POL - Our ports under UAE control?

[MrBigglesworth]

The President has decided that it is ok for a company controlled by the United Arab Emirates to have control of six major US ports. This seems to me to be a bad idea. I would object to any foreign company in charge of that, and especially one from the Middle East. And on the radio I heard that Sean Hannity and Jay Severin both agree with me, so it's obviously not just an anti-Bush view. Can someone explain to me why this is a good idea?

[Galaxy]

The President has decided that it is ok for a company controlled by the United Arab Emirates to have control of six major US ports. This seems to me to be a bad idea. I would object to any foreign company in charge of that, and especially one from the Middle East. And on the radio I heard that Sean Hannity and Jay Severin both agree with me, so it's obviously not just an anti-Bush view. Can someone explain to me why this is a good idea?


Many politicians and media journalists are wanting more information on the subject. Up until this, I never realize our ports were privately-controlled.

[st.cronin]

I wouldn't think it would be too hard to kick them out should the need arise. I do understand the concern, though.

[Flasch186]

no

[Dutch]

Here's an exchange at the DoD Press Briefing today.
http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2006/tr20060221-12543.html

Q Mr. Secretary, I'd like to ask you about government -- the U.S. government's decision to have a company from the UAE run six U.S. seaports. Is that a decision that the Defense Department weighed in on? And what, if any, national security issues do you think that raises?

SEC. RUMSFELD: First, let me say I'm not expert on this subject, and it -- my understanding that I've been told secondhand by others is the following: that there's a process that exists in the government; that six departments and agencies are involved, and five or six offices in the Executive Office of the President and the White House are involved; and there's a time limit of something like 30 days during which this process is to be executed; that the process worked; it was chaired by the Department of Treasury -- the deputy, Bob Kimmitt, is -- was the chairman -- and they -- in the normal order of things, what they do, as I understand it, is they select a lead agency or department based on the substance of it -- and in this case, it was Homeland Security, obviously, because the Coast Guard has the responsibility for the security of ports -- and that the process went forward; and in the course of it, the Department of Homeland Security and the interagency process negotiated a letter with the company that had purchased, I believe, a British company, setting forth exactly how security would be handled. I've not seen it, so I can't describe it, but that's my understanding.

And the -- I guess the only other thing I'd say is that we all deal with the UAE on a regular basis.

It's a country that's been involved in the global war on terror with us, it's a country that we have facilities that we use, and it's a country that was very responsive to assist in Katrina, one of the early countries that did that, and a country that we have very close military-to-military relations as well as political and economic relations.

Do you want to comment?

GEN. PACE: Sir, the military-to-military relationship with the United Arab Emirates is superb. They've got great seaports that are capable of handling, and do, our aircraft carriers. They've got airfields that they allow us to use, and their airspace, their logistics support. They've got a world-class air-to-air training facility that they let us use and cooperate with them in the training of our pilots. In everything that we have asked and work with them on, they have proven to be very, very solid partners. And as the Secretary said, they were the very first country -- a hundred million dollars is what they offered to Katrina victims.

SEC. RUMSFELD: I should add that I wasn't aware of this until this weekend, as I think is the case with Pete.

GEN. PACE: That's correct, sir, on the port --

SEC. RUMSFELD: Yeah. And I'm told that Deputy Secretary of Treasury Kimmitt and others will be briefing on this, who do have the background of the discussions and the information on it.

Q There was a Defense Department representative in the decision-making process? Is that what you're --

SEC. RUMSFELD: There were Defense Department and -- I think as I said, there were six departments that were involved in the process in one way or another, and the Defense Department was one of them. The lead was the Department of Homeland Security.

Q Are you confident that any problems with security -- from what you know, are you confident that any problems with security would not be greater with a UAE company running this than an American company?

SEC. RUMSFELD: I am reluctant to make judgments based on the minimal amount of information I have, because I just heard about this over the weekend. I'm told that nothing changes with respect to security under the contract, that the Coast Guard is in charge of security, not the corporation.

And the corporation -- is this correct?

GEN. PACE: Sir, that's true. And there are many companies in various ports around the United States that are not U.S.-owned that help do this kind of cargo handling. And of course, our Coast Guard are the ones who make the judgments about the security of the ports and how that all interfaces. And that was part of the dialogue, as I understand it, that took place amongst the various departments.

SEC. RUMSFELD: And the Coast Guard, of course, has the responsibility for the ports, and they should be the ones who would describe how it would be handled and why it is acceptable, because they signed off on it.

and later...

Q Mr. Secretary, I want to go back to the UAE port security issue. There's an undercurrent in all the stories in a lot of the political pronouncements that we can't trust an Arab country, especially one that had harbored --

SEC. RUMSFELD: Oh, I think that would be an unfortunate implication.

Q Two of the 9/11 hijackers were from the United Arab Emirates, and it's an undercurrent.

Can you address --

SEC. RUMSFELD: We've held people from the United States we've picked up in Afghanistan.

Q Oh, okay.

SEC. RUMSFELD: So I think it -- one ought not, in my view, to hold a country of origin responsible for every citizen they may have at any given time, particularly when people have multiple passports.

GEN. PACE: I understand that today there's like -- something like three U.S. citizens who today are going to be charged with being willing to try to kill U.S. citizens. So as I stated up front, the United Arab Emirates has been a very, very solid partner in our workings in the Gulf.

Q Do either of you have concerns that this debate may weaken our alliance, our relationship with the UAE if it turns out that, you know, they get pounded over this subject?

SEC. RUMSFELD: Most countries after a while understand the advantages and disadvantages of dealing with the United States. We have debates all the time, and we have public discussions and things are said and charges are hurled and allegations are made. And when the dust all settles, generally the truth comes out, and I would certainly think not, but -- and hope not -- but time will tell.

[Flasch186]

the companies that are owned by foreign entities are NOT companies that are owned by foreign governements especially those who recognized the Taliban as the rightful government of Afghanistan or refuses to recognize Israel as a sovereign nation. This is going to be bad for Bush all around, and if it comes to fruition it WILL weaken our security of our ports, which is abysmal already. Even if its .00000001% weaker, it is a possibility because it has become quite evident, no matter who doesnt want to admit it, but the muslim nations are the hotbed of anger against the West....so knowing that, the odds are higher that a closet terrorist could be hired by them, as with any outside management company, but somewhat heightened.

[cartman]

Surprise! It turns out that there are some pretty close WH ties to the port company.

hxxp://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/393375p-333478c.html

W aides' biz ties to Arab firm

BY MICHAEL McAULIFF
DAILY NEWS WASHINGTON BUREAU

Breaking news update: Bush shrugs off objections to port deal

WASHINGTON - The Dubai firm that won Bush administration backing to run six U.S. ports has at least two ties to the White House.

One is Treasury Secretary John Snow, whose agency heads the federal panel that signed off on the $6.8 billion sale of an English company to government-owned Dubai Ports World - giving it control of Manhattan's cruise ship terminal and Newark's container port.

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 other connection is David Sanborn, who runs DP World's European and Latin American operations and was tapped by Bush last month to head the U.S. Maritime Administration.

The ties raised more concerns about the decision to give port control to a company owned by a nation linked to the 9/11 hijackers.

"The more you look at this deal, the more the deal is called into question," said Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), who said the deal was rubber-stamped in advance - even before DP World formally agreed to buy London's P&O port company.

Besides operations in New York and Jersey, Dubai would also run port facilities in Philadelphia, New Orleans, Baltimore and Miami.

The political fallout over the deal only grows.

"It's particularly troubling that the United States would turn over its port security not only to a foreign company, but a state-owned one," said western New York's Rep. Tom Reynolds, chairman of the National Republican Campaign Committee. Reynolds is responsible for helping Republicans keep their majority in the House.

Snow's Treasury Department runs the Committee on Foreign Investment in the U.S., which includes 11 other agencies.

"It always raises flags" when administration officials have ties to a firm, Rep. Vito Fossella (R-S.I.) said, but insisted that stopping the deal was more important.

The Daily News has learned that lawmakers also want to know if a detailed 45-day probe should have been conducted instead of one that lasted no more than 25 days.

According to a 1993 congressional measure, the longer review is mandated when the company is owned by a foreign government and the purchase "could result in control of a person engaged in interstate commerce in the U.S. that could affect the national security of the U.S."

Congressional sources said the President has until March 2 to trigger that harder look.

"The most important thing is for someone to explain how this is consistent with our national security," Fossella said.

[Dutch]

the companies that are owned by foreign entities are NOT companies that are owned by foreign governements especially those who recognized the Taliban as the rightful government of Afghanistan or refuses to recognize Israel as a sovereign nation. This is going to be bad for Bush all around, and if it comes to fruition it WILL weaken our security of our ports, which is abysmal already. Even if its .00000001% weaker, it is a possibility because it has become quite evident, no matter who doesnt want to admit it, but the muslim nations are the hotbed of anger against the West....so knowing that, the odds are higher that a closet terrorist could be hired by them, as with any outside management company, but somewhat heightened.
I'll let Mr Rumsfeld field this one. :)


SEC. RUMSFELD: I am reluctant to make judgments based on the minimal amount of information I have, because I just heard about this over the weekend. I'm told that nothing changes with respect to security under the contract, that the Coast Guard is in charge of security, not the corporation.

And the corporation -- is this correct?

GEN. PACE: Sir, that's true. And there are many companies in various ports around the United States that are not U.S.-owned that help do this kind of cargo handling. And of course, our Coast Guard are the ones who make the judgments about the security of the ports and how that all interfaces. And that was part of the dialogue, as I understand it, that took place amongst the various departments.

SEC. RUMSFELD: And the Coast Guard, of course, has the responsibility for the ports, and they should be the ones who would describe how it would be handled and why it is acceptable, because they signed off on it.

[Flasch186]

it doesnt make any sense, it HAS to get weaker simply by having someone else do hiring on the port that has links, IM SORRY, is owned by THE FOREIGN GOVERNMENT, NOT the foreign corp. The corp. is owned by the country. It is intuitive that it would weaken the already crappy security at our ports by having it be run by another governemtn linked to all of the Facts I posted above.

[SFL Cat]

Well, if nothing else, it is a political fumble for Bush. I'm sure don't like the idea of the UAE running our ports.

[Poli]

One letter off from the ports being under MY control!

[KWhit]

Well, if nothing else, it is a political fumble for Bush. I'm sure don't like the idea of the UAE running our ports.
Yeah, this makes absolutely no sense for an administration that has been pushing the limits of our civil liberties and has started two wars all in the name of security.

[st.cronin]

One letter off from the ports being under MY control!

I'm all for it.

[flere-imsaho]

I'll let Mr Rumsfeld field this one. :)

Why, exactly? Don't you find it a little odd that by his own admission, the Secretary of Defense was not consulted at all on this pending transaction? Presumably the Department of Defense would be in some sort of position to comment on any potential security issues this would raise, right?

So what is it? Is Rumsfeld relevant, or is he not?

[MrBigglesworth]

I'll let Mr Rumsfeld field this one. :)
SEC. RUMSFELD: I am reluctant to make judgments based on the minimal amount of information I have, because I just heard about this over the weekend.
Donald Rumsfeld, as Secretary of Defense, is a member of Committee on Foreign Investments in the United States. As such, he was one of the people who, according to the Treasury Department, unanimously approved the sale on February 13. How could do that when he didn’t even find out about the sale until last weekend?
So either Rummy, as the SecDef, is completely out of the loop on national defense issues, or lying. Either does not bode well for our national defense.

[NoMyths]

Why, exactly? Don't you find it a little odd that by his own admission, the Secretary of Defense was not consulted at all on this pending transaction? Presumably the Department of Defense would be in some sort of position to comment on any potential security issues this would raise, right?

So what is it? Is Rumsfeld relevant, or is he not?
You certainly would think so...especially considering that he's on the Committee on Foreign Investments in the United States, (http://thinkprogress.org/2006/02/21/rumsfeld-not-consulted/) and thus one of the people who approved the sale. On February 13. A week before he claims to have known anything about the matter.

[MrBigglesworth]

Here's an exchange at the DoD Press Briefing today.
http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2006/tr20060221-12543.html

and later...
Dutch, could you explain for me, in your own words, why this is a good thing for America? Does is cost less to have Dubai run our national security? Is that savings enough to offset the potential harm of having another state handle matters of national security? I don't see the benefit here.

[flere-imsaho]

I wouldn't think it would be too hard to kick them out should the need arise. I do understand the concern, though.

I don't think it's "kicking them out" which is the concern. I think the concern is that U.A.E. has many black marks against it, most of which are very relevant to port security.

For instance, the investigation into A.Q. Kahn, the Pakistani scientist who sold nuclear secrets, has unearthed evidence that nuclear components were shipped to North Korea, Libya and Iran through Dubai.

Secondly, the FBI believes that a good amount of the money used to finance 9/11 went through U.A.E.'s banking system.

Lastly, Treasury and other departments have complained about some of UAE's lack of cooperation in helping with terrorism-related investigations after 9/11.

[st.cronin]

Does is cost less to have Dubai run our national security?


I'm on your side on this one, but that is an outrageous, preposterous piece of typing.

[Dutch]

Why, exactly? Don't you find it a little odd that by his own admission, the Secretary of Defense was not consulted at all on this pending transaction? Presumably the Department of Defense would be in some sort of position to comment on any potential security issues this would raise, right?

So what is it? Is Rumsfeld relevant, or is he not?
The dude is in charge of the biggest beuracracy in this country. Perhaps the situation was being dealt with by these 5 or 6 different agencies and the question of security came up and one of the different agencies told him, "It stays the same, the Coast Guard is responsible."

At that level, you have to have some sort of trust in your people. Rumsfeld is the head of the Defense Department, not the expert port authority! He gets his info from those experts and division heads. I can guarantee you that if you trust the people you work with, and they are the subject-matter experts and they say, "Honestly, not politically speaking, this is the right thing to do (i.e. let this transaction take place) and security remains the same", you have to trust your people in that situation. You heed their advice and you make a decision based on that advice.

Should Rumsfeld be in on every single last meeting and decision that takes place in the Department of Defense? It would be a nice luxury. Is that remotely possible? Of course not. That's what delegation is about. The Department of Defense could never be run successfully without trusting the trained leaders up and down the chain. From an NCO on the battlefield in Iraq to the head of homeland security. You have to trust these guys and have to trust they have been trained to do their jobs and provide the proper information to their leadership.

[Crapshoot]

Dear god, this is remarkably stupid - American companies own foreign companies- why not vice-versa ? Bush is dead on accurate about this - the people criticizing him from the left and the right are pandering to the Anti-Arab and the protectionists, two groups that are generally pretty useless.

[NoMyths]

The dude is in charge of the biggest beuracracy in this country. Perhaps the situation was being dealt with by these 5 or 6 different agencies and the question of security came up and one of the different agencies told him, "It stays the same, the Coast Guard is responsible."

At that level, you have to have some sort of trust in your people. Rumsfeld is the head of the Defense Department, not the expert port authority! He gets his info from those experts and division heads. I can guarantee you that if you trust the people you work with, and they are the subject-matter experts and they say, "Honestly, not politically speaking, this is the right thing to do (i.e. let this transaction take place) and security remains the same", you have to trust your people in that situation. You heed their advice and you make a decision based on that advice.

Should Rumsfeld be in on every single last meeting and decision that takes place in the Department of Defense? It would be a nice luxury. Is that remotely possible? Of course not. That's what delegation is about. The Department of Defense could never be run successfully without trusting the trained leaders up and down the chain. From an NCO on the battlefield in Iraq to the head of homeland security. You have to trust these guys and have to trust they have been trained to do their jobs and provide the proper information to their leadership.Dutch, read my post. It's not that he's in charge of Defense, it's that he's on the committee specifically designed to deal with issues like this, and yet claims not to know about it. We're not talking about 5 or 6 different agencies. We're talking about one committee.

[cartman]

The dude is in charge of the biggest beuracracy in this country. Perhaps the situation was being dealt with by these 5 or 6 different agencies and the question of security came up and one of the different agencies told him, "It stays the same, the Coast Guard is responsible."

At that level, you have to have some sort of trust in your people. Rumsfeld is the head of the Defense Department, not the expert port authority! He gets his info from those experts and division heads. I can guarantee you that if you trust the people you work with, and they are the subject-matter experts and they say, "Honestly, not politically speaking, this is the right thing to do (i.e. let this transaction take place) and security remains the same", you have to trust your people in that situation. You heed their advice and you make a decision based on that advice.

Should Rumsfeld be in on every single last meeting and decision that takes place in the Department of Defense? It would be a nice luxury. Is that remotely possible? Of course not. That's what delegation is about. The Department of Defense could never be run successfully without trusting the trained leaders up and down the chain. From an NCO on the battlefield in Iraq to the head of homeland security. You have to trust these guys and have to trust they have been trained to do their jobs and provide the proper information to their leadership.

Sorry Dutch, that is a pretty weak arguement. When he is a direct member of the committee that makes the decision on this, that is an entirely different meeting than the one to decide how much to pay for toilet seats on a C-130.

[Dutch]

Some of ya'll act like your on the foreign investments committee. Why didn't you bring this up sooner? :)

[duckman]

Dear god, this is remarkably stupid.....
That about sums it up for me.

[NoMyths]

Some of ya'll act like your on the foreign investments committee. Why didn't you bring this up sooner? :)That's your response?

Hell, we evidently knew as much about it as the guy who approved the sale.

[st.cronin]

Dear god, this is remarkably stupid - American companies own foreign companies- why not vice-versa ? Bush is dead on accurate about this - the people criticizing him from the left and the right are pandering to the Anti-Arab and the protectionists, two groups that are generally pretty useless.

I can see that pov. It does seem like ado about nothing. I certainly wouldn't dismiss the concerns out of hand, though, given the emphasis on security we have these days.

[Dutch]

That's your response?

Hell, we evidently knew as much about it as the guy who approved the sale.
I suspect you've heard everything you wanted to hear.

[cartman]

I suspect you've heard everything you wanted to hear.

As have you.

[Flasch186]

Dear god, this is remarkably stupid - American companies own foreign companies- why not vice-versa ? Bush is dead on accurate about this - the people criticizing him from the left and the right are pandering to the Anti-Arab and the protectionists, two groups that are generally pretty useless.

but does the american govt own foreign countries? some might even answer yes to that but that is the MSOT accurate analogy...it is NOT simply a foreign company, THAT company is run and owned by the Foreign governemtn itself.

[NoMyths]

I suspect you've heard everything you wanted to hear.The fact that you refuse to acknowledge something so blatant isn't surprising. I'd say it's disappointing, but you've done it so many times in the past.

Pathetic.

[Flasch186]

I suspect you've heard everything you wanted to hear.

I knew your stance before this thread was even put on here so thats moot. Bu some on here are not comparing the apples to the apples. The UAE has done everything I listed and some more Like AQ khan, and it is THAT COUNTRY that would be running our ports via their company. Its not simply a foreign company buying it, it IS a foreign country buying it.

[MrBigglesworth]

I'm on your side on this one, but that is an outrageous, preposterous piece of typing.
I think ports are a big part of our national security. In fact, I think that is why people are upset. And we are paying the UAE to take it over.

[Dutch]

I knew your stance before this thread was even put on here so thats moot. Bu some on here are not comparing the apples to the apples. The UAE has done everything I listed and some more Like AQ khan, and it is THAT COUNTRY that would be running our ports via their company. Its not simply a foreign company buying it, it IS a foreign country buying it.
At least I don't pretend to be unpredictable.

[MrBigglesworth]

Dear god, this is remarkably stupid - American companies own foreign companies- why not vice-versa ? Bush is dead on accurate about this - the people criticizing him from the left and the right are pandering to the Anti-Arab and the protectionists, two groups that are generally pretty useless.
Ok, but why is it good to have any foreign state in control of our ports?

[Dutch]

I think ports are a big part of our national security. In fact, I think that is why people are upset. And we are paying the UAE to take it over.
If security falls under the control of the Coast Guard, as it does now apparently, then what's the problem? Do brown people scare you?

[NoMyths]

Ok, here's a separate issue: why would President Bush promise to veto any bill Congress would approve to block the agreement? (http://apnews.myway.com/article/20060222/D8FTSJ587.html)

[ISiddiqui]

Dear god, this is remarkably stupid - American companies own foreign companies- why not vice-versa ? Bush is dead on accurate about this - the people criticizing him from the left and the right are pandering to the Anti-Arab and the protectionists, two groups that are generally pretty useless.I agree with this. Much ado about nothing. Kind of like people who freak out that Citgo is owned by Chavez's Venezuela.

[Dutch]

Ok, here's a separate issue: why would President Bush promise to veto any bill Congress would approve to block the agreement? (http://apnews.myway.com/article/20060222/D8FTSJ587.html)
"It sends a terrible signal to friends around the world that it's OK for a company from one country to manage the port, but not a country that plays by the rules and has got a good track record from another part of the world," Bush said.

[Flasch186]

At least I don't pretend to be unpredictable.

you just dont know me well...I NEVER pretend anything except when Im getting paid to do so (Id throw a sarcatic BEEEYOTCH!! at the end of that but Im afraid youll take it seriously and get all mad so only apply it if you can take it as a joke)

[MrBigglesworth]

If security falls under the control of the Coast Guard, as it does now apparently, then what's the problem? Do brown people scare you?
Spare me Dutch, it doesn't mean anything to me to have you, who for the past year has been telling me we have to invade all brown people countries to have peace, ask me if brown people scare me.

What exactly is Dubai doing in the ports? How does their presence have no effect on the security there? Why should any foreign state be in control of our ports??

[Flasch186]

"It sends a terrible signal to friends around the world that it's OK for a company from one country to manage the port, but not a country that plays by the rules and has got a good track record from another part of the world," Bush said.

even thats messed up, he's comparing a foreign company to a foreign country, they are NOT the same thing.

[Daimyo]

Dear god, this is remarkably stupid - American companies own foreign companies- why not vice-versa ? Bush is dead on accurate about this - the people criticizing him from the left and the right are pandering to the Anti-Arab and the protectionists, two groups that are generally pretty useless.
It would be fine if it were just a foreign company (it was previously a British company), but is it so clear cut when the foreign company in question is owned by a foreign government?

[NoMyths]

"It sends a terrible signal to friends around the world that it's OK for a company from one country to manage the port, but not a country that plays by the rules and has got a good track record from another part of the world," Bush said.So he believes a Republican controlled Congress is willing to send such a signal? And the will of the American people supercedes their representatives to such a degree on this issue that he needs to take it into his own hands to correct the wrong?

[Flasch186]

If security falls under the control of the Coast Guard, as it does now apparently, then what's the problem? Do brown people scare you?

Radical Muslims do me.

[MrBigglesworth]

So he believes a Republican controlled Congress is willing to send such a signal? And the will of the American people supercedes their representatives to such a degree on this issue that he needs to take it into his own hands to correct the wrong?
Well c'mon, you know how much Bush cares about our reputation in the world.

[Dutch]

Radical Muslims do me.
Now, where were you to back me up when Mr Bigglesworth's runs amok with the brown people talk? I feel so let down.

[Flasch186]

Brown People does not equal Radical Muslims. I know many a brown person who is muslim and not radical or not muslim at all.

[st.cronin]

I think ports are a big part of our national security. In fact, I think that is why people are upset. And we are paying the UAE to take it over.

You're not ever going to get me to take you seriously as long as you express yourself like that.

[Dutch]

Brown People does not equal Radical Muslims. I know many a brown person who is muslim and not radical or not muslim at all.But not people from Dubai, right? They are all a bunch of brown terrorists?

Do I have this line of questioning in Mr Biggleworth fashion down well enough?

[SFL Cat]

Ok, but why is it good to have any foreign state in control of our ports?

Well, if you want to get technical, British companies are in control of the ports in question now. They are the ones wanting to sell to the UAE.

[NoMyths]

I'm still waiting for a serious response to my earlier question: why is Bush promising to veto any move by Congress to block the agreement?
"It sends a terrible signal to friends around the world that it's OK for a company from one country to manage the port, but not a country that plays by the rules and has got a good track record from another part of the world," Bush said.
Does he believe a Republican controlled Congress is willing to send such a signal? And the will of the American people supercedes their representatives to such a degree on this issue that he needs to take it into his own hands to correct the wrong?

I should have taken the hint from the refusal to address the Rumsfeld issue, but I figured a second chance was worth a shot.

[Flasch186]

But not people from Dubai, right? They are all a bunch of brown terrorists?

Do I have this line of questioning in Mr Biggleworth fashion down well enough?

I'd be willing to bet that in Dubai the numbers of Muslims in the population are higher than here or GB for that matter. If you take a % of a sample and grow the sample, that same % is going to yield more radicals. If those radicals can use some of the loopholes exploited in Dubai's monitoring in the past to then use them on our porous ports....I'd say that that grows our vulnerability. It truly is intuitive....even if you take partisanship out, its simple mathematics. Now you understand my stance, it is a bad idea to hand it over to any foreign governement, especially one in the M.E. considering we have this little war on terror that seems to revolve around the M.E., even though no one wants to admit it. Shoot, having it handled by a foreign company is bad in its own rigth when only 4% of containers are being checked, but this is something expoenetially worse.

[JPhillips]

My understanding is that the controlling company actually prepares the security plan. That plan has to be approved by the Coast Guard, but it is initiated by the controlling company.

[Dutch]

I'm still waiting for a serious response to my earlier question: why is Bush promising to veto any move by Congress to block the agreement?

Does he believe a Republican controlled Congress is willing to send such a signal? And the will of the American people supercedes their representatives to such a degree on this issue that he needs to take it into his own hands to correct the wrong?

I should have taken the hint from the refusal to address the Rumsfeld issue, but I figured a second chance was worth a shot.
The President is not Congress.

[MrBigglesworth]

But not people from Dubai, right? They are all a bunch of brown terrorists?

Do I have this line of questioning in Mr Biggleworth fashion down well enough?
You're becoming unhinged. You aren't even putting forth arguments anymore, just quoting McClellan press conferences and accusing people of racism.

[NoMyths]

The President is not Congress.Clearly. He, a single individual, has the power to overrule the work that hundreds of his fellow politicians--most of which are members of his own political party--would have agreed was best for the nation. Why would he do that? And why would he announce his intentions to do that?

[MrBigglesworth]

Well, if you want to get technical, British companies are in control of the ports in question now. They are the ones wanting to sell to the UAE.
Yes, and personally I don't think British companies should be in charge either.

EDIT: Or American companies for that matter. I think the ports should be administered by the government.

[Dutch]

I'd be willing to bet that in Dubai the numbers of Muslims in the population are higher than here or GB for that matter. If you take a % of a sample and grow the sample, that same % is going to yield more radicals. If those radicals can use some of the loopholes exploited in Dubai's monitoring in the past to then use them on our porous ports....I'd say that that grows our vulnerability. It truly is intuitive....even if you take partisanship out, its simple mathematics. Now you understand my stance, it is a bad idea to hand it over to any foreign governement, especially one in the M.E. considering we have this little war on terror that seems to revolve around the M.E., even though no one wants to admit it. Shoot, having it handled by a foreign company is bad in its own rigth when only 4% of containers are being checked, but this is something expoenetially worse.
Who owns the company doesn't solve anything. I seriously doubt that the ports in question have a bunch of British workers walking around right now, and I don't expect a bunch of Dubaian workers to be around after the sale goes through. These are state-side ports with state-side workers.

The Coast Guard has authority over security, if they aren't doing their job properly, that's another issue entirely, but something that I would surely support investigating.

[Dutch]

Yes, and personally I don't think British companies should be in charge either.

EDIT: Or American companies for that matter. I think the ports should be administered by the government.
We'll just send the guy who's in charge of social security right over there.

"Somebody clean him up and for christ's sake, give him a shower!"

[MrBigglesworth]

We'll just send the guy who's in charge of social security right over there.

"Somebody clean him up and for christ's sake, give him a shower!"
Unhinged.

[Dutch]

You're becoming unhinged. You aren't even putting forth arguments anymore, just quoting McClellan press conferences and accusing people of racism.
Dude, I haven't even reached a tenth of your unhinginess.

[Flasch186]

Who owns the company doesn't solve anything. I seriously doubt that the ports in question have a bunch of British workers walking around right now, and I don't expect a bunch of Dubaian workers to be around after the sale goes through. These are state-side ports with state-side workers.

The Coast Guard has authority over security, if they aren't doing their job properly, that's another issue entirely, but something that I would surely support investigating.

Who own's the company may not solve anything but, IMO, it is the problem. Dubai has a piss poor history on the hidden things that dont get press in the war on terror, like the fact that they still havn't recognized israel, they Did however recognize the Taliban, they couldnt stop Khan (onlyy kirk could), and now were going to let them run our show. That, is a blatantly bad idea....oh and the Coast Gaurd does NOT run the day to day ops, so yes, the Dubai govt will have the say of who works where, until that is we have a disaster or someone bad gets caught on their payrolls. Not a risk I thought this, protector Bush, would be willing to take, or at least voice....then again he hasnt done crap about our borders in general so Im not sure why anyone should be surprised at this move from negligence by ignorance to negligence by actions.

[MrBigglesworth]

Can someone explain to me why this is a good idea?
Nobody has even attempted to explain. I guess there isn't one.

[Dutch]

Who own's the company may not solve anything but, IMO, it is the problem. Dubai has a piss poor history on the hidden things that dont get press in the war on terror, like the fact that they still havn't recognized israel, they Did however recognize the Taliban, they couldnt stop Khan (onlyy kirk could), and now were going to let them run our show. That, is a blatantly bad idea....oh and the Coast Gaurd does NOT run the day to day ops, so yes, the Dubai govt will have the say of who works where, until that is we have a disaster or someone bad gets caught on their payrolls. Not a risk I thought this, protector Bush, would be willing to take, or at least voice....then again he hasnt done crap about our borders in general so Im not sure why anyone should be surprised at this move from negligence by ignorance to negligence by actions.
The Department of Homeland Security and Department of the Treasury were the lead agencies on this issue. And according to Rumsfeld, the chairman, Bob Kimmitt (deputy of the Treasury) is supposed to explain in greater detail this entire procedure. Hopefully he answers all of our questions to a satisfactory degree.

And no, Mr Biggleworth, I am not Bob Kimmitt.

[EagleFan]

Radical Muslims do me.

That sounds a little more personal that we were looking for....

[EagleFan]

Dola:

I am against this with every thread of my being. I can't believe that I am agreeing with some of my normal political polar opposites on thie sone (I feel so dirty).

I will also go this far. If one damn incident occurs because of this, I will be the first one callng for Bush's ass to be impeached.

[sterlingice]

Ok, here's a separate issue: why would President Bush promise to veto any bill Congress would approve to block the agreement? (http://apnews.myway.com/article/20060222/D8FTSJ587.html)My wife said that she just pictured Hillary and First simultaneously saying "bad idea" and then looking at each other, thinking to themselves "my, that was uncomfortable". That's gotta say something about this situation.

I was all ready to conedmn the racist attitude over this thing as it's unfair to not let a company do this because they're "another one of them ay-rab counties". But it looks best to just ride that tide of stupidity to get rid of what now looks like it's just another crony deal for Bush. Is there anyone he won't blatantly do a favor for?

SI

[ISiddiqui]

I just heard something interesting. Apparently a PRC company runs some ports in the US already. Well isn't that interesting ;).

Apparently the Dubai company does run a lot ports worldwide and is independantly run, but funded by the UAE.

[Glengoyne]

My wife said that she just pictured Hillary and First simultaneously saying "bad idea" and then looking at each other, thinking to themselves "my, that was uncomfortable". That's gotta say something about this situation.

I was all ready to conedmn the racist attitude over this thing as it's unfair to not let a company do this because they're "another one of them ay-rab counties". But it looks best to just ride that tide of stupidity to get rid of what now looks like it's just another crony deal for Bush. Is there anyone he won't blatantly do a favor for?

SIHe He We agree AGAIN!!!!
:cue maniacal laugh

Don't worry...we don't completely agree. I honestly don't have a problem about this. It sounds so bad on its face, that I've got to think that Security will be ever scrutinized under this proposal. I might have a bit of a problem if the cronyism factor gains some traction.

For those adamantly against this...Do I sense that you'd be ready to get behind racial profiling of say airline passengers? 'Cause that type of profiling makes a hell of a lot more sense than what appears to be being applied here.

[MrBigglesworth]

For those adamantly against this...Do I sense that you'd be ready to get behind racial profiling of say airline passengers? 'Cause that type of profiling makes a hell of a lot more sense than what appears to be being applied here.
I'm against it until someone can tell me a good reason why it should be the case, and the only reason I have so far is "trust Bush" and that's a little flimsy. But a majority of the people opposed to this that I have seen are against ANY state run company controlling our ports, and a sizable percentage of that say that it shouldn't be done by any private companies at all (where I agree). So I don't think that the 'racial profiling' accusation has a leg to stand on, except for some of the usual suspects out there in the political world. If you ask, 'Well, why are you saying something now?' it's because this is the first that I have learned of it.

[SackAttack]

I haven't read this thread, but I saw something earlier on a news site that has me curious:

apparently, the same company running the show now still will be, 'cept it got bought by the UAE company. True? False?

[Klinglerware]

Who owns the company doesn't solve anything. I seriously doubt that the ports in question have a bunch of British workers walking around right now, and I don't expect a bunch of Dubaian workers to be around after the sale goes through. These are state-side ports with state-side workers.

The Coast Guard has authority over security, if they aren't doing their job properly, that's another issue entirely, but something that I would surely support investigating.

I'll have to agree with Dutch here. You can criticize it for being a crony deal, but from a security standpoint, this is much ado about nothing. Security is the Coast Guard's responsibility, and as with other multinationals the day to day operations will be handled by the locals.

[Flasch186]

It must be kept in perspective in that it is not a foreign company but a label placed on another country running the day to day activities including security of our ports. Also that this is a country whose own ports, in their homeland, have spotty history of security . If this is the benchmark that they will execute here as opposed to the presentation they gave the review committee and subsequently the Coast Guard....We are just supposed to "trust" them? I think that when the administration is touting our security, raising our alert level numerous times, stamping out plots regularly, etc. It is counter-intuitive to out-source our ports management, including loading, offloading, inspecting, hiring, firing, et al. to a foreign government, ANY foreign government and it is also a bad idea to have it controlled by a foreign company (including the one that has been doing the job...Im sure we all would have been up in arms if that received press on its own). It is exponenetially worse that it is a country in the heart of darkness where the firey rhetoric of the jihad recruits, plans, and executes its side to their war on terror against us. Man that was good...I mustve drank or ate something good today cuz that was tehroxorz.

[Chubby]

The Department of Homeland Security and Department of the Treasury were the lead agencies on this issue. And according to Rumsfeld, the chairman, Bob Kimmitt (deputy of the Treasury) is supposed to explain in greater detail this entire procedure. Hopefully he answers all of our questions to a satisfactory degree.

And no, Mr Biggleworth, I am not Bob Kimmitt.
Oh Rummy said that? Well, shit, how can anyone have a problem now???

[Glengoyne]

I dunno. I don't think I've seen anyone say Trust Bush on this particular issue, nor have I seen the slightest indication that anyone has declared that we will simply trust this company to handle security on its own. I just don't believe that will happen. The FBI/CIA will be all over this company both here and internationally. Not to mention the Coast Guard with regard to port security.

I don't see any problem with private enterprise managing our ports. They are good at it, invest at the proper levels, and make a profit all along. That is a pretty good deal. No reason to nationalize this as some of you have proposed. It would just be a huge waste of resources, and probably slow our economy by imposing a limiting bureaucracy on our imports.

As for a foreign government owning this company. I really think that the stink being raised about this is strictly about which foreign company we're talking about. I also think there is a camp of people who also fall into the camp of "If Bush if for it, I'm again' it". I don't think there would be anywhere near the uproar if this was a Western European country we're talking about. But since it is a Middle Eastern country, I really think that critics of the administration are running with it because they know they'll get extra traction due to our relationship with that region of the world.

[Klinglerware]

I dunno. I don't think I've seen anyone say Trust Bush on this particular issue, nor have I seen the slightest indication that anyone has declared that we will simply trust this company to handle security on its own. I just don't believe that will happen. The FBI/CIA will be all over this company both here and internationally. Not to mention the Coast Guard with regard to port security.

I don't see any problem with private enterprise managing our ports. They are good at it, invest at the proper levels, and make a profit all along. That is a pretty good deal. No reason to nationalize this as some of you have proposed. It would just be a huge waste of resources, and probably slow our economy by imposing a limiting bureaucracy on our imports.

As for a foreign government owning this company. I really think that the stink being raised about this is strictly about which foreign company we're talking about. I also think there is a camp of people who also fall into the camp of "If Bush if for it, I'm again' it". I don't think there would be anywhere near the uproar if this was a Western European country we're talking about. But since it is a Middle Eastern country, I really think that critics of the administration are running with it because they know they'll get extra traction due to our relationship with that region of the world.


Very well said.

[Flasch186]

I don't see any problem with private enterprise managing our ports. They are good at it, invest at the proper levels, and make a profit all along.

This goes against the idea of capitalism however. In capitalism it is "cut costs as much as possible, to do a satisfactory job which is measured by not getting fired by the buyer, and then make your profit." In this case there would be no investment in R&D as it isnt a evolving process.

In the past this company has NOT done a good job and their track record should not garner us as buyers. That is leaving out all of the other undercurrents you mentioned.

I have a problem with ANY other company, and ESPECIALLY country running our ports, or airports, or borders, et al.

[cartman]

Ok, something doesn't jive here. Rummy said he didn't know anything about the purchase until after it had been approved. Now Bush is saying THE SAME THING, but says it is ok because he talked to all of the cabinet level people who had to approve it, and they were all ok with it. But if Rummy was one of the cabinet level people that had to approve it, but didn't know about it until after it was approved...

This is really starting to stink. There's a strong hint of something going on behind the scenes, and it appears this decision is trying to be rammed through without much scrutiny or oversight. Why else would a veto be threatened, other than to try and squelch any discussion on the matter? If he's never used a veto before, why now, and why for this?

hxxp://www.thedenverchannel.com/nationalnews/7323258/detail.html

Bush Was Unaware Of Port Deal Before It Was Approved
Deal To Stand Despite Security Complaints, President Vows

POSTED: 5:50 am MST February 22, 2006
UPDATED: 8:54 am MST February 22, 2006

WASHINGTON -- 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.

Defending the deal anew, the administration also said that it should have briefed Congress sooner about the transaction, which has triggered a major political backlash among both Republicans and Democrats.

Bush on Tuesday brushed aside objections by leaders in the Senate and House that the $6.8 billion sale could raise risks of terrorism at American ports. In a forceful defense of his administration's earlier approval of the deal, he pledged to veto any bill Congress might approve to block the agreement involving the sale of a British company to the Arab firm.

Bush faces a rebellion from leaders of his own party, as well as from Democrats, about the deal that would put Dubai Ports in charge of major shipping operations in New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia.


While Bush has adamantly defended the deal, the White House acknowledged that he did not know about it until recently.

"He became aware of it over the last several days," McClellan said. Asked if Bush did not know about it until it was a done deal, McClellan said, "That's correct."

"The president made sure to check with all the Cabinet secretaries that are part of this process, or whose agencies or departments are part of this process," the spokesman said. "He made sure to check with them -- even after this got more attention in the press, to make sure that they were comfortable with the decision that was made."

"And every one of the Cabinet secretaries expressed that they were comfortable with this transaction being approved," he said.

The sale's harshest critics were not appeased.

"I will fight harder than ever for this legislation, and if it is vetoed I will fight as hard as I can to override it," said Rep. Pete King, R-N.Y., chairman of the Homeland Security Committee. King and Democratic Sen. Charles Schumer of New York said they will introduce emergency legislation to suspend the ports deal.

Another Democrat, Sen. Bob Menendez of New Jersey, urged his colleagues to force Bush to wield his veto, which Bush -- in his sixth year in office -- has never done. "We should really test the resolve of the president on this one because what we're really doing is securing the safety of our people."

McClellan dismissed any connection between the deal and David Sanborn of Virginia, a former senior DP World executive whom the White House appointed last month to be the new administrator of the Maritime Administration of the Transportation Department. Sanborn worked as DP World's director of operations for Europe and Latin America.

"My understanding is that he has assured us that he was not involved in the negotiations to purchase this British company," McClellan added.

"In terms of David Sanborn, he was nominated to run the Maritime Administration because of his experience and expertise," the spokesman said. Sanborn is a graduate of the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy. He is an operations professional.

[Galaxy]

This goes against the idea of capitalism however. In capitalism it is "cut costs as much as possible, to do a satisfactory job which is measured by not getting fired by the buyer, and then make your profit." In this case there would be no investment in R&D as it isnt a evolving process.

In the past this company has NOT done a good job and their track record should not garner us as buyers. That is leaving out all of the other undercurrents you mentioned.

I have a problem with ANY other company, and ESPECIALLY country running our ports, or airports, or borders, et al.

Capitalism is about making the most money. Not neccessary cutting costs (budgeting, yes). R&D is the backbone of capitalism. Can you show me some articles/links about the history?

[ISiddiqui]

Capitalism is about making the most money. Not neccessary cutting costs (budgeting, yes). R&D is the backbone of capitalism. Can you show me some articles/links about the history?
Bingo. Flasch's notion of capitalism is very strange and one I don't think I've ever heard before.

[MrBigglesworth]

I dunno. I don't think I've seen anyone say Trust Bush on this particular issue...
Bush said:
They ought to listen to what I have to say about this. They ought to look at the facts and understand the consequences of what they're going to do. But if they pass a law, I'll deal with it, with a veto ... they need to know that our government has looked at this issue and looked at it carefully. Again, I repeat, if there was any question as to whether or not this country would be less safe as a result of the transaction, it wouldn't go forward.
And Dutch cut and pasted the McClellan press conference saying the same thing.

I just don't believe that will happen. The FBI/CIA will be all over this company both here and internationally. Not to mention the Coast Guard with regard to port security.
From what I hear, day to day security will be handled by Dubai. Furthermore, what are the costs of having the FBI and the CIA all over the company both here and internationally? That doesn't give an American company a competitive advantage?

As for a foreign government owning this company. I really think that the stink being raised about this is strictly about which foreign company we're talking about. I also think there is a camp of people who also fall into the camp of "If Bush if for it, I'm again' it". I don't think there would be anywhere near the uproar if this was a Western European country we're talking about. But since it is a Middle Eastern country, I really think that critics of the administration are running with it because they know they'll get extra traction due to our relationship with that region of the world.
Let's assume this is true. So what? Would we have given the Soviet Union this contract in 1980? Would you care if Iran got this contract? The truth is that there is more of a connection to an attack from the UAE than from Iran or even the Soviet Union. I'm sure the UAE is great people, but do we want them in charge of an aspect integral to our national security? It's like outsourcing our southern border security to the Mexicans.

I definitely have more of a problem with the UAE than with Britian, because more people hate us in the UAE than in Britian. I think that's natural, and logical.

[Flasch186]

Capitalism is about making the most money. Not neccessary cutting costs (budgeting, yes). R&D is the backbone of capitalism. Can you show me some articles/links about the history?

history of the countries record on security, including traspo.?

[JPhillips]

Let's look at some of the things we know.

The UAE refuses to recognize Israel and has a group named after and funded by the UAE president that claims the holocaust was caused by Jews and 9/11 was a Zionist plot

Numerous members of the UAE royal family spent time in Afghanistan with Bin Laden. On at least one occasion we stopped an attack on Bin Laden because he was with so many members of the UAE royal family

The FBI and CIA both have shown how money to fund 9/11 went through the UAE banking system

Nuclear weapons material shipped to Libya, North Korea and Iran went through UAE ports

The Committee charged with approving this deal either never met or met without Rumsfeld

The deal was legally required to have a 45 day investigation that apparently didn't happen

The White House today said the President knew nothing about the deal until it had already been approved

Port security, or lack of it, was clearly pointed out in the 9/11 commission report

The White House has at least two officials with financial ties to the port company

Neither Congress or affected Governors were briefed on the transaction

[Dutch]

Clearly. He, a single individual, has the power to overrule the work that hundreds of his fellow politicians--most of which are members of his own political party--would have agreed was best for the nation. Why would he do that? And why would he announce his intentions to do that?
Looks to me like there were two big sides the President had to chose between.

On one hand, there is Homeland Security, the Department of the Treasury, the US Coast Guard and multiple other agencies that followed the process and investigated and did the actual risk analysis without and before any political theatrics.

On the other hand, you have Congress. Remember kids, if pro is the opposite of con, what's the opposite of progress?

:)

[MrBigglesworth]

Dutch I can't wait to see if you have the same faith in an all-powerful executive when Hillary is in power.

[MrBigglesworth]

The Committee charged with approving this deal either never met or met without Rumsfeld

The deal was legally required to have a 45 day investigation that apparently didn't happen
Dutch says that the process was followed completely. Who is right?

EDIT: Well, I didn't want to pre-judge, but unsurprisingly it turns out to be JPhillips.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/22/politics/22port.html
The administration's review of the deal was conducted by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, a body that was created in 1975 to review foreign investments in the country that could affect national security. Under that review, officials from the Defense, State, Commerce and Transportation Departments, along with the National Security Council and other agencies, were charged with raising questions and passing judgment. They found no problems to warrant the next stage of review, a 45-day investigation with results reported to the president for a final decision.

However, a 1993 amendment to the law stipulates that such an investigation is mandatory when the acquiring company is controlled by or acting on behalf of a foreign government. Administration officials said they conducted additional inquires because of the ties to the United Arab Emirates, but they could not say why a 45-day investigation did not occur.

[Flasch186]

scott mclellan just said we have to have faith that on the other end of a shipment, at the other ports that the safeguards are followed when the cargo was initially loaded....thats not good.

[Galaxy]

history of the countries record on security, including traspo.?


Yeah, but the next post provided it. I'm just not too aware of UAE's link.

[chinaski]

Did you guys also know that no American is allowed more than 49% ownership of a business or piece of land in the UAE? Its UAE law. just thought id toss that out there for the people who think "...if a British company can run an American port, then why cant....". Besides the fact that the Brits actually recognize Israel and havent funded and spawned a 9/11 terrorist.

This whole port deal is a giant steamy pile of doo. Bush didnt even know who would be controlling 6 of the most vital ports in America before approving the deal. Now thats just plain ole fucked up. There are 20+ American owned and operated companies that are currently operating American ports.... why not one of them? How hard is it to give it to Americans first? This is all to simple, anyone who thinks Bush is right, is just wrapped up in defending a political "side" - (and dont forget he signed off on this BEFORE even knowing about it, wtf???).

[st.cronin]

when Hillary is in power.

*giggle*

[Dutch]

Dutch I can't wait to see if you have the same faith in an all-powerful executive when Hillary is in power.
And I expect more dissent from you, of course.

[Warhammer]

Yes, and personally I don't think British companies should be in charge either.

EDIT: Or American companies for that matter. I think the ports should be administered by the government.

And we saw how well the government handled Katrina...

[st.cronin]

In all honesty, I hope the Democrats nominate Hillary. It would be good for the Party. The historic ass-kicking that she would recieve is maybe the only thing left that could wake up the Party, and clear out some of the denser elements, and lead to a more coherent opposition.

[MrBigglesworth]

And we saw how well the government handled Katrina...
I also think the government should be administered by someone other than Bush.

[MrBigglesworth]

In all honesty, I hope the Democrats nominate Hillary. It would be good for the Party. The historic ass-kicking that she would recieve is maybe the only thing left that could wake up the Party, and clear out some of the denser elements, and lead to a more coherent opposition.
Why do you think she would get an "historic ass-kicking"?

[Dutch]

Dutch says that the process was followed completely. Who is right?

EDIT: Well, I didn't want to pre-judge, but unsurprisingly it turns out to be JPhillips.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/22/politics/22port.html
I don't know that the process was followed completely. However, I see no reason to believe it wasn't.

[JPhillips]

I think there is a way to make this deal work, but ther's no question it demands exra scrutiny. The UAE has to recognize that their history demands that this deal can't be business as usual. For me to be satisfied there need to be some extra regulations and regular reviews for a few years. I guess I'm thinking of something like a probationary period.

What makes me so angry is that not only did the government make no extra effort, they didn't even follow the legally mandated process. Like we see time after time, they just did what they wanted to do regardless of the law or public opinion. I want answers about how the deal was apporved and why the legal process was subverted.

I don't believe a deal can't ever be done, but as it currently stands its clear that the administration is being negligent with Homeland Security.

[JPhillips]

Dutch: How about the White House admitting the legal process wasn't follwed? Or how about Rumsfeld admitting that he didn't know about a deal he was legally required to review?

[MrBigglesworth]

I don't know that the process was followed completely. However, I see no reason to believe it wasn't.
What? Here is the law:

http://www.treasury.gov/offices/international-affairs/exon-florio/

Here is admin officials admitting to not following the law:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/22/politics/22port.html

What more do you need?

[st.cronin]

Why do you think she would get an "historic ass-kicking"?

The only reason she is even in Congress is because Rudy got sick and had to withdraw his name. She was down something crazy in the polls when that happened, about 20-30 points iirc. And that's in New York, the state where she is probably viewed more favorably than anywhere in the country.

On the national stage, she would be a disaster. There are states where she wouldn't get 25 percent of the popular vote. But because of the nomination process, and the blinders the Democratic elite are wearing, there's a decent chance she could get nominated. That would be one of the worst ideas in politics, and a lot of people who need to lose their jobs would have a lot of egg on their face.

[Jesse_Ewiak]

I'm not the biggest Hillary fan but...

FOX News/Opinion Dynamics Poll. Feb. 7-8, 2006. N=900 registered voters nationwide. MoE ± 3. LV = likely voters

.
"I'm going to read the names of several individuals or groups. Please tell me whether you have a generally favorable or unfavorable opinion of each one. If you've never heard of someone, please just say so. Hillary Clinton."

Favorable Unfavorable Never Heard of/Unsure
% % %
2/7-8/06 49 44 8

Right now, Bush wouldn't mind those numbers.

[st.cronin]

Looking at the entirety of that survey, her numbers are stronger than they were in 04, but still pretty weak. If she runs as the exact opposite of Bush it might not be an historic ass-kicking. If she runs the way Kerry ran, she might not win a single state.

[Flasch186]

one thing is for sure....Playing the Hillery card would be the Big gamble. Throwing all of the cards on the table in one play.

[Galaxy]

I also think the government should be administered by someone other than Bush.

Why argue if you are so rooted in political ideals (not just this topic, but health care; and not just you, people like Bubba, Flasch)?

[Flasch186]

i just vomited in my mouth that I got compared to Bubba. A little bit, right in the back of my throat.


oh, yeah, cuz this is a democracy still, and this board is like my family so why not?

[MrBigglesworth]

The only reason she is even in Congress is because Rudy got sick and had to withdraw his name. She was down something crazy in the polls when that happened, about 20-30 points iirc. And that's in New York, the state where she is probably viewed more favorably than anywhere in the country.

On the national stage, she would be a disaster. There are states where she wouldn't get 25 percent of the popular vote. But because of the nomination process, and the blinders the Democratic elite are wearing, there's a decent chance she could get nominated. That would be one of the worst ideas in politics, and a lot of people who need to lose their jobs would have a lot of egg on their face.
I'm not a huge Hillary fan, and I would think that it's a bad idea to nominate a moderate who is seen as a liberal, compared to the other way around. And I challendge the assertion, but any state that Hillary wouldn't get 25% of the vote is one that the Dems wouldn't win anyway. I'm also not sure why you say that she is most popular in NY.

[MrBigglesworth]

Why argue if you are so rooted in political ideals (not just this topic, but health care; and not just you, people like Bubba, Flasch)?
If someone has a persuasive argument for something, I am willing to re-evaluate where I stand. But a persuasive argument /= saying France's unemployment is because of nationalized healthcare.

[JPhillips]

Back to the port deal.

Here is the text of a letter sent to Bush by Rep. Sue Myrick(R)

Dear Mr. President:

In regards to selling American ports to the United Arab Emirates, not just NO - but HELL NO!

Sincerely

[Galaxy]

If someone has a persuasive argument for something, I am willing to re-evaluate where I stand. But a persuasive argument /= saying France's unemployment is because of nationalized healthcare.

No, nationalized health care is part of it. It's the extremely high tax rate.

[MrBigglesworth]

The Bush Doctrine:
He needs to secretly spy on American citizens without a warrant and he needs to be able to hold them indefinitely in jail without a trial and he needs to be able to torture innocent people with impunity because we just can't be too careful after 9/11.

But there's no reason to go overboard by saying that we shouldn't outsource our port management to a company owned by a state whose leaders have been known to hang out with bin Laden.
I think that is the cognitive dissonance that is creating a lot of the conservative backlash to this and forcing them away from the knee-jerk acceptance of whatever Bush proposes.

[Glengoyne]

Dutch: How about the White House admitting the legal process wasn't follwed? Or how about Rumsfeld admitting that he didn't know about a deal he was legally required to review?Regarding the Rumsfeld bit here. I don't think Rumsfeld was legally required to review anything. A committee that he is part of, was to review the deal, and apparently did so. Nothing is said about requiring the Sec. Def. to be directly involved in the process. Honestly I do think that it is normal for something like this to be cleared by several governmental agencies without appearing on the radar of either the Sec. of Def. or the President.

The required forty five day investigation period would seem to be in order though. I'm not sure why there would be any opposition for that process.

[Flasch186]

i think with the atmosphere were in today, admittedly the admin. exclaims the war on terror all the time and rightfully so, this shouldve been on Rumsfeld's radar and if it wasnt then someone below him made a mistake by not informing him. The same for the Pres. Id be willing to bet that behind closed doors theyre now saying the same thing.

[st.cronin]

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002822059_webportreax22.html

[MrBigglesworth]

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002822059_webportreax22.html
It amuses me that Bush uses Arab sentiments as a rationale for this. He has used terrorism and national security as a bludgeon for 4 years and with his disregard for international law, international treaties, international allies, and even domestic law, his foreign policy can be distilled down to, "Fuck you", and now we have to allow the UAE to control our ports or we might offend someone.

[A-Husker-4-Life]

It amuses me that Bush uses Arab sentiments as a rationale for this. He has used terrorism and national security as a bludgeon for 4 years and with his disregard for international law, international treaties, international allies, and even domestic law, his foreign policy can be distilled down to, "Fuck you", and now we have to allow the UAE to control our ports or we might offend someone.

Nicely put, I couldn't agree with you more...

[chinaski]

Islamofacism?

[Critch]

Islamofacism?

Maybe they can make the boats run on time.

[Noop]

I wonder how long will it take before people realize electing this man was a mistake? Do people love their grand kids? Don't you all want them to have a nice future?

[MrBigglesworth]

Bush and I finally agree on something:
This deal wouldn't go forward if we were concerned about the security for the United States of America.
So true, so true.

[Flasch186]

it is kinda wierd that all the time its, "Security on the forefront, security is on the front burner, etc." but Then Chertoff comes out and sayd we have to balance security with global trade, and the admin is putting out sound bites about security not being a concern in this affair, etc. Im not saying that security isnt a concern, cuz I dont beliebe any pres. would want us to be attacked, but it is kinda a new type of speak....it confuses me.

[st.cronin]

it is kinda wierd that all the time its, "Security on the forefront, security is on the front burner, etc." but Then Chertoff comes out and sayd we have to balance security with global trade, and the admin is putting out sound bites about security not being a concern in this affair, etc. Im not saying that security isnt a concern, cuz I dont beliebe any pres. would want us to be attacked, but it is kinda a new type of speak....it confuses me.

I don't understand it, either. Some subtlety is eluding me.

[Flasch186]

its being delayed so that it can receive a closer look which is probably best for everyone, at this point.

[Dutch]

Honestly I hope they come up with a way to investigate this so the congressman all have good access to data and information regarding the transaction.

I would love to see a list of every congressman's current position right now. And after 45 days, I want to see if/how the list changes based on their assessments of the investigation and why. I'd like each congressman to right a report in their own words what effect the new investigative process has on them versus their old stance.

Let's make these guys earn their paychecks and report back to the American people their findings.

[Flasch186]

i dont foresee any information coming out that would make me think that any foreign country should run anything on our borders AND any that have flown under the radar in the past and have done so should have those contracts reneged and American companies should be given those responsibilities. Those companies or in this case that country, would be handling the loading and offloading of containers and that, to me, is enough reason right there.

[MrBigglesworth]

i dont foresee any information coming out that would make me think that any foreign country should run anything on our borders AND any that have flown under the radar in the past and have done so should have those contracts reneged and American companies should be given those responsibilities. Those companies or in this case that country, would be handling the loading and offloading of containers and that, to me, is enough reason right there.
Here is why I think the government should be doing it and not even an American company: corporations and governments have different priorities. Sure we like to think that corporations will put country first, but that is not always the case. Corporations exist to make a profit (and that's a good thing) not to put the best interests of the country first. That is why we need environmental laws, that is why Halliburton is involved in a ton of overcharging scandals. Left to their own devices, corporations have a tendency to cut corners to increase the bottom line, especially if that is something that flies below the radar, something like port security.

But a company owned by people that used to pal around with Osama? I think that is way too much.

[MrBigglesworth]

The Marine Transportation Security Act of 2002 requires vessels and port facilities to conduct vulnerability assessments and develop security plans including passenger, vehicle and baggage screening procedures; security patrols; establishing restricted areas; personnel identification procedures; access control measures; and/or installation of surveillance equipment.

Under the same law, port facility operators may have access to Coast Guard security incident response plans -- that is, they would know how the Coast Guard plans to counter and respond to terrorist attacks.
Here is the problem, even if they aren't "in charge of" security, they still have access to it. And like I said before, I'm sure the UAE is good people, but it only takes one person to screw us.

This is going to be a fascinating thing to watch to see who backs down first, the President or the GOP congressmen. This thing only has 17% approval, and it is the congressmen who are coming up for election in a couple months, so my guess is it would have to be the President. We'll see!

[Grammaticus]

When I first read the title, I thought it said "POL - Our sports under UAE control? Now that would be scary!

[Flasch186]

First time i could get online today....

That loud noise you heard was the explosion at the White House. The Coast Guard, the one's in CHARGE of the security raised GRAVE concerns over this deal, and still the White House didnt apply the THEN mandatory 45 day review. Big Problems ahead for this Administration and anyone attached to it. Many people have defended this deal stating that the Coast Guard handles security so to quote Bush, "Dont worry about your security." but when the Coast Guard then raises the concern, id say the White House is absolutely full of shit on this one. This administration's priorities, now that theyre truly out in the open, are flawed ESPECIALLY when compared to what we sold the public when they went to the polls.

[MrBigglesworth]

Reading over the Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002 (http://www.uscg.mil/hq/g-m/mp/mtsa.html), it's clear that the port owners have a good deal to do with security. Saying that the Coast Guard is in charge of security at the ports is like saying that the FBI is in charge of security at banks. Sure, the FBI goes after bank robbers, but the day-to-day security at a bank is handled privately by the bank. Besides, it's just common sense: at a port, do you see Coast Guard guys everywhere on the docks? No, you see a lot of security personnel.

[ISiddiqui]

Though, as Jon Stewart said on Larry King tonight, I don't see how they could do a worse job than the only 5% of containers that are presently inspected. Unless you really do think that DPW has become a leading contractor for running ports around the world so that it could get into the US to perform terrorist acts (in which case, get the tinfoil off your head).

[Glengoyne]

I'm getting ready to have Flasch and Giggles fitted for Tin Foil Capshttp://www.operationsports.com/fofc/images/smilies/smile.gif. Not really. I understand your guys' opinion, I just think the degree of your concern is unjustified.

I think this whole thing is being seriously blown out of proportion just because of the origin/nationality of the corporation involved. I believe this kind of thing is fairly commonplace, and that realistically this deal won't place this country in any greater danger than it was a month ago.

Seriously if you think this is such a big deal, what the hell is wrong with performing a thorough search on the 25 year old Arab Male flying alone, rather than my 75 year old mother travelling with a grand-child? In my mind the type of profiling I'm describing makes more sense.

That said. I don't know why the White House has such a bee in their bonnett regarding this deal. Are they reacting to the fact that their opponents are capitalizing on the story because they know it will have traction with the masses? Are they trying to cover their ass, because the matter wasn't thoroughly looked into? Are they upset that critics of the deal are essentially saying that the Admin didn't even do their due dilligence, and figure that by threatening a veto they are simply showing that they are standing behind the branches of the administration involved in the deal's approval? Are they helping some cronie fund his retirement by slipping the deal through?

When I examine their potential motives none of the sinister options seem to really hold water. I think they are backing up the branches of the administration that approved the deal. I don't know why they were opposed to the mandatory additional 45 day investigative period, but I honestly don't think that anything will turn up that will quash this deal. Unless, of couse, it is public opinion. But then again what the hell does the public know, there are lots of states whose populations have overwhelmingly voted to write discriminatory language right into their constitutions.

[MrBigglesworth]

Seriously if you think this is such a big deal, what the hell is wrong with performing a thorough search on the 25 year old Arab Male flying alone, rather than my 75 year old mother travelling with a grand-child? In my mind the type of profiling I'm describing makes more sense.
I can't speak for everyone, but if you read my opinion you would know that I am not in favor of any corporation operating the ports, and definitely not in favor of any foriegn corporation, so this point doesn't have any effect on the validity of my argument.

[sterlingice]

That said. I don't know why the White House has such a bee in their bonnett regarding this deal. Are they reacting to the fact that their opponents are capitalizing on the story because they know it will have traction with the masses? Are they trying to cover their ass, because the matter wasn't thoroughly looked into? Are they upset that critics of the deal are essentially saying that the Admin didn't even do their due dilligence, and figure that by threatening a veto they are simply showing that they are standing behind the branches of the administration involved in the deal's approval? Are they helping some cronie fund his retirement by slipping the deal through? Hi, I'm the real answer (http://www.operationsports.com/fofc/showpost.php?p=1060302&postcount=7). I was posted a couple of pages ago, only 7 posts into the thread, tho you seem to have missed me.

SI

[Flasch186]

my concerns were voiced by the Coast Guard, although the secret commission says those concerns were vetted....BUT unfortunately Susan Collins (R) doesnt think so, as of today. Glen, our concerns are for Homeland Security, shouldnt the 9/11 pres. be too?

[st.cronin]

I heard McCain on the radio this morning say the deal was not for a PORT but for a TERMINAL. I confess I don't understand what the difference is.

[flere-imsaho]

Just to restate two of the biggest problems: (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/22/AR2006022201609_2.html?referrer=email)


A senior White House official, who discussed internal strategy under the condition of anonymity, said Bush realizes that Republicans are dug in and that he may have to compromise. "We are sensitive to the fact that people have taken firm positions," the official said. But that effort was complicated by the disclosure that Bush and Treasury Secretary John W. Snow were unaware until this week about the purchase agreement and the administration's approval of the transaction last month.

Snow, whose department chairs the secretive executive branch panel that reviewed the proposed sale, told reporters in Torrington, Conn., that "I learned of this transaction probably the same way as members of the Senate did, by reading it in the newspapers."

I have yet to hear a good explanation of why Snow & Rumsfeld, who are supposed to sit on this committee, didn't know about the deal until the Press told them about it.

Joseph King, who headed the customs agency's anti-terrorism efforts under the Treasury Department and the new Department of Homeland Security, said national security fears are well grounded.

He said a company the size of Dubai Ports World would be able to get hundreds of visas to relocate managers and other employees to the United States. Using appeals to Muslim solidarity or threats of violence, al-Qaeda operatives could force low-level managers to provide some of those visas to al-Qaeda sympathizers, said King, who for years tracked similar efforts by organized crime to infiltrate ports in New York and New Jersey. Those sympathizers could obtain legitimate driver's licenses, work permits and mortgages that could then be used by terrorist operatives.

Dubai Ports World could also offer a simple conduit for wire transfers to terrorist operatives in the Middle East. Large wire transfers from individuals would quickly attract federal scrutiny, but such transfers, buried in the dozens of wire transfers a day from Dubai Ports World's operations in the United States to the Middle East would go undetected, King said.

We know that 9/11 operatives & money flowed through Dubai's banking system. We know that nuclear materials from Pakistan flowed through U.A.E. on their way to Iran, Libya & North Korea.

Now, the Coast Guard has raised these points, but the Bush Administration is telling us that these issues were "addressed". How, exactly?

[BucDawg40]

I wonder how long will it take before people realize electing this man was a mistake? Do people love their grand kids? Don't you all want them to have a nice future?

They got their tax cut, and a couple of ringers on the Supreme Court who will overturn Roe v. Wade. I think they don't care about anything else.

[Glengoyne]

Hi, I'm the real answer (http://www.operationsports.com/fofc/showpost.php?p=1060302&postcount=7). I was posted a couple of pages ago, only 7 posts into the thread, tho you seem to have missed me.

SISee: None of the sinister motives seem to hold any water.

[Glengoyne]

my concerns were voiced by the Coast Guard, although the secret commission says those concerns were vetted....BUT unfortunately Susan Collins (R) doesnt think so, as of today. Glen, our concerns are for Homeland Security, shouldnt the 9/11 pres. be too?My feeling is that we really don't know how security might even be compromised. It just seems obvious on face value, but I'm not sure there is any substance beneath that concern. I honestly think this kind of thing is commonplace. This particular deal just happens to hit on a few hot button topics like ports, post 9-11 security, and the involvement of an Arab company/nation.

I'm not on the bandwagon saying this deal should have been run through without review. My position is essentially neutral towards it. If I see something beyond the fact that this is an Arab company that shows there is a security risk, then I'll stand in line with you guys in opposition. It's just that right now I haven't seen anything that didn't stem directly from the fear that the company in question is Arab.


As for Bigglesworth's sentiment that the Government should be doing this...I really think that private enterprise has shown they can fulfill this function in an exemplary manner. If we let the Government take over, getting an imported product would be like getting supplies into New Orleans the day after Katrina.

[MrBigglesworth]

As for Bigglesworth's sentiment that the Government should be doing this...I really think that private enterprise has shown they can fulfill this function in an exemplary manner.
Glen, would you allow nuclear power station and nuclear warhead security to be outsourced to a foreign company? If not, what is the difference? You say that private enterprise has shown they can fulfill this function in an exemplary manner, yet port security got F's nearly across the board in the recent 9/11 Commission report. If getting F's are "exemplary", what grade would you consider bad enough to say that maybe things coule be improved?

If we let the Government take over, getting an imported product would be like getting supplies into New Orleans the day after Katrina.
It's a weak argument to use an incompetent organization as the model for all types of the same organization. This is like me saying, "If we let the Government take over, getting an imported product would be like buying stock in Enron right before the crash." If there is one thing that conservatives think the government does well, it is security.

[Flasch186]

My feeling is that we really don't know how security might even be compromised. It just seems obvious on face value, but I'm not sure there is any substance beneath that concern. I honestly think this kind of thing is commonplace. This particular deal just happens to hit on a few hot button topics like ports, post 9-11 security, and the involvement of an Arab company/nation.

I'm not on the bandwagon saying this deal should have been run through without review. My position is essentially neutral towards it. If I see something beyond the fact that this is an Arab company that shows there is a security risk, then I'll stand in line with you guys in opposition. It's just that right now I haven't seen anything that didn't stem directly from the fear that the company in question is Arab.


As for Bigglesworth's sentiment that the Government should be doing this...I really think that private enterprise has shown they can fulfill this function in an exemplary manner. If we let the Government take over, getting an imported product would be like getting supplies into New Orleans the day after Katrina.


There is an inherent security risk just in the fact that only 4% of cargo is checked to begin with. So on that fact alone you should be standing shoulder to shoulder with me. This is a move in the wrong direction, we should swing the pendulum regarding port security in the other direction.

[Glengoyne]

Glen, would you allow nuclear power station and nuclear warhead security to be outsourced to a foreign company? If not, what is the difference? You say that private enterprise has shown they can fulfill this function in an exemplary manner, yet port security got F's nearly across the board in the recent 9/11 Commission report. If getting F's are "exemplary", what grade would you consider bad enough to say that maybe things coule be improved?


It's a weak argument to use an incompetent organization as the model for all types of the same organization. This is like me saying, "If we let the Government take over, getting an imported product would be like buying stock in Enron right before the crash." If there is one thing that conservatives think the government does well, it is security.Actually I have no trouble with privately owned Nuclear Power Stations. Aren't they all privately owned now as it is? Nuclear Warheads...well those are weapons, and therefore under the responsibility of the Dept of Defense(I'd guess), so what you describe would be pretty much as absurd event.

I'm not talking about private enterprise having an exemplary performance at providing security. That isnt' their job. These companies manage operations loading and unloading ships in an orderly and efficient manner. If you think they aren't doing that impressively well, then I think you aren't paying much attention.

The example of Katrina is relevant. Government manages through beaureaucracy, and I don't think that model works when applied to mechanisms that need to run lean and efficiently. Private enterprise has done a good job to this point. I don't see any reason to change that now.

[Flasch186]

Glen:

I had more to write here but now that POL threads are in the crosshairs Im scared. I need to post in some non-pol threads to get my ratio down.

[BishopMVP]

First time i could get online today....

That loud noise you heard was the explosion at the White House. The Coast Guard, the one's in CHARGE of the security raised GRAVE concerns over this deal,http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060227/ap_on_go_ot/ports_security
They do start the article with Citing broad gaps in U.S. intelligence, the Coast Guard cautioned the Bush administration weeks ago that it could not determine whether a United Arab Emirates-based company seeking a stake in some U.S. port operations might support terrorist operations. but they also add The Coast Guard said the concerns reflected in the document ultimately were addressed. In a statement, the Coast Guard said other U.S. intelligence agencies were able to provide answers to the questions it raised.
"The Coast Guard, the intelligence community and the entire CFIUS (Committee on Foreign Investments in the United States) panel believed this transaction received the proper review, and national security concerns were, in fact, addressed," the Coast Guard said.So I'm not sure what the problem is, or why the AP leads the report in the most inflammatory way possible.There is an inherent security risk just in the fact that only 4% of cargo is checked to begin with. So on that fact alone you should be standing shoulder to shoulder with me. This is a move in the wrong direction, we should swing the pendulum regarding port security in the other direction.I'll agree that port security is not very good, but other than baseless profiling against Arabs, how is this a move in the wrong direction? And don't give me the "2 9/11 hijackers came from there and money moved through Dubai's financial center" as proof the UAE supports terrorism. That would be almost as ludicrous as me saying that because Richard Reid was from Britain and some money went through London's financial centers to al-Qaeda that P&O should not have been given control. Especially when the only alternative was a company from Singapore buying the ports in question. Even more so when you consider that Saudi Arabia already controls port operations in more than one port in the US.

[st.cronin]

I still don't understand the difference between 'port' and 'terminal.'

[Flasch186]

bishop

however at the boards today the 2nd in command at homeland security, who signed off on the deal, hadnt even heard about the letter until yesterday and therefore could not have had their issues addressed prior to their vote!! IT simply doesnt make sense and it is spinning out of control.

PLUS on the same day that this was approved a former head of the UAE company was appointed to the post that would oversee whom, his former company....coincidence perhaps but you cant have the police investigate the police or you get skewed results.

[Glengoyne]

There is an inherent security risk just in the fact that only 4% of cargo is checked to begin with. So on that fact alone you should be standing shoulder to shoulder with me. This is a move in the wrong direction, we should swing the pendulum regarding port security in the other direction.Sure I think they/we need to do better. I agree with you there.

That said

Other than the fact that this company is from Dubai, is there one single reason that you think they will handle security any differently than the company that is doing it now? Or even one single reason that makes it evident that they are a bigger security risk than the present foreign company? I'm looking for an answer that doesn't boil down to "We can't trust the Arabs"

[Glengoyne]

I still don't understand the difference between 'port' and 'terminal.'A port is a large complex with several terminals loading and unloading ships. A port is akin more to a geographic location, and the terminals specific destinations located near one another.


This message brought to you straight from my ass.

[JPhillips]

Glen: Let me try.

1) The UAE royal family has had extensive contact with Bin Laden.

2) The UAE banking system was used to launder money for the 9/11 attacks.

3) The UAE ports have been used as a central point to distribute nuclear info/material from AQ Khan to Iran, Libya, and N. Korea.

4) According to the CIA we actually cancelled an attack on Bin Laden because he was with too many members of the UAE royal family at the time.

5) The Coast Guard expressed concerns about the UAE running the ports specifically saying it would be easy to hide money transfers and get travel visas without the proper checks.

6) Much like other totaliatarian states, one revolution could put our ports under the control of extremists.

7) When a foriegn government controls our ports it makes it very hard for us to negotiate honestly and evenly.

8) We made secret deals with the UAE regarding port control so that they are more shielded from U.S. legal action against them.

[st.cronin]

A port is a large complex with several terminals loading and unloading ships. A port is akin more to a geographic location, and the terminals specific destinations located near one another.


This message brought to you straight from my ass.

Is that a meaningful distinction with regards to security?

[MrBigglesworth]

Glen: Let me try.

1) The UAE royal family has had extensive contact with Bin Laden.

2) The UAE banking system was used to launder money for the 9/11 attacks.

3) The UAE ports have been used as a central point to distribute nuclear info/material from AQ Khan to Iran, Libya, and N. Korea.

4) According to the CIA we actually cancelled an attack on Bin Laden because he was with too many members of the UAE royal family at the time.

5) The Coast Guard expressed concerns about the UAE running the ports specifically saying it would be easy to hide money transfers and get travel visas without the proper checks.

6) Much like other totaliatarian states, one revolution could put our ports under the control of extremists.

7) When a foriegn government controls our ports it makes it very hard for us to negotiate honestly and evenly.

8) We made secret deals with the UAE regarding port control so that they are more shielded from U.S. legal action against them.
No, he said a reason OTHER than the fact they are from the UAE.

[EagleFan]

Glen: Let me try.

1) The UAE royal family has had extensive contact with Bin Laden.

2) The UAE banking system was used to launder money for the 9/11 attacks.

3) The UAE ports have been used as a central point to distribute nuclear info/material from AQ Khan to Iran, Libya, and N. Korea.

4) According to the CIA we actually cancelled an attack on Bin Laden because he was with too many members of the UAE royal family at the time.

5) The Coast Guard expressed concerns about the UAE running the ports specifically saying it would be easy to hide money transfers and get travel visas without the proper checks.

6) Much like other totaliatarian states, one revolution could put our ports under the control of extremists.

7) When a foriegn government controls our ports it makes it very hard for us to negotiate honestly and evenly.

8) We made secret deals with the UAE regarding port control so that they are more shielded from U.S. legal action against them.


Dammit, I am feeling ill inside as I write this. ;)

Yeah, what he said!!!

Something feels so wrong when I'm on the side of JPhillips, MrBigglesworth and Flasch186 in a political thread. I think I need to go lie down for a bit.

[Glengoyne]

Glen:

I had more to write here but now that POL threads are in the crosshairs Im scared. I need to post in some non-pol threads to get my ratio down.I didn't even know the POL threads were "in the crosshairs". My position on that is the same as always. If you get rid of them then you get rid of some of the traffic. You get rid of the traffic, and this place dies.

[Glengoyne]

Is that a meaningful distinction with regards to security?I really couldn't say.

[Glengoyne]

Glen: Let me try.

1) The UAE royal family has had extensive contact with Bin Laden.

2) The UAE banking system was used to launder money for the 9/11 attacks.

3) The UAE ports have been used as a central point to distribute nuclear info/material from AQ Khan to Iran, Libya, and N. Korea.

4) According to the CIA we actually cancelled an attack on Bin Laden because he was with too many members of the UAE royal family at the time.

5) The Coast Guard expressed concerns about the UAE running the ports specifically saying it would be easy to hide money transfers and get travel visas without the proper checks.

6) Much like other totaliatarian states, one revolution could put our ports under the control of extremists.

7) When a foriegn government controls our ports it makes it very hard for us to negotiate honestly and evenly.

8) We made secret deals with the UAE regarding port control so that they are more shielded from U.S. legal action against them.So we can't trust the Arabs then?

I had this discussion with one of my friends today, he would fairly well agree that he is a liberal, he is at very least at serious odds with the Republican party. In his own words. "If we're going to condemn this on its face value, then we might as well just start calling arabs Sand Niggers, and move on."

[Crapshoot]

So we can't trust the Arabs then?

I had this discussion with one of my friends today, he would fairly well agree that he is a liberal, he is at very least at serious odds with the Republican party. In his own words. "If we're going to condemn this on its face value, then we might as well just start calling arabs Sand Niggers, and move on."

Yup. Its united the free-traders against the protectionists and the "chicken-little" crowd. Bush has gained major points with me for his principled stance on this .

[JPhillips]

Glen: If you aren't going to pay attention to what is posted, why ask?

As I said earlier I think this deal can get done, but it quite obviously requires extra oversight and extra regulations. This is a country whose leaders palled around with Bin Laden. To say that any scrutiny of this deal is racism is ridiculous. The UAE has earned its reputation.

What bothers me so much is that instead of approving the deal with extra oversight it seems that we approved it with minimal oversight. I still haven't heard who actually approved the deal, but Bush, Rumsfeld and Chertoff have all said they didn't know about it. The mandatory 45 day review was initially skipped. The deal includes provisions that allow the UAE to shield documents from U.S. courts.

A lot of the hysteria about this deal is unwarranted, but Bush is just reaping what he has sown.

[Flasch186]

the storing docs overseas scares me.

[Klinglerware]

Yup. Its united the free-traders against the protectionists and the "chicken-little" crowd. Bush has gained major points with me for his principled stance on this .

I agree. My political postings on this board tend to skew left, but I find the criticism from the left embarrasingly disingenous--I really do think that the Democrats are making a calculated play on American xenophobia to bash the administration on an issue that frankly just isn't a big deal. They know better, but politics is politics I suppose.

I think a lot of the people who automatically bash the UAE are completely ignorant of what Dubai has become: it's not some collection of tents and camels in the sand, but an example of gleaming modernity. In the 70s, the leadership of Dubai wisely chose to diverify its economy to emphasize trade, financial services, and tourism knowing that the oil would eventually run out, and the city is well on it's way to becoming the Singapore of the Middle East.

Once a state becomes an economic powerhouse dependent on global trade, they tend to do all in their power to not antagonize its trading partners with unsavory behavior. I don't think the Dubai will be any different.

As for what I think of the US government running port operations:

http://www.slate.com/id/2136783/?nav=navoa

Sounds like an economic disaster waiting to happen. Working from scratch, it could take years for the federal government to acquire the personnel and knowledge base to operate the ports effectively. Since American companies have left the port operation business for greener pastures years ago, the feds , for quite some time, will have to rely on foreign know-how anyway...

[JPhillips]

From the Jerusalem Post


The parent company of a Dubai-based firm at the center of a political storm in the US over the purchase of American ports participates in the Arab boycott against Israel, The Jerusalem Post has learned.

The firm, Dubai Ports World, is seeking control over six major US ports, including those in New York, Miami, Philadelphia and Baltimore. It is entirely owned by the Government of Dubai via a holding company called the Ports, Customs and Free Zone Corporation (PCZC), which consists of the Dubai Port Authority, the Dubai Customs Department and the Jebel Ali Free Zone Area.

"Yes, of course the boycott is still in place and is still enforced," Muhammad Rashid a-Din, a staff member of the Dubai Customs Department's Office for the Boycott of Israel, told the Post in a telephone interview.

"If a product contained even some components that were made in Israel, and you wanted to import it to Dubai, it would be a problem," he said.

A-Din noted that while the head office for the anti-Israel boycott sits in Damascus, he and his fellow staff members are paid employees of the Dubai Customs Department, which is a division of the PCZC, the same Dubai government-owned entity that runs Dubai Ports World.

Moreover, the Post found that the website for Dubai's Jebel Ali Free Zone Area, which is also part of the PCZC, advises importers that they will need to comply with the terms of the boycott.

In a section entitled "Frequently Asked Questions", the site lists six documents that are required in order to clear an item through the Dubai Customs Department. One of them, called a "Certificate of Origin," "is used by customs to confirm the country of origin and needs to be seen by the office which ensures any trade boycotts are enforced," according to the website.

A-Din of the Israel boycott office confirmed that his office examines certificates of origin as a means of verifying whether a product originated in the Jewish state.

On at least three separate occasions last year, the Post has learned, companies were fined by the US government's Office of Anti-boycott Compliance, an arm of the Commerce Department, on charges connected to boycott-related requests they had received from the Government of Dubai.

US law bars firms from complying with such requests or cooperating with attempts by Arab governments to boycott Israel.

In one instance, according to a Commerce Department press release, a New York-based exporter agreed to pay a fine for having "failed to report in a timely manner its receipts of requests from Dubai" to provide certification that its products had not been made in Israel.

The proposed handover of US ports to DP World has provoked a political storm in Washington, where Republicans and Democrats alike have expressed hostility to the plan, citing national security concerns.

In an attempt to stave off opposition, DP World agreed over the weekend to a highly unusual 45-day second federal investigation of potential security risks.

[MrBigglesworth]

Sounds like an economic disaster waiting to happen. Working from scratch, it could take years for the federal government to acquire the personnel and knowledge base to operate the ports effectively. Since American companies have left the port operation business for greener pastures years ago, the feds , for quite some time, will have to rely on foreign know-how anyway...
Your argument is: 'It'll take a while, so why try?' Indeed, why research stem cells? It will only take a long time and results won't be seen for years.

Let's put this into perspective. The main concern of the deal is security, of which ports have earned an F grade. The federal government has determined that it is worth $400 billion and counting to invade and occupy Iraq, a move which if completely successful would have given a nominal security benefit, yet had a tiny probability for success. The yearly defense budget is half a trillion dollars. How much would it cost to operate the ports with some inefficiency yet better security?

[Flasch186]

i think the above article just kind of wraps it up for us all. Israel = US ally, Israel is not recognized by UAE [slap in the face], UAE boycotts Israeli goods, we cannot hand over ports to UAE....

...Like Lou Dobbs said, will handing them over hurt us tomorrow? probably not, but how about 4 years from now, if there is a blow up in the M.E.? that would be a problem.

[st.cronin]

i think the above article just kind of wraps it up for us all. Israel = US ally, Israel is not recognized by UAE [slap in the face], UAE boycotts Israeli goods, we cannot hand over ports to UAE...

I think that is the best argument against this.

[Klinglerware]

Your argument is: 'It'll take a while, so why try?' Indeed, why research stem cells? It will only take a long time and results won't be seen for years.

Let's put this into perspective. The main concern of the deal is security, of which ports have earned an F grade. The federal government has determined that it is worth $400 billion and counting to invade and occupy Iraq, a move which if completely successful would have given a nominal security benefit, yet had a tiny probability for success. The yearly defense budget is half a trillion dollars. How much would it cost to operate the ports with some inefficiency yet better security?

My argument isn't "It'll take awhile, so why try?" My argument is that the goals of efficiency and security are inherently in opposition to each other: optimal efficiency requires that you sacrifice security and vice versa. I have my doubts as to whether a single entity can navigate both without succumbing to paralyzing infighting.

Security is important, but I think that it is better served by being addressed by adequately mandating a concrete role for the relevant Homeland Security agencies and funding these mandates adequately. Leave port operations to private operators who know what they're doing on a logistical basis. I would rather see two entities: one specializing in operational logistics (the private company) and one specializing in security (homeland security, presumably), than a single entitity that is good at neither.

[flere-imsaho]

Yes, but.... ;)

The knowledge of details of operational logistics is in itself a security risk. I think the idea that this knowledge will be freely available to a company with headquarters in a country with a dubious record on terrorism & nuclear trafficing bears some scrutiny, myself.

Plus, no one's addressed the issues raised by Joseph King, the former head of Customs for DHC that I posted earlier.

[Flasch186]

thurraw investigation Id say, at least according to administration standards [/sarcasm]


Lawmaker: Port deal never probed for terror ties
Coast Guard official says ports 'far more secure now'

Wednesday, March 1, 2006; Posted: 5:35 p.m. EST (22:35 GMT)

story.chertoff.ap.jpg
Michael Chertoff speaks to Coast Guard Adm. Thomas Gilmour (center) and department CFO Andrew Maner before testifying Wednesday.
Public Administration
Regent University is offering a M.A. in government and a certificate of graduate...
www.regent.edu
Public Administration Degrees Online
Earn a masters degree in public administration online from Keller graduate...
www.kellermasters.com
Public Administration Degrees Online
Enroll in a public administration program from CTU. Get the degree you need for...
www.ctuonlinedegrees.com
More Useful Links
• Online Book Stores
• Notebook Computers
• Sporting Goods

WATCH
Browse/Search
Coast Guard concerns over ports deal (3:08)
Coast Guard report fuels row over port deal (2:09)
RELATED
• FindLaw: Coast Guard memoexternal link
• TIME.com: How Bush will payexternal link
• Interactive: Gateways to America
• Interactive: Port operations
• Interactive: DP World
YOUR E-MAIL ALERTS
United Arab Emirates
Ports
or Create Your Own
Manage Alerts | What Is This?

(CNN) -- A review of a United Arab Emirates-owned company's plan to take over operations at key U.S. ports never looked into whether the company had ties to al Qaeda or other terrorists, a key Republican lawmaker told CNN on Wednesday.

Rep. Peter King of New York, chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, said officials from the Homeland Security and Treasury departments told him weeks ago that their 30-day review of the deal did not look into the question of links between DP World and al Qaeda.

"I can't emphasize this enough," King, who has been a vocal critic of the deal, told CNN. "There is no investigation into terrorism whatsoever on this contract."

King's comments appear to contradict testimony by administration officials before Congress this week that a through review of any terrorism ties had occurred during the initial review of the deal.

After King and other lawmakers raised concerns about the deal, the company agreed to a 45-day review by the investigation. King said the administration should use the time to investigate the firm rather than trying to convince lawmakers that the deal should be approved.

"They should be educating themselves," King said.
Port security defended

Also Wednesday, the U.S. Coast Guard's vice commandant defended the state of U.S. port security after facing tough questioning from lawmakers on Capitol Hill, but acknowledged that more work remains to be done.

"I don't think there's any question that our ports are far more secure now than they were prior to 9/11," Vice Adm. Terry M. Cross told a congressional subcommittee.

His testimony came a day after Department of Homeland Security deputy secretary Michael P. Jackson told a Senate committee he was unaware of a Coast Guard memo that warned of "intelligence gaps" in its review of a proposed merger that would put a company owned by and based in the United Arab Emirates in charge of several U.S. cargo terminals.

The Coast Guard, which is part of Homeland Security, said the document has been taken out of context since its disclosure.

The document's existence was revealed Monday by Sen. Susan Collins, chairwoman of the Senate Homeland Security Committee. (Read the Coast Guard memoexternal link)
Chertoff promises changes

Collins, a Maine Republican, asked Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff on Wednesday what measures he would take to improve communication within his department after the Coast Guard memo went unnoticed.

Chertoff said his department was taking measures to "flatten the organization" in an effort to streamline communication between department heads.

Chertoff addressed the committee Wednesday in a wide-ranging hearing on his department's proposed budget.

A wave of concern has swept Capitol Hill over news of the deal to allow Dubai-based DP World to assume management of cargo terminals at five U.S. ports on the Atlantic and Gulf coasts, and a passenger terminal in New York. (Interactive: Who is minding the ports)

Critics note that two of the suicide hijackers involved in the attacks of September 11, 2001, came from the United Arab Emirates and that money for the plot was funneled through banks in Dubai, the banking hub of the Persian Gulf.

Supporters note that the UAE is an ally and home to major U.S. military bases, and that port security would be handled by the Coast Guard and other law enforcement agencies after the merger, just as it is now.

The $6.8 billion merger is set to close Thursday in Britain, home of current port operator P&O, but DP World agreed not to assume control of P&O's port operations until a 45-day security review takes place.

In his testimony, Cross expressed confidence in domestic port security, noting that ships now must give 96 hours' notice before entering a U.S. port, up from 24 hours before September 11. Cross said the additional time allows port security officers to vet a ship's crew, passenger list, cargo manifest and vessel history before it arrives.

But Democratic Rep. Corrine Brown of Florida faulted the Bush administration for not doing enough. She said $4.4 billion has been spent on aviation security, "but only $36 million in all surface transportation."

She noted that the Coast Guard is one of an amalgam of agencies involved in providing port security.

"In Jacksonville, we hire the sheriff's department," she said.

Cross concurred that other agencies are involved in port security, but said, "I think we are the leaders for port security."

He said that, since July 2004, the Coast Guard has identified more than 700 violations of the Maritime Security Act of 2002, of which 44 were considered major. Moreover, he said, his agency is empowered to do something about violations.

"When we see a major violation, that oftentimes results in a stoppage of cargo operations; sometimes we close facilities until they have met the requirements of the act."

Overseas, Coast Guard inspections of 44 ports found seven that failed and, as a result, ships that have passed through those ports get additional scrutiny once they arrive in a U.S. port, he said.

And, he noted, the captains of U.S. ports are all Coast Guard officers, and can refuse ships entry or order them held in port.

Still, holes remain, he acknowledged, noting that port workers are not subject to background checks and have no special identification cards beyond "a picture ID from a state or federal agency."

Fixing those flaws are among the agency's priorities, he said.

Rep. Bob Filner, a California Democrat, was not impressed.

"You leave me a lot of insecurity about our security," he said.

Brown concurred.

"I know, as a lay person, that the system is flawed. I'm sure that the terrorists know it too. ... The talk is wonderful, but I need to know: Where is the beef?"

The subcommittee is planning to continue its questioning next week.
Overseas inspections preferred

Chertoff told the Senate Homeland Security Committee that his department would prefer that cargo be inspected at overseas ports, before it arrives in the United States.

He said all shipments to the United States are screened, but only 5 to 6 percent of cargo is inspected.

Cargo is inspected, he said, if the screening flags it as suspicious, based on information including the ship's manifest, the shipper and the destination.

Chertoff said he plans to travel to Hong Kong at the end of March to evaluate a port inspection prototype that could speed the inspection process.

Also Wednesday, a federal judge refused a request by the state of New Jersey to investigate the ports deal, according to The Associated Press. The judge also refused to order the release of the documents relating to the deal, saying they were confidential and that the state failed "to show an immediate need for those documents," the AP said.

[Glengoyne]

Glen: If you aren't going to pay attention to what is posted, why ask?
...Because your answers boiled down to the one reason I said not to use. I said Other than the fact that this company is from Dubai, is there one single reason that you think they will handle security any differently than the company that is doing it now? Or even one single reason that makes it evident that they are a bigger security risk than the present foreign company? I'm looking for an answer that doesn't boil down to "We can't trust the Arabs"You listed a bunch of reasons why we can't trust a company from the UAE.

[Glengoyne]

i think the above article just kind of wraps it up for us all. Israel = US ally, Israel is not recognized by UAE [slap in the face], UAE boycotts Israeli goods, we cannot hand over ports to UAE....

...Like Lou Dobbs said, will handing them over hurt us tomorrow? probably not, but how about 4 years from now, if there is a blow up in the M.E.? that would be a problem.Saudi Arabia = Ally

Saudi Arabia participates in the boycott of Israeli products.

It gets complicated doesn't it.

[JPhillips]

Glen: All of which are quite specific. If contacts with Bin Laden and nuclear smuggling and funding 9/11 terrorists are off limits why bother to pose the question?

Remember Glen, this isn't "a compnay from the UEA" its a company owned and operated by the royal family and nation of the UAE. The same company owners re the owns that cavorted with Bin Laden.

Or to put it differently, I'll pose a question to you.

"Who had closer ties with Bin Laden, Saddam Hussein or the royal family of the UAE and owners of DPW?"

[Flasch186]

Saudi Arabia = Ally

Saudi Arabia participates in the boycott of Israeli products.

It gets complicated doesn't it.

oh, im not a fan of that either...its consistent. start listing stuff SA is involved in and Im a fan of pulling back off that too.

[Glengoyne]

oh, im not a fan of that either...its consistent. start listing stuff SA is involved in and Im a fan of pulling back off that too.Missed was the point that Saudi companies are running port/terminal operations at other US ports. I have ZERO issue with that, and neither did anyone else before the critics of the administration picked up on the UAE deal, and decided to see just how much traction the story had.

Again. I'm not saying this deal would have been good for the country. I'm at a loss as to why the admin would be so strongly behind..so much so to threaten a veto. I'm glad the 45 day investigation will take place. I don't think there will be any material problems that will stop this deal from going through. If it doesn't go through it will be strictly because of public opinion, and anti-arab sentiment.

[Glengoyne]

Glen: All of which are quite specific. If contacts with Bin Laden and nuclear smuggling and funding 9/11 terrorists are off limits why bother to pose the question?

Remember Glen, this isn't "a compnay from the UEA" its a company owned and operated by the royal family and nation of the UAE. The same company owners re the owns that cavorted with Bin Laden.

Or to put it differently, I'll pose a question to you.

"Who had closer ties with Bin Laden, Saddam Hussein or the royal family of the UAE and owners of DPW?"I get it that the company in question is partially owned and controlled by the UAE. I follow.

As for the Bin Laden bit. I'd wager that it would be pretty difficult to find a ME country whose royal family hasn't cavorted to one degree or another with the likes of Bin Laden. A member of the Saudi royal family essentially blamed the US for the attack on the World Trade Center. I still see no reason to exclude them from the free markets of the US.

[Flasch186]

Missed was the point that Saudi companies are running port/terminal operations at other US ports. I have ZERO issue with that, and neither did anyone else before the critics of the administration picked up on the UAE deal, and decided to see just how much traction the story had.



we didnt know, there is no way that the american public can know everything. We simply find out when its exposed, or it comes out and then have to make a opinion on it, even if its essentially after the fact. I mean the number of "things" that exist in our country is probably in the billions.....cant know them all.

This one stinks, ESPECIALLY considering the tenuous nature in the ME AND the UAE's stance on our allies AND their porous running of their own ports....


This is leaving out the fact that the admin. didnt follow the law when considering this deal in the first place. The law says ANY security concerns from anyone involved and it gets the 45 day review. Coast guard concerns = 45 day review but for some reason this was on the fast track.

[JPhillips]

Somewhere I read a post asking why we aren't demanding anything of the UAE for approval of the port deal and I think its a good question. I could support this if it was tied to our stated intention of spreading democracy in the ME. Maybe we ask for an end to the Isreal boycott or some token elections or something. If we really want to spread democracy in the ME we need to use opportunities like this to put up or shut up.

[Klinglerware]

So, now that the UAE ports deal is dead, I wonder how much "security" is really going to be addressed by this outcome. There is no American company specializing in port operations that can handle operations of this scale. I have heard that an American financial services/investment banking firm is the most likely buyer at this point. Thus, even if there is an American buyer, it does seem that they will not have the relevant expertise and will have to outsource port operations management anyway.

And DP World, as it should be, is expected to hold out and will sell only for fair value--so it looks like a transition could take some time.

[Flasch186]

a private foreigh entity im ok with...a forign govermental entity im not.

a report came out today, a govt report, talking about how awful our port secuirty is...so perhaps this will give the congress some legs to fix it.

[ISiddiqui]

So, now that the UAE ports deal is dead, I wonder how much "security" is really going to be addressed by this outcome. There is no American company specializing in port operations that can handle operations of this scale. I have heard that an American financial services/investment banking firm is the most likely buyer at this point. Thus, even if there is an American buyer, it does seem that they will not have the relevant expertise and will have to outsource port operations management anyway.

And DP World, as it should be, is expected to hold out and will sell only for fair value--so it looks like a transition could take some time. Of course nothing of port security was going to come from it. Now that an Arab company (albeit with a CEO being a white guy from New Jersey), and if you think this hubbub wouldn't have happened if this was a private Arab company you are smoking something, was defeated in ownership of some ports, this will all take a back seat and nothing will be done on it. I'm sure of it. The political issue is over. A bunch of Congressmen showed how "pro security" they were and its over. Arabs don't have control of the ports... but the Chinese do. And Saudi Arabia... err.. well, they have LOTS of Oil!

[flere-imsaho]

Something will only happen to port security if there's a commitment made to beef up the inspections in the ports. Given that there's barely enough manpower to inspect about 5% of shipping as it is, and given that the government has critical spending tied up elsewhere, I wouldn't get your hopes up.

[BishopMVP]

a private foreigh entity im ok with...a forign govermental entity im not.The Chinese Army controls some of our port operations. And the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. The only other company bidding on P&O is run by the government of Singapore.

Xenophobia at its finest, and most detrimental.

[Flasch186]

The Chinese Army controls some of our port operations. And the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. The only other company bidding on P&O is run by the government of Singapore.

Xenophobia at its finest, and most detrimental.
im consistent...,many of our allies today were enemies in our past and in the future some of our allies today will be enemies of our future....no foreign goverment should run things that in the future could be used against us. xenophobia NO protection and security YES....I thought the right were the thinkers of security and the left wasnt...we now see the truth!! LOL

[QuikSand]

What this whole espisode shows me, once again, is how absurdly dumbed-down all matters of foreign affairs need to be before the American public and its so-called leaders get interested. If the facts of the matter have to be sacrificed in order to bundle it up into a convenient little sound byte, so be it. We like our foreign affairs in very small bites in this country.

"Sell our ports to the Arabs = bad." Case closed.

For all the people (and elected representatives) who have suddenly caught religion on port security in the last couple of weeks... where the hell have you been the last five years (and longer)?

[Flasch186]

For all the people (and elected representatives) who have suddenly caught religion on port security in the last couple of weeks... where the hell have you been the last five years (and longer)?

The republicans havnt been listening. Perhaps now they will since for the past 5 years they have been in power.

[duckman]

The republicans havnt been listening. Perhaps now they will since for the past 5 years they have been in power.

You missed the "longer" part. Both Democrats and Republicans have been outsourcing the port protection. It's only a big deal now because it's an Arab company that was trying to do it.

Also, it wasn't the Republicans listening, but the Administration itself. Big difference there. If you have been paying attention, both parties are up in arms over the whole ordeal.

[BishopMVP]

no foreign goverment should run things that in the future could be used against us. xenophobia NO

xen·o·pho·bi·a (zhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/ebreve.gifnhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/lprime.gifhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/schwa.gif-fhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/omacr.gifhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/prime.gifbhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/emacr.gif-http://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/schwa.gif, zhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/emacr.gifhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/lprime.gifnhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/schwa.gif-)
n. <DL><DD>An irrational fear and contempt of strangers or foreign peoples.</DD></DL>I thought the right were the thinkers of security and the left wasnt...we now see the truth!! LOLAnd I thought the "left" was against racial profiling and in favor of constructively working with our allies. But I guess this helps prove that principles are less useful for understanding politics than picking sides and being hypocritical when it suits the issue at hand is.

[Flasch186]

xen·o·pho·bi·a (zhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/ebreve.gifnhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/lprime.gifhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/schwa.gif-fhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/omacr.gifhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/prime.gifbhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/emacr.gif-http://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/schwa.gif, zhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/emacr.gifhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/lprime.gifnhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/schwa.gif-)
n. <DL><DD>An irrational fear and contempt of strangers or foreign peoples.</DD></DL>And I thought the "left" was against racial profiling and in favor of constructively working with our allies. But I guess this helps prove that principles are less useful for understanding politics than picking sides and being hypocritical when it suits the issue at hand is.

you keep pointing to it as if it is a racial thing. For ME it is not, that should put your rhetoric to bed. Any foreign government running one of our key iinfrastructure items is a bad idea. PERIOD. It is absolutely rational to draw the conclusion that we havnt had our last conflict in our lifetime and to have foreign entities involved in our infrastructure, especially those that EVEN our Coast Guard voiced concerns about is a bad idea. Your idea of racism, in this case, with me, is a red herring...please stop as it is offensive.

as for your other quote, i simply think you dont believe whatI say is what I mean, so your debate tactics are like a merry go round. If you wont listen to what I say, even about my own thoguhts, than why are you wasting your time spinning your tires.

I'd say that most of america, a overwhelming majority, right and left, think that this thought about protecting our entrance points to our country IS rational....to say the least.

[Flasch186]

This admin has been the protection admin....at every turn they pound security in our faces, they make sure we're all aware of what the enemy wants to do....considering that viewpoint, certainly one should question the rhetoric about our security coming from the top, when their actions throw caution to the wind, they dont follow the rules and regulations in their haste to sell our stuff overseas, and then cry when the American public shows some signs of waking up. Rational sir, this is.

[duckman]

This admin has been the protection admin....at every turn they pound security in our faces, they make sure we're all aware of what the enemy wants to do....considering that viewpoint, certainly one should question the rhetoric about our security coming from the top, when their actions throw caution to the wind, they dont follow the rules and regulations in their haste to sell our stuff overseas, and then cry when the American public shows some signs of waking up. Rational sir, this is.

Thanks, I needed to laugh. :D

[BishopMVP]

you keep pointing to it as if it is a racial thing. For ME it is not, that should put your rhetoric to bed. Any foreign government running one of our key iinfrastructure items is a bad idea. PERIOD. It is absolutely rational to draw the conclusion that we havnt had our last conflict in our lifetime and to have foreign entities involved in our infrastructure, especially those that EVEN our Coast Guard voiced concerns about is a bad idea. Your idea of racism, in this case, with me, is a red herring...please stop as it is offensive.You are specifically saing you are against any deal with foreigners in this situation. I'm not calling you a racist by pointing that out, and I don't believe it is going overboard to call that attitude xenophobic.

If you want to talk about logical fallacies in your arguments, the Coast Guard had their concerns addressed, so bringing that up is merely scaremongering. I also don't know if you are being hypocritical on this issue, but there are a a lot of foreign government-owned companies that have been running ports for years now, so I'm kinda curious why the sudden outrage and protectionist sentiment.

I'd say that most of america, a overwhelming majority, right and left, think that this thought about protecting our entrance points to our country IS rational....to say the least.And I'd say that most of America doesn't have an understanding of what exactly this deal entails (that it isn't security) how ports are operated, who controls them already (the Chinese Gov't, KSA, other multinationals) the nature of the UAE (about as friendly a ME government as there is right now) the structure of the company (many of those in charge are Americans, Europeans or other non-UAE nationals) or the practicality of implementing the protectionist language congress is proposing.

[Buccaneer]

The American public does not show any more signs of waking up because they are still ignorant and only react to soundbites. And don't be delusionaly about those in Congress from both parties wanting to take "serious" action. It was a golden opportunity to make serious political points to the folks back home but in the end, it will be very little difference now than it was 10 years ago or will be 10 years from now. The optimism for simple rationality is cute; whereas in reality, self-serving complexity is how things are run.

[Crapshoot]

The American public does not show any more signs of waking up because they are still ignorant and only react to soundbites. And don't be delusionaly about those in Congress from both parties wanting to take "serious" action. It was a golden opportunity to make serious political points to the folks back home but in the end, it will be very little difference now than it was 10 years ago or will be 10 years from now. The optimism for simple rationality is cute; whereas in reality, self-serving complexity is how things are run.

Yup. And Bishop is right - this is xenophobia, as well as a stupid strategic decision. Anytime idiots like Michelle Malkin and the Micheal Moore types are in agreement, your best bet is to take the opposite view.

[Flasch186]

You are specifically saing you are against any deal with foreigners in this situation.

Foreign Governments not foreigners. You need to be more specific. I couldnt care less if its a private entity that has clean ties to no terrorism, but foreign governments have no buisness running ours, or our infrastructure.

[Flasch186]

The American public does not show any more signs of waking up because they are still ignorant and only react to soundbites. And don't be delusionaly about those in Congress from both parties wanting to take "serious" action. It was a golden opportunity to make serious political points to the folks back home but in the end, it will be very little difference now than it was 10 years ago or will be 10 years from now. The optimism for simple rationality is cute; whereas in reality, self-serving complexity is how things are run.

call me naiive but if you keep that train of thought things will never change. I still have hope that at some point politicians will begin to stand up and do what is right.

[duckman]

Excuse me, but foreign governments are run by foreigners; hence, the use the use of the word foreign.

[Flasch186]

And I'd say that most of America doesn't have an understanding of what exactly this deal entails (that it isn't security) how ports are operated, who controls them already (the Chinese Gov't, KSA, other multinationals) the nature of the UAE (about as friendly a ME government as there is right now) the structure of the company (many of those in charge are Americans, Europeans or other non-UAE nationals) or the practicality of implementing the protectionist language congress is proposing.

So EVERYONE else is wrong and Bishop and 3% of America is right. Well, Im all for the undersog and swimming upstream but I also can make decisions on my own. For the fear that someday we could be at war with a foreign government it simply doesnt make sense to have foreign govt's run very important stuff for us. If it snowballs and many other things begin to be controlled by American entities good! Status Quo is not good enough and of course we only find out about things when theyre exposed, please dont start the Arles-type argument....we cant know ALL.

[duckman]

So EVERYONE else is wrong and Bishop and 3% of America is right.

Where the fuck do you get your numbers? I mean seriously. :confused:

[Flasch186]

Excuse me, but foreign governments are run by foreigners; hence, the use the use of the word foreign.

right I just want you to be more clear so you dont insinuate racism...which is the cute way of marginalizing those who are against this selling off of strategic things.

[duckman]

right I just want you to be more clear so you dont insinuate racism...which is the cute way of marginalizing those who are against this selling off of strategic things.

http://www.fof-ihof.com/phpBB2/images/smiles/icon_banghead.gif (javascript:emoticon(':banghead:'))

[Flasch186]

Where the fuck do you get your numbers? I mean seriously. :confused:


sorry, I didnt view that sarcastic statement as being needed to be grounded in fact.....

in fact its 21% of americans are in favor of allowing UAE to control the ports according to a CBS poll I searched for on the net.

[Flasch186]

http://www.fof-ihof.com/phpBB2/images/smiles/icon_banghead.gif (javascript:emoticon(':banghead:'))

hey you (edit to say - your side of the argument) threw this out there:

xen·o·pho·bi·a (zn-fb-, zn-)
n.

An irrational fear and contempt of strangers or foreign peoples.


1. its not irrational
2. its not contempt
3. its not foreign peoples, BUT foreign governments

[st.cronin]

http://www.fof-ihof.com/phpBB2/images/smiles/icon_banghead.gif (javascript:emoticon(':banghead:'))

that is my new favorite emoticon

[duckman]

that is my new favorite emoticon

It's fitting for trying to have a discussion with Flasch. :D

[Flasch186]

i hate when im the last comment on a page and I sit there refreshing waiting for a response and eventually see I missed that a new page started/....

[st.cronin]

There's got to be a better word for those than 'emoticon' or 'smiley,' right?

[ISiddiqui]

Btw, more fun port stuff:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/11/AR2006031100718.html


NEW YORK -- Justice Department lawyers warned eight months ago that a nefarious element had infiltrated important East Coast ports, but they weren't talking about terrorists or Arab shipping companies.


They were talking about the mafia.

In a civil suit filed in July, prosecutors accused the International Longshoremen's Association, the 65,000-member union that supplies labor to ports from Florida to Maine, of being a "vehicle for organized crime" on the waterfront.


Packed with tales of corruption, embezzling and extortion, the complaint accused union executives of being associates of the Genovese and Gambino crime families.


The U.S. attorney's office asked a judge to seize control of the union, remove its officers and "put an end to the conspiracy among union officials, organized crime figures and others that has plagued some of the nation's most important ports for decades."

--

And yes, the opposition to UAE was entirely xenophobia. It was totally irrational with hardly any fact behind it at all. The fact that DPW is CEO'ed by a white guy from Jersey, and it would be one of a few port loading & unloading companies in the US that are controled by foriegn governments, and it is an incredibly modern and Western looking Mid East power, and the US doesn't have any port companies (so the question is who is DPW going to hand this over to)... ends up being mob politics. Bunch of xenophobic morons in this country.

[Buccaneer]

call me naiive but if you keep that train of thought things will never change. I still have hope that at some point politicians will begin to stand up and do what is right.

Don't need to call you naive, you are doing that perfectly on your own.

Michelle Malkin and the Micheal Moore types are in agreement, your best bet is to take the opposite view.<!-- / message -->

Have been there for some time. I'm just waiting for the others to catch up. :)

[Buccaneer]

Btw, more fun port stuff:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/11/AR2006031100718.html



--

And yes, the opposition to UAE was entirely xenophobia. It was totally irrational with hardly any fact behind it at all. The fact that DPW is CEO'ed by a white guy from Jersey, and it would be one of a few port loading & unloading companies in the US that are controled by foriegn governments, and it is an incredibly modern and Western looking Mid East power, and the US doesn't have any port companies (so the question is who is DPW going to hand this over to)... ends up being mob politics. Bunch of xenophobic morons in this country.

The mob have had control of some of the ports for many decades now (going back to the 40s), wonder what's the urgency now and why the DoJ think this is something new?

[Flasch186]

Bucc:

i told you my reasons 70% or so of the US agrees. Xenophobe - no, wanting to protect our own borders now and in the future - yes. How is that a bad thing, righty?

If you cant fathom that someone could come to this conclusion without being racist than you are spun.

there is nothing wrong with having a high expectation....Im sorry you dont. It is on those expectations that these politicians have made the status quo.

[Buccaneer]

You (and the rest of us) have no idea of how are ports are or are not being protected, nor do you know what it would take - in actuality - to affect change one way or the other.

[flere-imsaho]

You missed the "longer" part. Both Democrats and Republicans have been outsourcing the port protection. It's only a big deal now because it's an Arab company that was trying to do it.

Just to nitpick, but I don't think "port protection" is being, or ever has been, outsourced. It's "port administration" that's the purview of private companies. As far as I've read, the Coast Guard (the poor, underfunded, understaffed Coast Guard) that's in charge of port protection.

[Klinglerware]

you keep pointing to it as if it is a racial thing. For ME it is not, that should put your rhetoric to bed. Any foreign government running one of our key iinfrastructure items is a bad idea. PERIOD. It is absolutely rational to draw the conclusion that we havnt had our last conflict in our lifetime and to have foreign entities involved in our infrastructure, especially those that EVEN our Coast Guard voiced concerns about is a bad idea. Your idea of racism, in this case, with me, is a red herring...please stop as it is offensive.

as for your other quote, i simply think you dont believe whatI say is what I mean, so your debate tactics are like a merry go round. If you wont listen to what I say, even about my own thoguhts, than why are you wasting your time spinning your tires.

I'd say that most of america, a overwhelming majority, right and left, think that this thought about protecting our entrance points to our country IS rational....to say the least.

First off, I am glad that the Democratic Party is finally showing the cojones to play machiavellian politics for a change.

But Flasch, I'm a little surprised that you can't see this for what it is--a political play by the Democrats, eagerly playing upon xenophobic tendencies of everyday Americans. Many political, intelligence, and security analysts I respect have gone on record as saying that the DPW ownership of US port operations would not be that big of a deal, security-wise.

If you had bothered to do your reasearch on the UAE, you will see how the UAE's economic policies and their position as a major financial hub has put the UAE in a position where they cannot afford extremists to have any influence on the country. UAE social and fiscal policies have left their population more worldly and wealthy than their neighbors in Saudi Arabia--thus popular extremism is not a problem in the UAE as in it's neighbor to the south. Dubai has done a very good job of building up itself as a financial center and it is certainly not the terrorist backwater you envision. I am a little surprised that you would accept stereotyped images at face value without digging deeper.

This is not directed at you Flasch, but I do think that racism does play some part in the general population's opposition to this deal. However, what is more worrisome is that ignorance is an even greater driver. The famed American ignorance of the world around us is more of a danger to us than DP World will ever be.

[Flasch186]

First off, I am glad that the Democratic Party is finally showing the cojones to play machiavellian politics for a change.

But Flasch, I'm a little surprised that you can't see this for what it is--a political play by the Democrats, eagerly playing upon xenophobic tendencies of everyday Americans. Many political, intelligence, and security analysts I respect have gone on record as saying that the DPW ownership of US port operations would not be that big of a deal, security-wise.

If you had bothered to do your reasearch on the UAE, you will see how the UAE's economic policies and their position as a major financial hub has put the UAE in a position where they cannot afford extremists to have any influence on the country. UAE social and fiscal policies have left their population more worldly and wealthy than their neighbors in Saudi Arabia--thus popular extremism is not a problem in the UAE as in it's neighbor to the south. Dubai has done a very good job of building up itself as a financial center and it is certainly not the terrorist backwater you envision. I am a little surprised that you would accept stereotyped images at face value without digging deeper.

This is not directed at you Flasch, but I do think that racism does play some part in the general population's opposition to this deal. However, what is more worrisome is that ignorance is an even greater driver. The famed American ignorance of the world around us is more of a danger to us than DP World will ever be.


Klingler it isnt just about today. Its about 4 years from now when a war is going on involving Israel. What do we do then when the UAE says, like the Taliban before, "We are going to side with our arab brethren." Our ports are shut down or perhaps, more sinisterly, for weeks they allow all sorts of stuff to go on on the ports because that famed and underfunded Coast Guard becomes spread thin overnight. This would go for any country. If we have China running a bunch of stuff and we have to step into a dispute between them and Taiwan, isnt it better to NOT have the Chinese running strategic assets? It simply doesnt make sense.

I understand what politics is today up on the hill but that will not persuade me to lower my standards or expectations. I expect them to do what is right, and over the past years I have hammered both sides of the aisle when they do something that doesnt pass the smell test, from Delay and Abramoff, to Reid and Abramoff, to the Duke in California.

This dealing, even if the politician doesnt believe in it and is simply pandering to the majority, is good for the security of America. In the long run it wont hurt our dealings economically with anyone as they all need and want our dollars, but it could have been substantially painful in the future should things in the world change. They've changed before and they certainly will change again, just look at S. America.

[Flasch186]

DOLA:

See, I dont agree with this because its not foreign governments control (at this point according to the article), just foreign investors. Thats fine:


Foreign Airline Control Raises Concerns

Thu Mar 9, 5:47 PM ET

WASHINGTON - Resistance to foreign ownership of U.S. port operations spilled over into the aviation arena when a congressional committee told the Bush administration to postpone a plan to allow more foreign control of domestic airlines.
ADVERTISEMENT

The House Appropriations Committee on Wednesday passed a resolution directing the Transportation Department to hold off for 120 days on its proposal to give foreign investors in U.S. airlines more latitude to influence management decisions.

"The committee believes that the U.S. aviation industry is part of our critical infrastructure as are the ports," said the resolution, which passed by voice vote and doesn't have the force of law.

The Republican-controlled Congress rebelled against
President Bush by threatening to block a Dubai-owned company from taking over operations at several U.S. ports. The company on Thursday said it would transfer the U.S. operation to an American entity.

The port controversy fueled opposition to a proposed regulation that would give foreign airline investors more control over marketing, flight routes and what kinds of planes to fly. Non-U.S. citizens still couldn't own more than 25 percent of a U.S. airline's voting stock.

The Transportation Department issued a statement on Thursday saying its proposal "would require U.S. citizens to maintain control of all decisions affecting the security, safety and national defense obligations of domestic airlines."

Reps. Frank LoBiondo, R-N.J., and James Oberstar, D-Minn., are sponsoring legislation backed by 158 other members to prevent the regulation from going into effect for at least a year and to give Congress the right to veto it.

Democratic Sens. Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey and Daniel Inouye of Hawaii sponsored a similar bill.

[ISiddiqui]

What do we do then when the UAE says, like the Taliban before, "We are going to side with our arab brethren."

I have to give a :rolleyes: to this. The UAE is as far from the Taliban as the US is from Torquemada. UAE runs itself as a business. It didn't exactly attack us during the US-Iraq war (both of them). I mean hell, they are several large Christian churches and schools in Abu Dhabi and Dubai. Try finding that in Taliban controlled Afghanistan.

Attempts to box in all Arab states as being the same won't work.

[Buccaneer]

Just wait until to Flasch learns about major foreign-owned (esp. Chinese) entities within our financial institutions. Would one agree that the potential for economic terrorism is much greater and devastating than physical terrorism?

I saw in the paper this morning this quip, "Never stand between a cameraman and a Congressperson in an election year."

[ISiddiqui]

Hell, I wonder if Flasch realizes that Dubai owns 2% of Daimler Chrysler, making it the 3rd largest shareholder in the company ;).

[duckman]

Hell, I wonder if Flasch realizes that Dubai owns 2% of Daimler Chrysler, making it the 3rd largest shareholder in the company ;).

Now, you just fed his fears about the immorality of corporations! :eek: :rolleyes: ;)

[Klinglerware]

I understand what politics is today up on the hill but that will not persuade me to lower my standards or expectations. I expect them to do what is right,




In the long run it wont hurt our dealings economically with anyone as they all need and want our dollars, but it could have been substantially painful in the future should things in the world change.


But your concern is with security. Do you really feel that you would be that much safer if Citibank or Goldman Sachs or whomever were running the show? It would seem to make more sense to raise issue with the underfunded mandates saddling our Homeland Security apparatus. After all, they are who is ultimately responsible for port security.

I disagree profoundly with your second statement I quoted. This does have the potential to hurt the US economically, since this signals to foreign investors that the United States is not politically stable enough to guarantee safe investment in our country in some sectors. I also see the potential for American multinationals to face similar politically-based resistance in its foreign dealings, in kind.

Any potential restrictions on port operation ownership by foreign entities going forward does nothing to address legitimate port security issues, while undermining US political and economic clout. I don't really see much good (for the US) coming out of this.

[Flasch186]

Hell, I wonder if Flasch realizes that Dubai owns 2% of Daimler Chrysler, making it the 3rd largest shareholder in the company ;).

thats fine, its not effecting our security directly.

[Flasch186]

But your concern is with security. Do you really feel that you would be that much safer if Citibank or Goldman Sachs or whomever were running the show? It would seem to make more sense to raise issue with the underfunded mandates saddling our Homeland Security apparatus. After all, they are who is ultimately responsible for port security.

I disagree profoundly with your second statement I quoted. This does have the potential to hurt the US economically, since this signals to foreign investors that the United States is not politically stable enough to guarantee safe investment in our country in some sectors. I also see the potential for American multinationals to face similar politically-based resistance in its foreign dealings, in kind.

Any potential restrictions on port operation ownership by foreign entities going forward does nothing to address legitimate port security issues, while undermining US political and economic clout. I don't really see much good (for the US) coming out of this.

well were going to have to agree to disagree. They will continue to invest here, without a doubt. I also agree that homeland security is being paid lip service instead of true development to be able to protect us. I definitely feel safer.


regarding the comparison between UAE and Taliban, that wasn't my point and I apologize for not being more clear. I was drawing a hypothesis that someday, if a war were to erupt and countries had to choose sides, which side would a country choose in the future? Would UAE stand next to us or Iran? Would they stand with Israel or Syria? We dont know, we cant be sure and that is where proper strategic calculations come into play. I dont believe this administration does enough well minded calculations about what will happen in the future regarding foreign play and what they have done has been wrong or sorely lacking.

[Flasch186]

Just wait until to Flasch learns about major foreign-owned (esp. Chinese) entities within our financial institutions. Would one agree that the potential for economic terrorism is much greater and devastating than physical terrorism?

I saw in the paper this morning this quip, "Never stand between a cameraman and a Congressperson in an election year."

One thing at a time...there already "terrorizing" our dollar, which apparently we've made statements trying to get them to revalue their currency but have made no headway at all. Im not a fan of them hordeing our dollars either but im not learned enough to know all of the ins and outs of that issue.

[Glengoyne]

hey you (edit to say - your side of the argument) threw this out there:




1. its not irrational
2. its not contempt
3. its not foreign peoples, BUT foreign governments

I call BS.

1.It is irrational, because there isn't any substance to the objections, other than They are an Arab country, and our ports are a big weakness. That isn't substance.

2. It is contemptuous to oppose the deal that was proposed without having the slightest shred of evidence that amounted to more than supposition and predisposed ideas regarding an arab nation.

3. This is rationalization in its purest form.

I don't understand how anyone can't see that the opposition to this deal was either politically motivated or xenophobic/racist in nature.

[Flasch186]

because it doesnt make sense to let ANY foreign country have control over our ports. It has nothing to do with ARAB, in 5 years we could be at war with Chechnya, they should not run our ports either. It has no BS in it, it makes common sense that 70% of Americans recognize, but incredibly on this board unlike the real world it still falls along Partisan lines. That baffles me.

It is completely rational, I explain it

ra·tion·al Audio pronunciation of "rational" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (rsh-nl)
adj.

1. Having or exercising the ability to reason.
2. Of sound mind; sane.
3. Consistent with or based on reason; logical: rational behavior. See Synonyms at logical.
4. Mathematics. Capable of being expressed as a quotient of integers.


2. there is plenty of evidence that this was not properly vetted and when one so it raised more questions about the past. some have argued that there are 2 UAE's...the one pre-9/11 and the one after. well 9/11 was not that long ago...at least for me.

3. is this the other side of the coin or sarcasm?

[BishopMVP]

I was drawing a hypothesis that someday, if a war were to erupt and countries had to choose sides, which side would a country choose in the future? Would UAE stand next to us or Iran?Or maybe a war between the US and Iraq? Especially when you consider the vastly farther differences in culture, religion and the shit Iran has pulled in and around the Straits of Hormuz in the past its pretty obvious to anyone looking deeper than the Arab in UAE that they would pick our side there. Its that type of ignorance about the UAE that makes you and your side look bad here.

[Flasch186]

Or maybe a war between the US and Iraq? Especially when you consider the vastly farther differences in culture, religion and the shit Iran has pulled in and around the Straits of Hormuz in the past its pretty obvious to anyone looking deeper than the Arab in UAE that they would pick our side there. Its that type of ignorance about the UAE that makes you and your side look bad here.

but the world changes, and more faster today than ever. Look just 5 years ago they were fans of the Taliban BUT Ill bet if you poll them today they would say that they are not. It simply is silly to outsoure strategic assets to anyone other than our own government.....its silly, and were lucky that in WW2 we didnt have that sort of attitude, i mean look what Switzerland did with all of the stuff tat was outsourced to them. Its a bad idea, PERIOD, no matter what their attitudes or opinions are today ESPECIALLY considering how poorly they ran their own ports. North Korea, Libya, and Iran must thank the heavans that AQK was able to send stuff through there so easily...is that ignorance or negligence there bish?

[st.cronin]

but the world changes, and more faster today than ever. Look just 5 years ago they were fans of the Taliban BUT Ill bet if you poll them today they would say that they are not. It simply is silly to outsoure strategic assets to anyone other than our own government.....its silly, and were lucky that in WW2 we didnt have that sort of attitude, i mean look what Switzerland did with all of the stuff tat was outsourced to them. Its a bad idea, PERIOD, no matter what their attitudes or opinions are today ESPECIALLY considering how poorly they ran their own ports. North Korea, Libya, and Iran must thank the heavans that AQK was able to send stuff through there so easily...is that ignorance or negligence there bish?

More like 10-20 years ago, but ok. Flasch is espousing a point of view taken by Odysseus in Sophocles' Ajax, which I may be exploring as a major school assignment. That's the only reason I'm still following this thread.

[Flasch186]

More like 10-20 years ago, but ok. Flasch is espousing a point of view taken by Odysseus in Sophocles' Ajax, which I may be exploring as a major school assignment. That's the only reason I'm still following this thread.

thats ok, i get numbers wrong sometimes...this time, im right:



UAE cuts ties with Taliban

September 22, 2001 Posted: 8:21 PM EDT (0021 GMT)
Save a link to this article and return to it at www.savethis.comSave a link to this article and return to it at www.savethis.com
Printer-friendly version of this articlePrinter-friendly version of this article

Email a link to this articleEmail a link to this article
View a list of the most popular articles on our siteView a list of the most popular articles on our site

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The United Arab Emirates cut diplomatic ties with Afghanistan's Taliban rulers Saturday as international pressure mounted on the Taliban to turn over suspected terrorist leader Osama bin Laden.

The move leaves only two other countries -- Saudi Arabia and Pakistan -- that still recognize the Taliban as Afghanistan's government. And diplomatic sources told CNN that Saudi Arabia could make an announcement similar to the UAE's in the coming days.

A UAE diplomat told CNN that over the last few days the Persian Gulf nation had made intensive efforts to get the Taliban government to comply with a U.N. Security Council resolution demanding it hand over bin Laden for a fair international trial. The United States says bin Laden is the prime suspect in the September 11 terror attacks in New York and Washington.

"We were trying to help them find a solution, but we didn't get a response," he said.

The Taliban has refused to hand bin Laden over to U.S. authorities, as President Bush demanded. The U.S. has been moving large numbers of military aircraft into the region and has begun activating military units for possible action against Afghanistan as a result.

While Saudi Arabia's foreign minister said this week that his country had downgraded its relationship with the Taliban even before the September 11 attack, the United States wants the Saudis to cut off all ties. A Saudi diplomat told CNN earlier this week that the Saudis "are 100 percent with America."

"We think this is a real fight," he said. "We are ready to go all the way."

A senior State Department official also told CNN that Saudi Arabia expressed that it was fully on board with U.S. plans for an international coalition against terrorism.

However, the kingdom has not explicitly stated its support for the United States to use its Prince Sultan Air Base in an air war against Afghanistan or any other countries suspected of harboring terrorists. A senior administration official told CNN it was "premature" to secure such support, because plans for a U.S. military campaign are not yet finalized and the United States is not engaging in "hypothetical discussions."

The official also suggested that Saudi Arabia is too far from Afghanistan to be a hub of U.S. military forces. "The mood music coming out of Riyadh is as good as we can hope for," he told CNN.

Pakistan, which has had the closest diplomatic relationship with the neighboring Taliban, is the main conduit for diplomacy with the United States. Even before the attack, Pakistan used its influence with the Taliban in an attempt to help secure the release of eight international aid workers, including two Americans, on trial for charges of trying to convert Muslims to Christianity.

Earlier this week, a Pakistani delegation representing President Pervez Musharraf traveled to Afghanistan and demanded the handover of bin Laden, or face U.S. air strikes.

In addition, a senior Pakistani official tells CNN a letter from Musharraf, delivered by the delegation, demanded the Taliban hand over more than a dozen of bin Laden's associates, close down all terrorist training camps in Afghanistan, and allow a neutral country to verify once that was done.

The crisis has plunged Pakistan into a geographical and political nightmare. The country is wedged between Afghanistan on the west and nuclear rival India on the east.

Musharraf has appealed for his people's support and trust as he laid out reasons for joining the United States in an international coalition against terrorism. But protests across the country indicate many Pakistanis do not support the president's alliance with the United States: At least three people were killed in anti-American demonstrations on Friday. Protests were more peaceful on Saturday.

Senior State Department officials and diplomatic sources tell CNN that the Bush administration could lift sanctions against Pakistan as early as Monday for its cooperation.

[st.cronin]

Also I should point out that while Odysseus and Flasch share certain common assumptions (that our friend today is our enemy tomorrow) I have to think on this issue that Odysseus would come to the opposite conclusion of Flasch. Ajax, on the other hand, would have agreed 100% with Flasch.

[BishopMVP]

but the world changes, and more faster today than ever. Look just 5 years ago they were fans of the TalibanThey weren't fans of the Taliban anymore than Switzerland is fans of Milosevic, the Iranian Mullahs, Mugabe or Pinochet to name a few. UAE/Dubai has been trying to become the Switzerland of the ME - the regions financial hub that is neutral on other concerns. And largely, they've succeeded. Now you can argue that international banking should be more strict or recognition of dictatorial regimes harder to come by, but you're gonna have to start including a real long list of countries to bar from running port operations if that's gonna be the criteria. It simply is silly to outsoure strategic assets to anyone other than our own government.....its silly, and were lucky that in WW2 we didnt have that sort of attitude, i mean look what Switzerland did with all of the stuff tat was outsourced to them.I'm not sure where you're going with this. Its a bad idea, PERIOD, no matter what their attitudes or opinions are todayWe've apprehended British citizens attempting to blow up airliners, and there is a not insignificant portion of that population that could be termed radically Islamic. Does Britain get included on this list of untrustworthy allies? Or where do you draw that line?ESPECIALLY considering how poorly they ran their own ports. North Korea, Libya, and Iran must thank the heavans that AQK was able to send stuff through there so easily...is that ignorance or negligence there bish?Nobody cared about the AQ Khan network then, and for all their rhetoric no government cares seriously about nuclear proliferation today. If the US and everyone else was basically allowing it to happen fairly openly, why would the UAE care? Since the rhetoric went up though in the past 2-3 years, the ports in Dubai have installed some of the strictest monitoring systems w/regards to radiation - better than most American ports.

All this arguing about little points ignores the real point - while there are numerous problems with port security in this country, there is no credible evidence capable of holding up to scrutiny that allowing the UAE to run port operations at some of them would make any terrorist attack more likely. The initial misgivings in most peoples minds were based off at best ignorance and the continuing fervor even after evidence came out is based almost entirely on crude political considerations that are detrimental to us in the long term.

[Crapshoot]

One thing at a time...there already "terrorizing" our dollar, which apparently we've made statements trying to get them to revalue their currency but have made no headway at all. Im not a fan of them hordeing our dollars either but im not learned enough to know all of the ins and outs of that issue.

Oh dear god Flasch, please don't get into an arguement about the currency valuation - you're out of your depth on the economics of the issue. Nothing personal, but it isn't a topic one can soundbite, no matter how much a politican may attempt to. You, as a real estate agent, probably benefit more from the Chinese peasant's de facto subsidy of the American consumer than anyone else- don't bite the hand that feeds you.

[Flasch186]

Oh dear god Flasch, please don't get into an arguement about the currency valuation - you're out of your depth on the economics of the issue. Nothing personal, but it isn't a topic one can soundbite, no matter how much a politican may attempt to. You, as a real estate agent, probably benefit more from the Chinese peasant's de facto subsidy of the American consumer than anyone else- don't bite the hand that feeds you.

you hit the nail on the head and I actually spoke today about the fact that I "abhorr the hand that feeds me." Dont think I dont recognize that.

[Flasch186]

They weren't fans of the Taliban anymore than Switzerland is fans of Milosevic, the Iranian Mullahs, Mugabe or Pinochet to name a few. UAE/Dubai has been trying to become the Switzerland of the ME - the regions financial hub that is neutral on other concerns. And largely, they've succeeded. Now you can argue that international banking should be more strict or recognition of dictatorial regimes harder to come by, but you're gonna have to start including a real long list of countries to bar from running port operations if that's gonna be the criteria.

The list is huge, every country except our own.

having a foreign country run another country's ports MUST increase risk at least .01%. It is ridiculous to think otherwise and goes against statistics.

[Glengoyne]

... it makes common sense that 70% of Americans recognize, but incredibly on this board unlike the real world it still falls along Partisan lines. That baffles me.

...

I don't think this is quite falling along partisan lines. Look at Klingler, ISdiqqui, and some of the others. Don't think for a second that QS is supporting your position. You are the one he is talking about falling for soundbite politics.

Seriously. If you think it is OK to treat a company differently simply because of its arab origin, then why is it not OK to treat arab individuals in the same manner? Just because this company is of arab origin is no reason to assume that they are a security risk. Most of the people opposing this haven't done one bit of further investigation. It sounds like a bad idea at first blush...why even consider it more deeply?

[Flasch186]

because this is NOT a company!! It IS the arm of a foreign government!! There is no difference....Im fine with a foreign private company going with the approval process (which I feel would be rejected) but NOT a foreign government!! Do you see the difference in my view!! It has NOTHING to do with the people and EVERYTHING to do with the fact that it is a foreign government.

[Glengoyne]

because this is NOT a company!! It IS the arm of a foreign government!! There is no difference....Im fine with a foreign private company going with the approval process (which I feel would be rejected) but NOT a foreign government!! Do you see the difference in my view!! It has NOTHING to do with the people and EVERYTHING to do with the fact that it is a foreign government.
I don't think that is really a valid distinction. I know it is the government. I don't think it makes one iotta difference.

Rationalization is why this is point is important to you.

Oh and it IS a company.

[Flasch186]

I don't think that is really a valid distinction. I know it is the government. I don't think it makes one iotta difference.

Rationalization is why this is point is important to you.

Oh and it IS a company.


It is valid to me.

I dont understand this sentence and have reread it

It is only a company in name, like saying the Army Corp of Engineers is a company. (BTW they are very nice and actually tutored at my high school which I thought was very cool)

[ISiddiqui]

It is only a company in name, like saying the Army Corp of Engineers is a company. (BTW they are very nice and actually tutored at my high school which I thought was very cool)

You have absolutely no clue how DPW is structured do you? This isn't like Chinese companies that are owned by the government. This is an independant company, which is majority owned by the government of the UAE. Their COO is an American. A lot of their executives are American. They have had consultants such as Bill Clinton and Bob Dole. And btw, while the government says there is a boycott of Isreal, DPW does indeed trade with Israel (UAE just keeps it mostly quiet)

In case you haven't realized, the UAE wants to run their country like one huge business. The Sheik in charge wants to basically be a CEO.

They aren't interested in wars. They aren't interested in picking sides. As said before, they are the Switzerland of ME politics.

[Flasch186]

You have absolutely no clue how DPW is structured do you? This isn't like Chinese companies that are owned by the government. This is an independant company, which is majority owned by the government of the UAE. Their COO is an American. A lot of their executives are American. They have had consultants such as Bill Clinton and Bob Dole. And btw, while the government says there is a boycott of Isreal, DPW does indeed trade with Israel (UAE just keeps it mostly quiet)

In case you haven't realized, the UAE wants to run their country like one huge business. The Sheik in charge wants to basically be a CEO.

They aren't interested in wars. They aren't interested in picking sides. As said before, they are the Switzerland of ME politics.

majority ownership by a govt. and independent do NOT go hand in hand. Supporting their quiet embargo of Israeli trade goes against our values here, but those apparently dont matter if you have enough $. All of this is crap, it is a government and this is not an independent business no matter how they have it structured, if 51% is owned by Greece...It is still Grecian, and that doesnt fly with Strategic assets to me and 70% of the US. Let them recognize Israel and then come back and try to sell me that it is congruent with our foreign policy...cuz right now, it dont jive.


we might as well stop...you know my stance and why, there is nothing racist about it...just trying to protect us, which is what the Bush Admin. has been touting up and down for 5 years. Why that is lost on you, I dont know....but regardless....my stance is rational, validated, and in my opinion good for the USA. Take it at that and move on to the next topic, cuz the racism thought, or xenophobic thought doesnt fly and a lot is going to have to happen before Ill agree to outsourcing ANY strategic assets to foreign countries and we SHOULD start taking strategic assets back into our hands from Foreign Countries.

[ISiddiqui]

majority ownership by a govt. and independent do NOT go hand in hand. Supporting their quiet embargo of Israeli trade goes against our values here, but those apparently dont matter if you have enough $. All of this is crap, it is a government and this is not an independent business no matter how they have it structured, if 51% is owned by Greece...It is still Grecian, and that doesnt fly with Strategic assets to me and 70% of the US. Let them recognize Israel and then come back and try to sell me that it is congruent with our foreign policy...cuz right now, it dont jive.

Here comes the irrational stuff again... you show a total lack of understanding of DPW. Emirates Air is also owned by UAE, and flies directly into JFK Airport. Ban then from coming in? After all, we know that airplanes have been used against the US in attacks.

Anyway, since Citgo Oil is ultimately owned by the Venezuelan government, do you not believe they are an independant company? Do you think Hugo sits in on meetings and tell them where to drill?

[Flasch186]

Here comes the irrational stuff again... you show a total lack of understanding of DPW. Emirates Air is also owned by UAE, and flies directly into JFK Airport. Ban then from coming in? After all, we know that airplanes have been used against the US in attacks.

Anyway, since Citgo Oil is ultimately owned by the Venezuelan government, do you not believe they are an independant company? Do you think Hugo sits in on meetings and tell them where to drill?


you prove my point....

Hugo has threatened to stop oil to the US. What would happen if we had to declare war on Iran. Hugo COULD stop Citgo's oil delivery to the US....that is exactly my point. thank you...

Having an airplane flying in is going off the deepend, although possible, Im not as concerned about one airline flying in as an attack as a pre-planned turning of the blind eye to allow "bad" things in to our borders (which is easy to do anyways) when the shit hits the fan.

That is not Irrational at all.

BTW, I dont give a fuck about how DPW has their books drawn up (which they want to keep offshore so that they cant be subpoened) that doesnt mean that they follow those guidelines anyways.....many companies do what they say they dont.

[Flasch186]

i cant talk about this anymore tonight...

[ISiddiqui]

you prove my point....

Hugo has threatened to stop oil to the US. What would happen if we had to declare war on Iran. Hugo COULD stop Citgo's oil delivery to the US....that is exactly my point. thank you...

Having an airplane flying in is going off the deepend, although possible, Im not as concerned about one airline flying in as an attack as a pre-planned turning of the blind eye to allow "bad" things in to our borders (which is easy to do anyways) when the shit hits the fan.

That is not Irrational at all.

BTW, I dont give a fuck about how DPW has their books drawn up (which they want to keep offshore so that they cant be subpoened) that doesnt mean that they follow those guidelines anyways.....many companies do what they say they dont.

LOL! Yeah, Chavez is going to stop selling oil. You really don't make a difference between rhetoric and economic reality do you? And Hugo would have to stop all oil exports to anywhere, since the oil market is a worldwide one.

Secondly, the guys who will be working for DPW will be the same longshoreman that work the ports loading and unloading today. What, you think they are going to join with the mob to undermine US security?

I think you've read too many Tom Clancy books, I mean the conspiracy theories coming from you are incredibly ludicrous.

And yes, it's incredibly irrational, based simply on guilt by association. If this was a Turkey owned firm, I wonder if anything near this hubbub would rise up? And apparently Germany and Australia don't think DPW is about to 'turn a blind eye' since it runs ports in those countries and has for years.

Now we have them doing things contrary to their corporate guidelines based on... what exactly? The fact that they are brown?

[Crapshoot]

you hit the nail on the head and I actually spoke today about the fact that I "abhorr the hand that feeds me." Dont think I dont recognize that.

Flasch, seriously - take an economics lesson, then come back to argue this. The "terrorizing our currency" is the kind of crap I expect from a shitty Tom Clancy novel- but I repeat myself.

[Flasch186]

earlier someone said that this WOULD hurt economically cuz it would effect trade partners with us...now its the opposite, HUGO CANT stop selling oil to us. convenient.

Brown, green, red, white....put that herring to bed will yah? This has nothing to do with racism, with me.


seriously i have to go to bed now

[ISiddiqui]

Brown, green, red, white....put that herring to bed will yah? This has nothing to do with racism, with me.

Then please... explain to me why this company would violate its corporate guidlines in such a way? Preferably after you took the tinfoil hat off.

[Flasch186]

because the corporation is controlled by a government. jeez, isnt this circular?

[ISiddiqui]

because the corporation is controlled by a government. jeez, isnt this circular?
Yes, its very circular. Why would the government want the corporation to violate its corporate guidlines in such ways (when it has had those guidelines for years)?

I mean you'd think we were talking about Sudan running a company here instead of a US ally that looks to the West, UAE (Hell, its a corporation state).

[Flasch186]

y'know for me it would be better for you to argue whether or not something is a
"strategic" asset or not. There we could play, but with this it is simple, USA controls Strategic assets in USA...if its not strategic I dont care who runs it as long as they do it well....i guess.

[Flasch186]

, UAE (Hell, its a corporation state).

Government type: federation with specified powers delegated to the UAE federal government and other powers reserved to member emirates


Overall governmental authority is invested in the Supreme Council, which consists of the seven sheikhs; a majority of five (including both Abu Dhabi and Dubai) must agree to any action.

[ISiddiqui]

USA, as in US government, or US 'companies'? If US companies (in this globalized world there really isn't such a thing), then what if DPW registers its headquarters as being in New York City and reincorporates in New York State? That would make it a US company.

And what exactly is a strategic asset? Are manufacturing plants a 'strategic asset'? Some would argue so, because if we get in a war (where have I heard that postulation before?), these Chinese companies (or other Asian or Latin American countries) can hurt our economy by refusing to sell us certain manufacturing goods, or by closing down manufacturing plants they own in the US (like Japanese companies). How far does it go?

And why is the company that unloads crates in the US more suspicious than those that load those crates in other countries? Do we say that they have to ship using US companies? After all, isn't it worse that China has total control over what it loads in the crates than the fact that a UAE owned company unloads those crates in US ports?