What if a Democratic President Did This? (Port Sale)

[Nbadan]

http://webs.advance.com.ar/alegreto/fotos/explosion%20Nuclear1.jpg
Just another sunny day in San Diego?

White House Defends Port Operations Sale
AP - 13 minutes ago


WASHINGTON - The Bush administration on Thursday rebuffed criticism about potential security risks of a $6.8 billion sale that gives a company in the United Arab Emirates control over significant operations at six major American ports.

Lawmakers asked the White House to reconsider the deal.

The sale to state-owned Dubai Ports World was "rigorously reviewed" by a U.S. committee that considers security threats when foreign companies seek to buy or invest in American industry, National Security Council spokesman Frederick Jones said.

The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, run by the
Treasury Department, took into account an assessment from U.S. intelligence agencies. The committee's 12 members agreed the sale did not present any problems, the department said.

The public defense of the secretive committee, which reviews hundreds of such deals each year, came in response to criticism about the purchase of London-based Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co.

Yahoo News (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060216/ap_on_go_pr_wh/port_security)

We're talking about ports in New York City, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Miami, and New Orleans. We're also talking about a country where much of the planning & financing for 9-11 took place.

Watch the Democratic leadership cave in on this issue in 5.4.3.2.1.

[gtownspur]

I agree with you on this one.

[Ocotillo]

Actually, speaking of what if fill in the blank Democrat did such such, I was thinking.....

Vice President Gore would have resigned by now due to unrelenting crticisim from his right wing critics about this hunting "accident".

Democrats need to observe and learn. You have to give Cheney credit.

Basically he's saying "F you, I shot the guy, I talked about when I was damn good and ready and what are you gonna do about it?"

[xrayzebra]

Didn't Clinton give his buddies from China some of the ports on the West Coast?

[exstatic]

Nice to know that some things don't change, and that Emir cock is still firmly entrenched in Bush mouth. Like father, like son.

[exstatic]

Didn't Clinton give his buddies from China some of the ports on the West Coast?

Last time I checked, none of the financing or planning for 9/11 took place in China....

[JoeChalupa]

This administration cracks me up.

[Nbadan]

Lawmakers Decry Ports Takeover, Chertoff Defends the Deal
February 19th, 2006 @ 11:11 pm


Head of Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff has about as much credibility at this point as a gnat. Needless to say when he “defended the security review of Dubai Ports World” today, it’s a difficult stretch of the mind to trust a word he has to say on this. His record on Katrina speaks for itself.

Chertoff said the government typically builds in “certain conditions or requirements that the company has to agree to make sure we address the national security concerns.” But Chertoff declined to discuss specifics saying that information is classified.

“We make sure there are assurances in place, in general, sufficient to satisfy us that the deal is appropriat[QUOTE]e from a national security standpoint,” Chertoff said on ABC’s “This Week.”

Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle (as noted here previously) are questioning the sale to DP World as a possible risk to national security. And then there is also the possible Bush cronyism connection.

blog (http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/?p=1998)

Everyone should ingrane Mr. Chertoff's statement into their collective memories.

[Darrin]

I wish Congress would grow a pair and act like the equal branch of the executive they are SUPPOSED TO BE! This is not an empire, GWB is not Caesar or King, he is the elected representative of the American people and as his boss, I want some explanation in a FUCKING OVERSIGHT HEARING!!!!!!!!!!!!

[xrayzebra]

Last time I checked, none of the financing or planning for 9/11 took place in China....

I didn't say they did. Just pointing out his administration is as dumb as
this one is for doing a stupid thing. And it is stupid. Our ports should
stay in control of Americans period.

[Nbadan]

I didn't say they did. Just pointing out his administration is as dumb as
this one is for doing a stupid thing. And it is stupid. Our ports should
stay in control of Americans period.

Clinton did not sell, I believe it was a Virginia Port, to China, the deal was proposed, but fell through.

[Nbadan]

Is Brit Hume in charge now or what? I mean....a guy that even Cheney has to answer too...think about it.

http://pssht.com/images/brit_munster_md.jpg
All you are belongs to me!


The Bush administration will reverse its decision to allow a Dubai company based in the United Arab Emirates to gain control over several key U.S. ports, the Fox News Channel's Brit Hume predicted on Sunday.

"I don't think the administration will be able to sustain this," Hume told "Fox News Sunday." "I think it will have to reverse itself in some way or create some entity that stands between the company and the management of the ports."

"I just don't think can stand," he added. "It doesn't sound good to let some Arab shieks to be in charge of our ports - that's what it comes down to."

Appearing on the same program, Sen. Lindsey Graham slammed the ports decision, saying, "It's unbelievably tone deaf politically at this point in our history, four years after 9/11, to entertain the idea of turning port security over to a company based in the U.A.E., who avows to destroy Israel."

NEWSMAX (http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/2/19/114128.shtml)

[Nbadan]

Check this poll out...


If the U.S. government is turning over operation of some major U.S. ports to a United Arab Emirates company and doing nothing to secure U.S. borders, should the Homeland Security Department be disbanded?

Yes - 90%
No - 10%

CNN

[xrayzebra]

One thing I found out yesterday and did not know, a British firm is selling these
port operations to the group. Hmmmmm, wonder how long they have had
control of operations?

[Darrin]

One thing I found out yesterday and did not know, a British firm is selling these
port operations to the group. Hmmmmm, wonder how long they have had
control of operations?

We're still talking about a long-standing ally, versus a coutry that can't secure their own borders.

[xrayzebra]

Well the British are not known for being able to secure theirs very well. Don't believe
me go to London, Englishmen are an endangered species there.

Also the point I was trying to make was that control was in the hands of a
foreign company.

[Darrin]

Well the British are not known for being able to secure theirs very well. Don't believe
me go to London, Englishmen are an endangered species there.

Also the point I was trying to make was that control was in the hands of a
foreign company.

Yes, but the United Arab Emirates gives us two of the 19 hijakers on September 11th. The money used to finance this operation was washed through their base of operations, and nuclear concompents have been smuggled through their home ports.

This is who we want running SIX U.S. PORTS!?!!

[xrayzebra]

^^Nope, I would prefer an American Company. How about Halliburton?

[Darrin]

^^Nope, I would prefer an American Company. How about Halliburton?

Good point.

[boutons_]

The shrub family loves to such that Arab dick.

=================================

February 21, 2006

Bush Threatens to Veto Any Bill to Stop Port Takeover

By DAVID E. SANGER
and ERIC LIPTON

WASHINGTON, Feb. 21 — President Bush said this afternoon that he would veto any legislation seeking to block the administration's decision to allow a state-owned company from Dubai to assume control of port terminals in New York and other cities.

Mr. Bush's rare veto threat came as Republican leaders and many of their Democratic counterparts called up today for the port takeover to be put on hold. They demanded that the Bush administration conduct a further investigation of the Dubai company's acquisition of the British operator of the six American ports.

"After careful review by our government, I believe the transaction ought to go forward," Mr. Bush told reporters who were traveling with him on Air Force One to Washington, according to news agencies. "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.

( because the love the USA so much in the Middle East, dumbfuck)

I am trying to conduct foreign policy now by saying to the people of the world, 'We'll treat you fairly." '

( We're equal opportunity country-fucker-uppers. Get in line, take a number )


The confrontation between Mr. Bush and his own supporters escalated rapidly after the Senate Republican leader, Bill Frist, and the House speaker, J. Dennis Hastert, joined Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, Gov. George E. Pataki and a host of other Republicans in insisting that the transaction must be extensively reviewed, if not killed. That put them on essentially the same side of the issue as a chorus of Democrats, who have seized on the issue to argue that Mr. Bush was ignoring a potential security threat.

( Darth dickhead is hovering in the background itching for a firefight with Congress in his campaign to emasculate Congress while removing all Constitutional restraints on the Executive )

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.

Some administration officials, refusing to be quoted by name, suggested that there was a whiff of racism in the objections to an Arab owner taking over the terminals.

( they would feel right at home on ST :) )

The current operator of the six American terminals, P&O Port, is owned by the British company that Dubai Ports World is acquiring. The ports include those in New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia, as well as New York.

Mr. Frist, in a rare break from the Bush administration, declared that "the decision to finalize this deal should be put on hold until the administration conducts a more extensive review of this matter."

He added, "If the administration cannot delay this process, I plan on introducing legislation to ensure that the deal is placed on hold until this decision gets a more thorough review."

Representative Edward Markey, Democrat of Massachusetts and a persistent critic of the administration's actions on port security, said in an interview that "this is now a bipartisan posse chasing the president."

But firestorm of opposition to the deal drew a similarly intense expression of befuddlement by shipping industry and port experts.

The shipping business, they said, went global more than a decade ago and across the United States, foreign-based companies already control more than 30 percent of the port terminals.

That inventory includes APL Limited, which is controlled by the government of Singapore, and which operates terminals in Los Angeles, Oakland, Seattle, and Dutch Harbor, Alaska. Globally, 24 of the top 25 ship terminal operators are foreign-based, meaning most of the containers sent to the United States leave terminals around the world that are operated by foreign government or foreign-based companies.

"This kind of reaction is totally illogical," said Philip Damas, research director at Drewry Shipping Consultants of London. "The location of the headquarters of a company in the age of globalism is irrelevant."

But the reasoning did not resonate in Washington, where members of Congress from every end of the political spectrum piled on to condemn the deal and to propose emergency legislation to block it if necessary.

"This sale will create an unacceptable risk to the security of our ports," Senator Hilary Rodham Clinton, joined by Senators Frank Lautenberg, Robert Menendez and Barbara Boxer said in a letter Tuesday. On Monday, the Republican governors of New York and Maryland raised the threat of legal action to void contracts at ports in New York City and Baltimore.

At the Pentagon today, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld praised the Arab country as an important strategic military partner.



"Nothing changes with respect to security under the contract," Mr. Rumsfeld said. "The Coast Guard is in charge of security, not the corporation."

"We all deal with the U.A.E. on a regular basis," he added. "It's a country that's been involved in the global war on terror."

( it was Saudi Arabian INDIVIDUALS, not SA, who attacked WTC )

The acquisition of the British port operator is scheduled to close on March 2. Governors George E. Pataki of New York and Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. of Maryland both said they would do what they could to stop the deal from going through.

Maria Newman contributed reporting from New York for this article.


* Copyright 2006The New York Times Company

[xrayzebra]

Oh Well, Boutons there are no American companies doing that kind of business,
so I don't know who should get the job. I am sure you have nothing to worry
about, UAE isn't going to get it, although I think they take care of 18 percent of
of cargo worldwide, including China.

[Peter]

What if a Democratic President Did This? (Port Sale)

Then Jimmah Carter might defend it. (http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/nation/13921401.htm?source=rss&channel=miamiherald_nation)

[Nbadan]

The administration has been screaming 911!! 911!! so often, this time it may come back to bite them in the ass.

[Vashner]

Jimmy is gonna run in 08 maybe...

[Darrin]

Jimmy is gonna run in 08 maybe...

No. I think Jimmy Carter is brilliant, a many with sincere spirituality who cares deeply for his common man and this country, but he is a horrible President. If he couldn't be a Democrat in the post-Nixon era, how is he ever going to Govern in this polarized climate today?

That's not even funny to joke about...

[xrayzebra]

i would vote for him :tu

I wouldn't brag about it. Guess you like the economy when he was
President. Like paying 21 percent interest to buy a home. He was
a real winner, he was. He should just keep on building houses. I
Love the way he cut that great deal with North Korea under the
Clinton Administration. Yeah, vote for him. He is your type.

[Nbadan]

He, he, I am having a ball listening to Rush Limpballs trying to spin the port issue.

Now liberals are 'racially bias' because they will let a British Company own American Ports but not a country that helped finance 911.

:lmao

[Nbadan]

From the NY Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/22/opinion/22wed1.html)


If President Bush follows through on his threat, he'll be making a strange choice for his first veto after more than five years in office. After giving a pass to a parade of misbegotten Congressional initiatives and irresponsible budget packages, he'd be choosing to take a stand over the right to hand control of operations at major American ports to a company based in Dubai, in the United Arab Emirates, and controlled by that government.
....
Nevertheless, Congress is right to resist the ports deal, in which the company, Dubai Ports World, would take over the British company now running these operations. The issue is not, as Mr. Bush is now claiming, a question of bias against a Middle Eastern company. The United Arab Emirates is an ally, but its record in the war on terror is mixed. It is not irrational for the United States to resist putting port operations, perhaps the most vulnerable part of the security infrastructure, under that country's control. And there is nothing in the Homeland Security Department's record to make doubters feel confident in its assurances that all proper precautions will be taken.

The Bush administration has followed a disturbing pattern in its approach to the war on terror. It has been perpetually willing to sacrifice individual rights in favor of security. But it has been loath to do the same thing when it comes to business interests. It has not imposed reasonable safety requirements on chemical plants, one of the nation's greatest points of vulnerability, or on the transport of toxic materials. The ports deal is another decision that has made the corporations involved happy, and has made ordinary Americans worry about whether they are being adequately protected.

[Darrin]

Looks like W can spell VETO after all.

[George W Bush]

Looks like W can spell VETO after all.

No I couldn't spell it before, but thanks for the tip.

V-E-T-O :tu

[xrayzebra]

i like it better now when i can't afford to buy a house or even rent a decent apartment becaus 65% of my wages goes towards making payments on my 100,000 dollar plus student loans, that i will be paying for the next 30 years
and i haven't even gone to graduate school yet

Oh my, we own you an education. I don't think so. Just don't go to
graduate school unless you can afford it. No body promised you a rose
garden.

[scott]

Free trade should not be sacrificed in the name of false security. Anyone who thinks this deal will mean thousands of terrorists steaming through our borders to blow shit up is probably the same type of person who sends out emails to boycott Exxon gas stations to stop terrorism.

[JohnnyMarzetti]

It doesn't take thousands to commit a terrorist attack.

[ChumpDumper]

This is much ado about nothing. It's not like the ports are going to be overrun by Arab longshoremen.

Seriously, has anyone ever seen an Arab longshoreman?

[xrayzebra]

He, he, I am having a ball listening to Rush Limpballs trying to spin the port issue.

Now liberals are 'racially bias' because they will let a British Company own American Ports but not a country that helped finance 911.

:lmao

I don't think he was trying to spin anything. He, himself, said he wasn't
to sure where he stood on the issue. What he said made a lot of sense.
Nothing really changes except management. Same workers, same security
and as he said same Unions. (Did you hear the call from the union guy?).

Who do we get to run the docks, no American companies do this sort of
thing. Besides, from what he was saying they are only running a portion
of the docks, if I heard correctly. Not the whole port. I blame the media
in this case, once again they have failed to tell the whole story, just
enough to get everyone riled up. Slowly but surely we will get the
complete picture. I hope.

[gtownspur]

first of all :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao

secondly, didn't say anyone Owed me anything. just wanted to point out to you that for 20-somethings in the US , the financial climate doesn't look quite as rosy as it does for you old-timers for whom we 20-somethings foot the bill.


Maybe going to an ultra expensive college and not chosing a major that would of payed off that ultra expensive loan might just be all your fault. But that's just me you know. :rolleyes

[gtownspur]

no, on the contrary. You should of gone to college to earn as much as a garbage disposal man.

but, like i said. It was your choice. You obviuosly was ok with being in debt for many years when you took that loan.

[xrayzebra]

first of all :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao

secondly, didn't say anyone Owed me anything. just wanted to point out to you that for 20-somethings in the US , the financial climate doesn't look quite as rosy as it does for you old-timers for whom we 20-somethings foot the bill.

Well, first, I doubt if you are footing anyones bill right now. Second, we
oldtimers footed the bill for you whippersnappers for many years.

Now if it is any comfort, I think college is very expensive, way overpriced,
and especially the books. Course books have always been overpriced and
try and sell them back......lol.....seems they changed them for the next
bunch. I may have some I will sell real cheap. The think I hate most is
that in many colleges/universities the so called Profs don't teach, they
have some assistant do that, they just show up on occasion.

[gameFACE]

I wouldn't brag about it. Guess you like the economy when he was
President. Like paying 21 percent interest to buy a home. He was
a real winner, he was.
If current republicans are quick to point out that when some part of the economy or foreign policy today is not going well it's because it began during the "Clinton" administration - wouldn't the proper response to this be that the problems with the economy at that time began durin the Nixon/Ford administrations? Real winner this president is..................

[xrayzebra]

If current republicans are quick to point out that when some part of the economy or foreign policy today is not going well it's because it began during the "Clinton" administration - wouldn't the proper response to this be that the problems with the economy at that time began durin the Nixon/Ford administrations? Real winner this president is..................

Well dummy, Nixon was the first to open up talks with the Chinese. Might
want to read some of his books. He was really very knowledgeable on
foreign affairs. He just got caught doing what all Pols did.

[IcemanCometh]

boycott Exxon gas stations to stop terrorism. plenty of other reasons to boycott them. Isn't it funny how they just had the richest quarter of any company in the history of earth?


Well dummy, Nixon was the first to open up talks with the Chinese. Might
want to read some of his books. He was really very knowledgeable on
foreign affairs. He just got caught doing what all Pols did


what the fuck does that have shit all to do with anythign

[xrayzebra]

Nixon and China. Well I would bet most of what you are wearing right now was
made there. And most of what you buy is made there......but why am I not
surprised you don't realize that.

[Nbadan]

http://www.jadedbrechtianennui.com/port.jpg

[Dos]

dan might learn something from this...

Nothing gets adrenaline coursing quite as quickly as a good scare story. All the more so if terrorism is part of the plot. That's the genre du jour in Hollywood, and now apparently in Washington, too.

How else to explain the frenzy over the Bush administration's decision to let a company controlled by the United Arab Emirates operate shipping terminals at six major U.S. ports? Politicians from New York to Miami are stampeding to the cameras to denounce the deal and to the courts to undo it.

The hysteria is bipartisan. Sen. Charles Schumer (news, bio, voting record), D-N.Y., warned that the deal would outsource port control to a "country with long involvement in terrorism." Rep. Peter King (news, bio, voting record), R-N.Y., wondered how the company would guard against "infiltration by al-Qaeda." Congressional leaders and several governors piled on, seeking to block the deal, which President Bush vehemently defended.

Never mind that the deal was announced 13 days ago and had been rumored for months. Never mind that Congress could have reviewed it at any time. Never mind that revoking it could have significant ramifications in the Arab world. And never mind that a little patience might have allowed time to get the facts straight.

Using the terrorist boogeyman to attract cameras has more political appeal.

The facts are pretty simple. Dubai Ports World, an international shipping company controlled by the UAE, an oil-rich Persian Gulf state and one of America's few allies in the Middle East, purchased a British shipping company and with it contracts to manage a small number of the terminals at major ports in New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, Philadelphia, New Orleans and Miami.

Many foreign companies, including ones from Singapore and China, operate U.S. shipping terminals. Even so, government agencies - not the companies - remain in charge of inspecting cargo and ships. The dock workers are generally unionized longshoremen. And no one is farming out security to an Arab nation. In fact, many of the Dubai firm's top executives are American, and the firm has worked with the USA at other ports.

Think of it this way: Airlines, including foreign ones, lease gates and even whole concourses at major airports. Saudi Arabian Airlines and Emirates - yes, an airline based in Dubai - pay to use available gates at New York's John F. Kennedy. And always, the federal and local authorities handle security. It works just about the same way in ports.

Of course, thinking of the Dubai deal logically wouldn't allow lawmakers to score political points with hysterical predictions.

The uproar in Congress does raise one useful question: What is the government doing to secure ports? The major threat is that a terrorist could smuggle a radioactive "dirty bomb," nuclear device or another weapon of mass destruction in one of millions of cargo containers that land on U.S. docks each year. If lawmakers want to prevent that, here are a few real concerns they've been ignoring:

• Congress' investigative arm, the Government Accountability Office, has issued more than a dozen reports since 9/11 revealing huge gaps in just about every shipping security program the government runs.

• A program to inspect high-risk, U.S.-bound containers at foreign ports misses many of its targets; others get inspected but not very effectively, the GAO found.

• An effort to issue federal identification cards to more than 5 million transportation workers has barely started. The Transportation Security Administration has issued just 4,000 "prototype" cards so far.

• Radiation sensors deployed in some foreign ports are not "capable of detecting a nuclear weapon or a lightly-shielded dirty bomb," according to security expert Stephen Flynn of the Council on Foreign Relations.

Yes, Congress is welcome to take a hard look, unvarnished by political gamesmanship, at the involvement of Dubai Ports World in a sensitive industry. But it could do far more for security by working to fix the broad vulnerabilities in shipping.

Both tasks would be easier if lawmakers got down to business, instead of tripping over each other on the way to the cameras.

[boutons_]

Extremely convenient, too convenient, purposely convenient?, that this firestorm arrives right in the middle of the NSA/Exec-uncontrolled-wiretapping firestorm.

[boutons_]

"Both tasks would be easier if lawmakers got down to business"

those tasks wouldn't even be necessary if dubya/dickhead/Exec who execute the nation's security had gotten down to the business of securing America's ports of entry rather than starting a bogus Repug war in Iraq.

The ONLY securities the Repugs care about, really spend $Bs to assure first/last/always, is the financial security of the rich and corps and the political security of the Repugs.

[xrayzebra]

A little article I thought summed things up nicely.

================================================== ===============



Going overboard
By Jonah Goldberg

Feb 24, 2006


Did you hear the one about Dick Cheney, a priest and a rabbi walking into an Arab-run port?

No? Too bad, because the brouhaha that has replaced Cheney-mania is a lot less entertaining. This week brought a strange bipartisan convergence over, of all things, the commercial management of U.S. ports.

Bipartisan consensus is often a troubling sign, particularly when it's on an issue few know much about. It was prompted by the Bush administration's decision to defend the bid by Dubai Ports World, based in the United Arab Emirates, to buy the British-owned Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation Co., which currently runs six U.S. ports. The deal was unanimously approved by the administration committee charged with reviewing the national security implications of foreign acquisitions.

In response, Republicans and Democrats alike have gone batty.

For five years, Republicans have chanted "trust the president" on national security. They even won elections on the issue. For nearly five years, Democrats have said President Bush should use more carrots and fewer sticks in his diplomacy in the Muslim world. They argued that we need to reward our allies with trade and trust (except when we actually did it in places such as Pakistan and Saudi Arabia). Liberals lectured that equating "Muslim" or "Arab" and "terrorist" is not only bigoted but counterproductive, in that it will feed the "root causes" of terrorism.

But suddenly, virtually all leading Republicans and Democrats - with the laudable exception of Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz. - now argue that Bush can't be trusted on national security, that our Arab ally the UAE should go suck eggs, and that racial profiling of foreign firms is just fine. Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., now even thinks Halliburton should run the ports. And Jimmy Carter is backing the White House.

At this rate, Barbra Streisand will soon be holding benefit concerts for Pennsylvania's conservative Sen. Rick Santorum.

The one guy clearly sticking to his principles is CNN's Lou Dobbs. But that's because he went bonkers a long time ago. The perfectly coiffed millionaire anchor has anointed himself the defender of Joe Sixpack, opposing every manifestation of globalization (save for CNN International, of course). He's perfected the art of the highbrow demagogue, maintaining a perpetual state of shock about how those fat cats are giving guys "like us" the shaft.

So it's not surprising that Tailgunner Lou insists that the review process that allowed the port deal to go through didn't take into account national security. Of course, for the author of "Exporting America," it is axiomatic that all outsourcing, downsizing or free-trading is against national security.

In response to the port decision, Dobbs ran one of his typically less-than-scientific online polls: "Do you believe national security should play a role in the national security review process?" He knew this was like asking "Do you think prostate exams should screen for prostate cancer?" He just didn't care.

And that's the point: Few politicians - or commentators - seem to care about the facts.

So here are a few, in no particular order: The Dubai firm wouldn't be handling security - the U.S. Coast Guard would continue to do that; unionized American longshoremen would still to do all of the loading and unloading; the ports in question were already foreign-owned, as are countless other ports in the United States; and if the U.S. had rejected the Dubai bid, a Singapore firm would probably have gotten the contract from the Brits instead.

Democratic and Republican politicians respond by insisting that the UAE is a bad country full of bad Muslims and Arabs, while Britain is a nice country where everyone likes us. I'm as Anglophile as they come, but you might have noticed that Britain has a surfeit of jihadi nut bags, such as the guys who blew up the Underground and want to behead Danish cartoonists.

Besides, the same Dubai company bought CSX's American port business in early 2005, and nobody seemed to care then. So, why now?

Well, Bush is in the second-term doldrums, and presidential wannabes are taking advantage of what was, in retrospect, a political - but not a policy - blunder. The White House's tepid defense of the Danish cartoons sent the message to some that Bush is going a bit wobbly. Democrats have found a populist route to zing Bush from the right for a change. The war in Iraq, the war on terror, the bombings abroad and the increasing arrogance of Europe all produce, if not screaming isolationism, the desire to keep all that junk "over there."

Port security is a serious concern, but scapegoating Dubai is a distraction. And if we're going to argue about distractions, we might stick to the entertaining ones.

So did you hear the one about Dick Cheney doodling a picture of the prophet Muhammad?


Jonah Goldberg is editor-at-large of National Review Online.

Copyright © 2006 Tribune Media Services


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Find this story at: http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/jonahgoldberg/2006/02/24/187702.html

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[xrayzebra]

Here is another article worth reading on the port deal. You know the really funny
part dimm-o-craps said we didn't have a problem with the Arab world. We just
needed to work with them. We should never profile, no never. Hmmmm, what are
we doing now, Mr. dimm-o-craps? And do we now have a problem with middleeastern
countries?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Port security frenzy: Real concern or real grandstanding?
By Stuart Rothenberg

Feb 23, 2006


While Democrats and Republicans vent their anger over the Bush Administration’s decision to allow a United Arab Emirates-based company from taking “control” of America’s east coast ports (from a British company), I have a question: Exactly what responsibility and authority does this UAE company have? Specifically, how is U.S. security weakened?

I don’t know, and I bet 99.5% of the people discussing the “threat” don’t know. As a matter of fact, I’ll bet most of us have no idea what managing a port entails.

But that hasn’t stopped people from ranting about the Administration’s decision to approve the British-UAE deal.

CNN political commentators Donna Brazile (on the left) and Bill Bennett (on the right) agreed that it is a terrible thing. Pennsylvania Representative Bill Shuster (R) wrote a letter to the President expressing concern about the deal. Representative Max Burns (R-Ga.) and Senator Robert Menendez (D-NJ) are worried. Both House Homeland Security Committee chairman Peter King (R-NY) and Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee chairman Chuck Schumer (D-NY) are demanding the President reverse his decision. I guess this is the bipartisanship we’ve all been longing for, huh?

Baltimore Mayor Martin O’Malley (D), who just coincidentally happens to be running for governor, went absolutely bonkers over the deal.

"I am calling upon President Bush to reverse the outrageous, the reckless, and the irresponsible decision to turn over American ports to foreign governments," said the Mayor, who didn’t exactly sound like a model of thoughtfulness and reason.

Talking of “turning over” American ports to a foreign company that apparently is controlled by a foreign (Middle Eastern) government raises the specter of terrorists flowing through the ports of New York, Baltimore and Miami. But with the Department of Homeland Security, the Bureau of Customs and the Department of Immigration and Naturalization still firmly in U.S. control, it’s far from clear how that sale threatens U.S. security or enables terrorists to gain access to the U.S.

What we have here is a small dose of real concern and a huge amount of grandstanding by legislators, Republican and Democratic alike.

Democrats smell an opportunity to appear tougher than the President on national defense and homeland security, enhancing their generally weaker credentials on fighting the war against terror.

Republican legislators realize that they cannot allow Democrats to seize the one issue that the GOP has had an advantage on since September 11, 2001. And GOP members of the House and Senate even get an issue on which they can “stand up to” Bush, a hard-to-pass-up opportunity since the President’s job ratings remain weak.

The White House probably does deserve blame – blame for not seeing that his decision could easily be demagogued and turned into a political issue. Now, fairly or unfairly, the President is on the defensive and some in the media have started to pile on, as did CNN’s Jack Cafferty, who never allows reason or logic to interfere with his analysis.

The President does not have to change his decision if he believes it to be correct. But he needs to make the case that the new company will not be in a position to aid terrorists, and that it will continue policies and procedures (both involving personnel and operations) to keep America’s ports safe, and to enhance that safety and security.

Still, the President is taking a political hit, and given his current standing, it’s a hit that he cannot afford.




Stuart Rothenberg is editor of The Rothenberg Political Report, a non-partisan newsletter that handicaps U.S. House, Senate, and gubernatorial elections, and a columnist for Roll Call.


Copyright © 2006 Townhall.com


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Find this story at: http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/StuartRothenberg/2006/02/23/187501.html

[Oh, Gee!!]

Xray, what I don't like is the fact that the Bush admin kinda slid this deal under the door and hoped nobody would notice. When people did notice and started asking serious questions, Dubya gave his patented "I don't need to tell you jackshit about what we do around here" response.

That's his MO. He tries to sneak shit past the American public (who allegedly voted for him twice) but when confronted with questions about his actions, he stonewalls.

[xrayzebra]

Xray, what I don't like is the fact that the Bush admin kinda slid this deal under the door and hoped nobody would notice. When people did notice and started asking serious questions, Dubya gave his patented "I don't need to tell you jackshit about what we do around here" response.

That's his MO. He tries to sneak shit past the American public (who allegedly voted for him twice) but when confronted with questions about his actions, he stonewalls.

I don't get that drift at all. The media is the one who dropped the ball.
They were so interested in Cheney and his hunting incident that they
completely ignored this deal, and still haven't completely filled the American
people in on the deal. Just leave stuff hanging out there.

You really have to dig to get to the bottom of everything. LIke the first
headlines I read about the thing was that they were going to "buy and own"
the ports. That isn't correct. The are buying the rights to operate/manage
some of the docks in the ports named. Nothing is really changing. I to was
opposed to the first reports that came out. But as I have read about
things and dug up some of the facts, I don't see much changing except
it will be run by a different "overseas" company. Secondly, this company
already operates ports all over the world, guess they could ship about
anything they want into the US already, couldn't they? They will have
zip to do about security.

After checking and reading about things, I just think this is a lot to do
about nothing.

Also, there are no American companies that do this kind of thing any
longer, so who do we get. Hell Britian has many traitors in its own
government. Remember Burgess who spied for Russian for years and
he was a bigshot in MI5, their elite spy agency.

[Oh, Gee!!]

Xray, the Cheney deal is just another example of the MO used by the Bush admin. Getting back to the port deal, I'm not saying that the deal shouldn't be done after some investigation is completed and the Dubai company clears as a non-security threat. What I didn't like was Bush's original postion that the deal was completed and nothing could be done to stop it. I'm sure if it wasn't for the intense criticism from both sides of the aisle Bush would still be as stubborn on the issue.

[xrayzebra]

Yeah, but OG, it was looked at by the same group who has cleared some, I think,
1500 other deals. Also, all our intel agencies vented the deal and cleared it. And
I am not sure that it can be stopped. Bush said he would veto any bill coming
across his desk and I am not sure they have the votes to override. They may,
who really knows. Politically, Bush and his crew did screw up, no doubt about it.
But I really don't think they were trying to pull a slick one, I just think they did not
think it was that big of a deal to stir up this much junk. I am sure you read the
same company is taking over the P&O business in Britian and it hasn't even made
a ripple over there. They see no problem at all.

[Oh, Gee!!]

So why is the Admin now letting the deal be postponed?

[xrayzebra]

^^Beats me. Dubai has said it will wait, according to the paper this morning.
This thing is taking more twist and turns than the average bear. I really don't
have a clue on how it will end up. If the politicians mean what they say and
continue to stir up things, I feel it will never fly. But some are now starting to
hedge on their first words, so God only knows what will happen. I personally don't
have a problem with it. But that doesn't mean much.....LOL
t

[Oh, Gee!!]

Could it be for the fact that the committee approving the deal is itself part of the executive branch? Could it also be for the fact that this deal is a little different because the company is a state-owned company and not an entirely private one? Could it also be for the fact that some real national security concerns have been raised and Bush's bullshit has been called on by the right party?

[xrayzebra]

^^I take it then you are not in favor of the deal. Everyone has their own
opinion. I just disagree that it was an undercover deal. Just badly handled
by the Administration and Media.

[Oh, Gee!!]

I take it then you are not in favor of the deal.

I think it's good that it has been postponed pending review.



I just disagree that it was an undercover deal.

Obviously, I think it was.



badly handled by the Administration and Media.

Agreed.

[xrayzebra]

Here is a little article about Bill Clinton and UAE. Funny, he praises and his wife
condemns. Such is life.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This news article was printed from ITPBusiness.net
To view this news article online visit: www.itp.net/business/news/details.php?id=18919
home \ news \ business \
Sunday, 4 December, 2005
Clinton leads Dubai praise
by Anil Bhoyrul ([email protected])
FORMER US president Bill Clinton praised Dubai’s leaders last week, telling them the way Islamic and Western values and cultures are being merged is “wonderful”.

Speaking via telecast at the Leaders in Dubai conference on Monday, Clinton was quick to highlight the work done by the emirate’s rulers, in particular Sheikh Mohammed Bin Rashid Al Maktoum, Crown Prince of Dubai and Minister of Defence of the United Arab Emirates.

Clinton said: “Dubai is a role model of what could be achieved despite the other negative developments in the region. When I went to Dubai for the first time, I was taken to a technology facility where I hooked up to a bank kiosk and found that one can use a conventional banking service, while at the same time opt for an Islamic Sharia compliant service, which I thought was wonderful. This is a very good example of how cultures and values could be merged and offered to the rest. I was amazed and I have a lot of admiration for Sheikh Mohammed for what he’s doing in Dubai.”

Clinton also urged members of the YAL (Young Arab Leaders) to spread their message across the region. He explained: “I think much can be done by just telling others about your own achievements. They can share their experience and ideas with others and help them develop their economies as Dubai has done. YAL can leverage their experience to enlighten others.”

He added: “Look at Dubai, which has achieved enormous growth in such a short period of time. Less than 6% of Dubai’s income comes from oil. It’s no longer an oil economy."

Clinton’s speech came just a week after he appeared in person at Dubai’s American University. During his visit to the emirate, he spoke directly on the chances of peace in the region.

The former US president was not the only speaker to praise the emirate in his Leaders in Dubai address. Best-selling author, Dan Pink, said: “Global economies will now be driven by right-brain attitudes where designers, creators and empathisers will be leaders, because their talents cannot be recreated offshore or made redundant by technology.”

He told delegates: “Big-picture thinking is difficult to outsource offshore and difficult to automate. This is where Dubai has a strong advantage because it is a crossroads kind of a place — a multilingual, multicultural place that creates empathies and that’s where great ideas come from. When we empathise towards everyone the world’s a better place, period! But empathy also has a business advantage, because it cannot be outsourced or automated.”

Pink continued: “This is an age of novelty and nuance where design has become a fundamental business literacy — an age when everyone is in the arts and entertainment business. Dubai is in the arts and entertainment business with just 8% of its Gross Domestic Product (GDP) coming from oil and now 17% coming from tourism — and that’s the arts and entertainment business.”

Pink said that his vision of the future was one “where youth would be better advised studying fine arts than striving for traditional MBAs”.

“Kids should now be encouraged not to follow the traditional MBA programmes of the left-brain era — which are now being outsourced offshore — but to follow master of fine arts (MFA) degrees. The MFA has now become the new MBA because the abilities required to obtain it cannot be outsourced and are harder to automate,” he added.

Another speaker, Abdullah Al Zamil — CEO of Zamil Industries — said, in his own presentation, that world leaders need to “keep pace with the changing world”.

He told delegates: “We must take care to prevent a loss of cultural identity. In many places, the traditional way of life is getting lost and the public feel that their way of life has to be protected against foreign influence.”

The Leaders in Dubai summit was held at the Madinat Jumeirah complex last Monday and Tuesday. The conference was held in front of audiences estimated at around 1500 each day.

© 2006. ITP Online Ltd.

[Nbadan]

One has to wonder, who exactly approved this Dubai deal? So far everyone in the WH seems to be scurrying any real responsibility, even the President and Treasury Secretary John Snow have passed the responsibility buck to faceless Washington beauracrats.

What's funny is that Republicans play the patriotism and National Security card everytime the President's approval rating goes below 40%, they pull out a Osama tape they've had for months, or worth yet, give away valuable foreign intelligence and expose covert agents to justify their actions, but when the shoe is on the other foot, all of the sudden playing the NS card is a 'bad thing'. That's politics I suppose...


By PAMELA HESS
UPI Pentagon Correspondent


WASHINGTON, Feb. 24 (UPI) -- A United Arab Emirates government-owned company is poised to take over port terminal operations in 21 American ports, far more than the six widely reported.

The Bush administration has approved the takeover of British-owned Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation Co. to DP World, a deal set to go forward March 2 unless Congress intervenes.

P&O is the parent company of P&O Ports North America, which leases terminals for the import and export and loading and unloading and security of cargo in 21 ports, 11 on the East Coast, ranging from Portland, Maine to Miami, Florida, and 10 on the Gulf Coast, from Gulfport, Miss., to Corpus Christi, Texas, according to the company's Web site.

UPI (http://www.upi.com/SecurityTerrorism/view.php?StoryID=20060223-051657-4981r)

[gameFACE]

Well dummy, Nixon was the first to open up talks with the Chinese. Might
want to read some of his books. He was really very knowledgeable on
foreign affairs. He just got caught doing what all Pols did.
Well dufus, if you actually read some of the books you might be referring to you could call Tricky Dick's foreign policies by what they were - detente. ANd funny how he lost political support from fellow politicians and the American people because he was misrepresenting most of his actions. Sounds alot like Dubai Dubya. This port deal may just end up another example of the cronyism and secrecy of this current administration.

Way to avoid my question, BTW .......

[xrayzebra]

Well dufus, if you actually read some of the books you might be referring to you could call Tricky Dick's foreign policies by what they were - detente. ANd funny how he lost political support from fellow politicians and the American people because he was misrepresenting most of his actions. Sounds alot like Dubai Dubya. This port deal may just end up another example of the cronyism and secrecy of this current administration.

Way to avoid my question, BTW .......

I am not avoiding your question. But in one of Nixon's book he called
Russia what it was. Not a communist country, just one that has always
had worldwide expansion as it's goal. And cites all the facts to support it.
If I remember correctly, living through that era, Nixon had the support of
most of the people. He had some blunders on the domestic side, like
freezing wages and prices, dumb move. But on foreign policy he was
one of the best. And he was the one to make the move to open relations
with China. And by the way Putin is kinda proving the point. He is
imposing Russian's influence on the world, especially the Middle East.
Iran is a prime example. And this has nothing to do with the communist
movement.

[xrayzebra]

^^Yep, and visions of grandeur.

[Nbadan]

The individual named by the White House to run security for all major US ports under Maritime Administration, David Sanborn (pictured above), is the current number two man at Dubai Ports World and head of their European and Latin American operations.

Link (http://www.dpiterminals.com/fullnews.asp?NewsID=39)

So when Neo-Cons defend Bush by saying that UAE won't be running security at the ports involved in the deal, they are deliberately ignoring the fact that DP World's number two is already in charge of all major US ports by appointment of Bush.

The New York Daily News pointed out Snow's connection to the sweetheart deal in pointing out that Snow headed, "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."

The deal has already violated federal law in its failure to undergo a 45 day review procedure. That alone should bring criminal charges of espionage for those involved who profited from breaking federal law.

[Guru of Nothing]

Let's ALL flip-flop!!!

I smell a new Chubby Checker hit.

[Nbadan]

Speaking of flip-flops...

http://news.globalfreepress.com/gallery/albums/userpics/10110/gm060223.gif