I think the furor over this deal misses the point that the US government is responsible for port security, not an unjustified assumption of getting better security from a US firm.

Would someone with influence in Washington explain to our legislators the cash from $60/bbl on 6,000,000 bbl of oil imported each day must be invested somewhere? If that money finds a home in Africa or India or China, our legislators won't get their pay checks. Our former legislators won't get their obscene pension checks. Not all bad, huh?

Howard

It sure would be nice to see Bush show some balls and veto this bit of political grandstanding.

taking over the management of US ports

In the interest of accuracy I should point out that DP World would not be taking over management of the ports, but rather of freight terminals in the ports, in some cases one of hundreds of such terminals in a single port. Management of the ports would continue to be in the hands of local government authorities and of course security would remain in the hands of the Coast Guard and Customs Service.

the port assets of America's CSX Corporation

Just for clarity, while CSX is a US company their port terminals are all located in foreign countries - countries which had no problems approving an American company to run their port terminals, of course.

One does have to wonder why CSX was only running terminals outside the US. They retained their domestic rail terminals and trucking line, so they would certainly have the ability to run US freight terminals, but they choose not to. Makes me wonder what's so unattractive about running those terminals in US ports that companies like CSX stay away.

Dave

Dave, "Makes me wonder what's so unattractive about running those terminals in US ports that companies like CSX stay away."

Surely you jest. The reason includes the name "Longshoremen."

"in the interest of accuracy"....i'd like to point out that "terminals" are correct...and technically the CG and Customs DO control overall port security

but that's where apologists like to palm the card..

you see, Customs only checks approximately 5% of the incoming containers...

ALL the rest, including hiring the terminal security guards, administrators, managers and the supervisors who oversee the rest of those 95% of containers coming into the terminal are the SOLE responsibility of the terminal operator

this is why those west coast ports with a chinese corp running them are so prolific with human trafficing/smuggling and the top heroin import point

the Concern, from many folks, is that after 5 years of ramping up the Threat of "terrorism" and putting an "islamic fascist" face on it.....sensible folks balk at the Idea of a government owned corp...which has been proven to have had MUCH closer ties to al Qaeda and the Taliban than Saddam ever did....should be Responsible for american ports

just tossing this out there for "the sake of accuracy"

Excelsior!

Dave - *It sure would be nice to see Bush show some balls and veto this bit of political grandstanding.*

methinks that had he showed his testicles on this one he would have lost 'em

better for him that the company agreed to divest

troll

Can't help but be gleeful & amused that all BushCo's terrorist fearmongering for the past 6 years is coming back to bite him in the ass, and his own party double-crossing on items like the Harriet Myers nomination have rendered his congressional lapdogs rather more unwilling to blindly 'trust [him]' on issues.

I find it supremely interesting who in the middle east Bush deems safe & who is a terrorist. And he seems to think that the secret say-so of even his subordinates is the end-all authority & we should all just swallow whatever pap they spew forth, & shut up, no questions to be asked.

Really, Bush is a friggin' maniac as well as a fool.

of course this is all bullshit anyway since uninspected containers will continue to enter the US no matter who runs the terminals

why has so little anti-terrorist funding gone into sea ports versus air ports - ?

troll

well troll...coudl it be because one carries passengers and presents a bigger "face" to the media, while the other is cargo and no one pays attention?

just a thought

Excelsior!

good point gonzo

of course this is all bullshit anyway since uninspected containers will continue to enter the US no matter who runs the terminals

But don't worry, troll. Lots of those never to be inspected containers will originate at port terminals run by DP World and the Chinese Red Army.

And Gonzo, the containers are already not being inspected. That wouldn't change for the worse if DP World was there. It's a separate problem which needs to be addressed and has nothing to do with this deal.

Here's the good news, though. All the political grandstanding has pissed off the UAE and they're now talking about closing their ports to US military vessels and ending their participation in the war on terror. Way to go Congress - gratuitously alienate one of our most reliable allies in the middle east for no reason at all.

Oh, and whoever it was up there that accused Bush of 'fearmongering' should just hang their head in shame at their ridiculous partisanship. The only people who say this are Democratic party flacks because the public and everyone else knows that Bush has been 100% about building confidence and resolve in the face of terror, not about encouraging fear.

Dave

I don't know why the warmongering Bush sycophants would be upset with the Dubai port deal. I mean can't any of the Bush boot-lickers see the greater geopolitical "strategeries" of BushCo, Inc? Do you think the Bushistas would give and not expect something in return??

The Dubai Port deal is in return for the UAE allowing US military to set up a staging area on it's Persian Gulf Coast to attack Iran. Also, with the US military present in UAE, it ensures the safe passage of tankers through the Straits of Hormuz. Ports are traded for Military Bases, get it?! This whole port "controversy" is just a way to distract the Faux News American couch potatoes while the criminal BushCo, Inc. plans WW3....to be fought and paid for by the masses of American couch potatoes nonetheless.

The Bushmongers should just except the ports deal as the price of doing business and get themselves ready to go to war with Iran! (Of course the actual fighting of any war the Bushistas support is always the other guy's problem).

Mr Nalle sez...
*gratuitously alienate one of our most reliable allies in the middle east for no reason at all.*

i see, so staunch allies recognize the Taliban, handle al Qaeda's banking and finance needs, and host the al Qaede convention and bar-b-q

we need "friends" like that?

purely rhetorical

the more i learn about this "deal" and the circumstances surrounding it, the more it looks like simple quid pro quo...they do something we want, we give them something they want

which, is all fine well and good on the surface, and simple "checkers" thinking...but ponder those uninspected containers and DPW hired and screened workers somewhere along the Road...THAT is the Concern here...

Mr Nalle sez..
*Oh, and whoever it was up there that accused Bush of 'fearmongering' should just hang their head in shame at their ridiculous partisanship. The only people who say this are Democratic party flacks because the public and everyone else knows that Bush has been 100% about building confidence and resolve in the face of terror, not about encouraging fear.*

Irony, eh?

one of the most partisan bits about partisanship chock full of ripe hypocrisy that i've read in weeks....thanks for the Laugh

Excelsior!

Oh, and whoever it was up there that accused Bush of 'fearmongering' should just hang their head in shame at their ridiculous partisanship. The only people who say this are Democratic party flacks because the public and everyone else knows that Bush has been 100% about building confidence and resolve in the face of terror, not about encouraging fear.

and this is where you show your true stripes dave. there are many angles to come at what's been going on with regard to the supposed "war on terror".

the "public and everyone else" is extremely fractured in opinion.

you should have your own head in shame for tossing around such broad brush swiping.

Sorry guys, make that 'the public and everyone who has a brain in their head and pays attention to the news'.

Better? That leaves out the people who believe the Democrats accusations of fearmongering and then project those assumptions onto Bush.

i see, so staunch allies recognize the Taliban, handle al Qaeda's banking and finance needs, and host the al Qaede convention and bar-b-q

All of which was before 9/11. Might I point out that we've sent $600 million in aid to Indonesia which hosted the Al Quaeda convention LAST YEAR.

Dave

Mr Nalle sez...
*Might I point out that we've sent $600 million in aid to Indonesia which hosted the Al Quaeda convention LAST YEAR.*

and that was just as wrong...

what happened to the Administration's tough talk about hunting the terrorists down, and fighting against those that give them aid and comfort?

sounded good for the cameras, got him a win in the last election...but actually DOING anything about it?

well, he knows how to tap phone and data lines without a warrant and can bypass FISA laws without blinking....we got the "patriot act", and he can spend money faster and in larger quantities than FDR ever dreamed...

nuff said?

Excelsior!

To backtrack a bit, Gonzo, sending all that aid money to Indonesia did make us enormously popular there and may have bought us some new friends. Maybe they won't host the next Al Qaeda convention in one of their Balinese resort hotels.

As for the 'tough talk', my point is that it and the action that goes with it does NOT produce the effect of fearmongering, but to the contrary builds a sense of false confidence.

Dave

Sorry guys, make that 'the public and everyone who has a brain in their head and pays attention to the news'.

temple stark was right.

if so, it would be about the first time, Mark.

Dave

yes dave. i'm sure all of the other people who can't stand your endless chain of arrogance are 'wrong' too.

come on Mark - I get up in the morning consume some of Dave's late night arrogance with my coffee and know that the angels are in heaven and all is right with the world

we love the slippery sophist just the way he is

troll

I'm not really arrogant I just like to project a little so you have something to focus on and abuse me about when you can't effectively address my actual arguments.

Dave

Noone has covered themselves in glory in this incident. First of all comes the administration trying to slide this deal through when they must have known it would be politically sensitive, and trying to defend it with bland assurances that they checked everything out (which, of course, they didn't do, or they ignored warnings). Then comes the bipartisan fear-mongering of congress and their delusion that greater security inheres from having a non-Dubai company running ports: at last - the dems can one-up Bush on security! This whole errant idea smells like the "corporate voluntarism" that Bush pushed in Texas while governor and resulted in 0.1% of TX corps voluntarily meeting anti-pollution requirements. Of course congress exhibits a clear bit of pure racism in all this. And finally, the muslims come whining and crying (again!) about their hurt feelings just because folks worry about a muslim Iran that hopes to kill every jew, oh, and their american friends, too.

I'm not really arrogant I just like to project a little so you have something to focus on and abuse me about when you can't effectively address my actual arguments.

oh, no attack at all. just like you, i'm just presenting the facts. which are: many people, writers and readers, have left bc because they became tired of your endless arrogance and condescension.

facts. no emotion involved.

Wow Mark, I didn't realize I was a one-man writer AND reader repellant. I'd love to see some evidence of your 'facts'. I find it hard to believe that anyone motivated enough to participate in discussion here could be driven off by my participation. Is their involvement really of much value if they can't stay and defend their arguments?

If my arrogance and condescension are so annoying, surely they would love to burst my bubble and prove me to be a foolish blowhard by presenting facts and evidence to counter my arguments and reveal what a jerk I am.

Dave

Mr Nalle sez...
*If my arrogance and condescension are so annoying, surely they would love to burst my bubble and prove me to be a foolish blowhard by presenting facts and evidence to counter my arguments and reveal what a jerk I am.*

it's why i keep hanging around...

but i digress...

Excelsior!

And you're well worth having around, gonzo. I'd rather have people around who disagree with me and who I can respect than people who disagree but don't have the strength of their convictions or the ability to put together an argument, or who just end up making some snippy personal comment like #24 above.

Dave

whatever dave.

your arguments are one thing. where you cross the line for me is when you decide that a person is less intelligent than you just because they don't agree with your positions.

I try not to judge intelligence, Mark. It's become abundantly clear to me over the years that plenty of very, very intelligent people hold absolutely crazy ideas or fall for the dumbest things often with the best of intentions. I usually try not to belittle people, because I'd rather try to reason with them and find common ground. But if there's a problem I'll try to keep an eye on it. With no one to disagree with I'd be stuck just disagreeing with myself, and that's the road to madness.

Dave

"I usually try not to belittle people, because I'd rather try to reason with them and find common ground."

This reminds me of the old saying of how people often perceive themslves so much differently than others do.