to have a firm that could potentially be inspecting (or controlling) a container at both ends of its journey running our security.
Face facts. The worst case scenario is a nuclear device entering NY/NJ harbor on a boat. It will likely come from the Middle East. If a Dubai-based company is in charge of the ports at both ends, the potential for corruption and resultant disaster is overwhelming. I cannot accept anything as assurance on this. It's got nothing to do with racism, it's purely based on logic.
And the Bush decision, and defense thereof, seems clearly based on everything but.
Steve, read my damn post for a change. I said we need hearings.
It's right up there Steve. How'd you miss that one? Nice job reading there.
I'm fine with hearings but the rhetoric isn't ending with calls for hearings. Here are some *liberal* leaders of the Arab-American and Muslim-American community talking about their perception of the public discussion. You think I'm switching positions here to just bash Dems? Go ask my co-bloggers at Cold Fury, whom I regularly annoy with my discussions of the need to be subtle, and patient in dealing with the Muslim world, and to avoid the need to paint with too broad a brush. I'm not changing positions here, it is really important to avoid radicalizing the western Muslim population, and to avoid alienating the non-radical Muslim population in the Middle East and South Asia.
I get a strong whiff of racism, or at least anti-Muslim bias in this affair. Britain and UAE are both classed as allies in the GWOT. When you let a British company run port operations – not security, but the lading of vessels and movement of containers, and maybe maintenance – but then apply a different standard of judgment to the UAE company, it is disparate treatment. The British company was subject to an evaluation by various government agencies, as was the UAE company. Assuming the Administration did due diligence in both cases, both companies passed the same tests. Now Congress is calling for a heightened standard of scrutiny because the new company is based in UAE. That's disparate treatment, a religious test. Although we can get away with it in the foreign relations context because the constitution doesn't protect foreign persons and companies to the same extent it does domestic ones, it still stinks.
I'm not shocked that the Dems have jumped on this, because you are against anything George Bush is for, and I'm cool with that, it's what you perceive your job to be right now. On the other hand, I'm ashamed at people on the right who have jumped on this bandwagon, because it neatly undercuts a lot of arguments about equal opportunity, and puts Republicans firmly in the class of people who think that skin color and religion dictate one's politics.
I'm reading your last post and here's the problem:
Assuming the Administration did due diligence
That's the problem. The Administration hasn't done due diligence on anything, ever. And all indications are that they came nowhere close this time either. Rumsfeld sits on the Board that unanimously approved the deal, yet he knew nothing about it? WTF, Al?
Bush is lonnng past "trust me."
Oh, the irony. Blame Kerry, the man who campaigned on improving our port security. Blame Clinton, who was obsessed with al-Qaeda, and didn't take out Osama bin Laden when he had a chance only because… it also would have killed half the royal family of the UAE.
But whatever you do, don't blame Bush, who not only couldn't prevent 9/11, not only hasn't improved port security one whit in the wake of 9/11, but now also approves of selling our ports to bin Laden's buddies, even against strong opposition within his own party.
That's the problem. The Administration hasn't done due diligence on anything, ever. And all indications are that they came nowhere close this time either.
since the WH apparently ignored the 45-day investigation that the law requires in these cases, i'd be inclined to agree.
Probably the main reason I thought your post was so ridiculous is that you label Schumer a race-baiter for wanting the exact same thing as you. You, of course, are being honest and principled while Schumer – who has a very long track record on port security issues – is somehow just pandering to the Jews. Right.
On the other hand, I'm ashamed at people on the right who have jumped on this bandwagon, because it neatly undercuts a lot of arguments about equal opportunity, and puts Republicans firmly in the class of people who think that skin color and religion dictate one's politics.
I'm not going to paint all conservatives with the same broad brush, Al, but you really can't tell me you're surprised that Michelle Malkin came down on this side of the issue or that you're shocked at the reason why. The currently ascendent Republican coalition contains the same element that made the Democratic coalition successful for so long, and it's not something to be proud of in either case.
You can't make your ideological bed with people like Malkin and then be shocked that something other than colorblindness is going on under the covers.
I enjoyed reading this too:
"… [it] puts Republicans firmly in the class of people who think that skin color and religion dictate one's politics."
Yeah, that's such unfamiliar territory for them too.
Go ahead guys. Defend racism. Put it in writing, too. I'm actually enjoying watching this.
LITBMueller
Know what the biggest problem here is? That most people on both sides of this issue are absolutely clueless about ports, how Dubai Ports World came to be involved in all of this, and what they would actually be doing/controlling.
Many on the Left rightly criticize the Right for arguing without facts. But, right now, people on my side of the aisle are doing the exact same thing.
Let's get the facts straight, then rationally discuss this:
1) There is no "deal" between the US and DPW being struck here. The ports in question (not every freaking US port!) are already operated by a British firm, P&O, which has been bought out. Some questions, then, are these: Do we let them continue to operate the ports? Since, with this acquisition, DPW is now the third large ports operator in the world, how would preventing them from operating in the United States affect the shipping industry as a whole? How would it affect commerce?
2) DPW has already promised to keep the current CEO of P&O in charge of operations, and the acquisition does not mean that all of the P&O employees will suddenly be replaced with Arabs. The company will continue to employ locals to work at these ports. Question: do we really want to put employees out of work by blocking DPW?
3) DPW would not be "running everything," and "be in charge of security." They would be in charge of the logistics of shipping, and some security, but not everything. DHS/Customs will still be there, and there is other government oversight and protection, including the Coast Guard. Plus there are plenty of American employees doing the work, and they are unionized. Please note: in the shipping industry, management can't fart without the unions knowing about it.
4) The shipping industry in the United States has ALWAYS been something that is highly controlled/involved with foreign countries. Shipping companies are by and large gigantic multinational firms, with offices and employees all over the world. There is no way to have a shipping industry without a foreign presence. The world doesn't work that way anymore. It is a sign of globalization.
5) There has been no evidence provided that DPW has been involved with terrorism. In fact, as a large multinational firm, it would not be in its self-interest to get into the terrorist business.
5) Other concerns: we signed a Trade and Investment Framework Agreement (TIFA) with the UAE in April 2004. The UAE has something like 10% of the world's proven oil reserves.
6) Where do we stop? Should we ban Saudi Arabia's Emirates airlines from operating in the US? Should we close all Citgo facilities because they are state-owned by Venezuela?
Finally, much as it pains me to agree with Dubya (ouch! oof!), we must consider the concept of fairness and racism. Are we fighting a war on terror, or on Muslim countries in general? Should thr UAE be fuond of guilt by association? Will that encourage greater unrest and anger in the Middle East?
Gee, I'm looking for the posts defending racism, and not really finding them. Or is the idea that because some people are against this deal for racist reasons, all right-thinking people need to be on the other side? That's a dangerous position for anyone who votes Republican to take.
Where do we stop? Should we ban Saudi Arabia's Emirates airlines from operating in the US?
no, but i sure as hell wouldn't want the saudi royal family put in charge of airport security at the 6 biggest airports in the US.
LITBMueller,
Are you including all the members of Congress who think this is a bad idea in your assessment? Because it sounds like they'd like some more time to research the implications of this, as well, as would normally be provided by statute in a case like this, anyhow. Maybe you should testify.
How about this: if they want to run any of our *airports*, let's have Congress scrutinize that a bit first, shall we?
we must consider the concept of fairness and racism. Are we fighting a war on terror, or on Muslim countries in general? Should thr UAE be fuond of guilt by association?
Guilt by association with whom, the Taliban? Seems to me they are guilty of that. When the country in question was called 'Iraq', that was a big concern for Bush as well. The difference being, the UAE actually *had* ties to al-Qaeda and friends. But apparently now 'actual ties to terrorism' = 'racism'. Whatever.
D. Mason
Look at the Republicans scramble to defend this shit, hilarious. Anything Georgie wants eh?
All congress is asking for is to be consulted on the sale of management contracts for 6 major ports to a totalitarian regime with direct ties to Osama Bin Laden… I guess in the Republican world any congressional power is too much.
UAE is sympathetic to terrorist causes at the least and their governing policies fly in the face of what America stands for, there are two non-racial reasons to give this deal a second look.
Has anyone ever seen GOP4me and Darrell in the same thread? They sound awfully similar to me.
Pb, if you don't think guys like Schumer and Menendez don't have political reasons other than security to oppose this deal, then that is a great example of people not having all the necessary information.
Besides the "get Bush" factor (which, normally, I have no problem with, as long as the "getting" is done with facts! :) ), not to mention attempting to support the interests of the ILWU, or other companies already involved at the ports (such as the one already filed in Miami by companies that stand to lose millions if their partnership with P&O is upset by the DPW acquisition).
But, of course, the the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States doesn't have a problem with all of this. Neither do American formerly and currently working for DPW. Should they be arrested as traitors for working for the Evil UAE? Should we apply this "no-Arabs!" policy to all international companies?
How about this: if they want to run any of our airports, let's have Congress scrutinize that a bit first, shall we?
Well, the Sauds control the security at their own airports, don't they? And Emirates flights to the US originate from there, right? Shouldn't we banning them since planes were used in 9/11, and we can't guarantee the security of these flights? Where has the outrage been?
Guilt by association with whom, the Taliban? Seems to me they are guilty of that.
Then, our government and American companies such as Unocal would be, too. Oh, and what about Pakistan and Saudi Arabia and their al Qaeda ties?
the UAE actually had ties to al-Qaeda and friends. But apparently now 'actual ties to terrorism' = 'racism'. Whatever.
Show me DPW's ties to terrorism! Then, we can arrest David Sanborn and all other Americans working for DPW as traitors.
Show my the UAE government's ties to terrorism! Are you basing these "ties" on the fact that two 9/11 terrorist were born there? What about Saudi Arabia and Pakistan (again)?
Are you basing "ties" on the fact that AQ was doing banking there? The UAE has some of the biggest, best, most modern banks in the whole Arab world. Should we be surprised?
I'm abandoning my running tinfoil hat/government kidnapping joke to address this point, so it annoys me greatly to have to say this, but…
F-ck you, DougJ. I despise you with every bone in my body (except the left femur, that bone is pretty much indifferent to you; all my left femur cares about is XBox and not ever getting hit with a pipe or a baseball bat, but I digress).
Anyway, didn't your buddy peepeegas say that I was Darrell on crack, or Darrell's son, or something? Why should Darrell have to appear in threads with me anyway if I'm his child?
There. Now you've made me abandon my vow of silence in this thread. Now I hate you more than ever.
oops! Forgot to mention that Saudi Arabia and Pakistan also recognized the Taliban…
UAE is sympathetic to terrorist causes at the least
Right. That's why they signed the Container Security Initiative and pre-screen every single piece of cargo that leaves their ports and is destined for our ports.
And that's why they play host to our military personell and facilities.
They clearly hate us and support terrorism.
Darrell Says:
Dems really do have a tendency to overplay their hand because so many of you really are hateful kooks
GOP4Me Says:
You kooks consistently demonstrate exactly the amount of respect I'd expect you to show.
You know what to do. Just click here.
GOP4 = Darrell on crack.
due dilligence GOP style
bush didn't even know about the deal until just recently
Rumsfeld didn't even know about the deal until just recently
Condi Rice didn't know about the deal untul just recently
So, we are left with Snow who has had financial connections with the UAE in the past and Chertoff of Katrina fame.
Al Maviva and the racist meme. I hope the bush toadies continue using the "racist" angle to attack those against the port deal which seems to be about 95% of the American public. Generally speaking, most people don't like to be called racists. So… keep it up Al, you are doing a heck of a job.
oh.. .the racist thing kinda reminds me of what they did to those that were against Harriet Meyers . They were eletists and anti women. Amazing isn't it that no one can disagree with this adminstration unless they have some deep character flaw…
I don't know which of you bothers me more: Steve or peepeegas. Steve is a real person, but peepee, while fake, says far worse things.
What do Darrell and I have in common besides a loose ideological kinship and an affinity for describing you kooks as "kooks"?
but peepee, while fake, says far worse things.
aw, christ, here comes the waterworks…
LITBMueller asked:
What about Saudi Arabia and Pakistan (again)?
Those were the countries that should have been on the 'next to be invaded' list. Not Iraq. (And they should have been dealt with _after_ the mission in Afghanistan actually was accomplished. Close ties to Al Quaida and both countries are churning out fundamentalists.
But Pakistan has nukes and occuping or even worse bombing Mecka and Medina would probably start the next world war. So I guess they settled for Iraq. And Saddam had tried to kill Bush's father…
Fair question. Darrell, to his credit, doesn't go around saying that all Jews are going to Hell.
Lord, I hope not. I think there can be widespread bipartisan agreement on that one.
Oh, you were referring to me? Nah, none of it bothers me, really. I've been called worse by better and better by worse. (Or something like that, it gets kind of confusing, really. Maybe I mean it the other way around.)
I do think you guys are heartlessly cruel to scs and Stormy and Darrell and pretty much everyone else who disagrees with you, but that's what leftists tend to do: go around in packs, find others who don't share their perverted, corrupted worldview, and bash those people over the head (rhetorically, of course; we are online here). I think the technical term for it back in the day was "union-organizing," but I'm not sure what the Kerrycrats or the Deaniacs or the online kooks call it. I refer to it as wolf-packing, while scs just thinks of you all as many sides of DougJ's prism. Maybe we're both right, not that I'd expect YOU to tell me.
Well, complain to God about it if it bothers you so much. I didn't write the darn Bible, my Father in Heaven did. He's the one that exercises veto power over all temporal and earthly legislation, and there is no override. So much as I'd like to gainsay Him on this matter, I'm afraid to do so because it would be a mortal sin. Sorry.
More Due Diligence GOP style:
The NY Times reported today that the law governing this sort of deal, when "the acquiring company is controlled by or acting on behalf of a foreign government," requires a "mandatory," 45-day investigation. That was never done, and what's more, "Administration officials … could not say why a 45-day investigation did not occur."
So this adminstration didn't even follow the law to do the BARE MINIUM required. Rummy doesn't know anything about it even though Defense Department was part of the unanimus decision. Bush didn't know about it till the shit hit the fan. Protecting America yes, the GOP is STRONG on national defense
This is the state of public discourse in today's America, friends. You want to go around saying to everyone within earshot that all Jews are going to Hell, no problem. But if I were to call it hate speech, it's guaranteed that someone would whine about Christian-bashing!
And yes, I know Jesus was Jewish. And I'm sure that God will sort it all out in the end, and there are many Jews in Heaven and Christians in Hell. But rejecting the words of the Lord after they've been explicitly revealed to you is not something you're supposed to get away with lightly, according to the text we're dealing with. But who knows, maybe there is no Hell. Maybe there's only Purgatory and Heaven, and we all spend varying degrees of time in Purgatory. Maybe God is a man-eating frog who devours the souls of the just and righteous, and the only way to escape His nefarious clutches is to be as evil as possible and get away to the comforting brimstone of Hell. Maybe the atheists are right, and it's all a myth and a fairy tale like the flying spaghetti monster.
Maybe, baby, but maybes don't make it so. I believe in Jesus Christ, and I feel sorry for anyone who doesn't. (Particularly the God-as-carnivorous-amphibian people, who really are screwed whichever way they go).
To be fair, I amended my statement. Sorry, my Internet connection is kind of slow.
How about the statement that anyone who teaches evolution to kids is going to Hell? Care to amend that one? Tone it down a little, now that someone is calling you on it?
but that's what leftists tend to do: go around in packs, find others who don't share their perverted, corrupted worldview, and bash those people over the head
yes, cause right-wingers never do this at all. ever.
seriously, you're hilarious. far more subtle than dougj.
No, those statements stand. And I amended the earlier ones before your whining, mewling posts had even uploaded on my screen, so you can stop patting yourself on the back on that score.
Actually, why are you so worried about Hell? Even if you go there, it doesn't sound like it should be that much of a change for you, since evidently you already have a 3-foot spike up your butt. You're about as much fun to talk to as getting tortured by Satan, too, so I think I'm done with this conversation until you're not in it anymore.
lets remember who the UAE are. Does this ring a bell with anyone?
The Central Intelligence Agency did not target Al Qaeda chief Osama bin laden once as he had the royal family of the United Arab Emirates with him in Afghanistan, the agency's director, George Tenet, told the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks on the United States on Thursday.
Had the CIA targeted bin Laden, half the royal family would have been wiped out as well, he said.
So Bin Laden was "hanging out" with the guys we are going to put in charge of our ports? yes…. defending America the GOP way.
Imagine that, you tell someone they're going to Hell, and they won't even sit there and be a good sport about it! Hard to believe, I know.
You really do exemplify the modern GOP, old chap, and I sure hope you keep posting to remind folks like John Cole how the Republican label has been utterly coopted.
I doubt Jesus goes down to Hell to discuss physics with people who are there for eternally rejecting His name. It's not outside the realm of possibility, but since only those who accept Christ can be in Heaven, I think we can at least safely conclude Einstein's current locaton.
These are the people who attack Bush because of the budget deficit (as if we didn't have one under Clinton) and question the numbers behind Social Security privatization. The people who think that their number-crunching ability gives them greater wisdom than the guidance the president gets from a Higher Power.
We've all been divided into repentant sinners and the unrepentant, and in the fullness of time it will be revealed that those who lied to children about how we were once monkeys will fall firmly into the latter camp.
And don't diss Ann Coulter, Pooh. She's hot.
The hits just keep on coming. Everyone can pick their favorite.
GOP4Me's heaven sure sounds llike a club I don't want to be a member of…
I don't know where you got the idea that I'd be thrilled about the governments of Saudi Arabia or Pakistan running our ports, but rest assured, I wouldn't be. However, as I, and Slide, and numerous others have pointed out, when it comes to terrorism (and money laundering, arms deals, and even some Bush administration crony ties…) the UAE has quite a record here.
A house member weighs in. [pdf] — hilarious
Pb, seriously, I would love to use this against BushCo, believe me. But, the "evidence" I think you are referring to is a lot of innuendo and guilt by association. As far as I have been able to find, there has never been any evidence that the government of the UAE or Dubai Parts World has ever been involved in terrorist activities.
And I'm sure that DPW would never have risen to become the third largest port operator in the world.
how about the fact that UAE ports were a key base for the movement of nuclear technology (triggers, centrifuges) through the middle east to countries like libya, iran and north korea? AQ khan sold tons of nuclear technology through UAE ports.
dunno how i like them in charge of ours.
there has never been any evidence that the government of the UAE or Dubai Parts World has ever been involved in terrorist activities.
You might want to check with the CIA on that. The UAE royals were visiting with Osama bin Laden.
How big was BCCI? $25 billion big?
Should I conclude that you just aren't looking, or that you don't think that the Taliban is a terrorist group? Maybe Osama bin Laden and A.Q. Khan were just sending love letters through Dubai?
Bigger is better, just look at Enron!
I understand LITBMueller is trying to be thoughtful about this issue and not succumb to hysteria. But understand, no one is saying that we need to decide today whether this deal should be blocked or not. What everyone is saying is that we need to take a step back, let an in-depth review be conducted, get the facts regarding any national security concerns before we let this simply be rubber-stamped.
There is no reason we should be rushing to pass judgment on this deal today, on the basis of incomplete information and sound bites. What Bush is threatening to do is veto any bill that even attempts to delay the deal for further study, which is a completely unreasonable position.
GOP4 = scs on crack. Which is redundant, but, there you are.
As far as I have been able to find, there has never been any evidence that the government of the UAE or Dubai Parts World has ever been involved in terrorist
Isn't the talking point that 'the government has to be right all the time but the terrorists only have to be right once'? So why should we help them to with possibilites to exploit?
Did the BinLaden group have any ties to terrorism before Osama Bin Laden decided to use some of their money to blow up people he disliked?
Did GOP4Me flee back to this thread? I figured he was just afraid to show his face after his last about-face.
I'm worried about him. Maybe one of those liberal wolfpacks tore his throat out.
Paddy O'Shea
Interesting article detailing why the CIA called off a bombing attack on Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan. Based on George Tenet testimony before the Senate.
(The reason? Apparently the Royal fam of the United Arab Emirates were visiting Osama at the time, and the CIA feared killing them as well.)
http://in.rediff.com/news/2004/mar/25osama.htm