I do not often find myself defending President Bush. But when he deserves support, he should have it. The issue of port security, as it relates to Dubai Ports World, is one where Bush and his Administration are correct in their assessment for this company’s future involvement in six of our nation’s ports.
When I first heard this national uproar I thought back on what I felt most people already should know about our ports (that was my first mistake). The Coast Guard and our customs officials are in charge of inspecting incoming cargo. While one can correctly argue that there is not enough funding to adequately inspect the volumes of material that come to our shores, that is not the issue at this time (I have argued for more such funds, but none seems to be in the budget pipeline). 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, is the most illogical thinking that has poured simultaneously out of the mouths of some Republicans and Democrats. In addition it should be noted that planning and maintaining for port security is not done by the holding company, since that too is a function of the Coast Guard and Customs officials.
Why do I think politics has hijacked a sound business plan just in time to propel some names into the limelight for the mid-term elections, and to propel those who harbor Potomac fever a chance to show they are tough and strong on national security? Shame on them!! That includes Bill Frist and Hillary Clinton!!
I realize how some could argue this is a good political issue at the expense of Bush and the Republicans. I just can’t see the benefit of denying a business bridge with a reputable company in the Middle East for the short-term gain of a few points in a poll.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - RogerMDillon
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.
2 - Victor Lana
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.
3 - Michael J. West
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?
4 - Bliffle
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.
5 - Michael J. West
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."
6 - David Ben-Ariel
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.
7 - allendrury
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.
8 - allendrury
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.
9 - allendrury
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.
10 - allendrury
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.
11 - Abrar Siddiqui
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.
12 - allendrury
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.
13 - Abrar Siddiqui
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!!
14 - RedTard
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.
15 - allendrury
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.
16 - Andy Marsh
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.
17 - gonzo marx
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!
18 - Dave Nalle
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
19 - gonzo marx
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!
20 - Andy Marsh
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.
21 - Michael J. West
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.
22 - gonzo marx
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!
23 - Bing
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.
24 - SonnyD
Bing: Have you checked the polls on anti-American sentiment in Britain, lately?
25 - Nancy
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.