| NYT | 0 | |
| Miami Herald | 0 | |
| Don Surber | 0 | |
| AP | 0 | |
| WaPo | Obama Urges Groups to Stop Attacks [on Dems who oppose ObamaCare] |
0 |
Audacity of Truth
"Change" You Can Believe In:
"Nixon didn’t try to do that. They couldn't control (the media). They didn’t try. [...] What the hell do they think we are, puppets?"
- Liberal opinion writer Helen Thomas, describing the Obama admin's penchant for heavily scripting public appearances & press conferences - 7/1/09
Your feelings on the UAE port deal
(Originally posted 10:19 PM ET 2/20/06 – Bumped up for more comment and additional articles of reference – scroll down for updates)
There’s lots of rumbling going on in conservative AND liberal circles over the Bush-admin approved deal that would turn over control of port operations in six US ports to a company owned by the United Arab Emirates. Story via FoxNews:
WASHINGTON — House Speaker Dennis Hastert and newly minted House Majority Leader John Boehner will soon be “flexing muscle” against the Bush administration-approved transaction that permits shifting control of port operations in six U.S. ports from a British company to a company owned by the United Arab Emirates.
“We are very concerned about it and that it could threaten our national security,” one senior House Republican leadership aide told FOX News late Monday. Another senior aide said: “Most indications point to leadership flexing muscle against this transaction.”
On Monday, New York Rep. Peter King, chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, said he was urging President Bush to delay approval of the deal. King also said he saw many reasons to cancel it altogether.
“I’m strongly urging the president to intervene to stop this, to freeze it, to put it on hold,” King said. “This contract should not be allowed to go forward until there is a full and complete investigation. And there has not been a full investigation of this company nor of its roots in the United Arab Emirates.”
King said UAE-owned Dubai Ports World won approval without thorough administration vetting.
“There have been allegations of weapons parts going through that port to Iran,” King said of that country’s own territory. “There’s been allegations of corruption about that port. None of these have ever been investigated by our government.”
King’s comments were cleared by House GOP leaders and, according to sources, reflect the view of the House Republican Conference at large. Republicans are increasingly concerned at the political impact of the port story. They fear it could leave them vulnerable to Democratic criticism and at least partially undermine their political advantage on national security.
Late Monday, Sen. Robert Menendez, D-N.J., called on the president to intervene immediately.
“We have 10 days to stop this transaction, a transaction that we think is not in the national security of the united states, and that needs to be stopped by the president,” Menendez said.
Under federal law, the president has until March 2 to overrule approval granted by the U.S. Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States for DP World to purchase the London-basedPeninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation, which has been running the commercial operations at ports in New York, New Jersey, New Orleans, Baltimore, Philadelphia and Miami.
The multi-agency task force headed by Treasury Secretary John Snow and comprised of members of the departments of State, Justice, Commerce, Defense and Homeland Security reviewed the transaction and said it posed no national security threat.
Here’s the NYT’s write-up on the UAE port deal.
Michelle Malkin has done extensive blogging on this issue, as have many other bloggers – both on the right and left hand side of the aisle.
I share many of the same concerns as others who are blogging about this. File this under “what in the he** was the administration thinking?” I’ve yet to see a convincing argument that this is a “good deal” that we shouldn’t have to worry about.
What do you think?
Tue PM Update: On the other side of the coin, there are some who are essentially saying ‘calm down’:
The claim that six U.S. port facilities are being “sold” to a company owned by the United Arab Emirates may be grist to the election-year mill for politicians from both parties, but the resulting furor may obscure the challenges of port security. The transaction in question is the $6.8 billion acquisition by Dubai Ports World of the British P&O shipping company, to become the world’s third largest port-operator. Among P&O’s numerous worldwide operations are contracts to operate port facilities in New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia. The transaction was approved by the Bush administration after a routine evaluation by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, an inter-agency body that assesses the security implications of foreign acquisitions of major U.S. infrastructure assets. U.S. officials say that both P&O and Dubai Ports World have solid security records.
Still, the deal has been opposed by a Miami based port operator, Continental Stevedoring & Terminals Inc., which has gone to court to challenge the measure on security grounds. And politicians from both parties have amplified that complaint, despite the assurances by the Bush administration that the company’s record checks out, and that the UAE is an ally in good standing in the war on terror.
New York Republican Congressman Peter King has insisted the administration revisit its approval of the transfer of control of U.S. ports to “a company coming out of a country where al Qaeda has such a strong presence,” and which could be easily infiltrated by the terrorist network. Democratic Senators Hillary Clinton of New York and Bob Menendez of New Jersey plan to hold hearings on the issue next week, and are seeking legislation banning companies controlled by foreign governments from buying U.S. port facilities. Menendez alleged that the UAE has a “serious and dubious history… as a transit point for terrorism.” And in response to Homeland Security secretary Michael Chertoff’s insistence that the administration made a rigorous check — without disclosing details — of the security implications of the deal, California Democratic Senator Barbara Boxer said “It’s ridiculous to say you’re taking secret steps to make sure that it’s okay for a nation that has ties to 9/11 to take over part of our port operations.”
But to call the United Arab Emirates a country “tied to 9/11″ by virtue of the fact that one of the hijackers was born there and others transited through it is akin to attaching the same label to Britain (where shoe-bomber Richard Reid was born) or Germany (where a number of the 9/11 conspirators were based for a time). Dubai’s port has a reputation for being one of the best run in the Middle East, says Stephen Flynn, a maritime security expert at the Council on Foreign Relations. And Dubai Ports World, which is a relatively new venture launched by the government of Dubai in 1999, has a number of Americans well known in the shipping industry in its senior leadership. It operates port facilities from Australia through China, Korea and Malaysia to India, Germany and Venezuela. (The acquisition of P&O would give them control over container shipping ports in Vancouver, Buenos Aires and a number of locations in Britain, France and a number of Asian countries.) “It’s not exactly a shadow organization for al-Qaeda,” says Flynn. Dubai, in fact, was one of the first Middle Eastern countries to join the U.S. Container Security Initiative, which places U.S. customs agents in overseas ports to begin the screening process from a U.S.-bound cargo’s point of departure.
Dubai Ports World has been taken by surprise over the furor, and is reportedly sending its Chief Operating Officer, the widely respected American shipping executive Edward “Ted” H. Bilkey to Washington for talks. Indeed, the Bush administration needn’t wait for Bilkey to arrive; it could get a good assessment of the workings of Dubai Ports World from its own current nominee for the post of U.S. Maritime Administrator — Dave Sanborn, previously a top executive at Dubai Ports World.
In the talk-show furor over the transfer of P&O to Dubai Ports World, there has been little reference to the mechanics of port management in the U.S. Over 80 percent of the terminals in the Port of Los Angeles, for example — the biggest in the U.S. — are run by foreign-owned companies. U.S. ports are owned by State authorities, and the workers who actually offload the ships that dock there are the same unionized Americans who belong to the International Longshoremen’s Association regardless of which company hires them. Dubai Ports will not “own” the U.S. facilities, but will inherit the P&O’s contracts to run them, with no changes in the dockside personnel or the U.S. government security operations that currently apply to them.
See also: AJ Strata’s posts here and here, Macsmind (see also here)
Joe Gandelman has a link roundup of blogger reax.
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Trackbacks
87 Responses to “Your feelings on the UAE port deal”
Comments
Blogads
Disclaimer: The views expressed on this blog do not necessarily reflect those of ST's advertisers, nor do their opinions necessarily reflect ST's. Stats
- I just heard a Liberal talking head on FOX respond to a question about that Steve. When asked how she feels about people saying this is racial profiling and racila bigotry she said “Well airport and port sucurity is ‘different’ and we have a right to profile there.”…
- My oh my….looks like the left is suddenly trying to move hard right when it comes to security….*chuckle*
More left hipocracy – I remember all the yammering from the left outright condeming “profiling” as proof of racism among Conservatives, back when the airports were trying to set up their screening policies. Now all of a sudden when they think its a viable “Bush bad” issue, profiling immediately becomes acceptable.
I think sometimes the left gets caught in its own screeds….
- Bang
The funny thing is that “profiling” in airports wasn’t to deny anyone their business… It was just to “scrutinize” a little more as it makes sense to focus not so much on elderly Polish grandma’s as opposed to people who look like the 19 hijackers. Scrutinizing doesn’t deny anyone thier constitutional rights and allows them to move on when checked out. They retain their business, their credit cards, their money, their right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Maybe we can use eminent domain laws to just axe the contract post haste even if it’s still British owned.
I think sometimes the left gets caught in its own screeds….
Not exactly sure what you mean here, but that argument is weak. Profiling Americans = bad. Profiling nonAmericans = common sense.
- The Pres. has till the 7th of April to either sign or not sign off on the deal. I’m pretty sure he’ll do the right thing.
- Bang
- The Pres. has till the 7th of April to either sign or not sign off on the deal. I’m pretty sure he’ll do the right thing.
- Bang
http://www.foxnews.com/
Bush: UAE Deal Will Go Through
President vows to veto legislation blocking deal giving UAE company control of U.S. ports
- BTW … Since Jhimmy is for it thats the best reason I can think of, by far, to immediately kill the deal…. *snort*
bush has not done the right or Right thing since he was sworn in, why would he start now? Peace
I’m still waiting to hear from the PHD packing Economists out there behind a key board to weigh in.
It is not about Islamophobia! Those with an understanding of history, typically have conservative views which leads to having concerns, reasons, fears and most importantly logic. The PC police have no business in this or for that matter most places. (if respect is a practiced pattern and lifestyle). The most striking thing in all of this for me is that so many of the dhimmi’s are on the same page as most of the reasonable and responsible people commenting here.
John Gambling (I think) asks Ann Compton about the port deal and she KNOWS NOTHING about it whatsoever! The nattering ninnies are chompin’ at the bit so bad they miss a major, let me re-phrase, an Actual Real Major (ARM) story because they’re so fixated on the VP. Priority is not news, it’s bash and slash and business as usual, till the waiter drops the drinks! Now like a herd of sheep they plow over each other to “Get the Story” out. What a difference a day makes, eh. The lefty loons run off helter-skelter, abandoning Mr. Cheney’s and their non-starter story of him filling his tag. Dick says BANG and the choir sings AAAAAAHHH!!! There’s your new conspiracy to chew on, for the mad dogs on the left. Keep your eyes on ARM’s and leave the magic to the magicians.
Suddenly, now the Arabs are not our friends as they were the day before. Overnight, they’ve seen the light, but not the err of their ways. Presidents Carter and Clinton, combined with the Al’s shows are running around fanning the flames of the evil America. Now what will become of all this pandering to the poor Islamofascists, I wonder.
This shameless display of the all too typical opaque hypocrisies from the MSM, the democratic leaders and lefty loons should spell out enough reasons to explain why their incapable of responsible leadership.
forest hunter you are correct about the left chasing every little thing that happens. However the left doesn’t go around talking about arabs being our friends. They talk about treating individual people as people. Even Micheal Moore was talking about the dark ties between the bush family and the Saudis…remember the Saudis …the ones that attacked us on 911. The left has not been saying America is bad …they have been saying Bush and family are bad. This part is true. Bush and family should not even be called republicans. They have dirty deals with people that hate America. A worm has crawled into the republican brain and that worm is called Bush.
And the rest of the Right is confused as to just who the terrorist are. Could the neo-con, armageddonists please publish a score card so innocent people are not spied on and then sent off to fight another illegal war somewhere? Peace
ST,
I have mostly come to the same conclusiont today hearing all the details finally.
I can see nothing about their ownership that is effectively different then the other foreign compaines running ports. Security concerns are misguided because the port security management is not waffected in any measureable way.
What this is is xenophobia, is islamophobia.
By the way this deal was proposed in October, and ratified in December, and no one cared. It became an issue because of a Florida company involved in the deal and (I think) invvloved in a labor dispute whined to local media and got that states legislatures in an uproar.
There is only one issue that I think needsto be confirmed, and that is the accusation that a mandatory 45 day congressional review was bypassed. If that is true, then abide by the law. If that is not true, then this is much ado over nuthing.
(D) Senator Levin from Michigan today said that the deal is illegal if not given a 45 day congressional review.
After this was said, if I understand correctly, President Bush agreed to delay it a short time.
On a side note, it would really be interesting to see how the left and right stack up. Who from both sides of the sphere are for it and who are not.
I think that would be interesting to see.
Has anyone even considered the fact that it’s immoral to do business with the Emirates? Recognition of the Taliban should gives us pause.
It is impossible to calculate the moral mischief, if I may so express it, that mental lying has produced in society. When a man has so far corrupted and prostituted the chastity of his mind, as to subscribe his professional belief to things he does not believe, he has prepared himself for the commission of every other crime. He takes up the trade of a priest for the sake of gain, and in order to qualify himself for that trade, he begins with a perjury. Can we conceive any thing more destructive to morality than this?
-Thomas Paine
Age of Reason
I have never been so embarrassed by the Political sabotage done by the media-political machine in our country! I am currently serving Iraq and can tell you that the UAE has been a GREAT ally to the U.S. The UAE port management deal was good for the U.S. in many ways. Most importantly, it helps distinguish the Middle Eastern Countries which are clearly on our side in the fight against radical terrorists. By striking down this deal we now told our friends in the region that it doesn’t matter if they are with or against us, as we will treat all of them the same. If you use the argument that the UAE had peripheral involvement in the actions of the 9/11 terrorists, then we might as well stop doing business with the State of Virginia, Nevada, and Florida as well. I we all take time to learn the facts about issues before Americaonce again gets hood-winked by fear and sensationalism.