Off Their Rockers

12:02 am EST February 24th, 2006 | Media | 7 Comments

The Washington Post’s editorial page is as wrong today as they were when they were cheerleading Bush’s war in Iraq. Interestingly they take up the call of Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon R. England, who decided to brand folks opposed to giving our port security away as traitors.

For me, the Post is the leading paper in America today, but they’d be much further along if they introduced some common sense to their editorial board.

Interestingly the editorial is titled “How To Lose Friends”. I’d argue one way to “lose friends” would be to have them blown up by a terrorist who smuggled his weapon in through our ports.

Related Posts

  • No Related Post
«
»

7 Responses to “Off Their Rockers”

  1. Semanticleo says:
    February 24, 2006 at 12:02 am

    “Why should the president know?

    It’s freakin unbelievable.

  2. Dana says:
    February 24, 2006 at 8:02 am

    For once, The Washington Post got it right; this was a decision that was properly taken well below the presidential level.

    Of course, your stance is about what one would expect from someone who was so uninformed as to think that this was about “giving our port security away.” P & O, the British company which is being sold to Dubai Ports World, managed cargo loading; port security is handled by the Coast Guard and Customs, and that will not change in the least when the sale is completed.

    At Tioga Marine Terminal, in the Port of Philadelphia, P & O owns half of Delaware River Stevedores, a company which leases the cargo handling rights from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. When the sale goes through, DPW will own half of DRS, and that’s it. Anyone who thinks that this is the type of thing that would require presidential involvement doesn’t understand how government does or should work.

  3. Dugger says:
    February 24, 2006 at 10:02 am

    “I d argue one way to  lose friends would be to have them blown up by a terrorist who smuggled his weapon in through our ports. ”

    I wouldn’t if I were you. It would show you are uniformed about the deal. Start with security.

    Good post Dana.

    Dugger,

    Let me tell you ’bout Ahab The Arab
    The Sheik of the burning sand
    He had emeralds and rubies just dripping off ‘a him
    And a ring on every finger of his hands

    He wore a big ol’ turban wrapped around his head
    And a scimitar by his side
    And every evening about midnight
    He’d jump on his camel named Clyde…and ride

  4. duros62 says:
    February 24, 2006 at 12:02 pm

    Okay, so the issue is not about Port security (the Coast Guard and customs will continue to do that as well 2 guys & a dog can be expected to do), but Port management. and there is no reason to think that a company that has been doing Port management as successfully as DPW would do a worse job than they do anywhere else.
    The issue is deeper than that. DPW is owned by the goverment of UAE. the government being the royal family. the bush family has been very close friend of the Emirati roayl family (as well as the Sauds) for over a generation. Who benefits the most from a sweetheart deal like this?
    http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0111-01.htm

    I’ll say it again. Read this.

    Also, I find it very interesting that under the terms of this sale DPW will not (NOT) be required to keep their records accessible for over sight by any local, state or federal law enforcement agencies, as all other Port management companies are required to do.
    WHY IS THAT!?!?!?!?
    I think that what the majority of us are upset about is the opacity of the government. No transparency, no accountability, no consequences.
    We don’t care. We don’t have to. We’re the Government, dammit! Here’s your $600 of hush money(tax cut), now go away, shut up and don’t tell anybody what we are up to.

  5. duros62 says:
    February 24, 2006 at 12:02 pm

    I have no problem with a well-recognized, well-respected company controlling the logistics of Port management, no matter what country they are from. As the President noted just yesterday, P&O is a “Great British” company.
    But why did the administration think no one would notice? The UAE still has some shit to answer for, answers to questions that they will never be asked as long as the Bush dynasty exists.

    Please, God, don’t let it be Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton-Bush. I’m sure Jeb’s got his eyes on the prize for 2012. Someone else.
    Maybe we should do the next election like American Idle. We could knock down the deficit at the same time.
    “Vote for your candidate as many times as you wan’t by texting POTUS. You must 18 to call and each call will cost $28,482.74.”
    At least that way people would pay attention.

  6. Dugger says:
    February 24, 2006 at 4:02 pm

    duros,

    Actually they won’t control the logistics of port management. They will operate certain (not all) facilities, as they do and have doing all over the world (Germany Korea, Australia). Same as if they leased a hangar or gate at Dulles. So far the only difference over now and the past is the fact that it is an Arab licensed country that owns the entity versus a Brit. And we didn’t award the contract to them, the Brits did.

    Does it occur to you that we have cargo shipped in daily to all of the ports coverd by this agreement from ports managed by this contractor. How many have blown up. You guys are on the wrong side of this issue.

    Dugger

  7. bananafishbones says:
    February 25, 2006 at 7:02 am

    Speaking of losing friends, for the perspective of the other party involved in the port deal, check out this short editorial from the UAE’s Khaleej Times. I’m thinking that the petrodollar chickens are coming home to roost. It’s also interesting that they close by pointing out that “After all, post September 11, we are living in an altogether different world.” Can we afford to jeopardize trade and investment relations with an OPEC nation?