So finally Michael Steele had to respond to Bush selling out our security in the ports, but goes no further than saying we need more time to review it. Ben Cardin, on the other hand, offers some steps for Gov. Ehrlich and congress to take.
“First, Maryland Gov. Robert Ehrlich should consider cancellation of this contract and reassess privatization of these operations at the Port of Baltimore. Management of the longshoremen’s loading and unloading of ships could be handled by the Port of Baltimore directly, as it has been in the past.
“Second, Congress should review and consider reversing federal approvals for the sale of the P&O Steam Navigation Company to Dubai Ports World, the U.A.E. company.
“Finally, Congress must conduct oversight hearings regarding the Administration’s Committee on Foreign Investments in the United States. This committee secretly reviewed and then approved this foreign sale. In light of the ongoing threat of terrorism, we need to better understand the workings of this federal review process.
Democrats — whatever you actually think about this deal, vote against it. Oppose it. You’ll have no problems defeating it — there are enough xenophobes on the right who will choose to vote against any money going to brown folks, unless it is through bombing them. Nobody will have a problem with you in November because you voted against giving port security over to a bunch of rich oil emirs.
Why do this? To make George Bush Jr. look like a jackass. Over this stupid little deal, George has issued a veto threat. George, occupying the Oval Office for over five years, has NEVER vetoed a bill. You’re putting him in a bad position — if he doesn’t veto it, he’s a pussy who lacks credibility. If he does veto it, he’s a pawn of oil interests, and nobody will be able to argue it. Even some wingnuts will be upset with Our Dear Leader.
Voting against it is a no-lose situation. Actually defeating it is even better.
Naked politics? You bet. But after watching the Bush Administration fuck up my country, I’ll take what I can get.
Diamond LeGrande must be a Republican because that is the worst advice ever.
This is simply a national security issue. The security of the ports (or borders) of this nation should never be privatized. They certainly should never be in the hands of a foreign company. They absolutely should never be in the hands of a foreign government and so help me Hanna the keys to this countries most vital ports should never ever be given to a Middle Eastern Monarchy that is still mired in the freaking 14th Century!
This is just another example of either how idiotic or how criminal this administration is.
As for the person who claimed that liberals would have a fit if Haliburton or KBR received the contract. Well as long as they are incorporated in the US and not the Bahamas or elsewhere offfshore for tax purposes then I may grumble but it would be much better than being in the hands of a freaking Middle Eastern Monarchy that is still mired in the freaking 14th Century.
I would take national security a step further. I have always felt that the US militaries defense contracts should include a clause which prohibits any weapon or weapon system purchased by the United States to be sold to any other foreign country. That’s right the only army who should have M-16s should be ours. The only Air Force flying F-15s should be the US Air Force and the only Army using Apaches should be the US Army. I repeat I would ban all arms sales of any weapon used by the United States to any other countries (friend or foe) military. If Lockheed or Boeing or GE want those lucrative DOD contracts they should be prohibited from selling weapons to foreign countries period. Not just the high tech classified stuf the whole ball of wax.
Well that was a little distraction the point of this post is:
This countries most vital ports should never ever be given to a Middle Eastern Monarchy that is still mired in the freaking 14th Century!
Diamond,
When I first read your comment I thought you meant that Democrats should vote against reversing the sale and let the Repubs wallow in their own filth. which is why I blasted you.
After rereading your comment I realise that you are saying that the Democrats should vote in favor of overturning the deal.
Congress can’t really vote against the deal since the deal isn’t up for Congressional approval. Congress can vote to ban such deals.
I know the wonderful subtleties of a sausage factory.
The ports themselves are already managed by the British. I really don’t know what that has to do with security, but I really wish someone who knew what they were talking about, would bring some information to the thread. This seems like, “Whatever it is you’re for — I’m against it!”
This “Middle Eastern Monarchy that is still mired in the freaking 14th Century,” is one of the most modern countries in the world, let alone the Middle East. (And see here.)
Everybody’s got a right to an opinion, but try looking into it first.
I don’t know where I come down on this thing yet, but that’s because I didn’t reflexively side with “But they’re Arabs” bunch. {The idea that Republicans oppose it because they are “brown people” is somewhere on the continuum between silly and stupid.)
Here’s another wrinkle:
It me all of about 20 minutes to find that stuff. I suggest that Oliver, and all of you in “Oliver’s Army”, devote at least that much time to this before making it into “Bush vs The Universe”, as usual.
Frank…
“I really don t know what that has to do with security, ”
Best quote EVER. Totally sums up the last 5 years of this administration!
Thanks Frank!
Actually Frank, good comment. This needs to be sorted out from the comments of the hate-Bush idiots and neanderthals on our side. Never have there been so many strong, passionate positions on a topic the so many know so little about. You are right, The Brits have been operating the ports heretofore, so all of the coomment about foreign operation is nonsense. At this point, an intelligent question would be: why aren’t US firms doing this? Now if the problem is operation by the Dubai co, a couple of intelliegent questions would be – what are the ground rules for their operation, and what governs who they will employ? They lease facilities so e retain physicla ownership. If they do soemthing we think is harmful, I’m sure the contract has a boot-em-out clause – but we would and could do this anyway.
Reminds me of all of the dire prediction re the Panama Canal years back. The bad part hasn’t happened.
Dugger (God help me for agreeing with the worst Pres in US History, James Earl Carter)
Oliver Willis…… Racist.
Nice ring to it.
And Dave?
“The security of the ports (or borders) of this nation should never be privatized. They certainly should never be in the hands of a foreign company.”
You obviously need to read more. Who here can tell me what is wrong with those two sentences? Frank and Dugger got it the second part partially right (about the operations.)
Personally, I agree with Chuck Shumer more than Jimmy Carter. Let’s let Haliburton manage the operation of the ports.
At first I thought this had to be satire. If someone on the right opposes this deal, it’s because of racism. If someone on the left opposes it, it’s because of security. Classic.
Dugger TWICE agreeing with the former President of ‘malaise’.
I, too, had been googling the UAE and realized I had been repeating
lump-bucket assertions made by certain sites that they were
among the Al Quaeda apologists. Not so;
‘In common with the rest of the world, the United Arab Emirates found in the latter part of 2001 that a major part of its foreign policy concerns was the international campaign against terrorism that developed after the 11 September attacks against Washington and New York. The UAE s condemnation of the attacks, in which over 4000 people died, was swift and total.
‘At this time of tragedy, our hearts are filled with sadness and compassion for the victims of the terrible and criminal acts that took place in New York and Washington & and we send again our condolences to you, the people of the United States and, in particular, the families of the victims, Sheikh Zayed told President Bush in a message shortly after the attacks.
We have noted your wise, resolute and timely remarks about the necessity for these tragic events not to be used as an excuse for, or reason for, any attacks against or hostility towards Arab Americans or Americans of the Muslim faith & We share with you the belief that the acts & are utterly repugnant in the eyes of Islam, and we thank you for your timely and appropriate statement, which so well reflects the values and traditions of the United States as a land where neither racial origin nor religious beliefs is a disqualification from full membership of the American nation.”
I’m not sure I would approve a deal like this but it does deserve more
thought.
Regarding this post and regarding the previous bit of posted fiction: no company in the UAE or elsewhere is taking over any port in the U.S.
A little light reading for y’all.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/02/22/opinion/meyer/main1335531.shtml
I’m on board with Cleo on this one. More thought indeed.
This caveat gives me pause;
The UAE has been a key transfer point for illegal shipments of nuclear components to Iran, North Korea and Lybia.
http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/Dubai_Ports_letter.pdf
The letter also says UAE was one of 3 countries recognizing the Taliban
as official govt of Afghanistan. It fails to mention they withdrew
their seal of approval 9/21/2001.
The nuke thing is bothersome, but wasn’t most of Western AND
Eastern Europe involved in SELLING the goods AND shipping them
out of own ports?
This may be of interest:
“Dubai, 24 January 2006: – Global ports operator DP World today welcomed news that one of its senior executives, Dave Sanborn, has been nominated by US President George W. Bush to serve as Maritime Administrator a key transportation appointment reporting directly to Norman Mineta the Secretary of Transportation and Cabinet Member.”
http://www.dpiterminals.com/fullnews.asp?NewsID=39
Cozy, hmmmm?
Good series of comments all around.
There is reason for caution and to double check our ‘due diligences’ but once done, don’t think its right to preclude a Mideast nation corporation, on principle, from the mix.
Keep in mind, to reiterate:
We own the property and are responsible for security
DOD reviewed the contract
Most of the employees will be remain-in-place Americans
Only the operations of the port will be done by the Dubai contractor
The Dubai company had the best bid and looks to give us hte best return on the dollar
The port operations were already in foreign hands well before this contract
Alos if you have as your litmus test, for a foreign comapny to run an operation in the US, the 100% clean track record of that country re fighting the WOT, then no country, including the US, passes full muster.
Dugger
Semantic…
The story on NPR featured some people from the U.S. side of these port operations, who pointed out that a) most or all of the employees of these foreign companies in the U.S. are Americans, and b) movement of contraband cargo through the port would always require both complicity from Americans at the port and circumvention of various levels of security, including that provided by the Coast Guard.
Bottom line: these people are moving cargo, not providing security.
A big ‘hat tip’ to Alexandra von Maltzen, whose vehement anti-arab hysteria
inspired me to look further on this issue, as she is almost always wrong
on her ‘hot buttons’.
“the sum of all fears” indeed.
http://www.allthingsbeautiful.com/all_things_beautiful/
An anti-semitic country in the Middle East? Say it isn’t so.
(Yes, it is troubling, but remember- much of Europe is anti-semetic too. O.K. Maybe not officially, but…)
FYI;
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/mideast/RS21852.pdf
Summary;
Relatively strong on women’s rights/Good baseline of income
per capita/Anti-Semitic.
Cleo- Those kinds of things make for great political fodder and grandstanding by the politicians from both sides, but upon further review, the myths of this deal seem to be greatly overshadowing the facts. It seems that there are a few still willing to look at the big picture. Obviously you are in that catagory.
Appparently the racial profiler, whose sandbox in which we play, is not.
Semanticleo…
Apparently someone has hijacked your account!
I heard a comment on the radio that some of the 9/11 hijackers “had travelled through the UAE” enroute to the U.S., and that some of the 9/11 funding had also been routed through the UAE. Well, both are true of the U.S., UK, and Canada as well, of course! I think the issue is not so much what goes on in the UAE (so long as they are not a state sponsor of terrorism) as what this company will be doing at these ports. I heard a very good explanation of this on NPR this morning. The fact is that these operations are very commonly performed by foreign companies, and it would be difficult or impossible–if not illegal–to draw some sort of boundary on the globe and say that companies from within that boundary are not allowed to do this business here. WITH THE CAVEAT that we are not talking about the designated state sponsors of terrorism.
I think this deal deserves the same level of scrutiny given to our widespread use of Chinese electrical components …which is to say, some oversight is warranted, but it’s not an automatic deal breaker.
Dugger;
DOD reviewed the contract.
This is the weakest link in your chain of logic. My Bush Hate compels
me, through sad experience, to question any military or civilian
agency who can be manipulated by this WH.
The only comfort I take in a cautionary acceptance of the DOD
review and the Deal itself, is that there was a disconnect
between the WH and the certain to be knee-jerked reaction. His
failure to arrange the usual PR blitz and arm-twisting seems to
support the notion that this deal is not part of an agenda.
Actually I don’t think Bush does much PR blitz. He can be curiously slow to orchestrate support campaigns (see Miers) on his own behalf. And I fail to see what his (evil?) agenda could be here – even to the real haters. DOD and Homeland Security signed off on the contract. It is mostly, at the gut level, a British company whose ownership was taken over by a Dubai state business. They won’t own the facility, be responsible for cargo inspection or for port security. I’m not crazy about the deal, but I’ll be d*mned if I see any bogeyman here at all. It isnt a crime to take a step you think is right even if it has negative political repercussions. And by ally accounts the UAE have been an area ally on the WOT.
Dugger
Dugger;
Miers, katrina and Portgate are recent flumoxxing due to many irons
in the fire. If you think Rove is not an orchestrator, you are mistaken.
Awaiting MOderation…you should have seen what I really wanted to say.
Two questions…first…show me a connection to that Jimmy Carter supports this sale…something, anything from the only Christian president this country has every had. And second, who gives a damn about UAE?…is the WTO going to chasitse the US for restraint of trade for failing to globalize?
ANd, of course, it isnt racism, its the fact that the white house resident and his dad are connected to the UAE, DUbai money faction through Carlyle.
I swear that I must be hallucinating, because I heard that former President Carter, cleo, and I tended to agree on this issue. Has the earth spun off of its axis?
I see, Bushwhacked and O-Dub are getting their talking points from thinkprogress.
From your point of view, this has nothing to do with attacking President Bush, racism, blah, blah, blah, and is only concerned with American companies controlling our seaports.
Were that the case, then you would have been equally concerned that a British company handled these administrative operations previously. Were that your concern, you would note that the vast majority of the employees are already at the jobs they are doing, and will remain after the purchase of the company. Were that the case, you would have been equally outraged when the Chinese began operating ports.
Let’s face it. This is a good political point for the left. It is easy to say. On its face it makes sense. However, the truth is being drowned out by the politicians attempting to score points in an election year.
“I only hope that the Coast Guard, who bears the ultimate responsibility for protecting our coasts and territorial waters, is given whatever means and support necessary to prevent the worst from happening, especially if this sale is allowed to go through. ”
Is there any evidence, anywhere, that the Coast Guard, US Customs, et al. will not continue to do the remarkable jobs that they have been doing ?
And I really dont give a damn who supports this sale, including former President Jimmy Carter. To me this just doesn’t make sense.
Frank
From my point of view, it reallly has nothing to do with attacking Bush, racism or anything else but comon sense. To me, there is little or no justification, other than possibly monetary, for anyone but American companies having control over our seaports irregardless of who is running it now.
Contrary to this, the sale of London-based Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co. to Dubai Ports World, a state-owned business from the United Arab Emirates, was approved by the Bush administration. Peninsular and Oriental runs major commercial operations in New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia. This would mean that management of some of our most vital seaports is given to a country that has supported Al Queda and Osama bin Laden.
Specifically,
The UAE was one of three countries in the world to recognize the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan.
The UAE has been a key transfer point for illegal shipments of nuclear components to Iran, North Korea and Lybia.
According to the FBI, money was transferred to the 9/11 hijackers through the UAE banking system.
After 9/11, the Treasury Department reported that the UAE was not cooperating in efforts to track down Osama Bin Laden s bank accounts.
Source: http://www.thinkprogress.org/2006/02/17/ports-uae/
I only hope that the Coast Guard, who bears the ultimate responsibility for protecting our coasts and territorial waters, is given whatever means and support necessary to prevent the worst from happening, especially if this sale is allowed to go through.
“Were that the case, then you would have been equally concerned that a British company handled these administrative operations previously.”
No JD, just like most people, I was not aware that this was even going on. Were you? If you had actually read what I wrote, you would have seen that I was trying to make a legitimate point from my perspective. That’s all.
“Is there any evidence, anywhere, that the Coast Guard, US Customs, et al. will not continue to do the remarkable jobs that they have been doing ?”
What’s your point, JD? There was apparently little evidence that 19 hijackers could all evade the federal government, take flying lessons, all get through security at different airports and take over 3 Boeng 757s in a single day was there? But it happened, didn’t it?
“However, the truth is being drowned out by the politicians attempting to score points in an election year.”
Just like these Republicans are just out scoring political points ?
NY Governor George Pataki – “Ensuring the security of New York’s port operations is paramount and I am very concerned with the purchase of Peninsular & Oriental Steam by Dubai Ports World..I have directed the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey to explore all legal options that may be available to them in regards to this transaction”.
Maryland Gov. Robert Ehrlich- “We needed to know before this was a done deal, given the state of where we are concerning security”
House Homeland Security chairman Peter King, R-N.Y
Senator Lindsey Graham- has called for an immediate freeze on the deal and demanded a “full and thorough investigation” of the sale.
If you disagree with me, fine, but dont accuse me of just trying to score political points and using it as an excuse to bash Bush. I dont work that way.
Note, I did not say partisan politicians. Democrats and Republicans in Congress like to try to get their hands in on any issue that they think they can make a little political hay out of, and clearly this is one.
So, what aspects of security are we turning over to the UAE?
bw,
There are plenty of anecdotes available about the good side of our relationship with the UAE. And technically the ex British Company now held by a UAE corporate entity would not manage the entire port – they would manage certain shipping operations. Something they have done all over the world, Australia etc, for some time. They would be a ‘tenant’ on aUS owned piece of land.
I understand the desire to make political points on this, but I think, even from a leftist-values standpoint, you guys are on the wrong side of this question. Its either that Arabs can’t be trusted or that you are backtracking on decades of liberal policies about which no one on the left ever whimpered (like the sale of F-16s).
Dugger