Redstate

All President Bush would have had to say is, "Folks, I just found out about this deal through the media. I wasn't involved, because it appeared to be a routine business transaction that was handled through the proper channels. I understand everyone's concern, though I think this deal is a good one based on the merits. But, to make absolutely sure that everything has been considered, we are going to extend the review period and bring Congress into the decision-making process to make sure that all Americans can feel comfortable with the way in which we are protecting the security of our nation."

Furor ends. Everyone shuts up. We have some hearings, and everyone gets to ask a bunch of questions that will be answered. After a month or two, the press finds something new to scream about and the president gets totally off the hook, and the Dubai company gets its contract.

No one gets offended, the President's ratings skyrocket, and Congress can calm down.

Instead, the president let it be known he found out about the deal in the media, didn't know the specifics because he hadn't been briefed, but felt so sure of it all that he was willing to cast his first ever veto in opposition to his own party.

There is a right way to do politics and a wrong way, why do we keep having to do things the wrong way first?

Charles Krauthammer has come out against the deal. Ollie North has come out against the deal. Hannity is against the deal. Savage is against the deal. The entire Republican leadership has come out against it. All over the country, what rank and file Republicans are seeing is that a lot of big name conservatives are taking serious shots at this thing, and Jimmy Carter likes it.

Add that to understandable apprehension about Arabs (call it what you will, but it's there in a post-9/11 world), and you have a recipe for exactly what should have been avoided by deft handling up front.

While you are piling up outrage, why not direct some towards the administration. Even if right on the merits, the President and his administration are guilty of serious political malpractice. This is a completely avoidable, self-inflicted wound.

Retired Gen. Tommy Franks didn't say this in so many words, but I got the impression listening to him in a radio interview, one reason that the UAE got close to the Taliban in Afghanistan ("recognized" them and met with them) was that the US wanted the UAE to keep an eye on the Taliban, and tell us what was going on.

Why do all the people who know THE MOST about port security (NOT Charles Krauthammer, NOT Ollie North, NOT Sean Hannity, and NOT Michael Savage) support it now, and the more these people (that understand ports and shipping) have uncovered about it, the more they support it? Coast Guard, Homeland Security, Private Port management employees, etc. are on the yes side. Some unions are on the no side, but all that says to me is that the new group is more efficent and may not need as many union workers.

Savage is a complete buffoon with no redeeming value at all. I would rather be in agreement with Carter than Savage any day. If they were both running for POTUS I would volunteer for the Carter campaign and put a sign in my yard. Krauthammer is as right here as he was on this excellent idea of his. Hannity is a follower. As soon as he thinks 50.1% of Republicans are in favor of the deal, he will switch positions. I'm expecting it any day now.

The momentum has already switched anyway... people who initially had a negative reaction are being made aware of the actual facts of the matter and coming to the President's side.

The President has to do nothing at this point... this story is already dying.

Savage is an excellent contra-indicator.

I'm afraid this is a lose-lose for Republicans.  If the deal goes through Bush is going to be presented as stubbornly putting business interests over American security.  If Bush backs down America is implicitly saying that we're fighting all muslim countries, even ones opposed to terrorism and I think this is potentially disasterous in the WOT.  Perhaps Bush should have been smarter and never approved the deal in the first place, but it will look racist if we don't give it to UAE now based on nothing other then their race/religion, considering that the American Coast Guard would still oversee security.  

I have to admit though that Bush and Co. kind of brought this on themselves.  The Democrats have acted very hypocritically, but Rove really should have known better.  The man is not nearly as bright as people give him credit for.

The President has to do nothing at this point... this story is already dying.

Highly unlikely.  I can see the political ads now..."Congressman X supported the Bush Administration's sweetheart deal to allow foreign governments to operate our ports.  Tell Congressman X you want him to take homeland security seriously"  oh yes and the video will show menacing photos of UAE official in traditional Arab clothing.

No sorry, this story is not going anywhere soon.

The actual facts of this situation are simple enough to be conveyed in a 20 second sound bite and are pretty easily understandable.  That and the high profile supporters of this (Franks, Pace, etc) who actually know something about both security and the UAE and who are respected as reasonable men v. Schumer/Hillary/Frist etc. who are known to be ignorant on both security and the UAE and are hysterics.

That's not to say that Congress will totally misunderstand what's going on and attempt to pass very complicated legislation to fix the "problem".  Since it's a "port" problem, which is really a transportation thing, you can expect to see another bridge in Alaska and an amendment appropriating money to fix levies in Northern California.  Plus some money for New Orleans for a new port that will be managed by a company chosen for it's minority, woman-owned status headquartered in Kansas.

If the actual facts are so simple then Bill Frist, and even Sean Hannity, ought to be able to get them and not turn against the president.  Unfortunately they realize this is a big political loser for the Prez and the Republican party in general.  Bush has been playing off people's terrorism fears to his advantage for the last few years, Dems are smart enough to use the same political playbook to their own advantage, even if the facts are against them.  Dems have never worried about that before, and of course they're not going to worry about harming our relations w/ Arab countries or our perception in the world if it means political advantage for themselves.

Spitting in an IMPORTANT ally's eye (for no tangible reason) does not make us safer. It makes us less safe. Other countries are watching how we treat our allies in the war on terror. Assuming Americans are as smart as I think they are, the fearmongers will be the ones who look like fools at the end of the day.

Statute, Congress has no role in approving these transactions. Period.  

This is designed to prevent legislators from adding their own "earmarks" to the business transaction - resulting in every legislator writing in benefits to their local donors (read unions) thereby poisoning a legitimate business deal.

The strutting peacocks in the Senate and House are preening for media exposure during an election year and are trying to cover up a power grab from the executive branch.  

U.S. companies gave up on port management years ago thanks to the inherent inefficiencies of the Longshoreman union and the lack of will of legislators to support business over the fat-cat unions.

Hannity IS stupid, and Frist thinks Americans are stupid.

I dunno...I think it is a big stretch to think the average American is going to really study the meat of this issue and come to the conclusion that this is a good thing for the country.  

I think the average American will come to a very quick decision on where the stand on this issue, and I don't think their decision will be helpful to any politician that supports this deal.

Yes, Hannity is a follower with stunning historical ignorance. And I don't typically read Krauthammer, but I catch him on Fox from time to time.

That wasn't my point. My point was that whether they are qualified to bloviate on the topic or not, a lot of Republicans do listen to these esteemed gentlemen. We may all wish it otherwise, but a goodly number of Republicans are followers who do listen to the 'wise men.' Not everyone is an intellectual, nor does everyone do their own research.

Hence my point about recognizing this as a potential problem up front and setting the stage so that this would not happen.

Barring that, the President could have easily defused the situation if he hadn't gotten belligerent with his own party. It's called diplomacy, and it works in national as well as international relations. All he had to do was acknowledge the concerns, promise to let everyone put their two cents in, and then go on his merry way. Handled right, the whole thing wouldn't have cost him a month.

That is where the administration fell short. I'm not criticizing the deal. I understand why the reaction came down like it did, but given the proper preparation, there was no need for this to happen.

If the only people screaming about this were Democrats, then it would be just another tempest in a teapot. It is the presence of big name Republicans against the president that is the major problem in this whole fiasco. This may well blow over in fairly short order, but if bitterness and resentment over this shaves only a few percentage points off of Republican turnout in close elections in November - then we have Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi.

I understand the rage and frustration on the part of all you wise and sage oracles, but it is timed for some lessons learned here in addition to the moral indignation.

1. Politics matter.
   
   
2. In electoral democracies, the electorate does not always behave rationally.
   
   
3. The rank-and-file of the Republican Party is leery of the President's record on border security and homeland protection. Most angry denunctions of this deal actually centered around border security, not so much this deal. Learn this Republicans, people are concerned about the border and want action. It probably won't come from Bush, so the next Repub that wants to move into the White House better have an answer, or the base may not show up.

instead of just posturing in your love of executive power. In a dictatorship, if the deal makes sense to the dictator, then truly only the 'merits' need be considered. In a planned society with an authoritarian head of state, technocrats sitting in a room can make decisions and there is no need to justify them or explain them to the people at large.

Now, contrast this to our system in which the executive may have wide lateral in many areas, but is fundamentally dependent on the power of the purse which is controlled by Congress. Unlike the President, most of Congress stands for election every two years. Unlike the President, most Congressman like to keep their jobs for decades.

Unlike the President, these two factors make Congress highly susceptible to the 'will of the people.' Since Presidents really need to work with Congress to be most effective in governing - it makes sense to effectively manage situations that are likely to cause major heartburn for your party in the Congress.

Failing that, the best thing is to let Congress have its silly hearings. It makes everyone feel better, it keeps your base happy, and it makes everyone move along their merry way.

On most topics, Bush can't force the nation to do a blessed thing. That may frustrate some of you, but the President only orders around the active duty military and those members of the federal government who work for the executive. The rest of the country has wide lattitude to engage in actions designed to thwart his intentions, even if the motivations don't make much sense all the time.

Congress can play a role here in assuaging fears by checking out the deal. The Dems will squawk and posture, but the Republicans can go home to their districts and say, "After much due diligence we agree!" and this whole thing is behind us.

no, the Dem's are NOT smart enough to use this.  They may be smart enough to "want to" but actually executing the plan is off the scale.

The White House might have been able to finesse this if they'd come out from the start and handled it correctly.  As it is, I don't think they know what they're doing up there, especially Boy Genius.

Has become a self-parody, regrettably.

This deal should happen, and the White House should simply acknowledge the concern and ask congress to conduct hearings. Placing the deal on hold during that time, of course.

Then we'd get to see the carnival of stupidity live on CSPAN, and Schumer could once again parade his imbecility for all the world to see.

Do you think the Democrats will have any more nuggets of wisdom like this?

"Just keep the cockpit door closed. You can put up a sign in Ay-rab - this is, say, type-casting, but say 'Try to hijack, go to jail.'"

Guys, not to be a wet blanket, but that whole Evergreen Marine ad is written in traditional chinese, not modern chinese characters.  This allows one to infer --- and a little Googling will confirm --- that Evergreen Group is a Taiwan corporation, not owned by the People's Republic.

Nick's starting off on the same sort of false trail that the people fussing about Dubai have been.

of the MindRay (tm).

I'm all for it.  Stop giving grandma the patdown and start checking out the 18-40 year-old Arab men.  You know, the type of people that have carried out 95% of all major terrorist attacks?

The person that I think is interesting on this is Senator Frist. I was surprised early when he came out so forcefully on the matter, especially since he was opposing President Bush.

My uneducated guess is that he saw this as a neat place to differentiate himself from the president, and especially from John McCain. I may be wrong but I do get the feel that this issue has jumped the shark, and the opponents of the deal are going to have to dig deeper to manufacture the necessary outrage.

Senator Frist jumped forcefully and early into the Schiavo matter almost exactly 1 year ago. In the end the majority of the people saw him as a wingnut and the minority saw him as a weak and ineffective leader of their cause. I fear he risks landing in the same position this time.

But this time it's even more puzzling. Frist is a doctor and had something interesting to add to the Schiavo affair. With pretty sketchy trade and security credentials he looks like an opportunist who wanted to get on the news so badly he was willing to take a postion without understanding the issue.  

Wingnut, weak, not in the loop, not able to understand. Not good "product positioning" for someone who wishes to climb to the top of the political world.

not only that Dems who a playing it to their advantage, many American's are confused too. As I stated here, this deal should have been rejected because to the average American it stands in contrast to the president's overall message in the WOT.

Is it wrong for me to want American management of every port? This is, after all, border control...Would we outsource that? (uhm...maybe we should, but would you want the UAE in charge of 1,000 miles of Mexican/American border?)

Would we outsource airport governance?

Why aren't American corporations good enough for the job? At the end of the day, the profit from the transaction, and there is profit, leaves American shores...why not use an American corporation and keep the profits here?

Am I being simple here?

Also, this is lose lose...it's lose lose in middle America for sure, and it is lose lose for lots of people who aren't racist but afraid...It might make brilliant business sense, but I don't think mainstream America is going to buy that, so to speak.

the war on terror.  In order to succeed we need allies in the region.  By ALL accounts, UAE is a valuable ally.  Don't take my word for it, there's Tommy Franks and Peter Pace who say so.

This stands in contrast to the "average American" simply because the media saw this as an opportuity to "get Bush", the Democrats found an issue they think can make them "tough on National Security" and a bunch of stupid, cowardly CongressCritters who happen to be Republican opened their big, fat mouths before they got any facts.

IF the administration can get the facts out - actually, if they WILL get the facts out - this will turn into another NSA/Cheney shooting story.

This is a solid deal and does not in any way negatively impact national security.  In addition, it gives us the ability to get closer to an important ally in the Middle East.

No, it's not about border control. DHS, the Coast Guard, and other government agencies are responsible for port security.

This is about who writes the checks to the unionized crane operators.

when 17% of the country approve of something you aren`t going to change their minds. this is a losing issue for the gop.this isn`t about arabs this is about our ports being controlled by americans and most people want it that way,this could be the issue to get dems back into control.reublican members of congress will not back this because they know it will be a losing issue for them.this whole bumbled  port issue just re-enforces the idea that bush is not involved and his administration is incompetent.

I just think we should keep money in America. At the end of the day, there are individuals outside of the country who are making a profit off our ports...these are our ports...is American management really that bad?

I am willing to entertain that argument...

<this isn`t about arabs this is about our ports being controlled by americans>

The depth of your knowledge about this issue is amazing.  Please do some research before posting misinformation.  The majority of the U.S. port operations are NOT conducted by American companies.  The proposed change in a foreign company would not affect the "control" of our ports.

You are not in a position to judge the Bush administration's competence.

Isn't it amazing how people that are very uninformed write so passionately about this issue?  They have no clue how the ports operate CURRENTLY.  

They don't understand how the inspections actually begin in the foreign ports before the cargo is even loaded.  They don't understand it continues while it is in transit.  They don't understand how virtually EVERY container is tested before it leaves the port.  They don't understand how many foreign corporations ALREADY operate in our ports.  They don't understand the impact that "dishonoring" the UAE by denying them this business opportunity, out-of-hand, would have on the GWOT.

Karl Rove, Mastermind of Everything (according to libs).

Unlike liberals and moderates whose motive for shouting "WOLF" is obviously political, why Conservatives continue to support their propaganda remains a mystery unless they are merely racists  saying "No Arabs need apply". In spite of the fact that the truth about the transaction has been fully explained for the last few days, most Conservatives continue to rely upon what now is obviously anti-Bush propaganda. My faith in the credibility of these conservative politicians and journalists is being shaken by their belief in the  truth of their opponents' accusations.

I don't know if the deal should have been rejected.  But it definately should have been handled differently.  Bush should have realized this could be a politically sensative issue and gotten congressional approval before barging into it.

You are right that many average Americans are going to have a knee jerk reaction against this deal.  It just seems like they're either too arrogant or too stupid in the White House to look at this from another perspective.  Bush has put GOP senators and congressmen in a tight spot, I don't know why he felt like he needed to do that.  On the other hand he didn't even know about it until after it had gone through.  Who's in charge up there anyway?    

regarding the Dubai Ports World deal, 61% of Americans do not understand that the operating rights are currently owned by a foreign firm.  That just so happens to be statistically equivalent to the number of Americans (64%) that oppose the deal, according to RasmussenReports.

Just like the NSA Terrorist Surveillance Program, once the American public is able to make an informed decision based on the facts and the merits of the deal, as opposed to an emotional reaction to media hype and democrat disinformation, President Bush will prevail and the deal will go forward.

as others have pointed out the issue is getting the facts out. That is not going to happen when GWB simply says - trust me, I didnèt know anything about the deal, but I know itès ok. Ièm afraid that doesnèt inspire much confidence.

Sorry about the formatting, I donèt know whatès happeningÉÉ. All my punctuation is coming out wrong.

Actually, it is right in line with W on the war on terror.  In order to succeed we need allies in the region.  By ALL accounts, UAE is a valuable ally.

We definitely need allies, especially in that part of the world, we just don't need them administering our ports. Would you let Pakistan administer our ports in the name of reinforcing our alliances? But I agree with you that nixing the deal now will have a negative effect on our foreign policy in the Middle East.See here.

This stands in contrast to the "average American" simply because the media saw this as an opportuity to "get Bush", the Democrats found an issue they think can make them "tough on National Security"

Unlike the other "scandals" that have come down the pike, this one is popular-driven. The MSM and the Dems have added fuel to the flames, but they are not the source. Had they been the source, you wouldn't see so many rank and file conservatives oppose this deal.

and a bunch of stupid, cowardly CongressCritters who happen to be Republican opened their big, fat mouths before they got any facts.

Mike Pence, Rick Santorum, Tom Delay, Denny Hastert, Tom Coburn, John Shadegg, George Allen, Saxby Chambliss, Norm Coleman, John Ensign, Chuck Grassley, James Inhofe, Jim Talent, Scott Garrett etc. etc.

You might want to eat those words. And quick :-)

This is a solid deal and does not in any way negatively impact national security.

If it's seen as something that does affect nat'l security, that's enough of a reason that it should have been nixed before it became public, IMO.

Friedrich,

I think more likely, the knee-jerk jerks just can't see the forest for the trees. I hope it's not racism. It's bad enough that 100,000,000 Muslims around the world wish us ill. We shouldn't purposely do things to turn that number into ten times that number. It's not necessary, and it's not smart.

of this deal fail to realize, is that the "knee-jerk reaction the public is having now, is a result of President Bush sticking to his message strongly and consistently.

To call that a "knee-jerk reaction" risks the American people re-evaluating whether their reactions up till now, in which they agreed with the president, were knee jerk as well (as the libs have been saying).

Let us stipulate that the White House communications apparatus has been operating with a rectal cranial inversion since Karen Hughes left. This fiasco is merely the latest in a long series of communications fiascos. Enough people have crabbed about it for long enough that we must reluctantly conclude that the President is perfectly happy with the staff he has. The rest of us are doomed to wondering why we should even bother to defend his policies when he won't do it himself, and further insists on delegating the task to people who make things worse instead of better because they are incompetent, politically tone-deaf, and mind-numbingly stupid. Having James Carville as Press Secretary could not make Bush's press relations operations more useful to the media or their allies among the Democrats.

That said, telling us that the electorate does not always behave rationally does not really let us off the hook. It is simply not true that those holding seats in the mainstream media have a monopoly on political thought in this country. That might have been true once, but today there are name-brand political columnists whose words are read by fewer people every day than Pejman's. Or mine. Or yours.

In short, we are not powerless to affect this. Those of us who believe that the current hysteria is mindless stupidity have a duty to say so, and to explain why. Deciding that the public has gone nuts, and we need to wash our hands of the whole thing and watch the horror develop, is a cop-out.

we just don't need them administering our ports

What list do you have of firms around the world that are qualified to administer a large and busy seaport? Which of them do you think is free of the sorts of concerns that you express about DPW, and why? Which firms that are currently operating ports in the U.S. might represent a higher risk than DPW? Why are you not talking about them instead?

If you cannot answer these question, then you are wasting our time and crabbing through your hat. Are you able to demonstrate otherwise?

Frustrating, isn't it.

It might surprise you to learn this, but there are certain areas of business that most reputable American corporations would just as soon avoid. There is profit to be made, but it is more, erm, trouble than it is worth.

Two that come to mind instantly are pornography and gaming. Can you guess why? Many companies in the point-of-sale terminal business that could have competed for the massive contracts let by the states for Lotto terminals chose not to get involved. One company that was in fact highly profitable at the height of the dot-com boom could not find an underwriter to take it public... because most of its revenues came from porn sites.

Where there is Mob there is stink, and eventually corruption, and good people don't want to get too close to that.

The ports, and the Longshoremen's Union, and a lot of things on the periphery of that, are places where most prefer not to tread. There simply is no long list of American firms trying to bid on this business.

The government has been trying to get rid of organized crime since Eliot Ness was a kid. In spite of which, the Gambino family is still running the East Coast ports. Don't expect big, reputable American companies to jump at the chance to work with them.

I was playing devil's advocate with that comment.I'm undecided whether this deal is a security problem although I believe it's definitely a PR mess.

What I find silly are those who claim that opponents of this deal are "racist" "demogogoues" "stupid" or "cowardly". Their reaction is as knee-jerk as any other.

As for the substance of your arguments, when I get to the bottom of it, I'll write a diary on it. But I do think that your reaction that all opponents to this deal are "stoopid people" is over them top, which is why I pointed out that some very "smaaart people" are among the opponents.

You also seem hung up on how the gov't can approve or disaprove this deal. It's clear that this does fall under the purview of CFIUS, or else they would not have reviewed it, nor would the president and the cabinet keep on saying how they have reviewed the program and found that it meets the highest security standards. Instead they'd be screaming from the rooftops "THERE'S NOTHING WE CAN DO ABOUT IT !!!" So hyperbole abounds on both sides of the issue, making it diffucult to determine objectively if there is a real security issue here or not.

Michael Savage started this controversy.  Politicians have joined in, but it seems to me that this is basicly another example of the power of talk radio to generate a lot of heat (and very little light).  What's unusual here is that Bush is the target.

You also seem hung up on how the gov't can approve or disaprove this deal.

I am hung up on the fact that too many people who are ranting about "this deal" cannot specify what they mean by "this deal." We are dealing here with a corporate acquisition involving two foreign entities, plus several operating contracts between one of the foreign companies and a variety of individual Port Authorities throughout the United States. There is therefore no one "this deal."

I have seen it explicitly stated that Bush should not have "approved" the sale of a British company to a Dubai company. Let us arbitrarily use a crane to pick up all the people who say that, and dump them in the stupid box. Those then become the Stoopid People™ to whom I refer. They are people who think that Bush can tell British citizens living in the UK whether or not they can sell their stocks, and to whom.

What's left is the individual contracts between P&O and the ports. The most stringent thing the U.S. government can do is to warn DPW that if they buy P&O, they should not assume that they will be allowed to keep P&O's port management contracts in the United States. This would be because they are Arabs, and the Brits were not. Whether doing this might have additional security implications beyond the operation of specific U.S. ports is an issue, but not one that has so far been widely discussed. Some note that the UAE has been a reliable partner in the War on Terror. Others point to the fact that the UK is now producing home-grown Islamic terrorists who are British citizens. This whole area is a mystery and a puzzle.

Without "approval" to continue, I assume that P&O would have to notify its customers in the U.S. that it is being acquired by a firm based in Dubai, and that the Port Authorities should therefore start now to prepare a solicitation to acquire a different vendor. We're probably talking 6 to 8 months for the Port Authorities to prepare a new RFP, collect bids, and approve one.

Since the deal was approved — and by all acoounts, to the letter of the law — we don't have that scenario. What we have instead is a bunch of blowhards running around the barnyard like headless chickens. Presumably, some of the Port Authorities will be pressured politically into finding some excuse to dump P&O and put their operations contract out for bids. Other Port Authorities will not do anything.

There are two classes of "opponents" of this deal. Let us set aside those who are ordinary citizens who do not make politics their calling, and whose opposition reflects the blizzard of absolute crap that has been blown through the media at them recently. They have been told that Bush sold the ports to the Arabs, they've been told that this would be the first time any foreign firm had ever operated a U.S. port... they've been fed bull from beginning to end. Once they find out the truth, and they will, we can then ask them what they think about it. To wave their initial opposition at us as though it is dispositive, is crap.

The second batch are the pundits, the news junkies, and the CongressCritters who ought to know better than to shoot their mouths off on a complex subject before they've collected even the most basic facts. I feel free to call such people any name I can think of, for their behavior throughout this episide has been despicable.

Racial profiling is about a police officer pulling over a driver because he's black. When it comes to security why give a Saudi company operation of our ports. Two Saudis were 9/11 attackers.

We do business with the Saudis, they are our allies. But to let them run our ports, or nuclear power plants, or airports? Never.

I'll have to admit that I was a little leary of the UAE ports deal out of response to some of the outcrying over it that people like Sean Hannity has done, but when Rush Limbaugh came out with some of his reasons for supporting it, I had to take a step back to see if all the facts would filter through.  It's beginning to sound like this was already a done deal back in November and that the MSM decided to sit on it until they wanted to create a controversy to take the heat off something else that wasn't going the way they wanted it to.  It's a sad note when that's the first thing that comes to your mind when you're reading about things in the media these days.

Possible manufacturing of the news aside, I do have to add that I'm a little bit cheezed off with Hannity's take on the UAE ports deal, but one also has to consider the outcry over the President's pick of Harriet Myers for SCOTUS last year.  Even Limbaugh had to express his doubts back then, and once it became clear that the base would've just stayed away, Myers stepped down.  Instead, we got Supreme Justice Roberts, and now Justice Alito.  All fine and dandy.

What really does raise legitimate concerns here is the fact that it's a Middle Eastern company that's buying out the ports.  Guess what?  We haven't had control of these ports in some time, thanks to union wages, taxation and governmental regulations.  What American business wants to operate under such conditions these days?

Concerns about Islamic terrorism are well-grounded, especially when you consider that multiple acts of terrorism committed by muslims was what got the whole GWOT started.  I can understand how the average man on the street would feel about the UAE ports deal, the way it was presented to him, so it was a surprise that Rush Limbaugh expressed his support for the President in this.  You have to get all the facts, of course.

At the end of the day, it is looking like a case of political miscalculation on the part of more than one party.  Whether it was the President and his administration for underestimating the gut-reaction of the public to reports of arabs owning US ports, post 9-11, or the opponents of the UAE ports deal in underestimating the effectiveness of the New Media in digging up facts in support of it, it remains to be seen when this comes to a conclusion.  According to my dad, it might already have petered out -- what he expected to be blazing front-page headlines on the local rag today was relegated to a small corner column below the fold.

Time will tell...

I now understand that we don't control most of our ports. Like many Americans, I was ignorant to the fact. However, now, and call me crazy here, now I don't care who owns them, as long as they are based here, in America, giving Americans the jobs and keeping the profits here...in America. I don't think anyone should be in charge of our ports or our borders or our airports period. Not the British, not the UAE, not the lowest foreign bidder period.

And I know this is protectionist but it isn't racist. It's a post 911 world and that requires a change in our thinking and our behavior. If ports have been outsourced, I think it's time to insource them and if American corporations aren't up to the task, then we need to figure out why.

In doing some reaseach for my own edification, I discovered that the Port Of Houston uses a foreign company to do its security.

Granted its a British company, but still one wonders wehre the outrage is over allowing foreigners to perform such critical Homeland Security operations?

Port control should be maintained by us.

I would love to see an actual list of all of the ports and who controlls what...And, if republicans wanted to counterpunch here, I bet a number of those ports were sold under Clinton's "watch"...term...that's just speculation, but neoliberalism was in rapid ascendancy then, and I bet he was going nuts selling ports...

...we're talking about the United Arab Emirates, not Saudi Arabia.  Different country.

...when Rush Limbaugh is being battered by his own callers over this, who for some strange reason tend not to be liberal in persuasion.

It's a bit difficult to call it a Dem ploy...

When per Rasmussenreports, a whopping 17% of the American people this the DP Ports deal is a good idea.

One more for the hat trick...

When you've got the entire starting line-up of the GOP Congress rallying for emergency injunction against the deal, and loudly, then suddenly reversing course by the end of the week, that's an even bigger hand-off to the Democrats.

Sometimes, a deal is really good, and opposing it is like opposing the use of oxygen. To hold back support for it, just because Hillary Clinton does, too, is silly.

But sometimes, a deal is really, really bad, and for widespread reasons, not all of them obvious, a lot of folks who wouldn't agree that the colors of the American flag are red, white and blue can find common cause.

There have been issues far more popular out the gate than this deal, among them Social Security reform and getting involved in the dispensation of Teri Schiavo's long-empty body. Or why bring up small fry? Issues like rolling back Roe or locking in the Bush tax cuts.

This deal might make perfect sense on paper. The costs of not dealing might be far worse, but those costs are not being made transparent, and when you ask the American taxpayer why his $8+ billion needs to go to DP World, whether he understands why or not, whether he likes it or not, well, that's just playing with fire.

If the deal MUST go through

Convincing Bill Frist isn't nearly so important. Convincing people who are going to vote for the next GOP senator from Tennessee is.

QAEDA CLAIM: WE 'INFILTRATED' UAE GOV'T

By NILES LATHEM

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----

February 25, 2006 -- WASHINGTON -- Al Qaeda warned the government of the United Arab Emirates more than three years ago that it "infiltrated" key government agencies, according to a disturbing document released by the U.S. military.

The warning was contained in a June 2002 message to UAE rulers, in which the terror network demanded the release of an unknown number of "mujahedeen detainees," who it said had been arrested during a government crackdown in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks.

The explosive document is certain to become ammunition for critics of the controversial UAE port...

with this.

The committee that handles these kinds of things deals with this stuff all the time; to them this probably looked like exactly what it was, just another routine deal to examine. These kinds of things go one all the time and the President would not normally get involved in any of them.

As I understand the situation Congress is excluded from these assessments by the statute that created the committee and the process.

What is it about this deal that should have triggered an "oh, oh we better alert the Whitehouse to expect a firestorm over this"? Is the new standard to be if the deal involves an "A-rab" company? The Brits are OK but those funny little guys with burnouses in the Middle East should ring a bell?

and either no American companies bid on them or were no the low bidder apparently. As public entities the port authories who bid these projects are bound by the laws that govern public bids and I've never heard of one that didn't require that the lowest qualified bidder wins. Maybe they should say 'America first' but I doubt they do.

We can't hold a gun to the head of American companies to force the to bid and most public bid laws prevent awarding the contract to other than the lowest qualified bidder.

We most certainly do control our ports.

In just about every case that I can think of the ports are owned and controlled by special public agencies called port authorities. The contract is for the day to day operation of loading and offloading, transshipment and warehousing, not control, not security, not a lot of things.

stop using the term "sold" when applied to these ports? Read my lips:no one has sold, is selling or is contemplating selling these ports. These are service and operating contracts, not ownership.

Mike Pence, Rick Santorum, Tom Delay, Denny Hastert, Tom Coburn, John Shadegg, George Allen, Saxby Chambliss, Norm Coleman, John Ensign, Chuck Grassley, James Inhofe, Jim Talent, Scott Garrett etc.

I have yet to hear ONE principled argument against this deal.  The arguments so far work out to

• We're selling the ports. (Nope)
• We're turning port security over to AAAAAARABS. (Nope)
• UAE supports AQ & Taliban. (Nope - take it up with Tommy Franks & Pete Pace not me)
• Two 9-11 hijackers came from UAE. (So?  One came from the US)
• Ports need to be run by American firms. (Name one who can, just one)
• Congress needs to be involved. (Right.  These hearings will be a model of decorum.)

I have no problem pointing out that the above list of CongressCritters, including mine - JD Hayworth - are advocating a position that is STUPID, cowardly and wholly without merit on this issue.  They are allowing the media and Dems to drive this as a wedge issue on national security when it isn't.  By allowing them to get away with it THEY, not Bush, are putting the '06 election in jeopardy.  THEY are running from the principled stand.  THEY are hiding their heads and quaking in fear over an issue that is absolutely racist.  If THEY can't see the importance of this contract and won't stand on principle with our allies over a non-issue like this one THEY deserve, to a person, to be tossed out in the street and the Republican party has no business being in the majority.

If it's seen as something that does affect nat'l security, that's enough of a reason that it should have been nixed...

This is EXACTLY the kind of principle that this issue is showing that our party stands for.  Never mind the facts.  Forget our allies.  We can't be depended upon.  Hey, we operate on how things are seen not how are are.  Look at us!  We're France.

though reading your lips was difficult...so....keep every sentiment from above and turn the "service contracts" over to Americans.

I lived in NYC for about 8 years. There are a lot of very provincial people that live there that think just because they live in NY they have a "world view." A lot these people are bar-tenders, waiters, construction workers, doctors, traders, etc. I'm not saying they are bad people (I married one); its just there actual sense of the world does not even extend into New Jersey or CT or even North of Westchester County.

I think Hannity fits this description to a tee. He has a Long Island mindset. He appeals to a provincial attitude.

for being much more eloquent than I.

I find it interesting that I have yet to hear anyone mention on TV (they may have & I missed it) or read anything in the MSM (same caveat) pointing out that the only US firm that might be able to manage port operation is Halliburton, that every major port in the country is operated by foreign corporations, or that the predominant port operator on the West Coast is a Malaysian corporation (Malaysia is a lot more "Islamist" than the UAE).

Beyond that, there's been little discussion about the fact that US ports are the most inefficient ports in the world and at least one major operator refuses to bid on operations because of the ILWU.

I'm not one to throw an epithet like "racism" around lightly because it is SO overused in this country.  In this particular instance, it fits.

Anyway, thanks for your eloquence.

Senator Frist is probably a very good doctor. I am married to one so I know a ton. Doctors generally are very good at one thing - being a doctor. A very small percent have more than one skill and those tend to not be the best doctors. Being a good doctor takes a lot of effort requiring the ability to focus on one thing (IMHO). Therefore the fact that Frist is not a great politician would seem to be a good thing for his patients!

RasmussenReports poll results you site: (61%) of Americans do not understand that the operating rights are currently owned by a foreign firm.

Misinformation runs rampant:

"when you ask the American taxpayer why his $8+ billion needs to go to DP World, whether he understands why or not, whether he likes it or not, well, that's just playing with fire."

That statement is factually incorrect.  Dubai Ports World (DP World) is purchasing the terminal operating rights from Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company (P&O), a British private company.  There are no American tax dollars involved in this purchase.

As far as Rush is concerned, he too must contend with the fact that (61%) of Americans do not understand that the operating rights are currently owned by a foreign firm.

The funny thing is the actual control of the Ports is in the hands of DEMOCRATS through the local Ports Authorities.

Most of the Ports are in Blue States or Blue Cities. These are plum appointments. The entity contracting with DP/World is NOT the Federal government but local DEMOCRATS.

The way to illiminate a foreign ownership of port facities and operating contracts is for the local Port Authorities to not let them in the first place or to cancel them now.

I'm willing to bet that the big problem the democrats have (e.g. Corzine) is local contributors pressing for more local contracts.

May she rest in peace.

And the nuns. And the Salesians of Saint John Bosco.

Is it wrong for me to want American management of every port? This is, after all, border control...Would we outsource that? (uhm...maybe we should, but would you want the UAE in charge of 1,000 miles of Mexican/American border?)

Would we outsource airport governance?

Please name US companies who manage ports before you run off and want to transfer port management to them.  Also, do you know how many "ports" are managed in the US?  Would it surprise you to discover that more than one management contract exists in almost every "port"?

No, this is not border control.  This is the management of movement of containers of cargo.  DHS, the Coast Guard & Customs are responsible for the stuff in the containers.  Same folks who are "responsible" for border control.

BTW, since you brought it up, what do you think of the great job that Congress (and the Administration) has done with control of our borders?  Do you think that direct Congressional involvement in the port management issue will raise the security and efficiency of our ports to the same level as the security of our border from San Diego to Texas?  Maybe now that Congress has stopped illegal immigration over the Southern border they need something else to do?

And, I wouldn't have a problem outsourcing border control in Arizona (where I live) to the UAE.  They couldn't do any worse.

Why aren't American corporations good enough for the job? At the end of the day, the profit from the transaction, and there is profit, leaves American shores...why not use an American corporation and keep the profits here?

Again, name one.  And by the way, do know why American ports are widely recognized as THE MOST INEFFICIENT in the world?

Am I being simple here?

Yes.

Also, this is lose lose...it's lose lose in middle America for sure, and it is lose lose for lots of people who aren't racist but afraid...It might make brilliant business sense, but I don't think mainstream America is going to buy that, so to speak.

Since EVERY argument related to this deal is without merit (and you've cited not one meritorious point) why would suspect people might be "afraid"?  My suspicion is that they are afraid for the same reason people were afraid that their property values would fall when "those" people who don't know know how to take care of their homes and don't care if drug dealers work in their neighborhoods bought a house next door.  That is racism.  The only rational underpinning to any argument in this case is racism.  It's the only one with merit.

Please make a meritorious argument against this deal after studying a map of the Middle East and figuring out the difference between the Saudis and the UAE.

You might want to read the recent statmeents by Tommy Franks and Peter Pace about the UAE and their cooperation with the US in the GWOT.

THEN, make a comment.

Please list all the US companies that manage port operations.

Hint: You only have to look in the Yellow Pages under "H".

Point #1:I am hung up on the fact that too many people who are ranting about "this deal" cannot specify what they mean by "this deal." We are dealing here with a corporate acquisition involving two foreign entities, plus several operating contracts between one of the foreign companies and a variety of individual Port Authorities throughout the United States. There is therefore no one "this deal."

Point #2: What's left is the individual contracts between P&O and the ports. The most stringent thing the U.S. government can do is to warn DPW that if they buy P&O, they should not assume that they will be allowed to keep P&O's port management contracts in the United States.

Point #2 sort of makes Point #1 a semantical issue, doesn't it? What difference does it make if CFIUS can stop the actual buyout of P&O by DPW, or if they can force DPW to divest itself of administering our ports? Answer: no practical difference concerning the issue at hand, administration of our ports. Why you can't get beyond this silly but irrelevant error is baffling.

Some note that the UAE has been a reliable partner in the War on Terror. Others point to the fact that the UK is now producing home-grown Islamic terrorists who are British citizens. This whole area is a mystery and a puzzle..

What's puzzling to me is your inability to distinguish between the U.K. and the U.A.E. There are numerous differences, but let's start with this one: there are no visa restrictions for visitors from the U.K. but there are for those from the U.A.E. I am sure that you advocate applying those restrictions to Britons as well.

What we have instead is a bunch of blowhards running around the barnyard like headless chickens.

For the record: Are you calling these conservative leaders blowhards? Yes or No.They are leading the charge here just as much as Schumer and Clinton are.

The second batch are the pundits, the news junkies, and the CongressCritters who ought to know better than to shoot their mouths off on a complex subject before they've collected even the most basic facts. I feel free to call such people any name I can think of, for their behavior throughout this episide has been despicable.

Fine with me. My own preference when I find many of the people I respect disagreeing with me, is take a step back to reassess the situation (which is why I'm unsure if this deal will harm nat'l security, considering that many sharp people here at RS see no problem with it). Labeling people "blowhards" and "CongressCritters" because of one issue reminds me of another site.

I realize the value of hyperbole in reinforcing a point, but it's not warranted in this case.

national security is not truly the underlying reason for democrat opposition to this deal.  Rather, it is in respose to the Longshoremen's Union opposition to the modernization and automation of the port facilities planned by DP World.

That would be the same union that insisted on using manual tracking of shipments and containers in our ports, as opposed to electronic tracking scanners.

Union jobs are at stake.

or that the predominant port operator on the West Coast is a Malaysian corporation

This is interesting. Do you have any links?

I'm not one to throw an epithet like "racism" around lightly because it is SO overused in this country.  In this particular instance, it fits.

You most definitely are throwing it around lightly, and it's a shame. Considering thatalmost all conservative leaders have taken this position, do you still feel comfortable attributing it to racisim? Why is this more racist than profiling? While there might be some whose motives can be questioned, attributing the whole opposition to the ports deal, or even a significant part of it, to racisim is as accurate as attributing the failed Katrina response to racism.

Please provide any evidence of racism by any mainstream opponents of this deal. And don't give me the "I recognize it when I see it" standard, that is the reason the racism charge is so overused nowadays. If conservatives have adopted that standard, there should be no complaints when it is used against them in the future.

address my concerns. I will do my best to respond but you'll have to be patient since you verified what I had feared, that I was oversimplifying the issue...

1. I did not ask for congressional control of the ports, and I have no idea how many ports are currently run by American companies.It doesn't matter; my larger point stands: In the post 911 world, every port should be controlled, protected, and managed by American companies. If no American company is currently capable of doing so then it seems like there is room in the market for an entreprenuer to start a company and make good American dollars from the operation.
   
2. Congress has done a miserable job protecting the borders, so let's put that in the hands of people. I am all for the citizen brigades of border patrols because local citizens have the most at stake. And, while we are here, let's park the American Army along the border, wouldn't that solve the problem? Please tell me that they aren't capable of securing the border...
   
3. You wrote: "And, I wouldn't have a problem outsourcing border control in Arizona (where I live) to the UAE.  They couldn't do any worse."

I think that you are in a minority on this point. In fact, if we took a redstate poll (how about a nationwide poll) and asked something along the lines of "Would you mind if the UAE took over border security?," you'd be in the minority.

4) You wrote "And by the way, do know why American ports are widely recognized as THE MOST INEFFICIENT in the world?"

No, I had no idea, maybe that's because we've outsourced them to foreigners...:) Recognized by whom as such? Did you know that America is the greatest country in the world?

5) You conclude by insinuating that I'm racist. Thanks a lot for that. You continue to neglect my larger point. Until this week I was unaware that we outsourced port management to companies all over the world. My post 911 concern is that port management should be conducted by Americans and the profit for that conduct should be kept inside America.

What is your problem with that?

(This is mostly a cut and paste of some comments of mine on this issue from another diary)

One of the most highly regarded experts in port security, Stephen Flynn, says that there are plenty of problems with port security, but actual port ownership is among the least of his concerns. We have a long way to go toward achieving acceptable levels of container security and screening not only on our shores, but even more importantly, working cooperatively with foreign ports to do the same. Establishing a verifiable and traceable chain of custody from the origin to destination is critical. While we've made some limited progress toward maritime security, we have a long, long way to go. Public recognition of our vulnerabilities with regard to port security is lacking and true leadership and action towards developing and executing a comprehensive approach is sorely wanting. Stephen Flynn discusses these specific issues (and many others) in depth in his excellent book "America the Vulnerable" and suggests an achieveable, cost-effective, multi-layered approach to radically improve gaping holes in our port security. He has also written a timely (actually, he was ahead of the current controversy) analysis here

This should be the topic our policicans (Dems and Reps alike) are howling about - not the Dubai purchase. Unfortunately, that would require putting aside political rancor, bureaucratic infighting and easy but ineffectual decisions for the good of the country. Yeah... good luck with that.

Hopefully the increased attention to port security that this episode has raised will result in focus on the real vulnerabilities and needed remedies.

If you accuse me of being a bit obsessed with this stuff, you would be correct. I believe this issue to be an area of tremendous domestic vulnerability that is not being adequately addressed. Let your elected representatives know if you think so too.

Port and container security is a bi-partisan issue. Tell them to treat it that way.

I am perfectly happy to stick to my guns here and assert that every port in every state on every inch of American coast should be managed by Americans.

If Americans aren't up to the task of managing their own ports then we need to address that issue, immediatly.

This is from the White House release - DP World: Fact vs Myth.

MYTH: UAE is a haven for terrorists and allowing a UAE-owned company to control our ports will endanger our national security.

FACT: UAE is a friend and ally of the United States, a partner in the Global War on Terror, and a strong partner in global port security. Partners like the UAE are siding with the international community in the fight against terror. The UAE has been very helpful in the fight against terrorism, especially intelligence sharing and cutting off terrorist financing. The UAE has worked with us to stop terrorist financing and money laundering, including by freezing accounts, enacting aggressive anti-money-laundering and counter-terrorist-financing laws and regulations, and exchanging information on people and entities suspected of being involved in these activities. The UAE has a world class carrier port, and we have more U.S. Navy ships in UAE ports than in any other port outside the United States. The UAE services our ships while in port, refueling them, providing them with food and water, and doing small repairs, among other services. Dubai was the first Middle Eastern entity to join the Container Security Initiative - a multinational program to protect global trade from terrorism.

    *General Peter Pace, Chairman Of The Joint Chiefs of Staff: "[T]he military-to-military relationship with the United Arab Emirates is superb. ... They've got airfields that they allow us to use, and their airspace, their logistics support. They've got a world-class air-to-air training facility that they let us use and cooperate with them in the training of our pilots. In everything that we have asked and work with them on, they have proven to be very, very solid partners." (U.S. Department Of Defense, Press Briefing, 2/21/06)

    *General Tommy Franks, Former CENTCOM Commander: "I personally believe that we have had no greater ally in seeking a resolution of problems in the Middle East, the Palestinian issue, the Israeli issue, than we have found in the United Arab Emirates." (Fox News' "Hannity & Colmes," 2/22/06)

and start a port operations management company.  There is only one firm in the US who does it.  Which means that you want to void every contract the various port authorities have with foreign port operations management companies and let a "no bid" contract to Halliburton.

Bottom line, not only won't that happen, it can't happen.

"I am perfectly happy to stick to my guns here and assert that every port in every state on every inch of American coast should be managed by Americans."

that every American is willing and able to pay considerably more for almost every conceivable consumer item they purchase in the foreseeable future?

...your statement is one step away from saying that the government should do it.

the people. I guess I have to drop this, but I am left feeling like America, the most innovative and productive country on the planet, can't manage its own ports in a cost effective and productive manner.

Reading the article linked in hoosierteacher's diary, Frist says "My comfort level is good, but I have 99 other United States senators who need the opportunity to ask their questions...We're behind the president 100 percent. We believe the decision in all likelihood is absolutely the right one."

So it sounds as if we're on the "hold hearings, posture, approve deal" track.

I have no problem pointing out that the above list of CongressCritters, including mine - JD Hayworth - are advocating a position that is STUPID, cowardly and wholly without merit on this issue.  

THEY are running from the principled stand. THEY are hiding their heads and quaking in fear over an issue that is absolutely racist. If THEY can't see the importance of this contract and won't stand on principle with our allies over a non-issue like this one THEY deserve, to a person, to be tossed out in the street and the Republican party has no business being in the majority.

I see. People who have the wisdom to stand up for what is right on almost all issues. People who have the courage of their convictions to take on the loud Dems and their cynical sidekicks in the media on the War in Iraq, WMD, warrantless wiretaps, Gitmo, Abu Ghraib,SCOTUS nominees, tax cuts, and abortion. People who have stood up to the entrenched special interests by calling for Social Security and earmarks reform. People who are responsible for whatever success conservatives have had in advancing their agenda, THEY are "running from the principled stand". THEY are "hiding their heads and quaking in fear over an issue that is absolutely racist". And THEY deserve to be "tossed out into the street" for raising security concerns over a business deal!! Somebody pinch me and tell me I've been blogging at DKos.

I advance for your consideration that maybe, just maybe, there still are security issues with this deal, even after it's become clear that many initial assumptions about it were false.

How about this:

1)A company that aquires the right to administer (not buys, not security)our ports, is in the possesion of some insider and sensitive information which could be useful to terrorists = True

2)It is easier for al Queda and other Islamist terror organizations to infiltrate a company based and run by the UAE than one based and run by Britain = True

1+2=Potential security concern.

Notice I state potential security concern. I'm not sure that it is one. I'd have to hear from real experts to decide one way or the other. And I'm sorry, General's Franks and Pace might be experts on who our allies are, but I'd be surprised if they know much about port security and what constitutes a threat there. DHS's opinion does carry some weight by me, but their track record is unproven, besides which they initially opposed the deal, putting the lie to your claim that this is a "non-issue".

The bottom line, to state that someone concerned with the above equation, is a racist panderer who deserves to be tossed out on his you-know-what, is asinine.

....before 1973's  Roe V.Wade.  I recall being flooded with Conservative anti-Catholic mailings after purchasing in the 1960s a book from a famous Conservative publisher. Like Arabs, they questioned the loyalty of American Catholics even though Alger Hiss, the Rosenbergs, Aldrich Ames and many other traitors were not Arabs or Catholics.   But for Roe v. Wade, many fewer Catholics would now be voting Republican.

I said you were "one step away." That step gets taken when it dawns on people that "Americans" aren't going to step in start managing these ports, and by golly we're not gonna let furriners do it.

Capitalism is ruthlessly efficient at finding opportunities. I don't know why American companies aren't managing our ports but I take it on faith that if there were money (and comparative advantage) in it, they would be.

An alternative approach is to do this Chinese-style: for the government to pick some winners and have those winners be companies with American names and (largely) American shareholders. That would raise the cost of everything that passes through our ports, which is potentially objectionable. But it certainly would achieve the goal being set here, which is simply that Americans should be managing our ports.

Sen. Lindsey Graham, among others, in an undisclosed, secure location and away from a microphone, this would be a much smoother transition to the new terminal operators.

Yes, I'd say that it shouldn't be hard to assume that more Americans might have a problem with an Arab country (not just company, country) owning American ports than British.

This sort of thing may be routine, but it's still very important and the kind of thing that political advisors ought to be doing abetter job vetting.

Is the new standard to be if the deal involves an "A-rab" company? The Brits are OK but those funny little guys with burnouses in the Middle East should ring a bell?

No, what should ring a bell is that friend Mr. UAE is a neighbor, and occasionally, a friend and ally to MR.Saw-your-head-off-knock-your-buildings-down-nuke -you-early-and-often-if-I-could-down-with-America-Jihadist.

The Iranians are Persians, not Arabs, Tariq Aziz and many other terrorists are Christians (George Habash of the PFLP for example), so it has nothing to do with racism or bigotry.Knock it off, you're better then that.

The Catholics I know are not generally small government types, Buchanan aside.

Most of us that I know are the scots-irish type-- pro-military, pro-church, pro-Notre Dame, and anti-Castro, anti-USC, and full of sympathy for the late Joseph P, and his dismal youngest son.

I suspect that the southern protestant outrage over Roe helped show the majority of Catholics and the majority of unblievers, er protestants, that they had more in common with each other with regard to basic beliefs and values, thant he Catholics had in common with the Left with regard to method.

Are you as thick as it sounds or are you not paying attention? DPW, UAE, et al is not going to own these ports. What is it about this that is so hard for people to grasp. No Ownership. No Management. No Security.

DPW is buying the terminal operation business from P&O. This means that they will be writing paychecks and billing for people who load and offload ships, move containers around on the ground, transship, and provide temporary warehousing for cargo in transit. They do not manage the port, they do not control security (other than might be required for warehouses they control), they do not administer the port, and they most certainly not own the port.

The situation is analogous to the the situation at JFK where Saudia, JAL, Lufthansa, etc., provide air cargo services. They load and offload cargo and make it available to customs for inspection. In order to do this they are provided with such "security" information as is necessary to know what kind of cargo may enter, the rules for entry, customs clearance, etc. This is the kind of "security" information that DPW will have access to and if you have a problem with that then we better figure out how to wall off the country and never import anything again.

I didn't say I had a problem with it.  I just said that this administration ought to know that there are a lot of people who want to make it look bad, and this is just the sort of thing that gives them an opening to.  

Will Republicans now being led by Democrat Senators from New Jersy and New York be able to bam all Arabs from U.S. seaports ?  Should U.S. International airports also be "Arab-free" zones ?

Let me guess... this Savage fellow got really worked up about the cartoon riots, wallowed in anti-Muslim hysteria for a week or two, and now is venting it all in the ports matter?

In the post 911 world, every port should be controlled, protected, and managed by American companies. If no American company is currently capable of doing so then it seems like there is room in the market for an entrepreneur to start a company and make good American dollars from the operation.

There are, quite literally, hundreds of port operations contracts in the US.  You can't start a firm to manage operations from scratch, it is a worldwide business and the companies that do it are big, multinationals.

The bigger issue is that port security and port operations are interdependent around the world.  DPW operates ports in most of the countries that ship containers to the US.  It is a totally interwoven business between ALL port operators.  Just having "American" firms operate "our" ports changes nothing.

Congress has done a miserable job protecting the borders, so let's put that in the hands of people. I am all for the citizen brigades of border patrols because local citizens have the most at stake. And, while we are here, let's park the American Army along the border, wouldn't that solve the problem? Please tell me that they aren't capable of securing the border...

In parts of TX and AZ, you have heavily armed drug gangs moving drugs and people across the borders.  The last thing in the world you want to see is a "civilian militia", it's called chaos and mayhem.  Could the US military seal the border?  Sure.  You want to retrain the military in police tactics?  Because I guarantee you that if you put Marines on the border with their training they will absolutely stop border incursions.  You will need heavy lift helicopters to move the body bags of illegal Mexicans out of the desert.  You OK with that?  I'm not.  The US military fights wars, they kill people and blow up things and I do not want them turned into cops.

The biggest problem on the border is not a lack of firepower.  It's a lack of national policy and the will to seal the border.  It's an administration and Congressional problem and it's being completely ignored.  Just like every other real problem.  Congress ONLY jumps on a bandwagon when they can get quality TV time on an issue that is perceived to be a problem but really isn't.  If they have to actually take some personal risk and stand for something, they won't.

With respect to UAE taking over border security, I can assure you it wouldn't get worse.  Because, there is no border security.  None.  Zip.  Nada.  Border security is, in one respect, like the port issue.  Nobody understands it.  It's all perception.

With respect to the inefficiency of the ports, it has nothing to do with the port operators or "outsourcing".  Those same port operators run the most efficient ports in the world in other countries.  If you want to point a finger, point it at the various port authorities who actually own the ports (the cities where the ports are located ARE the port authorities, just under different legal organization), and the ILWU.

With respect to your final two points, I'm not calling you a racist, I don't know you.  I am saying that your position is racist, you may not realize it.  Racism is the ONLY rational explanation for this position.

If foreign operation of ports was a big deal, why wasn't it on page one of the 9-11 Commission report?  Why haven't the Democratic mayors in Newark, Miami, Los Angeles, Seattle, Portland, etc. all made an issue of it before this?  Port management didn't all of a sudden change in the last week.  This issue has completely been blown out of nowhere because it is NOT an issue.  It's just perceived to be one and it gives the Congress the ability to concentrate on something that they can appear to "fix" quickly instead of addressing the real issues that face the country.  Like entitlements and the failure of public education.  Corporate welfare.  Border security.

Management of ports should NOT be conducted only by American companies.  It would be OK if some US based companies got into port management on a competitive basis, but to insist that this is something that MUST be managed by US companies just denies the reality of the world.  And, BTW, having only US companies manage our ports won't make us any safer than having only US agencies be responsible for border security.

You most definitely are throwing it around lightly, and it's a shame. Considering that almost all conservative leaders have taken this position, do you still feel comfortable attributing it to racism? Why is this more racist than profiling?

I'm not throwing it around lightly at all.  In fact, it causes me more than a little pain to do it.  Let me be really clear, I'm not saying that everyone who espouses this argument is a racist.  I'm saying the argument is racist.  And it's easily comparable to profiling, which I do not think is a racist act.

Profiling simply says that I should look at the whole situation available to me and make a decision.  I'm a cop in an upscale, predominately white neighborhood.  I see a car with four young blacks riding slowly through the neighborhood.  It seems to me reasonable to ask why they might be there.

I'm a cop in a downscale neighborhood and I see a couple of white guys driving slowly in a new Lexus.  It seems to me reasonable to ask why they might be there.

I a CongressCritter who sees a British firm that manages port operations all over the world being bought out by a similar firm from the UAE.  Since I'm a Congresscritter, I should probably know that people who run port operations don't have ANYTHING to do with security and that there are only a handful of firms who do this on a worldwide basis.  Oh, and that there is only one US firm who does anything like this.  I probably should also know that the UAE is a valuable ally in the GWOT, and if I don't know that going in I probably should be willing to listen to Tommy Franks and Peter Pace.

Bottom line, you want to profile the UAE, fine.  They hold up really well and while you might want to "stop" the car their in, if you evaluate their situation you'd release them.  In other words, there is no reason out in the REAL world to stop this deal.

The reason the argument is based in racism is because there is absolutely no evidence of any kind that there is any reason not to do the deal.  It is, unfortunately, all that's left.

The UAE, and every other country in the world with a port, as well as every firm that manages port operations worldwide is party to an agreement on operations and security.

Bottom line, they know all that stuff anyway.  The procedures are not rocket science, they're not highly classified, they don't take a room full of NSA spooks and computers to figure out.

Bottom line, there is NO, repeat NO POTENIAL or real difference in the security of our ports because of this deal.  NONE.  Is there some part of NONE that doesn't register?  Port security is not a "unique" event that can happen in the Port of Newark absent everyplace else in the world.  Security in Newark (or anyplace else for that matter) is 100% interdependent on what happens in Amsterdam, in London, in Singapore, in Hong Kong and everywhere else in the world where there is a port.  That's why the port security protocols are published and agreed to by all concerned.  Including the much feared and hated Arabs.  Well, at least those with ports.

With respect to the first part, just because someone is "good" on some or all of the issues you've noted doesn't stop them from being totally unhinged on this one.  I have yet to hear an argument against the UAE that addresses the reality of the situation in the real world.  The arguments so far have addressed our ports being sold, our port security being outsourced, and a desire for all port operations to be run by US firms.  None of those are supportable by facts or reality.

Give me a rational argument that addresses why this deal will hurt US interests and I'll listen.  I've yet to hear one.

spunoff an "American Subsidiary" company and put in in charge of managing the ports.  Similar to what Israel (IAI) did when selling the Pioneer Remote Piloted Vehicle to the US Navy?  Does this satisfy the American Only cry?  Something tells me that this is what will be proposed in the 45 day delay now on the table.

they are going to manage ONLY the loading and unloading of containers isn't getting through?

They will not be loading cargo into containers.  They will not be inspecting containers.  They will be taking fully loaded containers (loaded by unrelated third parties) that are delivered to their operations area on the port (owned by the Port Authority in the specific locality) and loading those containers onto a containerized cargo ship bound for other places in the world.  Or conversely, they will be offloading the containers on those same vessels which were similarly loaded at a foreign port, and transferring loaded containers to their yard where they will be inspected by US Customs and released for delivery in the US.

to be concerned about with this deal even for the few of us "non-racists" out there, see this comment.

Let me be really clear, I'm not saying that everyone who espouses this argument is a racist.  I'm saying the argument is racist.

These hairs don't split. Someone who espouses clearly racist arguments is a racist.

Do you really mean to accuse all your favorite conservatives in Congress of racism? Then go right out and say it. And I would think you'd never vote for them again, just like any normal American would never vote for any candidate for public office who I suspected of harboring racist sentiments.

But doesn't go nearly far enough.  I would suggest a "cone of silence" tossed over Washington DC.

note that some of my favorite CongressCritters have seemingly taken a position that has no merit when one looks at the FACTS.  Given no factual merit, that leaves me with the conclusion that the ARGUMENT, not necessarily the arguers, is racist.

Frankly, if Congress kills this deal in the face of the facts, they all deserve to be unemployed.

but you said

Yes, I'd say that it shouldn't be hard to assume that more Americans might have a problem with an Arab country (not just company, country) owning American ports than British.

which simply is not true.

I submit that if DPW were actually buying the port (assuming such a thing was even possible) most of us would have a problem with that. But since they are doing nothing even remotely like that many of us are not concerned because we can actually read.

So no I am not an idiot.

believe (based on what, I don't know, inside knowledge perhaps) that the DPW will be just a "glorified crane operator", than I understand your frustration.

I tend to think, based on what I've seen and read, that it's not unreasonable to think that they will have sensitive, insider information which could be useful in terrorist hands. This diary is a good starting point for a discussion of this issue.

practice.  Michael Ledeen had an excellent comment on this very thing a couple of days ago here at National Review On-Line.

DUBAI [Michael Ledeen]

There is a clean way to handle things such as the port operations, and it still astonishes me that it wasn't done properly. It's been done thusly for many years, actually many decades:

1. Create an American company to handle the matter (if foreigners wish to buy in, or even buy it, that's ok);
   
   
2. Wall off the foreign investors/owners. They are silent partners. They have no say in the actual operation;
   
   
3. Create a "classified Board" composed of people with security clearances and experience in sensitive matters;
   
   
4. Appoint a CEO and other top executives with experience and clearances.

We do this all the time with, say, foreigners who want to buy companies that manufacture parts for weapons sytems, etc. It seems the obvious solution here. Dubai would get prestige and whatever profits are generated. Americans run the thing and guarantee, so far as is possible, security. Looks like a win/win solution. For that matter, we should have done the same sort of thing with the British owners, and we should do the same thing with the Chinese and others who now have access to all kinds of potentially dangerous information thanks to their buy-ins.

that leaves me with the conclusion that the ARGUMENT, not necessarily the arguers, is racist.

If that floats your boat, fine, as far as I'm concerned, there's no such thing.

DPW and the UAE already have the information.  They are parties, along with every country with a port and every firm that manages ports, to the standard security protocols for all port operations worldwide.

Port security for containerized ports is a very straightforward (at least in the world of securing things) operation.  The critical elements are the people who handle those security operations at the ports in question.  The only place that the UAE actually handles port security is in the UAE.  And, BTW, we know all of their port security protocols because theirs are the same as ours.  That's why they call it a standard security protocol.

you are obviously a VERY smart person.

...showing my bias that this whole thing is a tempest in a teapot.

What does it gain for us in security terms if the owners, managers, workers, or any combination of the above, are "American," whatever that means? (Does it mean only natural-born citizens, for example?) It would be every bit as easy for Americans to compromise security through lax procedures as for anyone else. The comparison to military contractors is misleading, not fundamentally, but in reference to specific laws like ITAR that these contractors must comply with. Unless we want to make port facilities ITAR-compliant!

Frankly it scares me a lot more that certain military systems depend on computer parts and other hardware that are manufactured almost exclusively in East Asia. Hmm, maybe that's what people mean when they say that trading partners don't fight wars against each other.

does the Iranians being Persians have to do with the UAE deal?

And unlike many in the media I am very well aware of that fact, as I was also aware that Aziz and Habash are Christians. Again what the h*ll does that have to do with the UAE/DPW ports deal?

And I never said anything about racism either. I said "... those funny little guys with burnouses in the Middle East ..." Since all people who wear burnouses are not the same race, religion, nationality I don't see how my remark was racist. And it has everything to do with some form of bigotry. If it were a German firm (certainly you remember Hamburg Germany, home of the jihad in northeren Europe) buying P&O no one would have said a word. So if it isn't some form of bigotry what is it?

If we are going to have the CFIUS program trigger special attention from the President and the cabinet then we're going to have to tell the working minions how to recognize the trigger. so what do you propose as the trigger? Countries on the terror list? UAE isn't on that list. Countries where terrorists have come from? Britian is on that list. So how do we tell? Better come up with an answer because something like this is going to happen again.

that this is already the case in most of the ports. The terminal operation of P&O at Baltimore is actually P&O Ports Baltimore Inc.

The Port of Baltimore, on the north end of the Chesapeake Bay, is one of the largest operations in the company portfolio. P&O Ports has a contract with the Maryland Port Administration to operate Seagirt Marine Terminal and Dundalk Marine Terminal in Baltimore. These contracts were awarded through a competitive public bid process open to all qualified terminal operating companies.

In Miami the entity is P&O Ports Florida Inc. is a 50/50 partner in Port of Miami Terminal Operating Company

In Miami, P&O Ports is a 50% owner of the Port of Miami Terminal Operating Company (POMTOC), which operates the only multi-user container facility in the port, on 117 acres with 12 container cranes. Annual throughput volume is over 500,000 teus.

Stevedoring services are provided by Eller-ITO, a 50% joint venture company. Annual volume is 600,000 containers for steamship lines including Columbus, Crowley, P&O Nedlloyd, Contship, Lykes, CP Ships, COSCO, Yang Ming, Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha (K-Line) and Seaboard Marine.

In addition to container operations, P&O Ports, through its joint ventures, also services RoRo and general cargo vessels. Stevedoring, baggage handling and terminal services are provided for more than 700,000 passengers on Royal Caribbean Cruise Line and Norwegian Cruise Line.

DWP is buying P&O Ports North America which owns all of these operating entities.

I would suggest a "cone of silence" tossed over Washington DC.

Can we keep it in place after the ports deal is over? Pretty please?

The UAE, and every other country in the world with a port, as well as every firm that manages port operations worldwide is party to an agreement on operations and security..

Huh? They're party to an agreement on how they run their own ports? Any agreement would be on the shipping aspect, not the day-to-day operation of their ports.

Security in Newark (or anyplace else for that matter) is 100% interdependent on what happens in Amsterdam, in London, in Singapore, in Hong Kong and everywhere else in the world where there is a port.

Some aspects, yes are interdependent, 100%? I doubt it. There are definitely areas in port security in which security is independent of any international agreements.

Bottom line, they know all that stuff anyway.  The procedures are not rocket science, they're not highly classified, they don't take a room full of NSA spooks and computers to figure out.

You're missing the point. I'm not talking about generalities, I'm talking about specific procedures for which I assume (common sense!) that each port has its own procedures and that such knowledge would be useful for those wanting to harm us. I mean, every Mom and Pop nickel and dime store has trade secrets, only the manager of our biggest ports has nothing to keep under wraps? Everything and anything about our ports is available online? Google Earth has come under fire for revealing sensitive information just by showing old pictures of buildings, and our ports and their management plans are available for all and sundry? You can't even take a picture of the Brooklyn Bridge without a cop stopping you, and I'm supposed to believe that our ports' detailed plans and methods are more available than chewing gum? Terrorists don't need generalities, they need specifics, the more specific, the better.

Since you're not disputing my second point, I assume that you agree that terrorist infiltration might be easier under DPW than O&P. Then what about possible infiltration of terrorists themselves? Al-Queda thinks in terms of years, not days or months. They would have no problem infiltrating DPW with a sleeper cell, and activating him when the time comes. I know this sound farfetched, but if someone would have told me in 2001 that by next year the Manhattan skyline I loved would drastically change, I'd call him nuts too.

If you are an authority on these matters, I have no problem accepting it, and that would be the end of it for me, but your inability to see any issue whatsoever with this deal, and your conclusion that it must be racism is, no offense, ridiculous.

in two different parts of this thread. See comment#121.

And no, I don't agree that terrorist infiltration is easier under DPW than other port operators.

I've come to the conclusion that some people simply do not care to engage in a factual dissertation of this issue.  Couldbe, wouldbe, whatever.

I give up.

is that they're being targeted for the threat they represent, not for any irrational hatred, be it racism or bigotry.

If it were a German firm (certainly you remember Hamburg Germany, home of the jihad in northeren Europe) buying P&O no one would have said a word. So if it isn't some form of bigotry what is it?

If you can't differentiate between the UAE, and Hamburg Germany or Lackawanna, then I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. Most people I know can,and the gov't does as well, which is why people from the UAE have special visa requirements to enter the U.S. and people from Hamburg don't.

If we are going to have the CFIUS program trigger special attention from the President and the cabinet then we're going to have to tell the working minions how to recognize the trigger.

You had me chuckling on that one. Isn't that THEIR JOB to figure out which ones need special attention and which don't? The criteria can be any criteria we use in the security field to evaluate threats. What opponents can't figure out, and is the crux of the matter, is how this flew under the radar.

What opponents can't figure out, and is the crux of the matter, is how this flew under the radar.

I don't think it's that difficult to figure out. To people who work in the security field, who track and worry about terrorism every day, and who have access to experts on port operations, this was no big deal. That's why it "slipped under the radar."

It was only the entry of ignorant blowhards who know nothing of our deals with the UAE, and who can't tell a ship from Shinola, that caused this to sound like the Security Risk of the Century. They didn't know what they were talking about and didn't want to find out. They were scared about "Arabs," and by Jove, the rest of us were just going to have to listen to them.

And so we have. And now it's time to put them back in their box.

and send me some links to those security experts you keep on mentioning. I would like to see them. Thanks.

was the intended purpose for creating CFIUS in the first place.

As long as 'Agent 99' is allowed to escape D.C. before the 'cone' is lowered.  Wouldn't want to see her trapped inside the city with Teddy.

the namecalling and sarcasm that I believe really doesn't help advance the arguments in the best way.  Sounding arrogant won't help win over people to being/becoming educated/openminded on this complicated issue.  

Many people don't have need to deal with these issues everyday, so the so-called "knee-jerk" reaction to something which has been presented so very poorly is not surprising. National security is vital and Americans are right to take it very seriously in a post 9/11 world.

Since the whole process is now beginning again and will be more transparent, this really is a a great opportunity for just that education to take place.  On this site, the directions to links or places to fill in those gaps are really useful.  Whether people haven't already been to each and every resource may have as much to do with their busy lives as their intelligence.  Insulting people just turns them off and they may go away forever.  Opportunity for education gone.

My frustration: Where was the PR Department presenting the case deferentiating between AlQaeda and those Arab nations that have shown themselves to be strong allies? If the goal is to display to the Arab world the benefits of modernity and democracy by welcoming trade with them, then our people need to be shown how this fits into the GWOT.

I also think that many Bush supporters absolutely do not like his border/illegal alien policy. This seemed a "Oh no, not the ports, too."  That added to the "We are putting our foot down here." frenzy. And congressmen heard it loud and clear.

The electorate must see the Republicans strong in plugging all the holes on this issue to win their races in Nov.  The Dems think they have credibility for the first time.  

The WH is now belatedly engaged and we will really just have to work harder to regain the lost ground.  

According to his bio page on the web site of the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs: "Michael A. Ledeen is one of the world's leading authorities on contemporary history and international affairs"  

Actually I don't know that much about him, but he sounds like good company to be in (to me)

Wait a minute. You're not of these guys yourself, are you? A cursory inspection reveals no fewer than five notes in which you have cited CFIUS. Are you telling me you don't even know who's on it? That you don't know what the process is? What are you doing shooting your mouth off about this thing if you haven't taken the trouble to even Google it to find out how it works?

I'm disappointed. You acted like you knew what you were talking about. Now you tell us that you don't know what security experts are involved in these reviews. You've been wasting our time. I send the Pincer Beetles of Torment to infest your bed.

And as far as it being an "American" company, with Americans running it I guess that is what the fuss is all about over letting it fall to a company run by the UAE.  What it presumably buys us is a layer of loyalty in the day to day operations, and a firewall between important security aspects of running the port and the overseas holding company that really is the recipient of the profit and loss.  What it buys politically is a graceful way to let the UAE have this deal (Bush's side) and letting the naysayer get to say that they made it right.  The fact that this layer of "management" could just as well fail to protect us as the present deal shows that the present deal is also OK, but this answers some critics.

The comparison with military contracts is because in the military world there already are laws preventing the purchase of critical weapons system (as opposed to components) from foreign companies.  This is what the complaint regarding our ports is concerned with.

As to your comment that our systems depend on something from a foreign country,   this is not really the case.  If we buy something "critical" from a foreign vendor, we create a backup second supplier in this country, or in the case I mentioned, we made a life time buy all at once. The military acquisition system is aware of each item bought from overseas, and understands how this will not be a problem in the event of hostilities.  Of course with respect to Israel the problem was not really that we might be find Israel a hostile power as we could not do business with israel without our Muslim alies becoming upset and refusing to do business with us.

knows as much about the Middle East, and especially Iran, as anybody alive.  But the really special things about Ledeen is that he can communicate "their" culture in a way that is understandable to "us".  Or at least "me".

If you've got the time and inclination go back and read what he's written about the region.  It's so good it's scary...

And yeah, you don't get in much better company.

on shore part of the deal?  As I said up thread the arguement against the Bush position is getting weaker by the minute.  Thank you for the note.

I won't take lying down (pun intended).

What are you doing shooting your mouth off about this thing if you haven't taken the trouble to even Google it to find out how it works?

If you had bothered to check my comments you would have seen this one which clearly states that I know what CFIUS is and who comprises it. So you can have your beetles back. They miss you anyways ;-)

I have to admit, the disapointment is mutual. Do you mean to say that your conviction that this deal poses no threat is based solely on the CFIUS decision? Man, I thought you definitely had a port security expert whispering in your ear, telling you how those blowhard nincompoops didn't know didley squat. Now you tell me that it's just CFIUS? Are we supposed to accept from the esteemed RS editor, Mr. Danger, that gov't reports are the final word on any given subject, and shouldn't be challenged? After all, they're the experts not us bloggers, who have day jobs!

Based on your new found respect for experts, I guess you agree that the military is broken. After all "the experts" have so decided. You must also believe in this statement: supporters of President Bush and other conservatives had stronger self-admitted and implicit biases against blacks than liberals did, another conclusion by The Experts (tm). Shall I continue?

As has been demostrated, an opinion given by experts does not neccesarily slam the lid on things.If it did, you could pretty much close down the blogosphere as well as talk radio. (Come to think of it, the MSM too.) Basically all the media does is offer amateur opinion. That's what makes it so exciting.

I could also bring in another group of experts, the 9/11 commission, members of which have come out against this deal. You could make the case that they have an agenda, but then again CFIUS has one too i.e. not obstructing foreign investment(see their mission statement).

Besides why are you convinced that those who conduct these reviews are security experts, instead of low-level beuraucrats or political appointees? And even if they are security experts, they are most probably proficient in general security matters, not neccessarily in port security or the like. CFIUS handles anything involving nat'l security from communications security to border security to military hardware, it's hard to believe that the members who comprise this committee actually have such a wide ranging and detailed knowledge of nat'l security that encompasses all areas that appear before them. What's more likely is that they have a cursory knowledge of the most important security areas, and rely on testimony from experts for detailed information. Which is how all those blue ribbon commissions go about their business, and we don't have any inhibitions on questioning those, do we. But like I said, this is all conjecture on my part.

To sum it up, if CFIUS is your sole authority then, ho hum. if you've got some real security experts who've explained why this poses no risk, then by all means, please let me know.

about the cone was that it should stay in place.  Forever.  I wasn't clear about that, sorry.

And Agent 99 can absolutely escape, although I wouldn't mind watching her dispatch TK.  If I couldn't do it myself, that is.

DPW has also agreed to further structural changes to further satisfy the American "content" side of things.

And in any case, there is nothing unusual about this clown venting on Bush. He despises pretty much everybody, including Bush.

your conviction that this deal poses no threat

I do not have a conviction that the sale of P&O to DPW poses no threat. It only sounds that way to people who assume that any aversion to loudly-ranting, fact-free blowhards must imply approval of the operation of U.S. ports by armed Islamic terrorists.

Idiot A says that Bush is selling the ports to the Arabs. For our purposes we can use Congresswoman Whatsername as Idiot A. I say this is BS, there is no sale of the ports involved. That's when Ignoramus B comes by to tell me that I must then be in favor of Arab terrorists running our ports.

We later find out that Ignoramus B did not know that the company running the ports now is a foreign company. Ignoramus B thought that this contract, if it went through, would be the first-ever operation of a U.S. port by a foreign company. Ignoramus B is further unaware that The Mob actually runs the ports anyway via the Longshoremens Union; and that firms from China, Saudi Arabia, and Malaysia (among others) already have contracts to manage ports in the U.S. Ignoramus B is, in short, an ignoramus.

Then comes Idiot C to tell me that my doubts that Ignoramus B has much useful to say about port security (because he has proven himself to be ignorant of even basic facts about the matter) proves that I want Arab terrorists to run our ports.

Armageddon tired of this.

I do not know the names, ranks, and serial numbers of the various government employees who look into these things. Nobody gives me a list of our Spooky People.

I do not have a high opinion of government bureaucrats in general, but I will take them over people who do not know Fact One about the subject, and who further demonstrate belief in numerous things that are not so. When they compound this error by revealing themselves to be the sort of people who think we can "close the borders" and operate the country without benefit of oil, chromium, manganese, platinum, cobalt, coffee, out-of-season fruits and vegetables, and taxi drivers, I have a strong tendency to dismiss anything else they say. In fact I am likely to mutter 'idiot' under my breath when I see them.

We hire people to look into this stuff for us. They did. They said there's no problem. If this were the Clinton Administration we were talking about, I could understand the concern. They refused extradition of Osama bin Laden fercryinoutloud, and treated the first attempt by Islamofascists to take down the World Trade Center as a couple of 'criminals' that they 'threw in jail.'

But that's not what we have now. So what's the big deal? Is it really likely to be true that people who don't know squat about the subject, and who just walked in late, have special insights that people who work the problem every day do not? That's been known to happen, but it's not the way to bet.

I also can't lose the perception that I'm watching the Somalia Effect. That's the one where the press sends a bunch of cameras someplace and says, "Look everybody! Over here!" There are starving people from one end of the Earth to the other, but all of a sudden the ones in Somalia are a Big Crisis that we have to Do Something About Right Now. And so all these lemmings stampede in the direction of doing something about Somalia right now.

What else could this be? You've seen the pictures of the Chinese installations. Today we found out that Saudi companies are running ports in the U.S. Why the huge concern about Dubai? Because the concern is coming from lemmings who were told to look at Dubai, that's why.

The whole thing is just stupid. I don't like stupid. I oppose stupid. Down with stupid.

Can we move on to the next thing now? If we already have the Chinese holding acres of big metal boxes in all our port cities, and the Saudis and the Malaysians and the Gambino family are operating the ports anyway, why spend time on poor little Dubai just because the press says we should? Is this really going to improve security, or is it just a big circle jerk? Do the math.

We already have a Coast Guard, and Customs Agents, and other stuff they don't even tell us about, doing the security at these ports. These contractors have nothing to do with it. That won't change if some company in Dubai becomes one of the contractors. If the issue is security, let's talk about the Coast Guard and the Customs Agents. The only reason to get hung up about Dubai is if the issue isn't security at all.

A comapny owned by an Arab country operating ports.  You're right, it's not the same thing as owning the ports, but it is "remotely" close.  

What do you think of this story? He's an expert and from a right wing think tank too.

that we are "angering an ally" appears to be unduly pessimistic, to judge by this report from Dubai:

Indeed, the most surprising aspect of the ports controversy here was, in fact, the lack of reaction: no scathing editorials, no demonstrations and certainly no talk of a Jewish conspiracy. Surprised, in part, but also enthralled, many here saw the ports firestorm as a stark example of how this economically ambitious state has surpassed its Arab neighbors....

"In the end, I think Dubai won," said Mr. Tahboub, the sheik's media manager. "We got a lot of publicity, and we deserve it, perhaps not in this manner, but we deserve the publicity."