Redstate

As you say, it's very hard to assess the ramificaitons of a non event, Leon, but this could wind up shaping policy in the region in ways we'll never know--I mean, we wouldn't know that the UAE decided not to host an aircraft carrier at port, or to allow training at an airfield, but such decisions would affect how we deploy in the Gulf.  I do think that if the congresspeople in question had tried to explain this to their consituents they would have understood, but they pandered to the knee-jerk response from day one.

Oh well--if this is the way they were going to behave then 'tis better done quickly, I suppose.

The Republican caucus in Congress is run by followers of polls, not leaders of men.

I'd be jumping for joy right now.  Rightly or wrongly, Dubai was and is an absolute cudgel for the Dems to clobber you with politically.  The sooner this story fades, the better.

From your point of view.  As for me, I'm mourning the end of an issue that let Dems get to the right of Reps on National Security for once.  Thanks for the memories, Dubai.

That republicans followed a wise course of action. This is not an issue to have a fight on.

for their hasty action?

Time will tell.

I'm thinking it far more likely that the American people will be made to pay in some way.

-TS

I was one of those who was open to the possibility that Rep. Boehner was a Shadegg-lite, but now I know better.

We are blessed with and adult President, who is willing to see the world as it is and try to make the best of it. We are cursed with Republican legislators who have no capacity to lead. They do not try to shape public opinion in a positive way, they only respond to the political winds. When the opposition hoodwinks the public, they go along with the gag. Unfortunately we also have some otherwise reasonable political pundits that are willing to go along with the "Know Nothings" like Patrick Buchanan

This is only about our credibility with the world as an honest place for foreigners to do business in.

If that's not something worth fighting over, then no economic issue is worth fighting over.

do you really think Shadegg would have held the line on this deal?  That is, tried to keep the R caucus from sinking it?

it can also be said this non-event seemed doomed from the start to remain a non-event.

While my hair still smolders from what I POSTED here earlier, politics not priorities have once again taken the day.

And as AcademicElephant also said HERE today there never really WAS a plan to seriously review the deal.  

The plan was to politicize and dramatize and pre-'06- election advertise for political positioning and advantage gaining.

I actually HOPE this "entity" is Haliburton...let THEIR hair catch on fire for a change.

I hope so.  If Shadegg was just going to govern by polls, then the Majority Leader election was just like one of those elections on Futurama:

John Jackson: Your ten-cent titanium tax goes too far!

Jack Johnson: Well, your ten-cent titanium tax doesn't go too far enough!

In addition to Neil's point, it's also an issue of offending a "vital" and "critical" military ally.  Do we have so many of these in the Gulf that we shouldn't bother to fight over it?

I think there were good arguments from both sides here but pragmatism won. I think we all know that free countries can still easily do business in America.

The blame for this can be spread around a bit, but I would tend to agree that the bulk of it can be heaped in the laps of our elected officials. This was one of those rare issues where I thought Bush was talking sense and doing the "nuance" thing well from a policy standpoint, but he handled it with the usual tin ear and stubborn petulance I've come to expect from him when he sets his mind on an outcome and meets resistance to it.

Ultimately, this issue boils down to one of attention span. The willingness of politicians to reduce complex issues to manageable sound bites, the contemporary success of the GOP in employing this to good political effect, and the unwillingness of most Americans to insist on better has come around to bite us all in the arse on this one. Were there legitimate grounds for reasonable people to be concerned about the ports deal? Sure. Was it a grave risk to national security? Probably not. Was there much Bush could personally do about it? Not really.

None of that mattered, because Democrats and Republicans alike were able to reduce the opposition platform to snack-sized, emotionally satisfying sloganeering that played to all the themes the Republican party has been so successful riding to victory these recent years, and those stuck defending it had to do so by getting into the details to demonstrate why no, this really isn't a big deal.

The American people are hardly sheep, and I'd like to see a level of discourse in the country that treats us all like the adults we are, people capable of weighing the nuances of complex issues. Unfortunately, the opposition for this was able to play the national security fear card, and it worked.

Hopefully we'll do better next time.

would that make Roy Blunt Robo-Nixon?

I think this was written before the transfer was agreed to, but it's ominous nonetheless:

http://thehill.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/Frontpage/030906/news1.html

a close look at AcademicElephant's link would indicate you are half right:

I think we all know that free countries can still easily do business in America.

Maybe they CAN easily do business...but what reasons do we give them to feel they SHOULD do business here?

I haven't seen the exit polls, but I'm pretty sure he won the Rovebot vote in the primary this week.

I wonder what those weak-kneed and hysterical Republican congressmen will say if the UAE should ever decide to retaliate and tell our naval ships and our aircraft to get off their naval and air bases. Given the stakes with Iran over their nukes right now and the closeness of those bases to Iran, this was not a real smart move. If we are denied the use of those bases, these poll-driven Republicans will rue the day come November.

consequence of the congress interferring in an open market trade is that the P&O will now have to sell to an American company at a considerable loss in value.  If this is the result of our congress's action, what else will drop in value?  The other foreign entity owned ports?  How about foreign entity owned defense contractors?  When will the mood change and allow free trade to re-enter the picture?  

I see this behavior as a knee jerk - wrong data action driven by the media and the public's admitted nervousness about Muslims.  I believe Muslims will indeed take it this way.  The net result may well be a number of commercial deals that in the end will lower our standard of living and maybe precipitate the next bear market.  I watch, and hold more investments in cash to see what will occur.

Regardless of what side most of the posters on this forum fell along, for the most part I'm proud to say that Redstaters treated this as a serious issue because of its potential ramifications for our nation and our alliances.

Your post on the other hand serves as a useful demonstration of the utter lack of seriousness that has come to typify a Democratic party that cares little for national security issues except as a political football for the next election regardless of what impact it has on the country.

Thank you for the reminder.

...could not express how disappointed and utterly ashamed I am at the way my country has acted in this matter.

Acting on emotion, a lack of information, and driven by polls our so-called leaders in congress, on both sides, have done a HUGE disservice to us all.

We have (perhaps) further eroded an imperative relationship with an ally and once again damaged our credibility in the region.

Make no mistake about it! The Middle East and the Muslim World were watching and paying very close attention to how we as a nation were going to handle this deal. We failed miserably!

The ramifications of this could be extremely harmful to furthering the GWOT and to US companies economically in the future. Boeing could take a hit. Our military could potentially be persona non grata in UAE run ports, and most importantly the "on the ground human intelligence" the UAE has provided in the past could dry up and wither away faster than you can say Overreaction or Election day!  

Most people will see this as a victory, look we blocked the deal, forget about it next week, and move on with their lives. Unwilling or too narrow minded to have taken in, processed, and seen the big picture.

Our ports are no safer today because of this! Just today there was a report of truck drivers working in the port of NJ not being fully vetted and cargo not being fully screened. BTW the cargo was a shipment of rugs from Iran!  Feeling safer?

I've long held the theory that 95% of people are uniformed gullible sheep and this deal confirmed my suspicions only the number my be closer to 80%

Hysteria, inaccurate and sometimes totally false reporting, and fear have ruled the day. Let's hope the Emirates don't follow our example!      

I'm disgusted with the way that certain pundits (Michelle Malkin, Ann Coulter, and Frank Gaffney in particular) have succeeded in crapping on a reliable ally.  I'm disgusted with the way that Republicans in Congress would not take the time to review the facts about the UAE.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad probably owes Malkin and the other fear-mongers a big debt of gratitude.

This is twice in the same week we've agreed (although I don't find this to be a golf clubs issue), but perhaps it's worth taking the time to consider that politicians usually don't act in this manner in the absence of some driving force.

I'm just saying.

This whole thing was a disgrace.  If I were the movers and shakers in Dubai (thankgoodness I am not) I'd start telling every American company to start packing their bags, and I'd start calling my chinese interpreters!

Its not that bad, get over it.

Shadegg was against the deal.

I ran into this idea before, and

I ran through a few options for who might be attempting to shape American feelings, but

I ran out of ideas.

Who do you think it might be?  North Korea?

    Its not that big a deal. OH! and BTW, if UAE is such a great ally, they will continue to be one because it is in their own best interest. I say this whole thing pointed out three facts.

fact 1) our port security sucks

fact 2) maybe we should look twice at all foreign ownership or management of strategic assets

fact 3) Beltway Republicans better understand that calling your base a bunch of ignorant racists is not going to get you anything except in hot water.

  Some of you on Red State haven't learned that lesson yet.

I was only suggesting that the driving force behind the Critters was the public.

"S@#$w you guys--I'm going home."

The difference in this case being, of course, that DP World was justified in so reacting.

This is really not a good headline as Iran heats up:

http://news.ft.com/cms/s/aaf675ba-afb6-11da-b417-0000779e2340.html

The public was horrified and disgusted by those show protests, complete with premade signs handily written in English for the American viewing public.

was probably the fact that a great many American citizens were against it.

Never get between a politician and his re-election.  You'll get steamrolled, no matter what side you're on.

Personally, I opposed it, as do I oppose foreign government ownership of the operation of any significant piece of American economic infrastructure, be it port, airport, railroad, toll highway, bridge, road, street, bus terminal, taxi stand, bus stop, pedestrian walkway, bike trail, jogging path, animal trail, forest meadow, or any 3x3 concrete square paving any part of American soil.

There is a fundamental conflict of interest involved in that ownership or control over operation that threatens our national security.  No foreign government should have any kind of controlling force over any part of our internal domestic infrastructure.

Period.

I'm assuming the 8 is in reference to your age not your IQ. You obviously have about as much understanding of the issues involved as the 80% ignorant, MSM following fools that chicken littled on this deal.

water and hand towels for out brave, moral congressfools.

 A number of comments seem to raise the spectre of UAE suddenly deciding that they will react like children, pick up their toys, kick us out of their treehouse, and pack it in as far as being one of our valuable partners in the GWOT. Yours is only the most convenient one to repond to so I'm not singling you out.

 1. If UAE suddenly kicks us to the curb over what amounts to a failed business transaction - which occur frequently and even sometimes because of government interference - then perhaps they are not such a staunch GWOT ally as we are being led to believe.

 2. As I said, business deals fall through all the time. Business leaders pick up the pieces and move on to the next best deal - and they don't burn bridges that may be profitable in the future.

 3. UAE business interests are freely operating in the United States in other ventures such as this (UAE based Istithmar buys 2.39 percent of Time-Warner, becomes 3rd largest holder) and this (Dubai Holding buys a $1 billion stake in DaimlerChrysler). I don't see a wave of "Go home UAE" engulfing these separate activities, so it's not like we're telling the UAE to shove off across the board.

 UAE probably recognize the political situation, and may be disappointed by it, but if we generally assert that they are a worthy ally, then let's also attribute a degree of maturity and insight to their leadership that would rule out such irrational reactionary countermeasures.

The FT.com article got one thing wrong: Frank Lautenberg is not a REPUBLICAN Senator.

What else might they have gotten wrong?

What did they get right?

is never a good thing. We ahve allowed the angriest, most neurotic people in this country- Schumer and Savage- set the agenda for this country. We shall see what the price of letting angry, ignorant cynical fools lead the way soon enough. President Bush has been ill-served by the majority he built and preserved. The nation has been put at risk in the Persian Gulf at precisely the time we need a strong, firm alliance with the UAE against Iran.

The biggest winner in this debacle has been Iran.

The mad mullahs are thanking Charles Schumer and Michael Savage and the rest of the reactionaries right now.

Just needed to vent.

I think most likely the UAE will treat this like any other business transaction that went south.

At least I hope so.

and hold that attitude. Next time the Beltway collides with flyover country it will kick you in the ass again. Or, you could swallow your pride and learn from your mistake.

I posted this on another thread, but it fits here:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,187307,00.html

Dubai Ports World statement:

"Because of the strong relationship between the United Arab Emirates and the United States and to preserve that relationship, DP World has decided to transfer fully the U.S. operation of P&O Operations North America to a United States entity," DP World's chief operating officer, Edward H. Bilkey, said in a statement, read on the Senate floor by Sen. John Warner, R-Va.

The company said its decision was "based on an understanding that DP World will have time to affect the transfer in an orderly fashion and that DP World will not suffer economic loss."

Since Congress (both parties) seems to have scared DP World out of acquiring rights to manage American ports, who will pay for the "understanding that...DP World will not suffer economic loss"? The American company which buys the right to operate those terminals, or the U.S. taxpayer?

This might be the best resolution possible for the UAE / Congress / President dispute over the ports deal. Republican members of Congress can cover their butts by saying that they "defended" the ports against the United "Arab" Emirates, President Bush may appear "defeated" at home, but he's not up for re-election, but he gets to save face by offering the American port contracts of P&O up for competitive bidding.

If Halliburton wins, Bush and Cheney will smell like roses, by simply saying that THEY approved the sale to someone else, but CONGRESS objected! Does any American company besides Halliburton do ports?

Hopefully, President Bush (or Secretary Rice) will be able to smooth over ruffled feathers in the UAE by telling them that the Administration DID approve the deal, and Bush himself did his part, but an American President is not a dictator, and sometimes he must bend to the will of Congress. According to the map posted down-thread, the UAE is a good place to have military bases in a conflict against Iran...

Time to put out a request for bids.

By the way, the diary that started this thread should probably be promoted to "recommended", due to the importance of this topic.

I wonder if we had to compensate DPW for reneging on an already done deal?  How much will it cost us to equip this US entity to take over the duties.  Are we going to have to buy out every foreign operator at US ports?

Or, instead of really trying to explain and sell it the administration and some Repub pundits just accused every one who had concerns of being  isolationists, ignorant xenophobes, and anti-arab bigots.

  See what that got you.

I was on the fence regarding the port deal, but this is certain: It was a lose-lose situation all around and guess what? We lost! All of us. Even opponents should understand that there's a trade-off to this victory, in the form of a rebuffed ally. We cannot know where it will come back to bite us.

Having said that, I'm looking forward for the ports to be run by Haliburton or Bechtel, although the scoop is that the Chicoms have the inside track. ;-)

Can you get an adult to help you with the syntax?(That's what sentence structuring is called so that people can understand what you mean. Also, what is my mistake?

At least the second time I've seen that mentioned in this thread as if it were a Known Fact.

Please elaborate.

of this alliance over a failed business deal of just one of their government owned companies, then they weren't that much of an ally in the first place.

What do they ever get right?  I just think it's a very unfortunate headline--particularly in Great Britain, particularly now--and it didn't have to be.

is to attack my grammer when you can't think of a suitable response. But thats OK, you will learn one day. People just don't like being pushed around and treated like crap, they tend to push back.

homeland security allotment since by preventing DPW from operating terminals in NY harbor, we can now declare the state safe. Chuckie has achieved what Bush couldn't for NY. The state can now declare a peace dividend, cut state taxes and pack up Hillary for California where she can make that state safe by getting rid of the Chinese and NAZI allies from Austria.  Chuckie can move to Connecticut and rid the state of the Taliban infiltration.

After all that, they can move to Argentina and hunt down former NAZI's, lest they enroll at Yale

Your 3 "facts" that are really just statemnts of ignorant opinion?

other Red Staters go back in a few days and reread what you have posted. Maybe then you can see how much you haave sounded just like a bunch of whinny eliteist, liberals.

A key element in President Bush's post-9/11 foreign policy is his distiction between the peoples of the Middle-east, and the evil regimes there.

Another element has been the persuasion of regional regimes, that is it much better and more profitable to be on our side, than it is to aid the terrorists.

Whoever started those made-for-television riots did so with the intention of inflaming anti-Arab and anti-Muslim sentiments in this country.

And now that the US has taken a stand against Dubai, we have sent two new messages to the region: we hate all Arabs, and we'll shut down any Arab company doing business in America whenever we feel like it.

The next time President Bush uses a State of the Union address to speak to a people in the Middle-east, they might remember this ugly incident and not really care what he says.

The next time Secretaries Rice or Rumsfeld speak with regional officials to get some help, they mgiht remember this incident and be less cooperative.

That's why Iran won today.

Between a business deal that falls apart and one that is killed by Congress. It would be entirely reasonable for them to take offense. They can certainly shift their spending away from American businesses and become less cooperative in the GWOT.

It will be treated by any other deal that gets killed by Congress in a frenzy of xenophobic politics. We will certainly pay the price somewhere along the line. The tact we took here sure makes Russia's exclusion of any non-Russian companies from bidding on oil contracts sure look more reasonable.

They're old fashioned. They take friendship seriously and they take insults seriously.

Are we behaaaaving like sheep or whinnying like donkeys?

Savage and Schumer set the pace by lying that the deal was about US port security and selling US Ports, and then spent days shouting down anyone who dared disagree with their line.

And mentioning that Savage is xenophobic is about as controversial as declaring the sky blue.

When the Republicans in Congress jumped into the Democrats' game with both feet, without even understanding the issue. When we play the Democrats' game, we lose. Every time.

I give the President credit for doing the right thing... though his responsibilities at POTUS didn't really give him a lot of ally-bashing wiggle room. Freed of that responsibility, I know which way Rove and Card would be pushing him... I wouldn't mind seeing both of them hit the bricks.

Schumer's position- Ayrabs and Moslems are killers in filthy sheets and must not be allowed to deal with the west- is the real position of the USA. Thanks to knee jerk and uninformed people, it can now be represented that it is.

although most liberals think "syntax" is a tax on cigarettes!

set the pace and frame the debate is the worst thing we can do for this country. Everytime they do, via the carter or clinton admin, we pay a heavy price in naitonal security later.

Now we are letting clowns like Schumer strut around and pretend to be patriots. What a charade the dems are getting away with.

It's darn close to the last straw if I'm not already there.

The UAE sent troops to Afghanistan.  They donated to the victims of Katrina.  If one believes Tommy Franks, the UAE provided intelligence that greatly aided the liberation of Afghanistan (the details probably cannot be divulged, and for good reason) in 2001.  They turned over one of the planners of the attack on the USS Cole.  A look at the State Department reports on religious freedom (linked to from my piece at Strategypage) shows that their record is commendable, even if it is imperfect.

Leon, that deserved some loyalty in return.  I don't expect much from Democrats, but I thought the Republicans would at least be willing to stand up to their base when it had a "DailyKos" moment.  But outside a congressman who was retiring, they went along with the pack.  They were willing to slap an ally in the face on the basis of fear.

I hope that the UAE is forgiving enough to just limit it to retaliation on a business front, and will not do anything that would infringe upon the effort to win the war on terror.  That said, they do have a right to reassess their relationship with the United States, given what has transpired.  The potential damage done by the Republican Congress after being incited by Malkin and Gaffney to our national security is far greater than what this deal would have been.

This is far different from past disagreements with conservative orthodoxy (like the Miers nomination and immigration).  This time, the conservative movement has, though some of the same forces that have led me to part company on those issues, risked our national security by alienating an ally.  That is something I cannot forgive easily.  I probably won't decide to sit out the 2006 elections until the Democratic nominee is undetermined - if it is James Webb, I'll be voting AGAINST him because he opposed taking out Saddam's regime.

There are times where politicians need to stand up to the "driving force" - and this was one of them.  Instead, the Republicans licked their fingers, stuck them int he air, and followed, rather than lead.  In doing so, they caused greater risk to national security than this port deal could have.  Should I reward that with my vote and my support?

You once wondered if I had principles I would not compromise.  Well, I hope this post will answer that question.  If the Republicans can show some backbone against fear-mongers like Malkin and Gaffney, who I believe pre-judged the UAE ethnic and relgious grounds rather than nearly four and a half years of steadfast support in the war on terror, I will come back.  But not until then.

If we're friends and you come over to my house how times can I insult you before you stop coming over? And if you stop coming over due to the insults, is it your problem? Does that mean you weren't really a good friend anyway?

This was personal. We killed the deal because they are Muslim or Arabs... take your pick. We did it in the most humiliating way possible. Now they are supposed to write that big check for all those Boeing aircraft when they can go across the street and pick up Airbus aircraft for about the same price? Is this supposed to make them more eager to cooperate on the GWOT when it opens them up to attacks at home?

we had on September 10, 2001. And that harbored Atta and the US banks he used, and taught Moussawi to fly and raised up Johnny Walker Lindh and Jimmy Carter and other traitors, like Hamdi and Padilla, and formed al qaida cells in Lackawanna and Detroit and Oregon and democrat congressmen that fillibuster to keep us from drilling for our own oil, and who provide Saddams defense lawyers with their talking points and who regularly give hope to the jihadists and deadender baathists in Iraq to keep on killing Americans and the universities that educate the taliban.

Thank God for Chuckie and Hillary and Peter King. NY is now declared safe and we have a peace dividend since the state will no longer need homeland security funds. Now lets get those Austrian infiltrators in California. Austria was an ally of Hitler before 12-7.

This time, the conservative movement has, though some of the same forces that have led me to part company on those issues, risked our national security by alienating an ally.

I would not pin this on conservatives. I don't think this issue broke along liberal/moderate/conservative lines at all. I'm not sure how it broke down... it had to result in the oddest collection of allies of all times... on both sides of the issue.

As bad as the Republicans performed on this issue... the Democrats were much worse. The Republicans were playing defensive politics with the GWOT. The Democrats were using the issue as a sword, salivating at the opportunity to cause some damage, no matter what the cost. That is reason enough to not take the ball and go home.

I have good friends with whom I have deep philosophical differences. We are still friends, because we have other interests in common.

Do we completely agree with the UAE? No of course not, We don't completely agree with Great Britain either, but we still love them!

The UAE, despite it's pre-911 attitude has been one of our closest allies in the GWOT!  IS this how to treat a friend?

I think not!

Knock it off, and you kids play nice.

I'm substantively in agreement with you here, so you get no argument from me on the legitimacy of your argument. And, if this is your rubicon, then it is.

Regards.

could also have opened up the pandora's box of the potential potency of an ugly type of populist nativist, protectionist isolationism that could really hurt this country across the board?

I have not been this ashamed of my country since the 90s. Dont get me wrong, the bushlied dems are a great embarrassment, but they dont speak for the nation in foreign policy.

But today, congress!!! the GOP congress conducted foreign policy and shamed us.

Also, I am for border security to regulate the # of alien workers for economic  and to keep terrorists out and also for enforcing trade agreements and profiling

but this had nothing to do with security. It was pure demagogery by most and it was ugly.

Certainly food for thought...

Since the Dubai ports deal was supposedly in the works back in November, and the CFIUS committee had been reviewing the deal for 45 days prior to it hitting the press, someone in the Administration (preferably with good ties to Congress) should have at least alerted the Republican leadership of the pending deal, and informed them of ALL the consequences (not just the perceived port-security consequences, but also the international-relations and military consequences) before this thing hit the press. Then the Republican leaders could inform their caucus, and prepare good arguments to use against Democrat demagoguery.

As it was, everyone in Congress was taken by surprise, and Dems jumped all over this to say that "Bush doesn't protect our ports by letting Arabs run them", and Republicans went scrambling for cover.

There may be valid reasons why President Bush approved the deal, but his big mistake was not explaining this to his allies in Congress before they were blindsided by the press. Even though Bush himself no longer needs votes, he needs a GOP majority to get his agenda enacted, and they need votes, so Bush needs to keep them in the loop.

You want the President to spend his time going over all the hundreds of thousands of contracts that the government has? You think Congress should be appraised of all of them?

The Republican House folded like a cheap tent.  Nothing was sold.  Some terminal leases were changed.  Eighty percent (80%) of all US terminal facilities are held and managed by foreign companies, generally shipping companies.  Will we now tell Singapore, Holland, Venezuela, China et ux to give up their terminal leases?  Out of 100 terminals in 15 major US ports the largest American holding is seven terminals.  The next largest American holding is for one terminal.

There is no honor or diplomacy in this embarassing action.

this wasn't just one of "the hundreds of thousands of contracts"...

You have to admit, someone should have noticed that this one was, well, HOT!

I give the President credit for doing the right thing,

Politcally speaking, I don't. Even if he couldn't bash an ally, he could have been a little more circumspect on how he went about supporting it, considering the public outcry. As Leon's tag line puts it "If you board the wrong train, it is no use running along the corridor in the other direction". To try and stop the train is suicide. There are many ways he could have handled this situation, there's no reason he had to pick the worst one.

In retrospect, sure, but not before the Democrats invented this issue with the help of the MSM. I do not want the administration to spend countless thousands of hours trying to play political damage control before there is any damage to control. They got more important things to do.

who just lost their largest customer to AirBus.  The ramifications of this will be huge.  Why Boeing wants to relocate to Hastert's district to do international business is beyond me.

Losing our strongest ally in the region on the verge of an inevitable conflict with Iran isn't the brightest move on the GOP's part.

They'll get what they asked for, I don't want to hear them whine or bitch about it.

Politics courses through every proposal, every business deal, and every aspect of every facet of national security policy.  Both sides have tried to politicize national security- don't get all high minded on me now that we've stumbled across an issue that works for the Dems for once.

2004 was all about the politicizing of national security.  That's all this is.  The rumpled feelings of a few UAE shipping magnates is not going to outweigh a political gold mine- and don't pretend that if the shoe were on the other foot (Dem president), we wouldn't be seeing the same thing coming from the conservative blogosphere.

I lay the blame mostly on Andrew Card's desk. This deal would have been a complete non-event if it had been handled in a professional manner by a professional staff. Bush was blindsided by the whole controversy and responded accordingly. The people that need to answer some questions are the people who are supposed to be doing the daily background work on such issues.

But the national security effects are what have me angry enough to possibly sit out 2006.

2004 was all about the politicizing of national security

NO Dumpkopf 2004 was ALL ABOUT national security!

That's why you lost! You didn't get it then, you don't get it now!

Of why we can't let a Democrat take the WH in 2008. It is that kind of thinking that will get us all killed.

at least spell the insult right.  Especially when the insult is related to my intelligence, or lack thereof.

It's just another act on the GOP's part, made out of cowardice, that will only show up to bite them later.  Yes, the polls may like them for this act now, but those memories will fade when the chickens come home to roost in the unemployment numbers 9 months from now.  Sort of the same way social spending has come back to bite them with the deficit.

If you work for Boeing, send me your resume and don't vote Republican this year.

This was headed in a bad direction for the Republicans, due mostly to a lack of information by the public. The best way out was to slam the door in the dems face, which is what happened.

My guess is the UAE will be fine, there will be ways to fix the problem. We do pay the UAE for port service of our warships you known.

All in all it was only a half billion or so of the total deal, easy to make up.

If they want a quick fix, a wholy owned US subsidary would work. Easy to set up, easy to run. Just send the profits to the UAE.

it won't happen again!

And quit doing business with people that screw them.

which is why all you see is the political opportunity of the moment, and not the long term ramifications to peace and economic growth around the world (a.k.a. hope).

You are correct, from you selfish self interest politcal power view point, the end is bad for you and your pathetic leader, Howard Dean.  But that's all you people see and I thank God I'm not one of you.

as you say, if you're a Leninist!  But some of us treat business and life in general in a non-political sense.  I know Howard Dean-moonbat-Dems don't understand that.

This is only about the so-called "war" on so-called "terror." If it was about something important like same sex marriage or the constitutional right to kill the unborn on demand, they wouldn't be playing politics with it.

Do you engage in the international business that drives this economy?  Have you done business in the Middle East?  Do you ever work with the movers and shakers that make the global economy turn or are the "issues to fight on" limited to the ones you debate with our dope smoking dorm buddies or beltway law firm pals?

I won't admit that it was hot. It's the sale of one foreign owned business entity to another foregin owned business entity, one of the assets of which is 6 or 7 leaseholds on cargo terminal facilities at US ports.

It is not significantly different than British Airways selling their leashold on a passenger terminal at JFK to Emirates Airways so they can move to another terminal. It's a nothing.

Saudia flys into JFK and Dulles. In order to do so they have to be informed of the security requirements for passengers, crew and cargo to enter the United States. This no more puts them in control of "airport security" than DPW would be in control of "seaport security" at Baltimore.

We should all consider it a honor to have lived through this experience. It is sort of a 21st Century Piltdown Man or Roswell Incident.

Simply. Unadulterated. Stupidity.

Tell that to the crew at Boeing that's going to lose their largest customer.  Tell them they need to shorten their attention span and put their careers at Boeing behind them.  Or are you another one of these "Republicans" that has spent their entire career in the beltway and/or in a law firm?

That was probably the most difficult thing for store owners in my hometown to deal with. If you didn't provide good service, people didn't complain to you, they just stopped coming and told their friends why.

then read it again.  Your rant is inappropriate!

This deal proves men of honor can come to reasonable dipolatic agreements and will ensure peace in our time.

Buckeye-

1. Howard Dean is a moron.  
   
   
2. Yes, the use of the Dubai deal as a political tool is leading to long term ramifications against "hope."  Unicorns and rainbows, too.

Zuiko-

1. Please don't tell me that abortion and same-sex marriage are not political footballs.
   
   
2. Not that you care, but I'm undecided on abortion.

Whether it's Schumer or Savage, Hillary or Coulter, one thing they all have in common is they do not directly engage in the international trade that has advanced world peace, human freedom and our cause, the cause of Reagan, around the world.  

Rather, they peddle in poltical opinion, not that there is anything wrong in that, per se.  It simply means they are detached from the realities of international commerce and what it does for global stability and the cause of freedom.  Their opinions in these matters are not credible.

Hey, that has a nice ring to it. Thanks Nev!

As bad as the Republicans performed on this issue... the Democrats were much worse.

Yes, but we expect that kind of behavior from dems/libs.

I over reacted to the first sentence of the second paragraph.  I'm just fed up with this being dismissed as something that does not have the potential to have serious consequences, something we can pretend will go away and not come back to haunt us in economic and national security ways.

I'm hoping that under the radar, behind closed doors, we've agreed to sell the UAE a whole bunch of F-16's or Aegis cruisers or some such thing to make up for the embarassment that the U.S. Congress caused us and them.

-TS

where the some reliable newspapers reported that the law congress passed enabling the commission which approved the deal prohibits the President from knowing about the deal until after it is approved?

On an issue of such moral consequence.  No, that can't be?

I keep forgetting to put in the sarcasm markers.

and I think you'd agree, is that the MSM turns everything into soundbites, which makes it hard for any substantive debate to take place. By the time you try to actually MAKE a point, the typical American has already changed the channel to see what's happening on American Idol!

1. I don't think you're a troll.

Please don't tell me that abortion and same-sex marriage are not political footballs.

2. I want to tell you that those are both very legitimate issues for some people. One of them, in particular, is one that keeps the person you're talking to right now awake at night sometimes.

That is what's frustrating about all of this.  Katrina, NSA INTERNATIONAL (not domestic, unless every international airport in this country needs renamed and AT&T was misbilling the calls) Spying, Cheney's hunting accident and this issue are all reduced to media sound bites.

The media no longer has a monopoly, but it seems they could spend the next 10 days reporting the moon is made of cheese and in 12 days they'd have a poll showing 55% of the country believes the moon is made of cheese.  Meanwhile, the Iranians are developing nukes and Congress is shafting one of our best allies in the region.

At this rate, the media is going to lead us all over a cliff!

Regards.

What would be even better would be a company set up as a joint venture between Halliburton and Wal-Mart!

1. Thank you.  I appreciate it.
   
   
2. When I said they were political footballs, I didn't mean they weren't important-hugely important, really, to some people.  They are to me as well, although I wish I knew what to think about abortion.  I simply meant that they were inextricably linked to the back-and-forth tug of war that is the political/cultural battle being waged in DC and the country at large.  They're probably two of the most frequently cited issues in political mailings and fund-raising letters.  They're enormous issues, yes- but enormous issues can still be political footballs, at least in my view.

Thanks for the civility, by the way.

 Come on people. You're reacting to this with as much wild and unsupported speculation about what might happen as all of the folks who initially jumped on the deal for shadowy maybe's and could be's - and with nary a shred of any supporting evidence or past behaviour on the part of UAE to indicate they will double back on their long trip toward good relations with the U.S.

 Might you all actually read a single article about the outcome before claiming the sky is falling and UAE will become a spiteful new member of the anti-America club?

 UAE leadership made the decision to back out! See here:

Sen. John Warner, R-Va., said "upper levels of both governments" worked toward the result, including Sheik Mohammed Bin Rashid Al Maktoum, prime minister of the United Arab Emirates and emir of Dubai, who "advised the company ... that this action is the appropriate course to take." DP World's statement indicated that Sheik Mohammed made the decision.

 The value of the portion of the overall deal being altered? $700 million! That's it:

... the company's U.S. operations were only a small part of the global transaction. DP World valued its rival's American operations at less than 10 percent of the nearly $7 billion total purchase.

 Since DPW's decision was "based on an understanding that DP World will not suffer economic loss" then we infer that they will sustain no loss whatsoever as a result of this, anyway.

 Therefore all you're left with is trying to assert the mind boggling concept that a tiny Arab country - which is clearly more concerned with extending its economic success than with rattling sabres with the nation that wiped up Iraq's army in three weeks - is going to be so outraged at the "astounding discovery" that a lot of Americans have a serious concern with Arabs right now, one that is leading them to occasionally overreact as they may have here, that they will forgo any future business dealing with the world's greatest economy and, not content to stop there, will go even further and invite our displeasure by reneging on promises to cooperate with American efforts to combat terrorism.

 This spiteful, childish, and counter-productive reaction, you all expect, from a country that I hazard we could pound into submission in 3 days, let alone 3 weeks.

 When UAE officials start condemning us openly with Ahmadinejad style prognostications like, "we will make the arrogant Americans pay dearly for their capitalistic aggressions against our sovereign business interests, and oh by the way, we assert our right to enrich uranium"... then wake me up. Of course then I'll just point out the folly of ever trusting a country that flips its lid so easily: over just one lost business opportunity (that results in no bottomline downside) and one more, of many, example of a Western nation behaving in a less than accepting manner toward an Arab state.

 Perhaps they're not so thin skinned as you would like to believe, having toughened up a bit in favor of continuing to make themselves an economic powerhouse and enjoying the best quality of life of almost any Arab state. Maybe they'd rather not risk giving all that up over an "insult". Maybe capitalist success and reward tend to change a people such that they make better decisions - you think?

The Wall Street Journal run it's first article on Dubai making a bid for P & O on 10/31/05. It ran 17 more articles in 2005.  Doesn't anyone in Congress - or on their staffs - read the WSJ?  I suspect many knew about this long ago, but didn't give it a second thought.

http://online.wsj.com/search/date.html#SB113460792169922943

This link is to a story on 12/15/05.  The older stories require $2.95 for a 24 hour activation.  If you have a subscription to WSJ.com, put Dubai ports world in the search box on the home page.  It will result in 121 articles.  Go to page 6 and you will see the titles of the articles.  The one marked with the $ sign require an additional fee, but if you click on them you will get the first sentence.  The oldest - dated 10/31/05 is called P&O attracts Buyout Overture.  Her is the lead in:

P&O Attracts Buyout Overture Amid Shipping-Industry Boom

October 31, 2005, The Wall Street Journal, 439 words

LONDON -- Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation Co. has received a buyout overture from a port operator in Dubai, according to a person familiar with the matter, in a potential deal that could be...

see it as a national security risk if it went through.

And no, it's not about Dubai for me, because Dubai has a pretty strong record as an American ally.  But, that being said, I wouldn't agree to our staunchest allies having this kind of control over our ports either, like Britain, Japan, or even Canada.  I am opposed to the idea of ANY foreign government having direct control of a large piece of our domestic infrastructure.

To me, it is a matter of national security that America has complete control over its own ports...and please do not tell me that "governmental oversight" would apply here.  Honestly, do you really think that the government would handle oversight any better than it handles border security?

I wouldn't trust our Federal governmental agencies to lick stamps without getting paper cuts on their tongues.

I personally would very much like to see this proposed legislation banning foreign government-controlled interests from owning/operating American ports go through.

is to the first "free" acticle.  If you like I could paste more of it for those that don't have a subscription

the heads of half the Congress would explode. It would take DC Sanitation months to clean up the mess; Dem brains and Rep brains splattered intermingled all down The Mall. Dem brains, Rep brains --- oh, forget it, not a problem.

 of the 12/15 article here; earliest one online I could find with the complete text.

 A link to the search results showing the existence of the 10/31 article you cited here. Couldn't find the full text of that one, however.

I'm going to try and get some full text of all of those.

 that I have acquired a new respect for Chuckie Schumer. I always thought he was a schmuck and after Hillary got elected a second fiddle schmuck at that.

But after the ports deal I have re-evaluated it and have concluded that he is one of the great political minds of all time. He managed to turn a nothing business deal into one of the great political and foreign relations debacle of all time by correctly reading and playing the anti-Muslim temperment abroad in the land.

Karl, move over.

Political perception being reality, the Department of Homeland Security now must sacrifice its next "Michael Brown" as evidence of its ability to protect the nation's water-fronts from every type of disaster. Not just the usual suspects, but grass-roots voters became as concerned about port security as they did about Mike Brown's Katrina. To reassure a very worried public, the D.H.S. must again offer up in sacrifice its  next "Mike Brown". Who will it be this time ?

In New York and New Jersey.

Competent and knowledgable people (to wit, Don Rumsfeld, Tommy Franks, and Peter Pace) had nothing but praise for the UAE.  The same came fromt he current commander of CENTCOM.

Why should I trust you - or Michelle Malkin, for that matter - over these professionals, who know far more about the UAE's coooperation in the war on terror than anyone else?

Oh, don't get me wrong, every editor that helped give this story legs shares a little bit of that blame. But that's just the sensationalist media at work: they had a smorgasbord of sound bites and ran with them. That's what sells: drama, conflict, controversy.

The question to ask here is, who gave them those sound bites? Who raised hell over the ports deal and drafted legislation to block it? Who reduced a fairly gray-area issue with good points on both sides of the debate to a battle of dueling fourth-grade sound bites, a battle in which a position that requires thought and explanation will always lose out to one based on fear and demagoguery?

This is upsetting to me because it isn't credible.

Not directed at you, personally, but at your argument which I've seen increasingly bandied about.

Hugo Chavez, Castro's buddy and a sponsor of the Marxist FARC in Columbia, runs at least 11 US ports through the state-owned oil monolpoly which wholly owns Citgo.

This is not news.

If security were a concern the people who have suddenly decided this is a security risk should have been out in the streets years ago. Unless you think Chavez is less of a threat than the country now hosting our fleet in the Persian Gulf.

That this was not an issue when the purchase occurred, nor has it been mentioned now, convinces me that foreign ownership of a freakin management contract is not even a tiny issue.

...exactly how we are more secure if port facilities are owned by Americans.

Are we talking natural-born American citizens? Or about "US Persons" within the meaning of ITAR? Or corporations whose shareholders, managers and/or personnel are exclusively natural-born Americans?

Etihad Airways is a Dubai-based airline that has ordered both Airbus and Boeing aircraft.  Now, they've signed and agreement with Lufthansa to maintain those aircraft. Some other recent deals:

$350 million    UAE and Northrop Grumman

$450 million    Etihad Airways and Boeing

$9,700 million    Emirates Airlines and Boeing

Of course, when Congress won't let the UAE spend its money in the US, it can develop things on its own.

Unfortunately, all the political hay-burning (on both sides) was just too good an opportunity to pass up.  

Even the Israelis wrote a note to Hillary Clinton endorsing the deal!  While the GOP blustered.

Congress just showed another ally just what a lousy partner the US can be, in business.

The Secretary of the Treasury is the Chair of CFIUS.  Is Sect. Snow prevented from telling the President about what CFIUS is doing?  I think not.  Does the Sect. met with the President?  I think so.

http://www.treas.gov/press/releases/js2981.htm

....Following the enactment of the Exon-Florio amendment, the President delegated to CFIUS the responsibility to receive notices from companies engaged in transactions that are subject to Exon-Florio, to conduct reviews to identify the effects of such transactions on the national security, and, if necessary, to undertake investigations.  However, the President retained the authority to suspend or prohibit a transaction.  

The Secretary of the Treasury is the Chair of CFIUS, and the Treasury's Office of International Investment serves as the Staff Chair of CFIUS.  Treasury receives notices of transactions, serves as the contact point for the private sector, establishes a calendar for review of each transaction, and coordinates the interagency process.  The other CFIUS member agencies are the Departments of State, Defense, Justice, and Commerce, OMB, CEA, USTR, OSTP, the NSC, the NEC and the newest member, the Department of Homeland Security.  

The CFIUS process is governed by Treasury regulations that were first issued in 1991

(31 CFR part 800).  Under these regulations, parties to a proposed or completed acquisition, merger, or takeover of a U.S. company by a foreign entity may file a voluntary written notice with CFIUS through Treasury.  Alternatively, a CFIUS member agency may on its own submit notice of a transaction.  The CFIUS process starts upon receipt by Treasury of a complete, written notice.  Treasury determines whether a filing is in fact complete, thereby triggering the start of the 30-day clock, and CFIUS may reject notices that do not comply with the notice requirements under the regulations.  Treasury sends the notice to all CFIUS member agencies and to other agencies that might have an interest in a particular transaction, for example, the Departments of Energy and Transportation, or the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.  CFIUS then begins a thorough review of the notified transaction to determine its effect on national security.  In some cases, this review prompts CFIUS to undertake an "investigation," which must begin no later than 30 days after receipt of a notice.  The Amendment requires CFIUS to complete any investigation and provide a recommendation to the President within 45 days of the investigation's inception.  The President in turn has up to 15 days to make a decision, for a total of up to 90 days for the entire process.

"Of course then I'll just point out the folly of ever trusting a country that flips its lid so easily:"

Are you talking about the UAE, or the USA? Seems to me that only people flipping their lids here are us. But I agree that the result is that other countries are less likely to trust us.

foreigners. Their skin is thick enough.

This is about our shame at what we have done to a critical post 911 ally and the desire that the imperial congress understand that what they have done must not be repeated.

535 people can't comopetently run foreign policy.

Don't know yet, how big a price, but rest assured it won't go unchecked!

The timing of DPW pulling out seems to suggest a little back room diplomacy {we'll make it up to you over here} type deal.

I have a problem with the hypocritical nature of all this. We effectively said We will allow Communist China and Socialist Venezuela (neither of who are our friends) to run our ports but no Arabs - no way!

Alas, the people spoke and we have to live with the consequences. It would have been nice if the people were actually properly informed before speaking!!!  

  After the Cheney accident I posited that the Bush Administration needs some people with some ability to analyze future plans and find ways to keep from making these mistakes.  This inability to understand that things can go wrong and people in authority need to plan for unexpected situations is becoming the hallmark of Bush's presidency.  (Ok I know he has a lot to his credit too, but like the old joke, -- you make one mistake with a farm animal and forever you will not be able to escape the image formed by your enemies.)

This administration has to explain failure to anticipate the roadblocks from a democratic run state a la Katrina, the mess that delaying the explanation of a hunting accident would entail, and the total failure to see how paranoid and panicky a group of legislators can be.  They also have to manage the press better,  understanding the way they can whip up the storm when it suits them.

I think it's time for the President to set Andy Card and Scott McClellan up in the private sector and get some new blood in the West Wing.

Battle fatigue, IMO, has found the White House staff on the wrong side of PR issues and an inability to forecast and anticipate PR Problems.

Articulating the message and Anticipating important issues has got to be a priority going forward.

Of course, this will not happen, this president is too loyal and my be too fixed on big ideas to realize this change is needed.

 No disagreement there. And for that matter, do you think many people here wont jump at the chance to evict the UN? Not the best example, methinks...

 I'd also like to hold accountable those, in or outside of congress, who made claims without any evidence or backup as to the nightmare scenarios that might happen were the deal to go through.

 In due kind, I don't mind holding anyone here accountable for making the same mistake with regards to fears that UAE will suddenly decide they aren't our friends. Big shock it must have been to them, all of this. Not like they havn't heard popular talking heads stateside refer to them as 'ragheads' on a periodic basis. Why do we all think freedom and capitalism will change a country, but when it comes to the UAE - just about the best example of a free (more than most any other Arab state) and capitalist (more than most any other Arab state) Middle East country there is - we expect them to react like a third world tribe whose shaman we failed to bow properly too?

 If your beef is with congress, and your sole concern is how we get them to behave better next time, I'm right there with you.

 But if you're standing among the chicken littles waxing pale over how poorly our "critical post 911 ally" will treat us now, then I request ANY reasoning at all as to why UAE's most logical course of action is to reject America as an ally, thwart our GWOT efforts, and discontinue further investment and dealings with American companies. What, pray tell, do they have to gain from that course of action?

more we would have to screw UAE before we would suffer consequences. But of course, screwing friends is not the best way to keep friends. I thought that was common sense. Clearly, the members of congress are a common sense challenged lot that needs basic instruction in human and international relations, especially if they are going to run foreign policy.

So we obviously need to instruct them like children in basic Newtonian law and explain the Golden Rule so they won't do this again.

I guess you do agree that there is a level of screwing that even the UAE wouldn't take?

When my children misbehave by ignoring basic human nature rules, I use the same as a teachable moment. Some may call it waxing pale.

I agee with your suggestion.  It seemed that things were decidedly more under control when Ari was there.  I wonder if his religion was an affront to some of our friends in the ME?

Media Sparked Firestorm As Bush Got Snagged In Bipartisan Criticism

Frist Takes an Early Stand

By GREG HITT and SARAH ELLISON

WSJ, March 10, 2006; Page A1

The story began as a seemingly routine business deal, followed more closely in Britain than in the U.S. Jockeying for control of P&O began last fall, and the proposed sale to DP World was taken up for review by the Committee on Foreign Investments in the United States. The committee is a government body under the Treasury Department that rules on foreign acquisitions with potential national-security implications. It looked at the proposed sale, found no reason for concern and cleared it in mid-January. Midlevel officials made the decision without informing Treasury Secretary John Snow or his deputy, Robert Kimmitt...

When people are angry they don't always do what is in their best interest. If I was in UAE's place, yea, I would be pretty angry. It would impact my decisions in the future. If I have a very bad experience with a store I'm not going to go back, even if that means paying more elsewhere. It might be "in my best interest" to go back to the store I hate, but I won't do it.

Heck, even when people aren't angry, they don't always do what is in their best interest. From individuals buying lottery tickets to NK thumbing its nose at us.

 Seriously, nice comeback, waxing pale back at me!

 So I reiterate, no disagreement with holding congress to task on this.

I guess you do agree that there is a level of screwing that even the UAE wouldn't take?

 I do. I just think this falls very very far from that level. It's not like we dubbed UAE as the replacement country for Iraq in the Axis of Evil. We didn't terminate any of their other activities stateside. We didn't eject their diplomats or freeze assets.

 The actions most consistent with preserving self-interests by the UAE will be to dust themselves off, recognize that the screwball political climate in America (exacerbated by impending mid-term elections) was the deal's downfall rather than a pro-active attempt by American leadership to willfully damage them as a soverign nation, and move on with new courses of action that will strengthen themselves and further enhance their economy - those most logically include future deals and cooperation with American companies and government.

 What I'm urging is that we don't take our own personal reactions to something like poor customer service and try to extend that all the way up to the realm of government leaders who, because they had one bad experience with America, will never shop there again.

 You just can't personify a nation like that and accurately assume that its leadership will react like an angry and/or dissapointed customer. There's a heck of a lot more at stake in their decisions for themselves and for their citizens than there is in your decision to patronize the A-Mart instead of the B-Mart. And I think it's appropriate to assume they will weigh their decisions accordingly, with all the due care and contemplation that being a soverign nation demands.

 I believe my characterization of UAE is not misplaced, given that their leadership have displayed no prior indication vis-a-vis unseemly behaviour on the world stage (ala Saddam / Ahmadinejad) that they will react in an irrational manner and take a course of action counter to their own best interests.

CongressCritters does it take to change a light bulb?

535

But it has to really want to change, the investigation will take six months and end inconclusively, there is no guarantee that the new one will light up, it will cost $6.7 Billion, and it will create an ongoing entitlement for all light bulbs to change as they choose.

This isn't about the $$s in the deal, it is about the Govt of the US saying basically, "as a country you can't be trusted".  

That is a very big statement and therefore will have reprecussions.  All of these mideast countries take a risk by supporting us.  If all they get is publically poked in the eye for the effort then they will stop.  

No question about it...

Congress was wrong to interject themselves into the foreign policy decisions of the executive branch for political points. Unsurprisingly, the ÜberKonservativs don't seem to mind carrying water for the Stalinists or Al Qaeda.

I should add . . . that I have acquired a new respect for Chuckie Schumer.  . . . He managed to turn a nothing business deal into one of the great political and foreign relations debacle of all time by correctly reading and playing the anti-Muslim [temperament] abroad in the land.

Speaking of playing to the lowest common denominator, it would have been easier for Mr. Schumer if he could have thrown in the issue of illegal immigration, too.

WASHINGTON -- A Dubai company's decision to ditch its plans to take over some U.S. seaport operations could widen a rift between the United States and Arab countries, several analysts said Thursday.

The deal's outcome could have economic and diplomatic implications because of the sensitive nature surrounding U.S. ties to some Arab nations. Dubai, part of the United Arab Emirates, owns the company at the heart of the controversy. DP World abandoned its plans Thursday to run some U.S. terminals after Republicans and Democrats raised objections for weeks.  . . .

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-03-09-port-fallout_x.htm

At least the Stalinists and Überkonservativs in Congress get to walk away feeling good about themselves for scuttling an ally in the GWOT, which was all they wanted anyway.

but business is business.

And I'm sure that Dubai has seen that not everyone in America sided against the deal, and indeed, that many who objected to the deal weren't doing so because it was Dubai on the other side.

To some of us, it's not about the UAE.  I'd have objected to the ports deal if it was a Canadian government-owned company.

is that a facility operated by an American company is under direct supervision of the Federal government, and there are no international laws or issues standing in the way of any matter, no matter how slight or small.

And it's a simple issue of trust.  In today's world, I just plain flat out do not trust foreign government-controlled companies to operate our domestic infrastructure, because their primary interest is profit, not American prosperity.

And those are two very different things.

More out there, but still possible, is this scenario:  we do something that angers Nation X, and Nation X controls a corporation that just took over operation of the Golden Gate Bridge.  In retaliation for what America did, Nation X has its shell company shut down the bridge, paralyzing traffic in San Francisco.  Certainly, the bridge is reopened quickly and the contract of operation would be voided by that act, but now apply that same scenario to a working port, where just two or three days of shutdown could snarl our economy, backing ships up in port, delaying goods, and knotting up overland shipping due to disrupted scheduling.

Far fetched, but possible...and in today's world, the simple possibility of it happening is enough for me.

I have no doubt that DPW is an excellent company that can do a good job, but the fact that they are owned and controlled by a foreign government disqualifies them from operating any part of our internal infrastructure in my eyes.

Call me an isolationist, but that's just the way I see it.

similar political uproars over all the other  post-911  changes in port terminal operations in which other foreign companies had their contracts voided by Congress. That would make them feel better. I don't recall those similar uproars though.

Any corporation, whether owned by Americans or not, must comply with all applicable laws and regulations, or they won't be permitted to operate on US soil. To the (questionable) extent that port facilities operate under the "direct supervision" of a Federal government, this applies to any operator, regardless of who the shareholders are. And in any case, this is the same Federal government you wouldn't trust not to give itself paper cuts on the tongue.

On the simple issue of trust, I was going to let you enjoy the small pleasure, until you made the distinction between "profit" (what the other guys are going for) and "American prosperity" (what we're going for). What's the difference between the two? If you want to get a share in someone else's profits, go out and buy their stock. If they want a share of our American prosperity, they can come in and buy some of ours. There are some very good reasons why American capitalists won't run port facilities, and I don't even need to know what those reasons are. The simple fact that it doesn't happen proves that there are better uses for the capital.

As far as giving someone from another country the keys to the Golden Gate Bridge, remember that China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, or a lot of other countries could do us a heck of a lot more damage than cutting off Marin County, any time they felt like it. But they don't, and they won't, because it's an interconnected world and you can't just hurt someone else without hurting yourself at least as bad. And of course this works both ways: we're going to suffer a lot of damage for souring the Dubai deal. And it's not just retaliation, either. We just proved that we're not trustworthy partners. In any kind of business (international or not), losing your partners' trust is nearly the worst thing that can happen to you.

You invited me to call you an isolationist, which I did. Fair enough. But recognize the implications of your position. An interconnected world creates prosperity and opportunity for everyone. The fact that we're exposed to so much more competition means that we have a responsibility to be better than ever before. This is a good thing, not a bad thing. This is the quarrel I always have with economic isolationists who complain about outsourcing jobs. But you're adding yet another dimension to it: you're trading away a lot of prosperity merely to get an illusory feeling that our port facilities are owned by people that we can somehow control and trust.

it is pretty clear you don't have a very good grasp on the situation.

International law has nothing to do with it in any way, shape, or form. International law does not govern relations between a sovereign and a business operating in its territory.

As I've said before, I find it really hard to not laugh at this argument because most US ports are run by foreign owned companies and at least 11 are run by the Venezuelan government.

Having missed the outraged posts on this subject over the past decade or so, please feel free to point me to commentary last year or earlier on this subject if I am wrong, it seems more like post facto rationalization than a real interest in the issue.

with any company with any country operating the terminals!

The group that can shut down the terminals?

The Longshoremen!

He's dead on target, Leon.  Certain people have pretty much decided that if the solution to a problem facing this country does not meet each and every one of their preferences, they will scuttle it - regardless of the consequences.

We just saw that on this ports deal - and while we might disagree on where I've percevied similar attitudes occuring in the past (to wit, on both immigration and the Miers nomination).  To be quite honest, I think this DPW fisaco is going to result in some very big pushback from business PAC/the Chamber of Commerce.  If the immigration bill doesn't meet their standards, the will not only fight it, I bet they will get a veto from the White House.  The White House will go along - if only to be seen slapping the same forces that slapped the UAE in the face (many of his harshest immigration critics - like Michelle Malkin - were also against the DPW deal).  The fact it will be standing up for what he's called for over five years is gravy in this case.

Do you reall ythink there will not be pushback?  I'm also willing to bet that there are going to be 2008 primary challenges for people like Hunter, Lewis, and King funded by the business PACs.  There's just no way the business community can stand by when one of their most reliable clients gets trashed by congressional Republicans.

he occupied the moral hig ground, I said he was a consumate politician; he was able to parlay an insignificant business deal into an absolute debacle. The fact that he did it by reaching down to the worst instincts of all of us does not change that. Great politicians have been doing that since the second guy climbed down out of the tree.

Just confusion about what the heck he was trying to say.

The UAE has acted like an ally for four years because the oil plutocrats there prefer to have armed Americans in the vicinity.  There is also probably a bit of recognition that we needed a major port and facilities and perhaps our response would have been to simply take them if not offered them.

But this doesn't make the princes there trustworthy or reliable.

Read the Koran and it's hard to come to the firm conclusion that any Muslim is trustworthy, unless you plan to convert or urge your children to convert.

has written a column about the paleocon wing of the conservative movement which I believe many commentators on this thread would find interesting.