In contrast to many bloggers, I believe the bipartisan cry that our national security has been outsourced to the United Arab Emirates is misguided. The fact that the argument is gaining steam underscores the reality that politicians can still successfully politicize 9/11 by using the manipulative politics of fear.
This issue has little, if anything, to do with national security and far more to do with politics. Xenophobic conservatives have found allies with liberals on this issue because liberals are a) looking for any opening to criticize Bush on national security; and, b) think they can do that by outflanking Bush to the right on this issue and therefore sound “tougher†and “stronger.†The blogosphere, being somewhat insulated from political pressures, should have a more thorough discussion of this issue.
We have instead been largely engaged in a disingenuous debate. Following the lead of President Jimmy Carter, progressives can and should embrace the reality of globalization and accept that our more inter-connected world affords us an opportunity to build mutual respect and understanding. Some key points:
1) Well before Dubai Ports World purchased the port operation services over 6 U.S. ports, the management over those ports had already been outsourced to the British-owned Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation Company. China’s biggest state-owned shipper runs major ports inside the U.S. We should have a legitimate debate over whether the U.S. government should take control over all port operations as a matter of homeland security, but that is not the debate that is currently going on.
2) If Dubai Ports World had not won the ports deal, a Singaporean company would have won it. Would there have been a similar outrage about having outsourced our port operations to that country?
3) Not a single security violation or breach has been alleged against Dubai Ports World. It has had a good international track record for its port operations. The arguments against DPW’s acquisition consist mainly of guilt-by-association tactics, tying the ports operations of DPW to any and every act of terror associated with the UAE. The fact that the nuclear scientist A.Q. Khan was able to game the ports of Dubai should cause the ports deal to receive heightened scrutiny, but is not in itself a reason to reject the deal.
4) The UAE is not an official state sponsor of terror. It is not under U.S. sanctions. In fact, as James Dobbins documents, the record shows that the UAE has been a valuable ally in the war on terror since 9/11.
5) If we’re truly afraid of an Emirates company having direct access to import weapons or bombs into our country, shouldn’t we shut down Terminal 4 at JFK International Airport in New York? That’s where the Emirates Airlines operates out of and where it has the ability to direct cargo both on and off their planes. Should we also shut down the state-owned Saudi Arabian Airlines from sending flights into Washington, D.C. ?
6) If Dubai Ports World were to finalize the port acquisition deal, Americans would work at these ports. DPW would not touch cargo, and it would not be in charge of port security. Coast Guard, Customs, and the respective state/local port commissions would manage the security. Dubai Ports World would have to follow the U.S. port regulations. There can and should be a serious inquiry into whether those regulations are being enforced. More generally, this should be an opening for us to debate the Bush administration’s poor record on port security.
Question:
February 22nd, 2006 at 2:15 pmDoes an American Company operate any ports in the world?
I dislike the president as much as anyone but I agree with this post. This reflects Bush’s political tone deafness to paraphrase Lindsay Graham and shows how the xenophobia the Administration has stoked can turn around and bite them. But on this, I agree with Bush, Jimmy Carter and Faiz.
February 22nd, 2006 at 2:16 pmgreat post
February 22nd, 2006 at 2:17 pmWell reasoned post…but the fact remains
1. President Bush did not know of the approval until a few days ago
2. The Sec of Defense was never consulted about the deal (important because military equpment is shipped thur the port system)
3. The approval was illegal because the full 45 day review period never occured.
Although this UAE company may not be directly linked to terrorism….”our” government should act slowly and delibrately to investigate all aspects of this deal.
February 22nd, 2006 at 2:18 pmAt least one key point overlooked here:
AS noted elsewhere on this same site, the Bush administration failed to comply with the law.
So lets do the 45 day required investigation mandated by law, and let the chips fall where they may.
http://thinkprogress.org/ 2006/ 02/ 22/ legally-required-investigation/
February 22nd, 2006 at 2:18 pmI never thought I would agree with Faiz. Good points here. This issue deserves a more rational discussion.
February 22nd, 2006 at 2:20 pmI do not know what Jimmy Carter is smoking, but must be good stuff > lol. Any Democrat in DC who thinks this selling of port operations to UAE is OK will find themselves looking for work come next November! Same applies to any Republican in DC!
February 22nd, 2006 at 2:20 pmI totally disagree.
There is nothing stoping from change happening. It is like a company buying out another company and saying the employees need not worry because they will all be retained. Two years later the old employees are mostly gone and new ones take their place.
As far as the # of breaches they have had so far who cares. The people in Dubia that believe the way Osama believes only need ONE violation at just the right time to make us all aware of how stupid we were. Globalization can go screw itself. Some Japanese soldiers were found DECADES later on islands in the pacific thinking the war was still on and was ready to fight. How many Iraqis have we made so angry with us because of lost relatives that they will wait their entire lives trying to get jobs with this UAE so they can get us back… no thank you.
February 22nd, 2006 at 2:22 pmI see it not as Racially motivated. The people of this country have undergone outsourcing, legalized Poverty under minimum wage.
I see this as more jobs and income that is sorely needed by the people of the USA. The Polity Charts show that marxism is creating an Ownership Society. The Number of so called ‘liberals’ isnt based on Democracy on this Polity thing. Its based on Wealth
and Ownership.
Bush with his Cronyism is helping to destroy the lives of many Americans whom have fought for the United States and fight Today. The Underfunded NCLB act. The Halliburton Cronyism.
The Bush Pioneer Mercenary aka ‘Privatized’ Security Cohorts.
This to me isnt about ARABS, I have no problem with these people. It is, to me about economical and Conflict of Interest and Cronyism.
This is Just one Example of the Extreme Cronyistic policies of the Bush Administration.
Its Unbalanced and its UnAmerican.
February 22nd, 2006 at 2:23 pmIn My VIEW.
Of course, this story was brewing last week (actually it has been reported in financial media sources for months)while liberals were making fun of Cheney’s hunting accident. Good to have you aboard.
February 22nd, 2006 at 2:23 pmI agree with #5 in your list. Lets shut that down.
February 22nd, 2006 at 2:23 pmI’m sorry, but I don’t want any country or company that has had direct ties to terrorists to run/own our ports.
People that compare Britian with Dubia, obviously don’t understand the difference between the two. One has been working with us for years, and has not supported terrorists, while the other has not.
GEEZE……. It does not matter if they are going to manage our security. They will be given ACCESS to sensitive information about our infrastructure that can be used against us in the future. Not to mention that they will be directly handling our military equipment. Yeah, that’s a smart idea.
February 22nd, 2006 at 2:23 pmSometimes I do think it is possible that everyone at the same time will suddenly become rational and work toward the benefit of mankind. How hard would that really be?
February 22nd, 2006 at 2:23 pmTrue Stiry! We’re about to enter into a free trade agreement with the middle east before we can check more than 5% of the cargo!!!
Are You Ready for MEFTA?
Our last issue discussed the progress and implications of CAFTA
(CAFTA-DR, actually) but while CAFTA has not yet been implemented,
another Free Trade Agreement has been sneaking up on us. The U.S.
Bahrain FTA is in force, and on January 19th, U.S. Trade Rep Rob
Portman and Omani Minister of Commerce and Industry Maqbool bin Ali
Sultan signed the U.S.-Oman Free Trade Agreement. These nations join
a Middle East free trade group that includes Israel, Jordan, and
Morocco.
Is there more to come? We’re glad you asked. In May of 2003
February 22nd, 2006 at 2:25 pmPresident Bush announced a program of graduated steps to involve
Middle East countries in the free trade process. The U.S. is
currently negotiating a free trade agreement with the United Arab
Emirates, so there are six Middle East nations who have completed or
are negotiating FTA’s. But there are other significant steps in the
process. One first step is encouraging peaceful countries to join
the World Trade Organization… and the U.S. is assisting Lebanon,
Algeria, and Yemen in this effort.
Wonder if Karl Rove had the Democrats by the short hairs on an issue where the Dems had the policy right but the Repubs had a political hot button issue to exploit. Didn’t think so!
February 22nd, 2006 at 2:27 pmFaiz
I respect your work, but I believe you are way off on this one. The majority of the American public was totally unaware that any part of port operations (other than loading & unloading of containers) were under a civilian concession.
Now I know that globalization is a reality of our country. I just did not know that state owned corporations were players (specifically players within our port doorways). So it not a disingenuous debate to have.
As for security let me pose these questions: Do the citizen managers of a state owned corporation get debriefed by their country intelligent services? (this applies to ALL state owned companies) Is it possible that the dynamic of the world stage could put the state companies at odds with the United States, and if so how does that affect security? Finally, what happens (god forbid) if an upper manager’s family member is kidnapped, would our security be compromised? Now this last question can and should be applied to ALL foreign national managers, however given the current instability of the middle east it is more relevant to DP World than other regions.
February 22nd, 2006 at 2:28 pmOff topic…The White House is to issue its own Katrina report. Gee..I wonder what that will say?
As to #5 in this post. I don’t hear anyone saying that certain countries can’t ship goods and materials to the U.S. They can even use their own ships. I just don’t think anyone would agree to allow a foreign company that is at best sketchy with its terrorism ties to own and run JFK. A little different in opinion.
February 22nd, 2006 at 2:28 pmPoint 1: British-owned Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation Company doesn’t have close pals of Osama Bin Laden running the show.
Point 2: Is the Singaporean company government owned?
Point 3: Conceded, but past history is not a reliable indicator of furture results.
Point 4: They are being seen as an ally now, but I was under the impression that they hampered efforts to shut down Bin Laden’s funding.
Point 5: The amount of cargo coming through terminal 4 on UAE planes is less than 0.1% of what comes through a major port.
Point 6: The coast guard is stretched thin, and although there would be Americans working there, I still feel uncomfortable placing national security assets under the contol of foreign governments.
February 22nd, 2006 at 2:29 pmLets get the middle east understanding the virtues that Ben Franklin was talking about and convince them that seperation of church and state is not against god, but for the freedom of people. THEN we can talk about being partners. Until then we would be stupid not keeping a cautious eye on them.
February 22nd, 2006 at 2:30 pmI got called an idiot by Gerald Gibson for bringing up these very points. Come on Gerald, don’t hold back now!
February 22nd, 2006 at 2:30 pmGood points all and in the post. Here is a case of the chickens coming home to roost for the bush white house: 4+ years of cultivating fear of all things middle-eastern/Islamic for their post-9-11 power-grab now rears unyielding, uncritical, and base-fear outcry when the bushies now seek to partner with a middle-eastern entity. To that I offer a hearty Nelson like “ha ha”
The real problem, and a source of righteous criticism, is the manner in which the approval has been passed, in secret and seeming bypassing the 45 day review process for such sales. Also questionable is whether the bushies and/or the Carlysle group’s profit off the sale and any influence that may have had.
February 22nd, 2006 at 2:30 pmI agree with much of the post. The takeover of the port operations by UAE seems a bit overblown. But the fact is that the main problem has been the same with much of what this administration takes on — they do what they do in secret and tell everyone to trust them. The administration does what they want and leave congress out. The port situation may be exaggerated, but there is a problem when the deal also covers military ports in Texas. I can see that being a problem at some time with incoming and outgoing ships. The president is also being disingenuous when he talks about this equating to racism against Arabs. This is the man, along with his surrogates, that have been banging the Islamo-fascist Arab drumbeat for years now. It’s just too bad that most senators and reps are just posers who jump on an issue when they see fit, but don’t really stand up for anything when push comes to shove. (eg., NSA wiretaps, Patriot Act, etc. etc.)
February 22nd, 2006 at 2:31 pmAs much as I respect Jimmy Carter (having worked side by side with him on a Habitat home) I must disagree with him on this. No American should accept having our seaports controlled by the UAE. This is our country not theirs. If we cannot handle this task ourselves we’re in deep trouble.
February 22nd, 2006 at 2:32 pmThe above aside, I think we on the left can use whatever means are at our disposal to attack the administration. For five years this administration has used the “post 9/11 reality” to attack those who oppose him on any issue. Time we say what we mean and say it mean. I’m not saying we should use racism or lies like the administration, but let’s not be afraid to get bloody.
February 22nd, 2006 at 2:32 pmHERE’S MORE!!!
http://www.arabnews.com/ ?page=6§ion=0&article=52622&d=9&m=10&y=2004
February 22nd, 2006 at 2:33 pmI think this post is rather phony. There are very legitimate security reasons to be concerned about THIS PARTICULAR sale.
If the company were run by, say, the Government of Kuwait, or Jordan, there would be nowhere near the outcry or the concerns you are seeing.
To suggest that this is just a naked exploitation of fear and prejudice is insulting and, frankly, stupid.
February 22nd, 2006 at 2:33 pm20)
I posted what I thought. Even republicans can read… can you scroll up to?
February 22nd, 2006 at 2:34 pmSteed you geezer, you couldn’t wait to bash “liberals” so you did so in your second post. Earth to Steed - Earth to Steed…It’s the right that’s making this a News Item. Go to Redstate & see for yourself.
I will agree that we PROGRESSIVES are enjoying your esteemed Feurher’s tone deafness a tad too much for the likes of you. Too bad, so sad.
So, do you think that US ports should be run by foriegn entities, especially foriegn entities that are wholly or partially owned by a foreign government?
I’m not sure where I stand on that issue. I’d prefer we ran them myself. Not so much for security sake, but for employment of American Citizens doing jobs here in the GREAT USA….
February 22nd, 2006 at 2:34 pmAs others have stated this situation once again shows the administration disreguard for laws and regulations and inability to lead in a clear and honest manor. Should they get away with it again? Regardless of the deal, they messed up.
February 22nd, 2006 at 2:35 pmourself, not myself. I certainly DON’T want that job cause I wouldn’t know where to start.
February 22nd, 2006 at 2:37 pm28
February 22nd, 2006 at 2:39 pmWhich American company should by P&O?
I really have to disagree.
I don’t think our ports should be outsourced, period, just as I think members of the Secret Service should be American citizens.
February 22nd, 2006 at 2:39 pmKindness
You probably would not do worst than the the cronies.
We start by funding port, border, and infrastructure security. Really fund, to the tune of 10-20 billion over four years.
February 22nd, 2006 at 2:40 pmSo… a call for progressives to “accept globalization”. Really, what that means is a call for progressives to accept that investment banks run the world; to accept that democracy is a failed policy; to accept that there are masters and there are servants, and that if you are not a master you are a servant. Bush has revealed who he really works for: global investment banks (where do you think ExxonMobiles record profits WENT?). Go to opensecrets.org, and you will find that finance, not oil and gas, was the main sponsor of Bushie Jr. Finance owns oil and gas. Who owns fox news? The same cabal of investment banks; that’s why O’Reilly called for Oking the Dubai deal. A lot of the oil money has been recycled into the investment bank system; Fidelity, State Street, Vanguard, Citibank, Barclays, etc. Odd that these names never appear on TimeWarner, Viacom, WaltDisney - that’s because these banks own the media AND the oil companies (and the government). Oddly fascist arrangment, don’t you think? Oh - but progressives need to accept that globalization trumps democracy. You must think we’re pretty stupid.
February 22nd, 2006 at 2:40 pmthis whole issue brings home the point that corporations are running our country. screw the people. give jobs to the guy who will pay the most to the government. what, there are no american companies that want this job? i find that incredible! what policies are in place that support foreign companies running our ports?
February 22nd, 2006 at 2:42 pmIn addition to my post above, I agree with Hesiod: there are very good reasons, from a security standpoint, to oppose having a UAE-operated company handle operations at the ports, just as there would be good reasons to oppose a Pakistani-run company run the ports (or a Chinese-government-run company, which evidently is already the case).
I don’t care if they look European or what religion they are. I DO care that operations at our ports–highways into our country–be run by people who have America’s interests at heart. I believe that can best be assured by having them run by Americans.
February 22nd, 2006 at 2:42 pmThe only point of concern, IMO, is the A.Q. Khan element of the story.
February 22nd, 2006 at 2:44 pmPost 23 I agree with you > our ports must be operated by American owned companies and American workers too! As for Jimmy Carter: I am perplexed by his stand on this issue, so the first time I completely disagree with him! The open trade issue is a can of worms > NAFTA, CAFTA and other agreements have ruined the job market for Americans, and any politician who claims otherwise is a LIAR! Shame on Jimmy Carter!!!
February 22nd, 2006 at 2:44 pmAnd Faiz, I’d be perfectly happy if we were talking about having an arab-American-owned company run those ports, too. This “xenophobia” charge is without merit.
February 22nd, 2006 at 2:44 pmyou are so wrong…this is exactly what Bush wants us to do!!! check this out:
February 22nd, 2006 at 2:45 pmDidn’t you JUST POST an article showing the royal family of the UAE had met with Bin Laden in 1999? How much control does the royal family exert on companies that are owned in their country?
I want to give the UAE the benefit of the doubt, but it’s not too hard to see that there is a potential for error in letting an arab country control our ports. I’m shocked the Republicans are willing to risk looking weak on terrorism (and further their portrait of cronyism) by letting even a hint of the muslim world near our ports.
February 22nd, 2006 at 2:46 pmMisc, I think you’re off-point. All kinds of multi-national corporations operate in America and they are not owned by Americans.
February 22nd, 2006 at 2:46 pmThe Chinese taking over servicing American airline companies jets at an ever increasing rate, Israeli companies in charge of security at airports and elsewhere,theUAE with ties to radical Islam running several ports, the Chinese operating the Panama Canal etc. etc. Toss in a secretive,opportunistic goverment and individual greed and this is all somewhat upsetting to me.
February 22nd, 2006 at 2:46 pmThere is one very important point this story missed, and that is, this administration has told us to trust them in the past. Remember the weapons of mass destruction they used as justification to invade Iraqi. Then when non were found, they quickly shifted to bringing democracy to the middle east. I remember the saying, “If it walks like a duck, looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it’s a duck”, and maybe you don’t. Also keep in mind that workers have to do what the boss says. So if a manager from UAE is helping terrorist and tells a worker not to check a certain container, quess what happens.
Also since only 5 to 7 percent of containers are checked anyway, we can’t be sure these guys won’t bring WMD in and sneak is out when no one is looking. They could bring terrorist in by the semi-trailer full and there wouldn’t be any way to stop them.
Another thing you failed to consider is money. Where do you suppose at of the profits that come from operating the port will go? Yes, that’s right, right back to the UAE, and not into our economy. What fools would want to en-rich another country at our expense. The longshoremen will only get there normal wages, and the majority of the money will go out of America. Also since we accused them of supporting terrorist, what make you think they have changed. To this day, members of the Saudi Royal family still support terrorist.
I served overseas several times while in the military and they don’t like us as much as we think they do. The ugly American is hated overses almost as much as blacks are in America, and that’s not including Arab countries. Don’t fool yourself, these UAE guys don’t really like America, they just want our money to help support terrorist.
February 22nd, 2006 at 2:48 pmI mostly agree with this post in that the sale of the British owned company is just that, a sale. Just like Chinese companies buy out American owned companies. It is a global marketplace. The thing is, most of the average American people out hear “Arab owned” and there is an immediate knee jerk reaction. I blame most of this on the Bush admin. But, to the point of the critics of this sale, the UAE may not operate the security in the ports now, but who’s to say what could happen a year or 2 from now once they’ve learned the ins and outs of the US port operations?
February 22nd, 2006 at 2:48 pmYou are all missing the point, this isn’t about national security as much as it is about once again this administration ignoring the review and oversight laws in place in order to get a sweetheart deal for a crony. This is classic K street politics. ANY company, domestic or foreign, should be exhaustivley examined for potential security issues if they are going to takeover these 6+ ports. But just follow the money on this. Many of the players are either American or European (white) and not Muslim. This is about greased palms and wallets getting padded. And THAT’s what the focus really needs to be on, exposing exactly HOW Bush is selling out America to the highest bidder.
February 22nd, 2006 at 2:48 pmThis is a great example of when common sense cuts through the party political bullshit.
This deal is just NUTS in the current geopolitical climate.
This administration and the criminals (Goss et al) behind it think we are some kind of hippo sewage to be washed out to sea, thinking they can get away with this daylight robbery.
February 22nd, 2006 at 2:51 pmMary,
Operating in the U.S. is one thing. Controlling our ports — as I noted, basically superhighways into our country — is totally another.
There are some things that simply should not be outsourced.
February 22nd, 2006 at 2:52 pmP&O’s shareholders and the British approved of this deal. How can you ignore that, Ted? Isn’t it P&O that’s selling to the highest bidder?
February 22nd, 2006 at 2:52 pmActually Steed, you are worng as usual. We were talking about this as well as Cheney shooting his frined in the face. Nice to have you aboard, not.
February 22nd, 2006 at 2:52 pmIf Americans will be running the Ports and doing the work, the Coast Guard and Homeland Insecurity providing the Security, what the Hell do we need the Arabs for? This is just another Bush Sell-out scheme to line his, and his cronies pockets at the expense of the people that really own this Country. Faiz makes some good arguments but they are all based on the assumption that the Bush Administration is honest, forthright, open, and legal. All of those assumptions are fallacious. Sorry, Faiz but you failed this one.
February 22nd, 2006 at 2:52 pmMisc, so what do you think about the saudi-owned airlines flying into our airports?
February 22nd, 2006 at 2:53 pmI read as many lefty blogs as the next guy. And I generally agree with all that is said on our side of the blogosphere. But I also get annoyed with the blind partisanship that sometimes rears its ugly head.
Thanks for the contrarian point of view. We shouldn’t spend our time beating down King George over every little gaffe that threatens some level of humiliation for him. I know that is tempting because of how carefully the White House controls the media. We feel like we should raise hell at every opportunity because they are so few and far between.
Instead, we should stand for the issues that we truly believe in. And this just isn’t one of those for me. And it sounds like many of you out there as well.
February 22nd, 2006 at 2:55 pmTed
You are correct, if fact there is a law covering just that, a review by the Administration within forty days of such a sale. Well, they did not do that, in word they broke the law (big surprise there).
Another issue that has not even been discussed here is economics. The goods that flow in and out of our ports constitute up to 75% of our GNP. This alone trumps all other security issues, our national economy is at stake here.
February 22nd, 2006 at 2:56 pmDid you know that it is difficult for a non-American citizen to get a security clearance with the U.S. Government? This is because studies have found that people who are dual-citizens or not U.S. citizens have a higher chance of engaging in espionage and other damaging anti-U.S. acts.
This is not a “distrust all foreigners” issue. It’s not a xenophobia issue. It’s a prudent precaution issue. National Security issues simply should not be outsourced.
Heck, to tell you the truth, I’m not ENTIRELY happy with any private company running those ports, in lieu of the U.S. government. But I’d rather they be American-owned than foreign-government-controlled.
February 22nd, 2006 at 2:56 pmP&O’s shareholders and the British approved of this deal. How can you ignore that, Ted? Isn’t it P&O that’s selling to the highest bidder?
It’s not that simple; P&O can only sell the “ports rights” to a buyer approved by the US Government. The DOT, in this case, had to grant final approval or there was no deal. It’s not your ordinary free market deal.
February 22nd, 2006 at 2:56 pmAgreed #34. I find the “accept globalization†meme totally insulting regardless of whose idea it was.
I appreciate the “counterpoint” and TP is w/o doubt in the top 5 progressive blogs, but it seems this post is fabricated just to take the “honest debate” approach. Who are you kidding Faiz? It’s a good idea to start an honest, intellectual debate on the facts in this country, but this is a BAD deal every way you look at it, and so it shouldnt call for anyone to play the devil’s advocate (we have Bush and his veto threat to do that).
February 22nd, 2006 at 2:56 pmEmbrace “globalization”? Are you out of your mind? Trade is nothing new. Even global trade is not new. People have been dropping sails and doing global trade for 100s, even 1,000’s of years. What you are encouraging us to embrace is the selling of America out from under the feet of The People. Mostly through debt and deficit run up when our trade policies began to say, yeah, sure, it’s ok if you use slave labor in foreign lands and import the products for sale here undercutting the American manufacturing base. Global trade wasn’t invented at the bugle call of the “Free traders”. It’s been around a very long time.
You’re right, the arguement of Arab ownership our ports is practically moot in light of the abundance of foreign ownership of every other industry. It is about keeping the autonomy of our nation — preserving the self determination of The People. I consider that a National Security issue any way you slice it. We’ll sacrifice Trillions keeping our shores safe but won’t lift a finger to protect our main-streets. That makes no sense to me. The concept of the “multi-national” corporation should not be something embraced by us. Sure, we should be doing business with other nations, and lots of it, just like we always have. But, NOT at the expense of The People. Period. A “multi-national” corporation has no allegiance to ANY nation. They can reincorporate via fax anywhere in the world. The People cannot. Anyone deemed a “multi-national” is really of NO nation at all.
February 22nd, 2006 at 2:57 pmMary - Do they run the airlines? NO!
Again, there is a difference between owning a company in the US and operating the ports.
Our roads are bad right now in most states, imagine how bad they would be if we turned all our management of our highways over to some foriegn country? Do you really believe that the concerns we have would be their concerns? Especially when the company has been known to have ties to terrorists.
So we fly into many countries as well. Does that mean that we operate their airports?
February 22nd, 2006 at 2:57 pmMary,
Just as I have no problem with Saudi-owned ships docking at our ports, or having a dedicated loading dock there, so I have no problem with Saudi airlines having a ticket counter and gates at our airports.
But that is different than having Saudis own and operate the airports themselves, especially if those airports accept shipping/freight.
If we’re talking Americans of Saudi descent, like any American, that’s fine with me. But that’s different than control by a foreign government.
February 22nd, 2006 at 2:59 pmUh, you link to the Dubai Ports Authority to support authority as proof that the company has a good international track record?
What’s next? Linking to the Philip Morris website in order to show that cigarettes are not addictive?
Perhaps you need to read this WaPo piece from 2002: Al Qaeda’s Road Paved With Gold — Secret Shipments Traced Through a Lax System In United Arab Emirates
February 22nd, 2006 at 2:59 pmWe have instead been largely engaged in a disingenuous debate. Following the lead of President Jimmy Carter, progressives can and should embrace the reality of globalization and accept that our more inter-connected world affords us an opportunity to build mutual respect and understanding.
Ok globalization can be a good thing. Yet the Globalization I see is much more economical than Social.
If a Globalist sees cheap labor in another Country jobs are outsourced.
If these People are truly Interested in a Global Reality then create a Global Wage Standard thats Fair to the Global People and the Global Economics.
Business prefers Global trade but not Global wages.
I dont see how one can balance without the other in Balance?
Im not an economist so I am open to all replys and comments
Even you IRI and Gary Ruppert.
February 22nd, 2006 at 3:00 pm#58, not theoretically true. The people have the ultimate power (boycott) over the corporation, if they are willing to go through the pain. Even a monopoly could be stopped, if the people organized. Correct? But that is not reality, now is it?
February 22nd, 2006 at 3:01 pmI agree that the issue might be fueled by xenophobia and the Democrats’ intention to criticise Bush for being “soft” on terror.
However, as another commenter pointed out, the approval process was not followed. Not to mention having Bush and Rumsfeld embarrasingly claim ignorance of the deal while underway.
Also, the fact that the UAE are not in the US’ official list of states sponsors of terrorism is irrelevant, since the list is whimsical, and the inclusion of a country has more to do with politics than with an actual involvement with terrorist groups. Relying on it to make a point is -with all due respect- a tad naive.
Case in point: Pakistan. That country is an open supporter of terrorist groups in the Kashmir region, and has sheltered Taliban leaders after the US invasion. It is known that Pakistan transferred nuclear know-how to Iran and North Korea (two countries in the list). Yet Pakistan is not officially listed as a “state sponsor of terrorism”, while Korea and Iran are -the former for (maybe) selling weapons and (possibly) the Rangoon bombing.
February 22nd, 2006 at 3:02 pmThe “They don’t control security” argument is a bullshit.
The concession company does control the custom staging area. They also oversee shipping compliance of security measures. Now, granted the Customs agency writes the guidelines, but it is the concession company that largely carries them out. So, stop the stupid fucking argument that they have nothing to do with security!
February 22nd, 2006 at 3:03 pmi think the main feeling flourishing in the realm of misgudedness is honestly honesty, transparency and OPEn dialog with the American people. To just sign off nonchalantly
February 22nd, 2006 at 3:03 pmon this as just doing business reinforces the contempt the Administration has for the rest of the electorate that doesn’t tow the party line for them. Why does everything have to be classified and in some cases Re-classified regarding our over encompassing umbrella of National security? So now Liberals are looking for the rope and the Xenophobic wing of the GOP are somehow over reacting to this sale. This whole exersice is parallel to the division of the Middle East in the 40’s. Globalization does that mean Kodak can use the WTO when it needs it but we don’t respect the World Court because they mind find Henry Kissinger guilty of War crimes? This is purely to counter Russia and China for World dominance. If they (UAE) are are allies and I’m Jewish can I travel there freely as a wanted partner in this global partnership? The tip of the iceberg is this conversation. Thanks for making us look reasonable but we are far from a progressive dominance of our own in the political
realm and right now I reccomend a shot accross the bow is warranted to get everyone’s attention to decide what part of this scheme to protect and serve us we actually get to contribute to. I say raise Corporate income taxes to 45%. Then we will get some of it back.
Thanks for that Link Ken Ashford, that I wasnt aware of.
February 22nd, 2006 at 3:03 pmGood Gravy!
Jimmy Carter from the faiz link:
”The overall threat to the United States and security, I don’t think it exists,” Carter said on CNN’s The Situation Room. “I’m sure the president’s done a good job with his subordinates to make sure this is not a threat.”
From thinkprogress:
“President Bush was unaware of the pending sale of shipping operations at six major U.S. seaports to a state-owned business in the United Arab Emirates until the deal already had been approved by his administration, the White House said Wednesday.â€
Carter still hasn’t caught on to the fact bush is a sock puppet. And faiz is beyond naive.
February 22nd, 2006 at 3:04 pmWell, there goes my Christmas.
Ok, Faiz, you have touched on a point that has been pecking at me. Suppose this was an attempt to unite the country against Islamic Fundementalist nations? Suppose Bush and Co wanted to give us something they knew would rally us together?
I have considered that.
Answer I keep coming up with is they just are not that smart.
Here are some points I think are critical holes in your post.
1) Well before Dubai Ports World purchased the port operation services over 6 U.S. ports, the management over those ports had already been outsourced to the British-owned Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation Company
True, but like the President you conveniently left out the fact the none of the militants who attacked us on 911 were from England.
3) Not a single security violation or breach
Wrong. The 911 Commission said the UAE was involved in laundering and funneling money to the 911 Hijackers.
4) The UAE is not an official state sponsor of terror
Wrong. Once again the 911 Commission says otherwise. The State Owned Banks that channelled money to the 911 hijackers pretty much moots that claim.
5) If we’re truly afraid of an Emirates company having direct access to import weapons or bombs into our country, shouldn’t we shut down Terminal 4 at JFK International Airport in New York? That’s where the Emirates Airlines operates out of and where it has the ability to direct cargo both on and off their planes. Should we also shut down the state-owned Saudi Arabian Airlines from sending flights into Washington, D.C.
Probably. We said on 911 we were at war. The people who attacked us were from fundementalist muslim ‘Arab’ nations. Instituting a moretoreum on travel and immigration from any such nations is what one would expect in a so called time of war.
I certainaly think it is a much better plan then travelling across the oceans to kill innocent people for the same reasons.
Also as lib4 pointed out, The approval was illegal because the full 45 day review period never occured.
Comment by lib4 — February 22, 2006 @ 2:18 pm
In fact the approval was rushed through in just 23 days.
The President was kept out of the loop until the press leaked the story.
Now the President has been told by someone on his staff that this deal is somehow critical and just has to go through. Why?
Why would they squander almost all the political capital he had left over this one deal?
There is something beneath the surface here, something we just can’t quite see, yet.
And I bet it all pivots on something that the UAE did for the Bush administration at sometime in the past, and now that markers being called in.
February 22nd, 2006 at 3:05 pmI live in a port city, Seattle. Our ports and our airports especially since 9/11, should not be simply seen as commodities. There is more to a free market than the power of capital. This port deal is part pf a systemic program on the part of the Bush administration to privatize the planet, regardless of the outcome. It is hubris of the highest order, and cannot stand unchecked.
February 22nd, 2006 at 3:05 pmI disagree with Carter (a first). Globalization is a form of homogenization (let’s make everyone American!). It ruins cultures (another form of racism) and gives primacy to the financial institutions, such as the WTF and World Bank as explained in a post above. Need we go into the problems with that?
February 22nd, 2006 at 3:06 pmAnd Raw is now reporting that CNN is reporting that Bob Dole helped in the lobbying effort.
Follow the money…follow the money….follow the money…It’s all going to be quid pro quo in some fashion. Hard to prove of course, but no doubt that palms were greased.
February 22nd, 2006 at 3:07 pmI really do understand the concern about xenophobia. But I hope that we all can accept that there are legitimate reasons to be concerned with any foreign government controlling an access point for moving goods into and out of this country, on national security grounds.
And that is especially true when that foreign government has historical ties to terrorist organizations and actors who are interested in causing Americans (all Americans, of any descent/religion) harm.
February 22nd, 2006 at 3:08 pmHowever, as another commenter pointed out, the approval process was not followed. Not to mention having Bush and Rumsfeld embarrasingly claim ignorance of the deal while underway.
Agreed the Foreign Investment has been bypassed and that in itself is a Big Problem for Bush and Rummy.
This seems like reverse spin to, perhaps,help cloak the Dubious Deeds of some folks in the White House itself, then again this issue has become muddled….
February 22nd, 2006 at 3:08 pmFaiz NOT to pick a fight with you on your thread, but are you Arabic or perhaps a citizen of UAE or Saudi Arabia?
Americans do NOT want a Middle Eastern nation to have any control of our ports because of what happened in 9/11 attack, but do NOT assume we are being racist about it! We do NOT want another attack to occur, so the UAE deal is NOT acceptable!
As for FREE TRADE: this global “New World Order” economic plan has harmed American workers, so do NOT expect us to embrace globalism! It benefits only corporate CEO greed!
February 22nd, 2006 at 3:10 pmThis is beginning to make some sense to me. From what I gather from my quick read on Sukuk is that it is an alternative to the current debt market around the world that Muslims can use based on the restriction of their religion.
Where this starts to make sense to me is that this deal must be the beginning of what the greedy financial gurus in Bush’s world see as the creation of a new securities market that would allow them to trade and speculate with the billions of dollars of Muslim money that was not available to them until now.
I started to read this paper and started to get it.
http://www.islamicfinance.de/suk…/ sukukrisks.pdf
The corporate elites that run this administration are pushing for this as a way to start a new speculative financial play ground that would eventually be worth trillions in Trading Volumes
February 22nd, 2006 at 3:10 pmSorry I disagree very strongly with this post. UAE doesn’t recognize Israel, recognizes the Taliban. As far as being our ‘ally’, I thought they balked at freezing OBL’s assets after 9/11. So we piss them off if we block the deal, you think what is ocurring in Iraq isn’t pissing them off? How about torturing Muslims and detaining them indefinately, or strapping them into chairs and force feeding them? This is the least of our worries with the Arab world.
February 22nd, 2006 at 3:10 pmThe worst thing that could happen by saying NO is for them to stop letting us use their airspace for rendition flights, I think that is a win-win for all concerned.
My problem with this has nothing to do with being anti-globalization. I am the first one to agree that our blind nationalism has been allowing Bushco to slowly but surely kill our Democracy. That being said, Bush is once again pulling a fast one here. I have no doubt that his sudden discovery of multinationalism (referencing the “Great British”) is a bullshit lie, like everything else that oozes from his mouth. The fact is, this is more than likely a quid pro quo agreement. The UAE gets the contract for US port security, we get the permission to use your airstrips when we attack Iraq. This is nothing more than deal-making by the Bushco assholes, selling out the country in order to further their agenda. They could give a shit about the security of the US.
February 22nd, 2006 at 3:14 pmI have Muslim friends that I have worked with for Years.
Some are from Palestine others Saudi, some are Jordanian.
These people want the Same as all of us do.
To be able to Work and Raise our Families without worry of reprisals from dissident groups.
They dont care what Religion I may practice at home or in the House of Worship, nor me them.
We Simply enjoy discussing many things and we realize that Man is one and we are just men.
February 22nd, 2006 at 3:15 pmDenying Muslim Arab nations, particularly those where riots and protests condemning America are not only tolerated, but encouraged, particularly ones where Osama Bin Laden posters adorn shop windows, (I would include Pakistan here), should not be rewarded with an increased and renewed openess.
Of course we should not be prejudice in our hearts with hatred or fear. But we should not let our fear of appearing prejudiced keep us from using our brains.
Entering America is not a right, it is a privlege.
Which privlege would the Arab nations of this world prefer, the privlege to enter the US, or run its businesses, or the privilege to breath?
Because right now the rights plan seems to be to deprive them of the latter.
I don’t think saying NO to letting an Arab nation run our nations seaport operations is overly depriving, or harsh.
I don’t even think its paranoid.
It just makes sense.
February 22nd, 2006 at 3:16 pmThis is great because to accept globalization as the next best thing, I suggest that we just take out terrorist insurance and the next time we get whacked in this country we just cut everybody a check. This will be price we have to pay for bending over to pick up a buck. I want the new hot KY please.
February 22nd, 2006 at 3:16 pmOut to lunch Later taters!
February 22nd, 2006 at 3:16 pmRE 78
I meant attack IRAN.
Arrrgh: Type slowlllllly!
February 22nd, 2006 at 3:17 pmI’ve got to say that I’m with Faiz and Bill O’Reilly on this one. I suspect that the initial reporting was incomplete, and many people jumped on drawn conclusions.
February 22nd, 2006 at 3:20 pmI am all for globalization and if UAE wants to do business here in the US they can open a manufacturing facility or hotel/resort. These have little to do with homeland security issues and would provide jobs to Americans.
If it is so difficult to inspect incoming shipping containers now with English managers at the ports (only about 5%), how much more difficult would it be to inspect the containers with a manager who may have ties with terrorists.
February 22nd, 2006 at 3:20 pmAnother issue is a Free Trade Agreement with the UAE.
The administration is going balls out for this agreement. What will happen if this deal was not approved? Answer, the UAE would probably pull the plug on the free trade deal. Why is this important? If they directly pump crude into tankers from the UAE, then no tariffs apply. So, is this a larger part of “Democracy in the Middle East”? Or was Iraq just securing the source, and the DP World deal just securing a free trade agreement?
February 22nd, 2006 at 3:20 pmI’ve got to say that I’m with Faiz and Bill O’Reilly on this one
Come on, Faiz. THAT sentence can’t leave you feeling too good?
February 22nd, 2006 at 3:21 pmAnd also Faiz, I want to point this out to you.
Something noticably lacking in your post, and in so many responses to this issue.
Even if it weren’t, and it is, but even if it weren’t a matter of national security, it’s a slap in the face to every New Yorker who watched the towers fall, and who died in those towers, to offer to a nation where two of the hijackers originated from, and who has been implicated in helping to finance the 911 attacks, to roll out the red carpet to our nations shipping operations and pay them for the privilege.
It’s insulting, and its cold and callous.
February 22nd, 2006 at 3:23 pmhonestly, fuck that, Faiz… we do have shrinking international boundaries in business today, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t still try to make wise choices about who we deal with… handing our already unprotected ports over to bin Laden’s best buddies here is just not a good idea…
what I find disingenuous is people who call this uproar racist… guys, we’ve just witnessed international death and destruction over a cartoon… can you say “extremist?” we need to be sure we’re not opening the floodgates to even more actions like that over here…
Dems aren’t just jumping on the bandwagon - they’re miffed, too… the president is backing this even though he didn’t know about it!!! bad, bad, bad…
and btw, all this is coming from a diehard liberal…
February 22nd, 2006 at 3:26 pmIts been too soon. Give it another 10 years or so and then let them reapply.
If your son was killed by a bank robber, would you hire the robbers family and friends to run the bank?
Right now I would not give the UAE a janitorial contract at our nations seaports, much less major operations.
February 22nd, 2006 at 3:28 pmHow can anyone claim to be a progressive and yet defend globalization? Import tariffs used to pay for all our nation’s fiscal needs and our ports used to belong to the people of this country. I agree with the poster that the response to this proposed deal is all about politics, but I draw a totally different lesson from it. To me the worst part about this deal is that yeat again, we are reminded that so-called “free trade” is crippling this nation monetarily, and as a result, our nation’s greatest assets, including our ports, have been sold off to multinational corporations, who have no interest in serving the people of this country, and whose only concern is profit.
These ports should belong to the people who live in this country, and to claim that globalization is acceptable is utterly unprincipled. If thinkprogress.org is going to become just another mouthpiece for the DLC, you can count me out. “Free trade” is anything but free, in fact it’s costing this nation trillions of dollars in the long term. Deals like this will just continue to go down unless we the People rise up and demand that our common assets be retained, and if they are in the hands of these global pirates, that they be nationalized to serve the interests of America.
Globalization is not progressive, because it mostly serves rich, white men who hold no allegiance to any country or system of morals. This nation was found on allegiance to the ideals inherent in the COnstitution, ideals that are totally absent in the WTO, NAFTA, CAFTA and all the other insane devil’s bargains that have been shoved down the peoples’ throats ever since Reagan lied his way into office.
CAP, you should do the right thing and come out clearly with your position on globalization. I hope it has nothing to do with this posters’ view, because in this progressive’s opinion, there is nothing progressive about globalization at all.
February 22nd, 2006 at 3:30 pmA real war time President would have Federalized our nations seaports a day after 911.
February 22nd, 2006 at 3:33 pmOf course majically Anthrax has been “accidentally” released in New York City.
This ought to change the story away from the UAE, since the arrest of 3 terrorists and the old WMD argument didn’t do it.
Turn on the news.
February 22nd, 2006 at 3:35 pmBtw, just wanted to say this loud:
FAIR TRADE.
NOT FREE TRADE.
February 22nd, 2006 at 3:35 pmThe parallels of this to what the social conservatives see as the nuclear family are awesome. Think about it, this is Father Knows Best/ Leave it to Beaver to the nth degree. June is left to talk to Wally and The Beave while Ward goes out and rents the yard out to the neighbor who helped finance the arson attack on the cleaver mansion a few years ago, just to make a buck. Then Ward and his golfing Buddies bitch slap June and the boys because they asked some uncomfortable questions. This is a democracy run by a Dictator. Everyone gets a vote but the Man makes the final decision.
February 22nd, 2006 at 3:35 pmI have a couple points:
1. this is not a company, it is a government. A royal family. Can the U.S. Government own ports? The privatization crowd would freak out.
2. The people who will make money off of this were having tae parties with bin Laden a few short years ago. If they invite him to a tea party and then capture him I will see that they are allies.
February 22nd, 2006 at 3:38 pmWell, anthrax in NYC probably WON’T help the port deal go through.
February 22nd, 2006 at 3:44 pmGood point Worfeus how come bush didn’t federalize the ports as there was concern about the ports after 9-11-01.
The UAE was one of three countries in the world to recognize the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan.
The UAE has been a key transfer point for illegal shipments of nuclear components to Iran, North Korea and Lybia.
According to the FBI, money was transferred to the 9/11 hijackers through the UAE banking system.
After 9/11, the Treasury Department reported that the UAE was not cooperating in efforts to track down Osama Bin Laden’s bank accounts via T.P.
These are reason enough. Its time to STOP OUTSOURCING America.Did Britain herself own P&O or was it a private held Corp.?
Why wasn’t the 45 days of vetting this deal taken place?
There is a lot we as Citizen or rather Subjects don’t know about this cup of coffee deal.
Doesn’t this adminstration know that when you breed secrecy you get distrust from your “Subjects”
and its the Republican Party is screaming louder than the Democrats .. like on Red State.ORG
All in all the deal passes and we learn as good subjects to lower our eyes and just accept.
February 22nd, 2006 at 3:49 pmExactly THOT’S n TN.
One would think for a country so obsessed with protecting Americans from foriegn terrorists, that handing operational control of our ports to a nation with ties to the terrorists, is about as far from a coherent thought as I can think of.
February 22nd, 2006 at 3:55 pmWell done,Faiz,that’s exactly the arguement I’ve been having over at Newshounds.Yo u added in a few things I hadn’t found about the airport.
February 22nd, 2006 at 3:58 pmThanks again.
#97, :)
98 + 99, agreed. we’ve known since the 9/11 commission that these security lapses need to be fixed. We should be thankful that we caught Bush dealing away our ports as opposed to something FAR FAR worse bringing this to our attention again (such as a bomb at a chem plant or nuclear facility).
But the question remains, will Bush now be forced to follow the 9/11 Commission guidelines? Or are “F’s” still acceptable to the general public as they have been?
February 22nd, 2006 at 4:02 pmHere is where ThinkProgress looses support for me.
National Security, including National Economic Security trumps free trade and globalization.
I might remind you that we are told to accept globalization on the false notion that it will have a net positive effect on our country.
This port deal is a raw deal for American and it must be stopped.
February 22nd, 2006 at 4:05 pmI agree with 91 and 92 completely
February 22nd, 2006 at 4:06 pmGlobalization is all part of a free trade Pharisees, who like Thomas Friedman want America’s middle class to compete with 50 cent an hour labor. Globalization means that in order to compete America’s workers have to lower their standard of living considerably.
February 22nd, 2006 at 4:06 pmWith America importing H1B visa high tech workers, and illegal workers for our low tech jobs, it is no wonder that over the last 4 years our middle class wages have gone down.
The WTO, NAFTA, GATT, and CAFTA are give aways to the cororatist fascist who have no loyalty to America. Free trade and Globalization have been a nightmare for America’s middle class, and America’s long term security. Because of globalization America owes over a trillion dollars to foreign countries, including communist China. Globalization means America now depends on Communist China for parts to build it’s military hardware, and software!
Globalization is destroying the American Dream, especially for people like me African Americans, when will we get our share of the American Dream Faziz???
But the question remains, will Bush now be forced to follow the 9/11 Commission guidelines? Or are “F’s†still acceptable to the general public as they have been?
Comment by nolaluv — February 22, 2006 @ 4:02 pm
Bush would have to actually read the 911 report first.
February 22nd, 2006 at 4:13 pmHe should be done with that sometime in 2024
February 22nd, 2006 at 4:14 pm#5 and #46
TP is incorrect in regards to the 45 day investigation requirement. Doesn’t the law state that the transaction is in regards to a foreign company, private or state owned, purchasing a U.S. corporation?
February 22nd, 2006 at 4:15 pmI hadn’t realized until today just how many illiterates our schools have produced in the last 30 years. Damn,there must be 20 or 25 on here.
February 22nd, 2006 at 4:18 pmA lot of commenters have picked up on my use of the word “globalization.” My usage of that term was a simple reference to our growing inter-connectedness. As President Clinton once said, “We can’t turn this globalization off — you know, people want to know more about each other. And now they have the means to do it. The Internet is the most powerful means of communication in all of human history. And I think that globalization, in the end, will be a force for diversity, not uniformity.”
To acknowledge our growing interconnectedness does not mean one embraces the uniform application of free market capitalism. Of course, each nation still governs matters involving security and trade, among other things.
I mentioned in point #1 that I would embrace a discussion about whether the U.S. government should take over port operations and stop outsourcing those functions.
February 22nd, 2006 at 4:20 pmTJM - This isnt a spelling bee. This is an open forum for discussion and there are going to be typos and spelling issues.
Sorry that you are soooooo perfect that you get everythin correct.
February 22nd, 2006 at 4:20 pmOn December 7, 1941 the Japanese Navy did a two-hour fly-over of one of our ports. FDR and the American People declared war on half the world. We supported the finest Military in the world as they kicked the shit out of the bad guys in just under 3 1/2 years. Harry Truman then took over the Countries of the bad guys for awhile. On September 11, 2001 a small group of little sheet heads tried to fly over New York but ran into a couple of buildings instead. King George the Dumb and his cronies then got greedy and attacked a crazy neighborhood service Station manager. Now 4 1/2 years later the poorest equipped (technologies considered) and poorest led Military in the history of this Country continues to get the shit beat out of them by a phony pick-up army. KGtD, instead of taking over the Countries of the little sheet heads, gives them six of our ports and 75% of what little support we send to our troops, and then invites the Prince of the biggest little sheet head country to his ranch. For those of you old enough to remember can you imagine the reaction if Harry had invited the Emperor of Japan to Independence, Missouri in 1944 and then walked through Swope Park with him holding hands and playing smacky mouth. We’ve come a long way, Baby, but I want to go back at least 6 years.
An aside: We all know and love the Dukes of Hazard, to get to know the Hazardous Duke of Dubai just click on clyde.
February 22nd, 2006 at 4:22 pmI mentioned in point #1 that I would embrace a discussion about whether the U.S. government should take over port operations and stop outsourcing those functions.
Comment by Faiz — February 22, 2006 @ 4:20 pm
Good point Faiz. But for me I think we should not even need a discussion on this notion. It’s moot.
If we are at war, and the enemy is attacking from without, then the Federal Government controlling all access into our country is a no brainer.
February 22nd, 2006 at 4:30 pmTJM, I will gladly refund any or all monies you have paid to participate in this or any other thread on this site. If you are a professional journalist please feel free to send us a link to your latest article. I’m truly sorry for any damage i might have done to your grammatical sensibilites. You get what you pay for and this aint bad for free.
February 22nd, 2006 at 4:30 pmFaiz - I truly respect the stand you are taking. However, like most things, I don’t agree.
The joy of being a Republican is that I don’t have to pretend to be pc. I don’t want some Arab country linked to 9/11 and ranks terror as #6 on their list of priorities near our ports. Why don’t we just put Syria in charge of our flight schools while we’re at it!!!
But Faiz, it is noble of you not to take a pot shot just to take one.
February 22nd, 2006 at 4:30 pmAll the arguements/points made or asked seem logical and valid, but not in a Bush world. When has this administration been a part of something that wasn’t incompotent and corrupt??? I think the bigger issue here is that this issue is blowback from years of Americans taking this president’s word as face value only to have it turn out exactly the opposite of what was sold to us as true.
Secondly, for an administration that is known for it’s cronyism, this deal reeks of it - the president didn’t even know that the UAE was involved until after the deal was signed??? Yet Bush’s father (GHWB) is a member of the Carlye Group (in kahoots with the Bin Laden Family) and they bought a nice piece of CSX (company involved with this port deal) for it’s container business. Just google it - Carlye and CSX.
Bottom line is that regardless of who controls the ports of our country, or what logical argument can be made about this deal, DO YOU SERIOUSLY TRUST THIS PRESIDENT’S WORD???
I ain’t about to bet my life on it.
February 22nd, 2006 at 4:31 pmFederalize the seaports and the airports. All baggage handlers, cargo inspectors, document and data entry clerks, and of course all security functions, even the smallest, should be federalized.
Screened, trained efficient federal workers,,,wait, what am I saying?
February 22nd, 2006 at 4:33 pmIf we were to vastly increase the budget for Homeland Defense, and end the war, we could keep America safe, if that really is the goal.
And the bulk of homeland defense focus should be with our entry points into the country.
February 22nd, 2006 at 4:36 pm[…] David at BMG has had some great stuff on the sale by a British company to the UAE of the company responsible for managing major ports in the United States. He has done a great job of explaining why this might be a major non-story turned into an international PR disaster. The essential argument put forth by David and others is that the management of ports has nothing to do the security of ports. Also the argument is that UAE is a decent ally in our war on terror and this is a pretty bad way to treat a geographically key ally. Lastly those backing the port deal argue that we are being hypocritical by claiming we want to expand democracy and good will in the Middle East but then turn around and discriminate against a company based on geographical location. […]
February 22nd, 2006 at 4:36 pmComparisons between the UAE operating our ports and other countries are bogus. There are past ties between them and radical Islamic fundamentalists and we need to be very cautious about a relationship such as this. With our exceptionally competent intelligence organizations, how do we know we are totally knowledgeable about the UAE and their ties? Also, make a comparison of how off the deep end Islamic people all over the world went because of some Danish cartoons; what happens in the UAE port relationship in the future when something like this inadvertently happens between the UAE and the U.S.? All Congress and others are asking is that the path of caution be followed and a more extensive study, involving a broader oversite group, before the final decision.
February 22nd, 2006 at 4:41 pm“The fact that the nuclear scientist A.Q. Khan was able to game the ports of Dubai should cause the ports deal to receive heightened scrutiny, but is not in itself a reason to reject the deal.”
Right, so just because this is a state-owned company and the ruling sheikhs in UAE have ties to the Taliban and Bin Laden (NOTE: that’s not guilt by association — the people who control the state (and, hence, the state-owned company) are tied to terrorists) AND just because there’s evidence that ports under their control have been used to smuggle WMD in the past doesn’t mean there’s a rational basis to oppose this deal? WTF?!
AND the proper legal procedure wasn’t followed.
AND this looks very much like another case of reckless Bush cronyism and graft.
AND this is a wonderful wedge issue to hammer Republicans with.
So we should just ignore all that and be even-handed and polite?
Do you enjoy being a minority party?
February 22nd, 2006 at 4:42 pmI don’t like this idea either but the question is,was this a public contract and was it bid on?What connection to corporate interests of those in the WH,who will profit from this deal?Who will cover the insurance costs of such an operation?Will Americans lose jobs?I read something about the head honcho at this enterprise and he only got this position last year,before that he was drifting around the international port scene.What I don’t like mostly is the fact that this is a company controlled by a foriegn GOVERNMENT.What is wrong with the one we have?(Sarcasm)I also tend to agree that this hysteria is something owned by the right(wrong) and we should not play into it.Further proof that the Arabs had nothing to do with 911.
February 22nd, 2006 at 4:45 pmSean - you kick major booty and get uber kudos on that AWESOME POST!!! Man you must be such a racist too.
February 22nd, 2006 at 4:46 pmYou’ve missed the mark as far as I’m concerned Faiz. I respect your position, but your arguments do not address my main concerns.
First Dubai Ports World is a state owned company. It ticks me off to find out that a British company has been managing our ports, but at least it wasn’t state owned. I don’t want a company run by ANY foreign government to manage our ports. I refuse to accept a company run by a government alleged to have terrorist ties managing our ports. I feel it’s lunacy and I think I’m justified in feeling that way.
Secondly, with everything being so secretive and hush hush, what assurances do we have that this isn’t a national security risk? I think the issue of the safety and security of our ports is worth a longer look even if it costs a few extra bucks and a few hurt feelings. I’d rather apologize later for the hurt feelings in the arab world, than apologize to my fellow countryman after a port attack.
February 22nd, 2006 at 4:47 pmWe have adolescents in the White House.
February 22nd, 2006 at 4:47 pmWe learned that Bush “didn’t know” about the deal on the ports.
So he is being treated as a child, not informed of important matters — or he is adopting the excuse of adolescents, “hey, nobody told me the essay was due today.”
Last week, we saw Cheney, who like a teenager having wrecked the car, put it in the garage and hoped Dad wouldn’t notice the missing bumper, then tried to blame the lamppost, and finally admitting he did it, when he’s caught in the lie.
Comment by Mary — February 22, 2006 @ 4:45 pm
Further proof that the Arabs had nothing to do with 911.
I hope that’s your sarcasm Mary.
Please tell me where those 19 hijackers on 9/11 were from.
Please also tell me what kind of government was recently elected in Iraq along with the winners of the election.
February 22nd, 2006 at 4:49 pmOur roads are bad right now in most states, imagine how bad they would be if we turned all our management of our highways over to some foriegn country?
Comment by RemoveBush
Like Gov Mitch Daniels of Indiana is trying to do to Interstate 80. The same Mitch Daniels that Rove got to run for governour, the same Mitch Daniels who used to work for the Bush administration?
February 22nd, 2006 at 4:53 pmcarter actually said he was sure the administration, the secretary of defense, the president, and the governing bodies would have looked into the matter before the deal was made
sadly, carter makes the missguided assumption that this administration is anything more then inept
February 22nd, 2006 at 4:54 pmright on, sean #120… and nolaluv #57… et al…
i think maybe faiz is wanting to play devil’s advocate…ok…that’s cool…gets more opinions and information out there…
it’s good to know that a huge majority is thinking straight…
…and it only took just over an hour and 75 posts for someone to mention “the elephant in the room”…thanks jay randall…really brave…really real.
February 22nd, 2006 at 5:10 pmFrom ‘Screw You’ to ‘Say What?’…
I’ve been trying to keep an open mind about the United Arab Emirates port-security deal. After all, it seems dumb that we let any foreign company deal with US security, including a few from Britain, Denmark, China and elsewhere, so how