Port Insecurity ??

[dissent]

Regarding the impending (?) sale of port facilities to Dubai World. There is some interesting commentary here.

I guess my take on the issue is that it bothers me the way this has tried to get pushed through in the dead of night, so to speak. I mean, if it was such a great deal, then why not have some open discussion and commentary about it early on in the process, as opposed to some of the frenzied hyperbole I've been hearing now at the 11th hour. I think the administration folks who rolled this one out have borked it bigtime.

[Zuruck]

Well, I can't say I'm surprised by the secrecy, we're talking about the most secret (and most corrupt) administration in quite a long time. As for the sale, are there American firms that can do this? Nice role model, the govt outsourcing work. All it takes is ONE disgruntled Arab to let in a few packages undetected and boom, bye bye Baltimore.

I hope Congress continues what they are doing, I want Bush to use his first veto on something that most seem to be against. I wonder how the guy graduated high school, he's such a complete idiot.

[Cuda68]

We are out sourcing way more than just this. I recently went through and completed a bankruptcy process a few years ago. Most of my creditors CSR's who handled my account information where from the middle east somewhere. I find it hard to believe that corporations are sending our personal information on money and such to the same people who hate us with such vigor. We need to keep national security and finance information within our own borders, or at the very least disclose to us where this information may end up before we sign up with them and not after.

[Will Robinson]

I don't think it's fair to say it's been suddenly pushed through in the dead of night since this story was public for quite a while...

The only thing fishy to me is if Bush didn't know about it until after the deal was finalized (which is reasonable considering it isn't exactly presidential decision material) then why is he going to break out his very first presidential veto on this issue?!?!
I can think of a lot of bills he should have used it on before now!
So I think he's getting something for this or it's to repay for something he already recieved...

And although the leftwingnuts will chime in with conspiracy theories about cronies getting paid ( very weak connections so far) I think it's more like he got something like permission to put a secret prison in UAE or he's going to get one of the big baddies like bin Laddin or al Zwahiri handed over to him in the near future and the UAE has played some kind of role in making that happen..

It's certainly odd for him to stand up so tall with veto locked and loaded over this kind of issue if there isn't something going on unreported.

[Will Robinson]

oops

[CDN_Merlin]

On one hand you are trying to kill all terrorist and on the other hand, you are (possible) inviting them into your house with keys in hand????


Bush = retarded.

[Zuruck]

Will's right...think about it. He is steadfast in a move that he wasn't involved in and there has to be something going on in the background. How do you guys continually defend that man? I just want to know...isn't it hard to do it?

[dissent]

I don't think it's fair to say it's been suddenly pushed through in the dead of night since this story was public for quite a while...

I was unaware of it (though that's not saying much). And I gathered from the discussion I heard on "Scarborough Country" on Tuesday night that this was fairly recent news to many of them as well. How long has this been in the news?

At any rate, as discussed here -

The White House probably does deserve blame – blame for not seeing that his decision could easily be demagogued and turned into a political issue. Now, fairly or unfairly, the President is on the defensive and some in the media have started to pile on, as did CNN’s Jack Cafferty, who never allows reason or logic to interfere with his analysis.

The President does not have to change his decision if he believes it to be correct. But he needs to make the case that the new company will not be in a position to aid terrorists, and that it will continue policies and procedures (both involving personnel and operations) to keep America’s ports safe, and to enhance that safety and security.

I think it's plain that Bush either has some seriously incompetent political advisors, or he is foolishly not taking their advice. This may, in fact, be a great deal. But they've left themselves open politically for damage from something that may be no more than a tempest in a teapot.

[Zuruck]

you know dissent, you mentioned something that rattles some cages. Bush's machine got him in office by being very, very good at politics and they seem to be dropping the ball quite a bit lately. Is it because Bush has stopped listening to them or maybe they have stopped protecting the ineptitude that is the White House. How does Karl Rove get a just plain dumb man re-elected, then allow something like this? It's boon for the Dems and everyone knows it. I wonder if there is something more to come that we don't know about...

[Will Robinson]

you know dissent, you mentioned something that rattles some cages. Bush's machine got him in office by being very, very good at politics and they seem to be dropping the ball quite a bit lately. Is it because Bush has stopped listening to them or maybe they have stopped protecting the ineptitude that is the White House. How does Karl Rove get a just plain dumb man re-elected, then allow something like this? It's boon for the Dems and everyone knows it. I wonder if there is something more to come that we don't know about...

Zuruck your assumptions are all wrong. First Bush is not a dumb man. He's not a very good speaker when he's in front of the camera but he's also a good politician (at least as much as any politician can be called good...lying scumbags all of them).

As to whether or not he's not being told the right thing to say, have you considered he's actually saying the right thing about this?
What if he hears everyone going off half cocked on this, hears and reads the press totally misrepresent the deal and how it went through and he is simply sticking up for the UAE because they deserve this opportunity?!?!

After all, unlike the many stories we've read in the press, the truth is:

A foriegn company was in charge of managing the ports in question and after this deal...GASP....a foriegn company is still in charge...

The "secret" deal with the Whitehouse that was reported turns out to be no different than the way every review of a company going through the process is a "secret"...

As to security concerns, the company never was going to be in charge of port security and the Bush administration made them concede to measures of accountability and transparency of records, past, present, and future, that others in the same situation never had to abide by...

Contrary to many reports about how this is an attempt to screw the unions out of a contract the labor is still going to be performed by american labor union members...

The only difference between the old company and the new one is that they are owned by arabs instead of Brits...so the only material reason we've been given for turning them down is that they are arabs!

You should be outraged at the press for getting this story so wrong. And you should question the motives for misrepresenting the facts the way they did!!


Or do we go with the flow and follow the logic of these chicken littles and incumbant demagogues politicians?
Lets stop flights from all arab owned airlines from entering the U.S.? After all it was arabs on airplanes that attacked us!!!
We should probably freeze assets in arab owned companies and banks since it was arab owned banks and companies that funneled the money to finance the 9/11 hijackers!

If that sounds like nonsense then please explain how that reaction is any different from the one we've seen drummed up in the press (they really don't deserve that title anymore).

Here's a clue:
The issue was bound to sound like a bad idea to an ignorant populace. To turn it into a big problem all it took was a negligent press to fan the flames ignited by the political hacks instead of doing their duty and pouring the cold water of objective analysis upon the story.

So political opportunity knocked and politicians on both sides of the aisle have taken their constituencies fears, ignorance, and inability to think beyond a 30 second sound-bite and parlayed that into campaign posturing and rhetorical talking points!

What hasn't changed though is the cold hard fact that every shipping container that arrives in any of our ports has a 90% chance of going un-inspected! Those numbers are the same whether or not it was the old british company managing the unloading or when the UAE company manages the process.

Right now, before this deal goes through, any terrorist in the world can go to work for the british company and be there on the dock when his shipment of WMD's slips into america.
Any citizen of any country that was ever a part of the British Empire can legally move to the UK and go to work for the company that is in charge of our ports today! Or they can wait until the UAE gets in control and try to get a job with them....

So really, what's the difference? Besides the value of scaring up some votes or picking on arabs just for being arabs, what's the value of this outrage? Certainly not homeland security that's for damn sure!

[Dakatsu]

Even if the UAE was perfectly good, no bombings and such, it would still not look that good.

I hope this gets vetoed, but then overridden by Congress, just to have it do more damage.

[Will Robinson]

Even if the UAE was perfectly good, no bombings and such, it would still not look that good.

Other than being arabs what about them doing business with/in america looks bad?

I hope this gets vetoed, but then overridden by Congress, just to have it do more damage.

Do you mean more damage to the Bush administration, and if so isn't that an indication of your character? You would be in favor of racial profiling and outright prejudice against arabs *if* it serves your short term politcal needs?
Is this the right message to send an arab country that is being helpful to us?

[Zuruck]

Good post Will, but I'll never concede the man is smart, the people around him are top notch...he's one of the those rich kids that eeked it through life.

But, as for the deal, when you hear that 5% of the cargo coming into the country is inspected, then a Middle eastern country is going to be running the place, seems like things could be in line for a problem. What would it take for one radical to know when and where the inspection is and avoid it? Would it be that hard? I think the outrage is over the fact that none of the questions have been answered publicly. As Bush has said, 9/11 changed everything, the citizens of this country deserve to know what conclusion has been made about the security of these ports.

[Will Robinson]

Good post Will, but I'll never concede the man is smart, the people around him are top notch...he's one of the those rich kids that eeked it through life.

Well I'm convinced he's a lot smarter than he appears when he's on the spot in front of the camera and most people who have dealt with him in person, both opponents and allies say that about him.

But, as for the deal, when you hear that 5% of the cargo coming into the country is inspected, then a Middle eastern country is going to be running the place, seems like things could be in line for a problem. What would it take for one radical to know when and where the inspection is and avoid it? Would it be that hard? I think the outrage is over the fact that none of the questions have been answered publicly. As Bush has said, 9/11 changed everything, the citizens of this country deserve to know what conclusion has been made about the security of these ports.

The problem with your claim that a "Middle eastern country is going to be running the place" is that they won't be running anything in regards to security, they will be running the loading and unloading of ships. They won't have anymore control of the Customs or Coast Guard than they have right now which is none.
The thing is, this company runs ports all over the world, places like Liberia where anyone can register a ship and then sail it into our ports, they would have a much easier time loading something nasty into a number of containers and then just wait until one or more of them goes undetected and then carry out their plan.
With our ports and borders so wide open if the nation of UAE wants to bring something into our country they could do it easily without having to put their fingerprints all over the operation by doing it in such a way that they will be blamed.

So the net benefits of blocking them for security reasons is almost zero yet due to the strategic location and cooperation they provide us in the region showing that we can work with them can gain us quite a bit. Look at a map of the middle east and consider how important having them as an ally is....

You have to weigh the benefits of bashing Bush against making progress in the world and I hope people will realize the ramifications of their choices.

[Will Robinson]

The buzz now is that the Bushies didn't consider the political side of this deal. Well I don't want our representatives making decisions about who can and can't do business in america based solely on how it looks politically! How about if your local city administration refuses to sell you a piece of property that the city owns because your last name sounds jewish and the political climate in your town is not friendly to jews?

I want them to do what's right even if it looks bad and the press should be the safety valve that filters out political posturing in a situation like this. They are too busy fanning the flames of controversy to build ratings to bother reporting objectively
What's happening now is, in order to defend their deal, the nation of UAE is being exposed as friendly to the U.S. and that will most likely lead to trouble for them on the home front. See todays attack on the Saudi oil fields for a point of reference...

The governments in the middle east walk a fine line over trying to get along with the west and still maintain peaceful relations with their citizens who are easily whipped up into a frenzy by the islamo-facsists. See the muhammed cartoon riots for a point of reference....

Obviously Bush really wanted this deal to go through or he wouldn't have threatened a veto. You can buy into the predictable partisan rhetoric that it's all about him getting rich under the table but if that was the case as soon as the political winds started stirring up exposure to the deal he would have removed himself from the process to avoid being implicated in the deal. However if what he's getting out of this is cooperation from the UAE he can afford to stay in the fight because exposing his interest in the deal only exposes his desire to get cooperation. So for him this won't hurt but for the UAE it will cost them back home. And if they ultimately lose the deal they not only lose at home but they lose faith in the west. How would you feel if you were turned down because you look like someone who was a terrorist? Turned down for a job because your brother was arrested for a crime...the explanation was that you might not be a criminal but you come from that family. And then those same people that turned you down came to you later and said \"Oh, by the way, can you help us...let us use your house for something were working on in your neighborhood?\"

Unless someone comes up with a better reason than they have so far this sounds like a bunch of bad politics getting in the way of progress to me. The War on Terror is being fought on a lot of fronts and the politicians are shooting us in the foot on this front.

[Dakatsu]

I hope this gets vetoed, but then overridden by Congress, just to have it do more damage.

Do you mean more damage to the Bush administration, and if so isn't that an indication of your character? You would be in favor of racial profiling and outright prejudice against arabs *if* it serves your short term politcal needs?
Is this the right message to send an arab country that is being helpful to us?

Actually, I didn't even know we could have foreign countries in control of our ports until this. I think we should be in charge of our own ports. But I believe that the UAE isn't the best country do to this at the least. I am not rascist at all, just I think that it would definatley get an increased chance of a terrorist attack.

If they wanted to trade stuff with us, sure, go ahead. Trading is very good, but controlling one of our ports to me is just stupid. I believe Britian shouldn't be allowed to do that either.

I am not the type to crack down on security, but I believe we should control our own ports!

[Will Robinson]

Actually, I didn't even know we could have foreign countries in control of our ports until this. I think we should be in charge of our own ports. But I believe that the UAE isn't the best country do to this at the least. I am not rascist at all, just I think that it would definatley get an increased chance of a terrorist attack.

That seems to be the prevailing sentiment, that a company, managing the container ship loading and unloading, tied to the UAE, would somehow inherently be a threat.
But if it's not just because they are arabs can you tell me specifically why they would be a threat?
Other than because of their race or geographic point of origin can you show me why they are likely to facilitate or initiate a terrorist attack?

I hate the Cleveland Browns and the Cincinnati Bengals. The Browns games don't even deserve to be televised unless they are playing the Steelers as far as I'm concerned but I don't really have a rational reason for that position other than I'm a Steeler fan.
But it's alright to be irrational in deciding which sports team to disrespect.
I don't think we should take such an illogical approach to world politics though.

If they wanted to trade stuff with us, sure, go ahead. Trading is very good, but controlling one of our ports to me is just stupid. I believe Britian shouldn't be allowed to do that either.

I am not the type to crack down on security, but I believe we should control our own ports!

I could be in favor of resricting management of the ports to american companies, a little protectionism could be useful in leveling the playing field economically even if security isn't enhanced by that kind of law, but that isn't what's being proposed.

So far no one has proposed anything other than restricting only a UAE company from being allowed to work the ports. And apparantly those protests are based on that company being an arab entity because the same press corp, the same congress and the same knee-jerk, spoon-fed, soundbite-dependant, led-by-the-nose, ignorant citizenery that is all of a sudden so concerned has had no problem with any other country that has been involved in managing a port or any other similar venture where they could use that position to engage in terrorism!

If the UAE is inherently a threat at our ports then why in the hell do we let arab airlines fly into our cities? After all we were never attacked through our ports by arabs or anyone else...but we were attacked by arabs flying planes into our cities!!!

I say if the protestors of this deal are sincerely concerned with the threat of arabs managing the loading and unloading of container ships then they should be screaming bloody murder for an instant ban on arab pilots or arab aircraft or arab passengers flying anywhere near our cities!! Right?

So why is there no outrage about potential arab islami-kazi's flying in and out of our airports?

I guess I know why. Bush hasn't had a hand in letting arabs fly around here so the need to get our panties in a twist just hasn't manifested itself...yet.

But god forbid the press be reminded by some political hacks that the Bush administration is technically, in a way, involved in approving the renewal of arab airline companies leasing of terminals at our airports!!! When that happens we'll all just go completely off the hook with instant outrage about how the Bushies have compromised our security won't we?!?!?

[Flabby Chick]

If y'all scared of criminals taking over the ports, your sixty odd years too late.

[dissent]

Just sixty !!?? Good point, FC.