It would be easier for Middle Eastern Al Queda agents to infiltrate an Arab company than it would to infiltrate a British one.

The business of our security is not like any other business and should be held to different standards.

Just because you and President Bush are on the same side of an issue doesn't make it the correct side.

Allen, I respect your opinion but I think this is just an insane "business" deal. Look, as someone who lost friends and family on 9/11 (I even wrote a book about it), I can't even explain my horror on this subject. I'm just outraged!

Would we put an Arab held company in charge of security at our airports? Military facilites? I think not.

Would we put an Arab held company in charge of security at our airports? Military facilites? I think not.

Especially one from a country with substantial ties to Al Qaeda?

Since this administrations policy is anti-regulation of business one expects the same courtesy to be extended to UAE owners, thus obviating any weak efforts of Dept Of Homeland Security, which Katrina has already revealed as a hollow mockery and a boondoggle.

But to state that just because a company is located in the Middle East makes them hostile to our interests, or means they are a terrorist ridden enterprise

This makes me feel like I should clarify. It's not just because the company is located in the Middle East. It's because the company is located in the United Arab Emirates. One of the 9/11 hijackers came from UAE. The UAE's banking system is notorious for laundering terrorist assets. In fact, all of that nation's policies seem to have a "when it comes to Al Qaeda, turn a blind eye" clause.

As for Dubai Ports World itself, the company is suspected of helping to smuggle weapons and possibly nuclear material from Dubai to Tehran.

This is MUCH stronger evidence of UAE's complicity with terror and terror-supporting states than we EVER had on Iraq.

So it's not "just because they're from the Middle East." I usually agree with you, Allen, but in this particular case I'm not sure you're particularly educated on your subject matter.

Whereas you say to the President, "you must be right on this one when you even have liberal Democrats such as myself, supporting your efforts," I would counter to him that, "you must be doing something REALLY wrong when you even have Sean Hannity thinking you've gone off the deep end."

Is President Bush doing an Ariel Sharon to his party and country? By betraying our borders and abandoning our ports, who is Bush selling America out to? God save us all!

Common sense should dictate no foreigners should be in control of any of our vital interests, especially those who fit the very clear and real Muslim profile. Forget about the pretty platitudes and face harsh reality since we'll be forced to otherwise.

Victor,

Are you aware that this company already has a military contract for our flight carriers in the Middle East? And has had that contract for quite some time?

I am sorry about your loss on 9/11, and also respect your views, but 9/11 cannot be the line that defines everything in our country. If that were the way we had conducted business Japan would still be on the fringes of the world community.

Roger,

Your comment about a terrorist being able to infiltrate through an Arab owned business easier than through one operated by say, Britain, is absurd and smacks of anti-Arab sentiments.

I must object to the idea that since it is a Middle Eastern country involved here, and a business from a land of Islam, that somehow suggests they are not capable of sound business acts or would be more prone than any other country towards terrorism.

David,

I feel quite firm in my knowledge of this issue and as such find your post alarming. What people think they know should not be the basis for making policy. As of today, most of our major ports are already operated by foreign companies. This is not a new concept, except to those who have no background on port authorities and national security. Just who do you think will be in charge of these ports with new management? This is not the latest Tom Clancey novel.

Your Muslim profile remark is gutter language and you really need to retract it. That comment would be just as disgusting as those made during WW2 where people were seperated based on noses, dark hair, and a desire to grab anything that twinkled.

I guess I find very few people in my life that view profiling as a means to insure security. I am glad I live in an area where we base our decisons on the content of one's heart, or how they spell their name, or how often one prays.

I am just shocked at the level of hate that segments of society hurl towards others, and it is even more unsettling when it comes from those who have a history of horrible wrongs committed against them. The humanitarian debt that those crimes in WW2 created is Israels's moral capital. Do not continue to deplete it with such remarks.

David,

My paragraph above should have read....

I guess I find very few people in my life that view profiling as a means to insure security. I am glad I live in an area where we base our decisons on the content of one's heart, NOT on how they spell their name, or how often one prays.

Allendury, you have pointed out your support in the right area. However, I am very shocked and somewhat horrified with the comments by others on this article.

Its disturbing to see so much backlash on this deal. The outage some of you have displayed here shows that the American Media is really feeding material to you guys which smells of racism towards muslims and people from Middle East in general.

You guys should really google up UAE, Dubai and see the kind of place it is. Some of you might be surprised that UAE owned Emirates Airlines, rated No.1 in the world, has never had any highjacking incidents or plane crashes in its history. If ever, any of you get a chance try flying Emirates and compare that comfort and safety to any American or European Airline. I travel alot and for all these reason I prefer Emirates. And I am not an Arab or have any interests in UAE or Dubai.

You guys should really look into the details of this deal and research the supermacy UAE owned businesses and corporations have in temrs of management, customer satisfaction and security.

I think with DWI running the American ports, they are gonna be much more safer and much more well-managed.

Abrar,

I agree with you on the role of the media in relation to this issue. I think serious and objective reporting has been limited to the Newshour, NPR, and a few national papers. There has been too much playing on fears and sterotypes and that ill serves the public or the country.

Victor:

According to your argument, then maybe the Iraqi people should revolt to all the American companies setting up reconstruction business there. I mean first they bombed a building and now they are building it.

Maybe all the contracts should goto Arab Companies. And then similary, American companies should not be allowed ot do any business in Muslim Countires.

I think this way the world will really get close and peace will prevail!!

Good post, it is rare when I get to agree with a liberal Democrat.

Both Saudi and Jordanian airlines flew into major airports in the northeast including New York, Chicago, and DC in 2001. Why didn't the 9/11 hijackers use those planes if foreign companies are so much easier to target?

Because they are not. Changing the upper level management of the ports will not effect security one bit. In fact, I think having stronger business ties with those countries will bolster our security. More arabs will have a stake in American success.

Well Red,

This is the beauty of politics when folks can come from seperate points on the axis and agree on some issues and find disagreemnt on others. Though I can be very partisan I found that in the Statehouse most wanted to find a way to meet in the middle and find a working solution. Of course on both sides there are limits to how far one can bend, but the country is richer (and safer) when the greater good is placed before partisan gain.

Glad we agree on this issue.

Agree also! Ownership of these ports has nothing to do with national security and Dubai is supposed to be an ally anyway, isn't it? Security is CG and Customs purview, I believe...and I work pretty closely with the CG.

Nice job allen...I believe this is the first time I've agreed with a post of yours...you sure you're right on this???

It's Tom Clancy...btw.

ok...Andy is making me do this, cuz he should know better...

background: the Port Authority of NY/NJ has 6 "terminals" that comprise it's sea port facilities...the Dubai company in question woudl be gaining control of 1 terminal

Andy and others are quite correct to point out that the Coast Guard and Customs folks have charge of the security concerning things moving on and off the ships

here's the problem: Security - at each of those terminals , employees are screened ONLY by the radiation detectors and other employees of the same terminal as they enter and leave..NO the CG or Customs

got that, it's kind of important

you see while the government of the UAE may be an "ally", their banks have laundered plenty of terrorist cash, fronted many false businesses as blinds for al Qaeda and others...and at least 1 of the 9/11 hijackers was from the UAE....as opposed to NONE from Iraq

all it takes is ONE "islamofascist" to pass along a bit of "pishkesh" (bribe) and sneak a non-radioactive package off a ship....he can then go to a burnt out building in Newark and build whatever the fuck he wants...

now, i understand that some folks will say "but gonzo...other terminals are run by foreign companies"

and you would be correct...Brits, Danes and Chinese...in that order

now, class...how many Brits have blown up American shit since the end of the Revoloutionary war?

have ANY Danes ever attacked us?

and the Jury is still out on the Chinese (i think it's a bad idea)...just as an example, check your DEA numbers and you might be suprised how many big Heroin busts came through the terminals that chinese companies control

just my one sixth billionths of the World's opinion

your mileage may vary

Excelsior!

It's not even 'ownership' of the ports, it's ownership of a contract to manage the ports. Plus P&O is already a foreign owned company. And wait until DP World gets down to negotiating with the Longshoremen and Stevadores unions. Let's see how happy they are with their contracts then.

This may be a defining issue. When so many people on the right and left can agree on it, those people - like Bill Frist and Hillary Clinton who disagree are kind of exposed for what they really are, pure political opportunists.

Dave

i find it kind of funny that for the last few years the WH has beaten the shit out of anyone who disagrees with anything to do concerning security and painted them as "weak on national defense" or "soft on terrorists"

think back over the last few years, then read my first paragraph again...we can all agree here, yes?

now...with a possible innate security threat from a country that held the bank accounts for al Qaeda and Hammas, as well as being a base camp for some of the 9/11 plannings ...the Administration is rolling over and being "nice" while a huge bi-partisan coalition is saying "fuck that , Mr President"...and some call them "pure political opportunists"

spare me.....k?

here is the White House equation on these matters as evidenced by their performance over the last 5 years...

money > security > personal rights of citizens

nuff said?

Excelsior!

You would be surprised at the new stuff...and that's all I'll call it here...that the CG is getting these days since they left the DOT...and a lot of the new rules that are being put in place to monitor ships world wide since 9/11.

The CG will get it's first new class of ship in something like 20 years next year and the National Security Cutter is a fairly impressive, built to cost boat. I've been working with the CG for the last couple of years...my personal opinion is that I spent 20 years in the wrong outfit. They really are a shithot organization that has always been able to get it done inspite of lack of funds...now they have a little more money and they're getting better equipment.

I'm more worried about the borders to the north and south than any of our ports.

as far as that guy that you think is gonna sneak in after a bribe gonzo...don't worry about him...they picked up his phone call on one of those illegal wire taps...they pulled him off the ship before it ever got to port.

How is it that I make a point in Comment #5, Gonzo makes the same point in Comment #17, and nobody seems to notice either way?

Bottom line? To answer Andy Marsh:
Dubai is supposed to be an ally anyway, isn't it?

Sure. So is Saudi Arabia. Hasn't stopped either nation for backing terrorism.

oh Andy..he ain't on the ship, he is an employee of the new company and has a legit green card, driver's liscense and an apartment in Linden

good to hear about the CG getting an upgrade...

Excelsior!

I can't believe I'm going to say this.......but I agree with Roger Dillion.

Bush is wrong and this is a horrible idea. I'd expect something like this from John Kerry but not Bush.

Allen you responded by Roger by saying "Your comment about a terrorist being able to infiltrate through an Arab owned business easier than through one operated by say, Britain, is absurd and smacks of anti-Arab sentiments."

It's not anti-Arab sentiment but rather common sense. There is a much higher level of Anti-American sentiment in middle east muslim nations than there is in Britian. There are recent examples of muslim terrorists from different nations in the middle east attacking America and it's interests.

This issue is a no brainer.

Common sense.

I am a republican and all for free markets but I'm not an idiot.

Allen you are wrong as is Bush and although it pains me to say it Mr. Dillon is right on this one.

If this is how Bush plans to protect us I say good thing he can't run again in 2008.

Bing: Have you checked the polls on anti-American sentiment in Britain, lately?

I will confess to being entirely informed on this issue by the fact that some idiot crony appointee of Dubya's proposed this, it involves throwing sugar to those Dubya likes holding hands with, and Dubya supports it. That right there is enough to tell me this idea sucks.

"Your comment about a terrorist being able to infiltrate through an Arab owned business easier than through one operated by say, Britain, is absurd and smacks of anti-Arab sentiments."

Allen, my comment smacks of anti-Al Queda sentiments and I make no apolgies for that. Last I heard they wanted to kill all Americans. The fact that you equate anti-Al Queda with anti-Arab speaks to your own prejudices.

Is an Al Queda soldier more likely to be Arabic or British? Would it be easier for an Al Queda soldier to slip in amongst Arab men or with British men? Are we recruiting Arab Americans or other ethnicites to infiltrate Al Queda?

I've got no problem outsourcing other jobs to the UAE, but I don't think they should be involved in security matters.

Bing, you bring the dip to the party.

Sonny was it Britons who attacked us on 911, bombed our embassies, bombed the USS Cole, beheaded American civilians on videotape, bombed the WTC in 1993, and constantly threatens to attack us again?

No it wasn't the British it was radical muslims, some of whom have ties to the UAE and were trained thier as terrorists.

Nancy, re #25:

Glad to see someone making snap judgements without closely examining the facts! Somewhere out there, Hannity and O'Reilly are proud of you.

Come on, Nancy. I expected better out of you.

Of course, the concern is that UAE will be making the business decisions, such as who to hire, etc.

"...UAE owned Emirates Airlines, rated No.1 in the world, has never had any highjacking incidents or plane crashes in its history. If ever, any of you get a chance try flying Emirates and compare that comfort and safety to any American or European Airline."

Ah yes. We terrorists prefer to fly to our target countries in comfort and safety.

After WWII, would we have put a Japanese Company in charge of ports, including Pearl Harbor? Would we have put a German company in charge of ports on the East coast?

I wuz feeling very cranky when I wrote that. Sorry. Took my meds & feeling better now, thanks.

2nd try: considering Dubya's track record, I'm still suspicious of anything he proposes or supports. However, there's a lot of info on this that is misleading, giving the wrong impression about exactly what this company is being proposed to do. Having read most of the arguments pro & con, I'm in the same position as some of the most distinguished minds in the US: I'm confused.

First, it would seem they're only going to be operating a terminal - sort of like operating Al Aqsa Airlines booth in O'Hare. Not O'Hare, & not even the security for O'Hare, just the booth. 2nd, the company is owned by Arabs, but would most likely be staffed on either end with plenty of Americans, Brits, etc. They seem to have a multinational staff. 3rd, UAE does have a better record than most as far as not viewing the US as a tool of Satan. They may have had incidents with a few citizens being involved with Al Qaeda, but then again, so does the US & Britain. The UAE government certainly doesn't seen to support anti-US activities.

On the other hand, it IS a foreign-owned company. They got exemptions from some administration chowderhead to keep the security files for US ports in their own country instead of having them open to US inspection. It would be easy for a terrorist to get a position with them in order to carry out attacks on the US.

BUT...it would be a lot easier to just slip in as an illegal, for that matter. Our borders are notoriously as porous as paper tissue, & the issues thereof are infamous.

Conclusion: I'm still confused; but Bush is for it, so I'm against it. His track record for action as far as US safety is concerned (despite his unending nattering about US security) is nil to negative. I need more information ... or something.

that's always a good position...if he's for it...it must be wrong...sort of how I felt about agreeing with allen on this issue???

Well, like I said, I'm confused, so lacking any other guidance at the moment, I'll take the easy road. Slightly better than flipping a coin. And as I pointed out, I'm in good company being confused.

in the post-war period Germans wouldn't be put in charge of ports...but the US rocket program - ? that's another story

troll

""...UAE owned Emirates Airlines, rated No.1 in the world, has never had any highjacking incidents or plane crashes in its history. If ever, any of you get a chance try flying Emirates and compare that comfort and safety to any American or European Airline."

Ah yes. We terrorists prefer to fly to our target countries in comfort and safety.""

Bliffle:: So you are now trying to say that all the people who travel on Emirates are terrorists? Or are you trying to call Muslims terrorist??

Its just these kid of sentiments Osama and gang need to recruite young uneducated fragile muslims and tell them wat the West thinks of them! Unless West is going to show sentiments of understnading towards Muslims, a chance of another 9/11 is always gonna be there!!

Remmeber, killing Osama is not going to solve terrorism or make America safe!! You have to get rid of the ideology that he has created and fueled!

that's right...it's all our fault for not understanding you...you know what? I don't understand why a bee will sting me and I don't care to either...I'll just swat the shit out of him and make sure he can't sting me...

ummm..bn Laden did NOT "create" hte ideology you are thinking about...he has always been a secularist himself...

Mullah Omar of the Taliban is/was the spiritual Leader of al Qaeda, and their ideology comes form the Wahabi schools financed by the Saudi's

just keeping the scorecard accurate

Excelsior!

What's amazing to me is how quickly all those rough tough War-On-Terror guys, bristling with security anxiety and willing to surrender civil liberties (well, other peoples civil liberties) to ward off the terroristic hordes, are now willing to surrender overview of ports because GWB says so. Sheep? Baaaaaahh.

Nancy,

In post #32 you mention ownership of the port management company by a country, and seem to think that is a problem in and of itself. However, DP World isn't the first foreign company to take control of U.S. port operations. Among others, APL, the container-transport arm of a company owned by the investment arm of the Singapore government, runs Eagle Marine terminal, a major port operation at the Port of Los Angeles.

And has done so without problems.

This whole episode is mass hysteria on a scale that I have not seen in a long time. Our Founding Fathers were right to fear these types of national responses. The experts on this topic differ so very much with those with political titles. That should be our first reason to suspect that something is wrong here. The next election and how folks line up on the security issue may make for great campaign rallies, but sound public policy and international policy is often the vicitm of high strung politicians. This is such an example.

ok allen, i'll go along with your thoughts here if you can answer ONE question concerning all this...

what benefits do we, as a Nation, or the port terminals involved themselves....possibly gain from having this particular company(which has an increased risk of security problems) over another contractor without said risks?

all other factors being equal?

my point being i just don't see ANY benefit to offset the potential risk involved

so, from a pure security standpoint, just get other companies to re-bid on this one, keep the process transparent and give priorities to companies that have
1) a great track record in the US
2) minimal possible security problems
3) competitive contract bid

how's that?

cuz that IS what it boils down to, the UAE has some blotches on their record involving these security issues ( many of them mentioned above) and i can find NO good reason to allow them these terminals to offset the potential problems

please, enlighten me

Excelsior!

What we gain is, in short, what we do not lose. Let me explain. By that I mean this company has a proven track record of success and profitability. It did not achieve this by allowing for actions that many on this thread seem to think come with an Arab controlled company. The international financial pages of papers and magazines such as the Encomiast have talked about this purchase by DP of the British company for quite some time. It never raised any concern among those who actually know something about port management and security issues until a few talk show hosts decried that this was an issue they could manipulate and score a few points with. The politicians with a finger in the wind decided "hell yes, this will help me" and jumped into the fray. We would suffer great damage in the Arab world with those very moderates that we seem to care so much about in our desire to foster democracy throughout that region if we undermined this process.

I think that if you were to glance one or twice a week at the Arab papers that can be found online and read just the op-ed sections you would notice that the more harsh and fundamentalist elements in the region accuse the west of having two standards. One for us, and one for them. They base part of their arguments on our supposed (and I admit they are partially right on this) intolerance of Islam and Arabs in general. To undermine a process that has placed other foreign firms in port management for places such as LA, but deny this firm the same business arrangement, would in large part confirm the very voices that we try to temper by other US policies.

This will prove to be one of the biggest foreign policy blunders of our time if we do not follow through on allowing DP to manage these ports. By even suggesting that the process be restarted is so misguided and unfair. it would be akinto saying i did not like the outcome of an election, so let us cast new ballots. When the process is fair and there are no real facts to undermine the outocme all should recognize the end result. Just because there is fear and misinformation does not make a case for creating a foreign policy blunder that will haunt us for a great deal of time.

I suspect that, Arabphobia aside, this is another insider giveaway to some crony of Dubya's or his circle, perhaps Cheney or Poppy Bush. The parties in the administration responsible for passing this action claim that there are no US companies capable of handling this contract. None? Give me a break! That excuse is as lame as Dubya's claim that he didn't know about it til he heard it from the MSM.

I suspect that gwb could do everything that nancy has ever wanted from a president in her lifetime and she'd still think he did it for some sinister reason...

And I suspect that if GWB ever did stop lying and finally told the truth about his desertion from the Guards, Andy would then blame Bush's cowardice on the liberal press...

blast it Andy...

stay AWAY from the knee jerk political shyte!!

where's my book review from ya on "Stranger" i am WAY interested in yer Thoughts on it...did ya read my Post on "analogies, allegory and algorithms"?..

next reading assignment for ya is "the Hymn of the Pearl" for the gnostic bits...(it's on the website you know about already) and then "the Moon is a Harsh Mistress" by Heinlein....Prof. Bernardo de la Paz in that book is one of my political hero's...i HIGHLY reccomend it...

we now return you to your regularily scheduled programming...

Excelsior!

gonzo - I call 'em like I see 'em...yeah...it was shyte...but the comment below mine was even more shyte...some day you'll give that shit up diva...I'll call you that because I just can't bring myself to call you a three letter word.

Let's just put up a big 100 foot brick wall around the country...we'll lock the rest of the world out and just throw water baloons over the fence...sound like fun kiddies???

You giving me all these reading assignments to keep me off these posts?

Nancy,

For you to make such a statement, (post #43) given the international stakes with this matter, YOU MUST EITHER OFFER PROOF or stay quiet. The left has no leg to stand on here and rants like someone must have cut a deal to make a huge secret profit just will not sway anyone with a brain.

Now unless you have proof and not mere speculation you really need to stop creating more of a problem. Do not use the tripe that is all over the internet but tell us something that would make the front page of the NYT, Post, or LA Times. You have no such proof.

But maybe that is the goal of folks like you. I suggest you care more about the politics than the policy. That is tragic!

Nancy,

You show lack of knowledge about the process itself, (you should know, since you make such bold statements) that the Presidnet would not have known about this given how the Comm. that works on these matters develop policy. There are certain timelines that are in place, and unless there is a problem the Presdient is not require dto make a decision. That was true for Clinton, it is true for Bush.

As a liberal Dem I find it really ironic to have to defend Bush, but this policy is correct and the BS from the left on this and those from the fringes of the right are just the latest reason why politics gets the rap it often deserves.

My rationale is that Dubya has lied so often about so much since the inception, that if he announced the sun rose in the east, I'd figure it was a lie until someone else confirmed it that had some credibility. Nuff said.

No Nancy!!!!!

Not enough said.

I have this idea that our nation is more importnat than politics!!! I have this crazed idea that the greater good is more a concern than our little tirades and rants agaisnt those who are our politiclal opponents. I wish the left would understnad that the stale arguements do not move the country to do anything but change the channel or turn the page. Either argue this port issue with some facts and brain matter or just find your glue bottle. I do not mean to sound harsh but good Lord thsi is our countyr we are talking about. This is a major policy and you are making it into a bunch of cronies making a plan to enrich themsleves...Do you see why even a guy like me thinks you are underming the countyr and making it more tough for the left when real issues present themselves. If the left acts likes idiots now, will anyone pay attnetion when we want America to tune in next time?

allen, as Scott McClellen said in a news conference yesterday...the Pres did NOT even know about this deal until he saw the uproar on the MSM a few days ago...

check the transcript...proof one

next, see some of the Players involved, including John Snow and his background...the lobbyists involved and former dealing with the Dubai company

not proof, but definately circumstantial evidence worht further inquiry

finally, the entire process is SECRET, a board of Administration appointed folks make the decision in secret, with NO oversight and no report submitted...again, circumstantial evidence worth further investigation...

your Answer to my question about what the US stands to gain is tenuous at best...in that portion of the world, business folks are fine with us...it's a portion of the average population...the folks who would actually be working the terminals...that are the problem

to Andy...nah bro...i want ya around and commenting...i just am enjoying sharing the reading stuff with ya...and find it very interesting to read and discuss yout takes on it after ya finish...

nuff said?

Excelsior!

Bush had no reason to know, as the process does not require his involvement unless the Comm. has problems. The fact he did not know in no way means anything sinister took place or in this case he was not doing his job.

circumstantial evidence....you must offer more for your reason than some ideas without facts. You can't go to your place of work and think you can use baseless arguments and still get a pay check each month...you can't argue foreign policy in such a manner either...at least not with me.

i'm not saying ANY of those things allen...

my point here is that a secret commission of unelected officials (they are appointed by the Admin) make these decisions with NO review or accountability by elected representatives

checks and balances my friend...too much possibility of abuse and corruption when the ENTIRE process is done secretly

so, we are back again to ...nothing to gain, and a hell of a lot to lose...

Excelsior!

Part of the problem, Allen, is that there seems to be no end to the greed of those who are enriching themselves at the expense of this country & their fellow citizens. You talk about patriotism; there is plenty among the rank & file, but at the top where the big money is made & the power is wielded, there is little or none. In the 6 years Dubya has been in power, look at the list of those among his buddies who were rich and are now even richer through his machinations, lies, misrepresentations, and giveaways to megacorporations at the expense of small business & middle-class taxpayers (not to mention those who have the temerity to be poor and/or elderly). Cynicism on my part has been well earned by BushCo. I would be a fool not to suspect him: 'fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice...' etc. etc. In the case of a bare majority of US citizens who vote, they have been made fools of by this shyster ersatz-conservative over & over & over. There seems no end to their gullibility & willingness - nay, NEED, even - to believe his egregious & (usually) inept lies.

And I'm NOT a leftie; I just happen to despise Dubya & Co. He takes political corruption, incompetence, & betrayal to a new low.

If this is such a heck of a problem with ports and management where all the wizz kids now are shocked over this notion, where were they all these years when China and Singapore and others were taking over 30% of port management duties. Was it that they did not know, and that it all ran so smooth that there was no reason to create a false story? Right-wing talk radio started this crap and now the whole world is caught up in the games small minds created when playing politics on the AM dial.

Nancy,

While the post #56 has mnay valid points I think the topic here is ports and security and the way you skip that topic to talk about what you wish to is very much akin to the people you blast in Washington. Those oppose dto Bush say he ducks and weaves and talks about what he wants and misses the topic at hand.

The topic here is a port managemment deal.

allen...part of the problem is indeed the fact that most folks were not aware of any of these difficulties...

as i pointed out earlier, the DEA has many problems with the chinese controlled terminals(smuggling)...no such have been reported by the Danish or Brit companies, and Singapoe controls very few terminals...see the same problems as the chinese controlled facilities...

why is it different now?

simplicity itself...the Dubai company is owned by the UAE, who have a bad track record concerning terrorism..as has been listed previously...there is the appearance of possible impropriety in the process (see my previous post) and there appears to be NO upside to counterbalance the potential problems...you claim that goodwill among arab countries would increase by this measure...i counter with the postulate that those who seek destruction will NOT be swayed by it...and will utilize ANY posible flaw in security to further their goals

Excelsior!

Please inform me of the "track record" of the company in question that leads you to think they are soft on terrorism?

This of course is a loaded question on my part since the Comm on Foreign Investment already has answered that question. But since you seem to have information that others do not have I ask that you share it with us. I can assure you front page above the fold coverage in the morning papers with this new information.


I think it worthy for many here to take a long deep intake of air and think about the following....The fact that experts who know about these issues and deal with them daily do not see a threat to national security while the politicians with a finger in the air see hell on high coming over the horizon should tell us all a great deal about this whole affair!!!!

Never underestimate the ability of the American public to be willingly led off the end of a pier.

allen...

you miss the Point...it is NOT the "track record" of the particular company in Question...note the company is owned by the UAE

it IS the PROVEN track record of the UAE itself we are speaking of...

part i'm speaking about which are in the public Record...
1) 2 9/11 highjackers were from UAE
2) all the 9/11 money, and a majority of al Qaeda funds laundered and banked in Dubai
3) multiple planning meetings of al Qaeda and 9/11 highjackers held IN Dubai

all of which i pointed out earlier

all of which you seem to have missed

all of which lead to a CONCERN about Bush appointed officials in cloased and SECRET process, whcih has NO review by ANY elected official, and which even the President wasn't aware of until AFTER it hit the media

those are the Facts of concern, and which shoudl be reviewed by elected representatives

and you STILL have not shown ANY upside to the situation as opposed to the factual and legitimate concerns i have raised

Excelsior!

No i have not missed your point, but you miss mine. I asked for the "track record" of the company in question that leads you to think they are soft on terrorism? The DP has a solid business record. Who owns them is not the point in thier track record and management style and success and so we can go round and round here.

You are the one talking about UAE, not those of us who who see the difference in the government and the business.

As you should know, but I have concluded are not interested in understanding is the process DID NOT REQUIRE THE PREZ to be involved. Take a look at how this process has operated since the 1970's. The only reason you seem to think he should have known is that this is an Arab country and Arab firm. You would not be hell bent on this forum if the Brits were getting the deal, instead of being bought out by DP. Now you can reply that you are not racist or anti-Arab and I will vomit. We both know the truth. It is not a secret process. That is a falsehood. But you seem to feel it to be true. Just because you cannot seem to understand the benefits of having this buisness bridge with a Middle Eastern country at a time when we are trying to enlist this very type of realtionship through that region is not my fault. The world is global, if you are not already privy to that nugget of news. These types of interactiosn well serve our interest and those of the international community. There will be more such deals and partenerhsips and that too is good. If you think we are going to go backwards so those who harbor small thoughts and racism in their souls can find refuge in that type of thinking, you are wrong.

I suggest perhaps some heavy reading startign with the fall of the Ottomans and the creation of the Middle East as we know it today. A long and detailed history of US foreign policy in the region might help too. I think most folks have no idea what they are talking about and go with some emotional reaction rather than a well thought out and educated view of the region. But that is the way some like to live.

In the end a compromise will be reached with the trite members of Congress along with the business-minded folks at DP and this deal will go forward in a couple of months...I hope you still will be aorund and we can continue our conversation.

That is the way it will wrap up.

Have a nice weekend.

Abrar: "Bliffle:: So you are now trying to say that all the people who travel on Emirates are terrorists? Or are you trying to call Muslims terrorist??"

It was a joke (lame, perhaps). Are all muslims humor-impaired?

ok allen, i have been as polite as i can, and am honestly attempting to see this from your POV so we can reasonably discuss this Issue...

allen sez...
*Now you can reply that you are not racist or anti-Arab and I will vomit.*

i would like you to look at my comment above, and notice i use the term "pishkesh"...now, ponder how i know this...then vomit, and swallow it plz...k?...tnx

i have clearly delineated my concerns about this, you are attempting to separate the corporation from the government that OWNS it

difficult task

you also push aside the historical evidence presented concerning the UAE and terrorists, and instead offer NO reasonable "upside" for the US in taking this deal, other than some folks in Dubai will like us better

fair enough i guess...my position is that i do NOT see the alleged benefits outweigh the possible risks

and for this you call me a racist?

fuck you

now, i want you to think about something here, if this was 1976 and the company in Question was Russian owned....woudl you feel the same as you do here?

because THAT is the Question, we have a government owned corp (like a CIA front company , for example)...that does appear to be adequate to the Task of running these terminals, but the downside is that there is an increased risk of terrorist infiltration, backed up by the Facts i show in comment #61...all of which you ignore

so, enjoy your week end, and i appreciate your demonstrating that it appears to be impossible to hold rational discourse with you

Excelsior!

Let's teach the UAE a real lesson.

Let's stop buying their oil.

After all, it could be radioactive.

to comment #65...

well, you lived up to your choice of sceen name

as has been pointed out in previous comments on this very Thread, all cargo coming into ports is screened for radioactivity...if there is a doubt, the contents are screened a second time with a different detector

try harder

Excelsior!

I understand Allen's point of view. That we are not going to mend fences by being anti-muslim.

But it's not simply about being nice. These countries should have to be proactive in trying to curl anti-american sentiment. And if they are not succesful in those efforts, we should not be giving them economic help through business contracts.

On the surface, the UAE government has been supportive of the war on terror. Yet very little is still being done by their political leaders to quell anti-american sentiments.

The following are a few numbers from recent UAE polls:

- 83% UAE voiced disapproval of U.S. policy toward the Palestinians

- 73% hold an unfavorable view of the US

- 45% believe the Islamic religion should play a larger role in their politics

- 82% believe the war in Iraq created more terrorism against the US.

- 63% believe the war in iraq brought less democracy to the region.

- 81% believe that the iraqi people are worse off after the war.

- 18% named Bin Laden their most admired world leader.


By not allowing them to take control of the port will more arabs be pissed off in the short term? Yes. But if we continue to do business with these countries it completely undermies the pressure we are trying to put on them to stop supporting terrorism.

We cannot go to war with every arab country, therefore we must pressure them by witholding economic trade. You have to impress upon the leaders of these countries that allowing anti-western social attitudes to remain widespread will have serious economic reprocussions. Otherwise, where is the incentive for them to go against the will of the populous. To go against the extremist clerics.

Leading by example only works if those you want to change hold the same opinion of 'quality of life' represents.

Gonzo..

I do think you must be pulling our legs here, as no one can be as inept in thinking as you pretend to be. If you can honestly equate the global economy and foreign inter-relationships in 2006 in any way to 1976 then I am sure you have chosen the right ending to each of your posts.

Now I never need to have the major writers to agree with me to make me feel that I am correct in my reading and thinking, but when Thomas Friedman agrees with me....I suggest you read what millions of others read this monring. Think about the following for a while...Do you think he might be talking about you and those who fear the way you do?

"But while I have zero sympathy for the political mess in which the
president now finds himself, I will not join this feeding frenzy. On
the pure merits of this case, the president is right. The port deal
should go ahead. Congress should focus on the N.S.A. wiretapping. Not
this.

As a country, we must not go down this road of global ethnic
profiling -- looking for Arabs under our beds the way we once looked
for commies. If we do -- if America, the world's beacon of pluralism
and tolerance, goes down that road -- we will take the rest of the
world with us. We will sow the wind and we will reap the whirlwind.

If there were a real security issue here, I'd join the critics. But
the security argument is bogus and, I would add, borderline racist.
Many U.S. ports are run today by foreign companies, but the U.S.
Coast Guard still controls all aspects of port security, entry and
exits; the U.S. Customs Service is still in charge of inspecting the
containers; and U.S. longshoremen still handle the cargos.

The port operator simply oversees the coming and going of ships,
making sure they are properly loaded and offloaded in the most cost-
effective manner. As my colleague David E. Sanger reported: "Among
the many problems at American ports, said Stephen E. Flynn, a retired
Coast Guard commander who is an expert on port security at the
Council on Foreign Relations, 'who owns the management contract ranks
near the very bottom.' "

What ranks much higher for me is the terrible trend emerging in the
world today: Sunnis attacking Shiite mosques in Iraq, and vice versa.
Danish caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad, and violent Muslim
protests, including Muslims killing Christians in Nigeria and then
Christians killing Muslims. And today's Washington Post story about
how some overzealous, security-obsessed U.S. consul in India has
created a huge diplomatic flap -- on the eve of Mr. Bush's first visit
to India -- by denying one of India's most respected scientists a visa
to America on the grounds that his knowledge of chemistry might be a
threat. The U.S. embassy in New Delhi has apologized.

My point is simple: the world is drifting dangerously toward a
widespread religious and sectarian cleavage -- the likes of which we
have not seen for a long, long time. The only country with the power
to stem this toxic trend is America.

People across the world still look to our example of pluralism, which
is like no other. If we go Dark Ages, if we go down the road of
pitchfork-wielding xenophobes, then the whole world will go Dark Ages.

There is a poison loose today, and America -- America at its best -- is
the only antidote. That's why it is critical that we stand by our
principles of free trade and welcome the world to do business in our
land, as long as there is no security threat. If we start exporting
fear instead of hope, we are going to import everyone else's fears
right back. That is not a world you want for your kids."

TD,

I could pick almost any country in the world and find many of the same views about the war and America as you post.

I agree with you that Middle Eastern countries need to work at encouraging citizens to have views that are not so tightly aligned with the Koran. This can be started by varying the educational structures to dismantle the often heavy hand of religion in the educating of young minds.

I do not agree that upending economic contracts would bring about change. I suggest a review of China policy since we opened the door starting in the 1970's. Though they have a system and policies that we would find deplorable in our country it is due to the trading pacts and economic forces at work there that has opened their nation to the dgree that it has. And that trend will continue.

That same force needs ot be encouraged in the Middle East. That is one of main reasons for making sure this pact goes forward. And I think it will. By taking a bit of breathing time in Washington, letting other issues filter to the top of the page, this can be worked out by getting the facts to folks under the Dome and then this will be settled.

Gonzo, pay attention.

"Let's teach the UAE a real lesson."

"Let's stop buying their oil."

Evidently, you don't recognize sarcasm.

STOP THE OIL AND OUR ECONOMY STOPS!

Next time, try harder.

for allen...

i don't agree with Friedman on a number of points for a number of reasons

personally, i woudl rather NO foreign companies had any control over any aspects of our ports/borders...and yes, i am quite aware of the security arraingements and who does what and who is responsible for which

if you will notice, i stated i was personally against this, but made the statement that all i really desired was for REVIEW of the information, and FACTS by ELECTED representatives, and NOT a secret comittee meeting, the contents of which(according to Homeland security boss, Chertoff) "classified"

so you see, all i am asking for is due process and "checks and balances" BEFORE this is finalized...

the good news is that the Port Authority filed legal papers today to block the deal as they consider the details a violation of the original lease agreement...until further review...the injunction may be granted early next week

for comment #70...it appears the UAE has slightly less than 10% of proven reserves, and supplies a tiny fraction of what the US imports...even from the middle east...so no economy stopping there, for either country

maybe i'm just not communicating properly today...

that's ok...shit happens

but the bottom line, in my own opinion...is that the risk on this deal is MUCH larger than any remote possibility for gain

is that based on an American-o-centric viewpoint?

damn skippy

one of my arguments with Friedman and a bunch of other supply side, flat earther, outsourcing/offshoring is a good thing is my perception that ALL of the theoretical "good" done is at the cost of the American middle class citizen...their work, their jobs, their money/taxes

and i just don't like that...not when it's ANY other country

add in the security concern from the region of the Middle East...and things like the silly errors of "oh it's only 6 ports"...to the reality of it being over 20 ports/terminals...they just forgot to release this info until today

on and on...

but, folks are entitled to their opinions, and i've given mine...and why

/ignore

Excelsior!

i beleve dat gonzo nose what he is sayin

redneck

Yes, but gonzo. This deal isn't costing any US jobs or outsourcing anything. The leases are already held by a foreign company and all that's changing here is which set of rich foreigners sign the checks.

You do raise an interesting point about DP World actually having the qualifications to do the job. The Treasury Dept. approved their offer, so they presumably thought it was legit. They also outbid their competition by a hefty amount. But I was surprised to see such a relatively small company making such a large deal. It's going to almost double their port holdings.

Dave

In all of this controversy has anyone addressed the problem of our hundreds of billions of dollars of trade deficit that must be covered each year? When the U. S. imports more produce than it exports, the balance must be absorbed by foreign investment in some type of U. S. security. The vast majority of these funds go into U. S. Government bills, notes and bonds. But a lot goes into corporate stocks.

Are we prepared to prohibit investment by foreign enities in certain areas? How about limiting investment in retail outlets to only Wal-Mart? How about limiting investment in real estate to only undeveloped acreage in South Dakota? These huge sums of money resulting from trade deficits must find a home. Be careful how we restrict their domicile. The result could be a financial nightmare for not just the U. S. but for the world.

Dave,

Good comment at the end of your post. Over the last several years a very determined UAE has been looking to these types of investments and business plans for its economic future. The country has no oil to speak off so has created other ways to foster development. It already is already becoming a worldwide business country and will soon have soon have one of, (if not thy) tallest buildings in the world. Dubai is booming with enterprise! We will think of it in terms of Hong Kong or New York. Dubai is the future of what much in the Middle East could resemble. That is part of the reason this deal is important.

And don't forget their booming convention business. They hosted the Al Qaeda convention a few years ago, but also attract a lot of legitimate business conventions because of their great facilities.

BTW, what is the world coming to when secret terrorist organizations hold yearly conventions at public resort locations (Singapore, Bali, Dubai in the last three years)?

Dave

Howard,

You hit a home run with your post!! Perhaps the best one here yet...even better than mine!!

Those foreign funds pay our red ink..and folks should not forget that. Problem is most have never learned it in the first place.

Continuing our balance of trade deficit means that eventually we will have to go to China and India to beg for financial assistance.

The only question is when.

Not necessarily, Adam. The same fearful statement was made about Japan in Jimmy Carter's day. Fortunately we voted him out before his bungling could totally destroy our great nation.

The time will come when the world economic powers say, "I no longer believe the United States can support its debt." That message will, more likely, come from our Arab "friends" whose clerics continue to preach elimination of the United States and all Jews. Rather than fear Dubai, we should be fearful of the radical Islamists of Saudi Arabia. When they take over their nation, they will certainly close the valve providing a substantial percentage of world consumption of oil. They will view the world bankruptcy as a marvelous suicide bombing.

The greatest disappointment for me in the George W. Bush administration is his failure to address our energy needs. His father was equally shortsighted, even though he held himself out as an "oil man." There has been since before Carter's administration the knowledge of how to extract hydrocarbons from shale in Colorado and tar sands in Canada. EITHER SOURCE IS ADEQUATE TO ELIMINATE IMPORTATION OF ANY CRUDE FROM ANYWHERE. The problems are the mess of the beds from which the material is removed and the cost. Is that cost worth the economic suicide we are choosing by placing our world in the hands Arab nations? Amazing! And we have Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton and now, Bush II to thank for their cowardice in addressing the issue.

Howard

Alternate sources of energy must be TRULY addressed in a way that no Administration has done thus far. The American people are ready for this national conversation. Yesterday, Tom Friedman was on CNN and made a remark about the need to find these new sources of energy. He said that green would be the new color added to red, white, and blue for showing patriotism. Everytime we pay taxes to fund our huge military, and then buy a gas down the street we counter-act each of the actions. The real future for cars of course is no fossil fuel at all. The tech. exists..lets just ramp up the process, give some tax cuts for plants and larger cuts for those who buy one....we have given tax cuts for everything else...and stop this crazy notion of gas..gas..gas...and thsi would lead to helping reduce global warming all at the same time!

It probably makes no difference whether the ports are operated by a home-grown US corp or a UAE outfit: either one will sellout US security for a few bucks more. It's up to government agencies, starting with the inept and inert Homeland Insecurity Dept. to insure safety.

Maybe you should move to Dubai in pursuit of your dollars. A nice 700 sq. ft. studio flat goes for about $300k, and a 3/2 home for about $2million. You get about 3.67 UAD for the dollar (the UAE fixes the UAD to the dollar, like China).

But why does the admin have such an interest in pushing this through? What difference does it make to the advocates? We see the advocates on the sunday morning shows forcefully supporting the sale. Who played devils advocate?

Bliffle,

The devils advocate has had every news story, editorial, op/ed page, radio talk show, and TV show all this past week...time now for the facts to emerge in the news and that started today with the Sunday morning shows.

Bliffle, you must have been watching different Sunday morning shows from the ones I watched. Everyone I saw was opposing the sale and lying themselves blue in the face while doing so. You might want to check out this article for some of the hard facts that didn't get much play on the Sunday morning circuit.

Dave

Sen. Warner on Meet the Press showed where this issue is heading....watch this online now..the GOP understands they need to find common ground here and he is showing how this will happen.

allen: "The devils advocate has had every news story, editorial, op/ed page, radio talk show, and TV show all this past week...time now for the facts to emerge in the news and that started today with the Sunday morning shows."

But who, in the admin, played devils advocate before this became public? We have bland assurances that all these problems were checked out before the decision was made (pardon me for being sceptical of secret government proceedings). I'm guessing this thing was steamrollered through without much thought. Why would I think differently?

Allen,

Yes, many other countries would have similar statistics. Except for this one:

- 18% named Bin Laden their most admired world leader. (846,000 people)

You won't see Canadian or French kids with bin laden posters on their bedroom walls.

We want them to clean up there act. "You'e either with us, or the terrorists" Wasn't that the quote.

Well, what are we threatening them with. What are the conscequences of them not complying?


There's no way the american people are going to agree to more military action so what else do you have? Political pressure through the UN. Hahaha, not likely.

The only leverage we have to get these countries in line is economic leverage. Yet we keep buying there oil, and giving them service contracts.

And how is giving this port contract to an arab foriegn company instead of a british or swiss company going to make any difference to our foriegn trade balance.

Do you guys even understand the foriegn trade balance? We spend to much money buying products and services, services like port managment, from other countries and they don't buy enough from us.

This isn't "investment". The profits are not going into American savings accounts. they're going to Dubai.

You know what would help the trade deficit. If we hired an american company. Or better yet, if UAE hired an american company to manage one of their ports.

But that doesn't happen. Why, because other countries don't short-change their economies just so they cam pay off political agreements that allowed them to launch military attacks.

Sorry, but you are not going to convince me that giving these countries more money and not holding them accountable for anything is the proper strategy.

TD,

In previous posts we were talking abou the red ink from the national budgets over the years and how foreign dollars are needed to avert a crisis. I never argued, nor did anyone else that the trade balance would be lighter as a result of this port deal. Bush is correct about this policy and will prevail in the end.

As for more military action, my God man, how much more blood do you want on the hands of Americans? I for one am sick over the deaths of Arabs everyday due to a failed US policy.

Bliffle,

How is this port deal any diff. than ones over the past decade?

Howard made the comment

"Are we prepared to prohibit investment by foreign enities in certain areas"

You agreed with it.

"Those foreign funds pay our red ink.."

I called you on the bullshit because this deal isn't about foriegn investment. We aren't turning away foreign investment. They aren't giving us any money. We are giving them money.

Is this the bizarro world or do you agree that this deal has no positive economic gain beyond us saving a bit of money by going with the cheaper bid.


Military action? Re-read my post. I am not asking for more military action. I am against military action because it's not a viable long-term solution.

The only long-term solution is energy independancy leading to economic pressure of states where anti-western extremism is still tolerated.

TD,


What I agreed with Howard on was his statement, "When the U. S. imports more produce than it exports, the balance must be absorbed by foreign investment in some type of U. S. security. The vast majority of these funds go into U. S. Government bills, notes and bonds."

In addition to that who do you think absorbs the debt we create, and I speak here of internal debt, not the trade imbalance?

But all the econ stuff is not the main reason i support this and is the not the reason in the end Congress will also agree. The main reason is because it is good foreign policy. The more global inter-connectedness we have the better. We have a less chance of starting a war with a country if we have economic bonds. And I hope that this encourges more united governments. That is also a way to insure a world of less rancor.

Also the process was clear and just. To undo the results would be akin to replaying a ball game because the little white kid couldn't hit enough runs. That would be just as silly as this..and the people who are experts in this all agree with me, only the politicians who are playing to their right wing radio crowd or the looney left who is struggling for a message in the 2006 election find a "reason" to argue.

Policy should trump politics!

"the people who are experts in this all agree with me"

Incorrect again.

From the AP:

WASHINGTON - Citing broad gaps in U.S. intelligence, the Coast Guard cautioned the Bush administration that it was unable to determine whether a United Arab Emirates-owned company might support terrorist operations, a Senate panel said Monday.

"There are many intelligence gaps, concerning the potential for DPW or P&O assets to support terrorist operations, that precludes an overall threat assessment of the potential" merger," an undated Coast Guard intelligence assessment says.

The breadth of the intelligence gaps also infer potential unknown threats against a large number of potential vulnerabilities," the document says.

The document raised questions about the security of the companies' operations, the backgrounds of all personnel working for the companies, and whether other foreign countries influenced operations that affect security.
------------------------------------------

Allan, does the Coast Guard's document smack "of anti-Arab sentiments"? Maybe you should inform the Coast Guard of your objections.

"Policy should trump politics!"

Policy often IS politics, especially with this admin.

# 89

"The only long-term solution is energy independancy..."

How long is long-term?

Not in our lifetime.

The economic cost and disruption of "oil independence" is beyond what we can tolerate if we want to maintain our standard of living.

In other words, we're stuck with oil.

The "oil independence" song was played long and loud after the 1973 oil embargo.

What happened over the past 33 years?

We became more dependent.

Try thinking outside the box.