Here's something I don't like Bush for...

Remove all ads!

Control of several major US ports will be turned over to a Dubai based company.

Here's a link...

I know you all may think I'm a Bushogist, but there are several things that I take strong objection to...his education plan is poor, he failed utterly on the privatization of Social Security...and this latest port deal...this is one of them, maybe the biggest. In truth, there's probably little that could really be done in our global economy world, but it burns my onion that operational control of major ports like New York and Philadelphia would be turned over to a middle eastern nation that's spawned terrorists. It seems such a shame that there's no domestic company that couldn't operate our own ports for pride and profit.

It is rather ironic in this case that the administration is calling Democrat opposition "bigots", while the Democrats are scrambling to draft protectionist legislation.

Anyone else bothered by this except me? Anyone else realize how significant this erosion of American Industry is? Anyone else want to still fixate on the vital topic of a few pellets of bird shot?

[edit] Sorry, the country is UAE, the company is Dubai ports

 

I'm concerned about it, but probably for different reasons (leaving any issues of patriotism aside, of course, since they don't apply to me in this case). I'm not as convinced about the "terrorists" argument as you, Hack - but Frist's concerns about the handover and sale being rushed are legitimate grievances, IMO (if accurate).

I don't agree with protectionism for its own sake, but a first reading suggests that the proposed legislation would be a delay for a review, not a brick wall. That people would oppose this on the sole grounds that two 9/11 hijackers were UAE citizens seems obscene - I haven't seen or heard of anyone in the US kicking up a stink about Australian businesses after having apprehended an Australian national fighting with the Taliban (except about his treatment in Guantanamo).

In short, while there's no such thing as absolute security, there's no reason for DPW to have lesser standards, and without evidence of their complicity in terrorist activities, no reason to suspect it. Indeed, with this matter being raised, they'll probably be assessed more stringently. Most of the dock employees will probably be exactly the same as they were under the old owners, and most new employees will probably be drawn from the local labour market. I can see why it concerns you, Hack - but I think that a "homeland security" worry is not supported by the evidence to hand thus far.

I'd have started on a rant about the evils of privatisation, but since it's been privately operated for years, that has no bearing on this matter.

Well, if there's nothing else to shoot the breeze about...

(NS ducks for cover after abhorrent pun)

 

Heh, HS, now you know how the rest of us feel, hearing W justify questionable policy as not being bad for national security because he says so.

Yes, thanks!! Sure people are paying attention to Dubai, Libby, Iraq, massive budgets, etc, but Birdshotgate is durn funny for sure, kinda like poetic justice. Sure it doesn't have much to do with policy, but neither did Swift Boating, Internet-inventing, stained Gap dresses, aggressive rabbits, etc.

From the monday comedy shows:

 

Mmm...

Being as "British" is the official term for citizenship of the United Kingdom, which includes Northern Island, we've spawned one or two terrorists ourselves. Of course the big difference is they aren't likely to operate on Amercian soil - except for fund-raising of course.

Although I'm generally strictly Anti-Bush (not even anti-republican), I probably agree with him on this one.

 

I am not really sure if the worries about Dubai operating the big american ports are justified, but politically this move is creating a mess. Just look at all the stink raised by Bush's own party (the Democrats are piling on, sure). Bush is apparently talking tough so far (promising to veto any legislation trying to stop this hand-over), but I think is only a matter of time until he folds.

This is pretty funny in a way. After all this talk about Homeland Security and the war against terrorism... handing the administration of US biggest ports to a country in the Middle East really looks like a dumb move. IIRC, some time ago there was a lot of noise about US ceding control of some internet servers to an international body, by reason of them being important to US economy and security. OTOH, ports don't seem to matter so much

 

Dubai run the port, they have no control over security. Besides I thought the UAE were US allies.

 

I agree with BTA. OK, EAU has been known to harbor a few terrorists, but honestly, even in countries where terrorism is common, I would have to think that the vast majoirty of the population are still NOT TERRORISTS. I can see why people would like to see the ports controlled by an American company, but it seems the arguement is not that they are opposed to a foreign company managing the ports, but that they are opposed to this particular foreign company managing the ports, which seems silly to me.

 

While I do think it was a questionable act under the current situation, I don't think there's a real problem with what he's doing, its just something that makes people nervous and there are too many nervous people out there now.

 

What's ironic is that many people which call the opponents of this deal with Dubai anti-arab are also perfectly fine with the abrigement of privacy and civil rights imposed by such laws as the Patriot act.

So, illegal searches, wiretappings and so on directed against private persons are okay, because we fight terrorism (one could also add imprisonment and torture, for some unlucky fews). On the other hand, scrutinizing the deals made with arab companies with links to people in the administration is going too far.

 

Here's the really funny thing. The Dubai company that everyone's so worried about is only doing the exact same thing as the English company they bought out. They don't want to replace American officials or anything, just the English ones that are no longer employed.

 

If a UAE company can do a better job of running some operations at the ports, then it behooves the US to give them the contract -- IIRC, this is a central tenet of free enterprise -- the person who does the best job for the lowest price gets the job without regard for other issues.

Now as for security, well, that's another security -- a nation should not sub-contract out the job of safeguarding its borders to foreigners of any stripe, be they closest ally or best qualified. but from what has been said here it would appear that port security is still in US hands, so no problem there.

If, however, the issue under discussion is American jobs, then of course there is every possibility that an American company should have gotten the contract to run the port, as it behooves the government to give jobs to Americans before giving those jobs to foreigners, as that keeps the $$ in the country and protects the interests of citizens before the interests of outsiders. Any opposition politician worth his salt is going to challenge this if he wants his constituants to take him seriously come next election when the issue of the unemployment rate comes up.

 

There is a critical difference between the Dubai Ports Company and the UK based company it's replacing. Dubai Ports, along with all other Corporations in UAE, is essentially owned by the government. In essence, we're turning control of critical, major US ports to a foreign nation.

I'm not all wigged out because two 9/11 hijackers were UAE citizens, that's merely an irony...but I think it's awful for the US to deliver control of strategic and vital assets to a foreign nation...a nation that served as the pivot point for illegal nuclear material flowing from Pakistan and India to Iran and Korea...a nation that was one of only 3 in the world to recognize the Taliban...a nation that led the charge 30 years ago to bring America to it's knees during the OPEC oil embargo.

Port security will still be overseen by the Coast Guard...but a great American Industry, Shipping and Portage, will be under control of a foreign power.

That's what's wrong with this deal and I think that Bush is just sucking up to a recent friend in the "War on Terror" with no thought to our future and the future of Longshoremen and dockworkers in the affected areas.

 

This deal is a perfect illustration of what Bush and his cronies are really all about: money.

Everything with Bush and Cheney et. al. is about handing over huge no-bid government contracts to their friends. That includes their old Yale buddies, their country club golfing pals, their hunting friends and of course their oil-rich Arab friends.

There's nothing "conservative" about these deals: they are just another form of big-government spending. Corporate welfare is all it really is. Of course they will pretend to actually care about things like the "gay agenda" and someone hippy burning a flag on the Supreme Court steps just to get the votes of the 40% or so of Americans who think these are important issues.

And then when a deal like this comes up it usually just slides right on by most of us without being noticed. Fox News certainly wasn't going out of its way to mention this deal... not until CNN started talking about it.

Similar deals have been inked with China. China, of course, hasn't given the world any terrorists (yet). Oh sure, they imprison, torture and execute people for their beliefs and force women to have abortions but hey look over there! There's a couple dudes getting married! *gasp*

And the fact that the a couple of the 9/11 hijackers happened to be UAE citizens shouldn't really be an issue. Imagine Canada cancelling a deal with the US because we spawned Tim McVee and the Unabomber.

What should be a concern is that Osama bin Laden had a secret meeting a few years ago with the crown princes of the UAE. How do we know this? Because we were considering an attempt to take him out while this meeting was taking place but decided against it since it would also take out most of the UAE royal family. And we certainly wouldn't want to get our dear friends in the UAE angry with us...

 

As I said before, this is not control of the whole ports, but only of a portion of the ports that were already controlled by a foreign business, and the security is only for that section of the port, the warehouses and ships and stuff, not for the port in general or for importation/exportation. This is the not letting Green Peace bomb our ships stuff.

 

The one problem I have is that we are already "rolling the dice" so to speak when it comes to our ports, with only about 5% of all containers being inspected. By allowing EAU control of the port, even in a limited capacity, it seems like we are upping the ante yet again.

It is true that this particular area was in control of a foreign nation anyway - Great Britain - but I really can't say that switiching out Great Britain for EAU is an even exchange - it's not like we draw names out of a hat and all countries are functionally equivalent. Furthermore, I still question why we are allowing ANY foriegn nation to have control over ANY portion of our ports, with homeland security being such a hot topic since 9/11. I don't even like the fact that Great Britain was involved in port management, and they've been our biggest ally in the war on terror.

I guess the fundamental issue I have here is "Why aren't US companies taking care of this?" and "Why are we trusting any form of port security to another nation - regardless of their track record?"

And I'm amazed at Bush's response to this. I believe him when he says that he didn't know this was going on until after the story broke - it's not the first time Bush has been asleep at the wheel - but that he claims it will be a slap in the face to Arabs if we don't allow them to do this. That seems so inconsistent to where he has been over the past few years. Whatever happened to, "We have to be right all the time, but they only have to be right once?" I mean, even if there is only a 1% greater chance that EAU turns over some critical piece of information to a terrorist organazation - isn't that too big of a chance to take?

 

But BTA, indirectly we ARE trusting security to another nation. If they are managing the ports, then they are giving orders to American workers - like what packages do and don't get opened up to have a looksie inside. And if there is a way that they get certain packages not looked into, then they have some measure of control of US security.

If there is one thing we've learned over the years is that an organization like al Queda is very patient. It took years to plan the 1993 bombing of the WTC, and years to plan the 9/11 hijacking. You can't tell me someone isn't thinking, "If this goes through we have an opportunity. It may take five years, but we can get to SOMEBODY in management." Call me a racist, but I do believe that the chance of "getting to somebody" is much higher if we're talking about someone from EAU than someone who is American or British. I will grant that it's possible that someone from any given country can be bought off, but why take chances?