I’ve gotten lots of emails and comments about government selling several US Ports to the United Arab Emirates (UAE). I haven’t commented about it myself until now, because I was ignorant of the subject. At first I was strongly opposed to the sale, however now I am open to both sides. First of all, the fact that Chuck Schumer is against the sale, should be a signal that the other side needs to be checked out. Since when do Democrats care about our national security? The funny thing about this is, or rather hypocritical thing is, every time we try to secure our selves from the Islamofascists, Dems say we are creating more terrorists by not securing ties with Islamic nations. I am not for or against the port sale, however, all I am saying is, we need to take a better look at the deal before we, as citizens, make a final decision.
Expose the Left linked with Reynolds, Shapiro Discuss Dubai, War in Iraq Coverage, and Blogging (VIDEO)
Conservative Culture linked with Dems: Stop Port Sale While Jihadists Call Toledo
All Things Beautiful linked with The Sum Of All Fears...
California Conservative linked with The U.S. Port Controversy: Good or Bad?...
Sister Toldjah linked with Bush veto threat on bill that would stop port sale to UAE company (PM UPDATE)...
Seeing the Forest linked with War With Oceania - So Yesterday...
Church and State linked with Port Deal - Scrutiny Heralded ...
Suitably Flip linked with Protecting Our Ports - Now With Credibility!...
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Register to comment here.
3:20 pm [ Quote ]
No, this isnt a both ways issue. BUSH and the ADMINISTRATION are making a mistake. National security is goiong to be the focal point on this argument. National security in the U.S. not as bad as some say but its flawed. We’re certainly flawed along the borders of mexico/U.S. and this “changing of the port” can quite possibly leave us vulnerable to attack as well.
I’m not saying everything that comes from foreign land or even the middle east for that matter is a threat, however just on general principle and strategic concerns, we should not go through with this. I hope that the opposition from BOTH parties (now thats rare so you know this is a serious issue) are successful over the administration.
Maryland R-Governor Robert Ehrlich
Ehrlich, concerned about security at the Port of Baltimore, said Monday he was “very troubled? that Maryland officials got no advance notice before the Bush administration approved the Arab company’s takeover of the operations at the six ports.
MSNBC.COM
Hmmmmmmm…...
3:40 pm [ Quote ]
Ian-I’ve posted about that same doubt here. It seems like we have a bunch of naysayers and very few details.
3:43 pm [ Quote ]
Shouldn’t this be a states’ rights issue? Oh, but this is about big money…which I momentarily forgot trumps the rights of states.
3:45 pm [ Quote ]
I am feel exactly as you do Ian, I am open to both sides.
As I understand matters today, the UAE company will only ‘manage’ the freight in and out of the ports, but Customs, Coast Guard, Homeland Security and other American agencies will still control all port security. That is according to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.
Further, longshoremen and American companies will still move the freight around. As I understand matters, the UAE company is only a management company and will have no control over security.
I don’t know the good and bad points to companies outside the United States managing our ports, and perhaps it is a bad idea, but let us not get sidetracked into making this a port security issue, which it is not! If there are other good reasons to turn this deal down – okay, but if they are not handling port security we should not allow the deal to be stopped for that reason.
3:46 pm [ Quote ]
You see, this is exactly why Democrats should not be in charge of national security. They don’t take it seriously and will use any chance neccessary to politicize it with what they think is conservative rhetoric.
I really didn’t want to entertain David’s comment, however the reason why it is not states right issue is because it is NATIONAL (federal) security.
3:50 pm [ Quote ]
This issue is real and it is important. We see opposition from both parties and that should be a signal – I am all for “ties” with nations in the Arab world, but giving them control of port operations in NY is ridiculous unless you want a ship container with a nuke to show up.
The UAE has been a key transfer point for illegal shipment of nuclear weapons components between Libya, Iran and North Korea. If they can’t do efficient control of shipment in their own territory do we really want them to take care of what goes in and out of our country? In addition the FBI reported after 9/11 that the hijakers used UAE bank accounts for money transfer and that UAE was not cooperating in the search for Bin Laden right after the attacks.
So the question is…who in their right mind would think that UAE’s DP World company (state owned) is the best company out there available for servicing US ports?
The only conclusion I can draw is that someone is making a lot of money out of this and that’s what the deal is about.
3:53 pm [ Quote ]
The Robot, not exactly. The security, as mentioned by Umnumzana, will still be under control of the DoHS, Port Authority, etc. The UAE company is the landlord, they make the money, and they control the land.
3:56 pm [ Quote ]
Protecting Our Ports – Now With Credibility!...
Thank you, Senator Frist, for addressing this issue in an aggressive, yet deliberate manner. And thank you especially for giving us a more appropriate central figure around which to rally in this effort. The hypocritical posturing lately displayed by…
3:59 pm [ Quote ]
I want to know why are we selling our ports? Why can’t we run and own them? It only makes sense that the way to make the most $$ is to own and run your own business (ports). Are we once again outsourcing more jobs that Americans won’t do or can be done cheaper by people with better work ethics?
But David’s comment about “state’s rights? makes sense. Except for one thing. The port, the land, is property of the state unless of course someone individually (or a company) owns. So again, why are we apparently selling/outsourcing more jobs?
3:59 pm [ Quote ]
Ok lets assume that’s all they do, make money and manage.
Considering their past interactions with the 9/11 hijakers I still do not want them to even do that much. The last thing we need is more US taxpayer money flowing into Arab countries with dubious ties to terrorist organizations.
4:03 pm [ Quote ]
I agree with #9 elguapo … why are we outsourcing OUR OWN PORTS?
4:04 pm [ Quote ]
I wrote in an article that if Jimmy Carter supports this Bush port contract, and he does, then we better think twice about supporting it. I also wrote that, “The companies themselves are not the issue. The issue is one person at one time with the access to allow one terrorist group one opportunity to smuggle one Weapon of Mass Destruction into a major U.S. city.”
Read here: Putting Our Ports At Risk
4:04 pm [ Quote ]
http://fromopinionnation.blogspot.com/2006/02/putting-our-ports-at-risk.html
4:06 pm [ Quote ]
“So again, why are we apparently selling/outsourcing more jobs?”
elquapo,
the reason we are outsourcing more jobs is because it is good for our economy. That is if you believe Treasure Secretary John Snow and white house aide and Council of Economic Advisers chairman Greg Mankiw.
4:06 pm [ Quote ]
I agree with TheRobot. Someone is going to bank off of this. Politician or not, someone is making a lot of money. You just don’t sell out a huge company without some real big money.
So Ian, if DP World s only going to act like a landlord sort of deal, I have heard this by Rush and FNC also, then why is it being sold in the first place? Better yet, why did we sell it to the Brits, who are now in turn selling it to UAE?
What is this going to do to our imports/exports? Will there later be fees charged by the UAE, thus increasing prices of goods?
4:12 pm [ Quote ]
Yah right. Selling jobs to other countries – to people who don’t complain about labor jobs, and are willing to work for a buck instead of collecting unemployment. Now not only are you creating more excuses for unemployment, you are decreasing the # of jobs.
What is our ultimate goal? To outsource all jobs that Americans think is “beneath them? to do or that they can find better and cheaper labor elsewhere?
The only good news I heard today, sit down guys, was the New Orleans city council is trying to make it a rule, and even released to the media, that they want to rebuild the city with people who are willing to work, not with people who are going to watch soap operas and collect welfare and unemployment again. That is almost verbatim from what FNC quoted from N.O.
4:13 pm [ Quote ]
WASHINGTON - The Dubai firm that won Bush administration backing to run six U.S. ports has at least two ties to the White House.
One is Treasury Secretary John Snow, whose agency heads the federal panel that signed off on the $6.8 billion sale of an English company to government-owned Dubai Ports World – giving it control of Manhattan’s cruise ship terminal and Newark’s container port.
Snow was chairman of the CSX rail firm that sold its own international port operations to DP World for $1.15 billion in 2004, the year after Snow left for President Bush’s cabinet.
The other connection is David Sanborn, who runs DP World’s European and Latin American operations and was tapped by Bush last month to head the U.S. Maritime Administration.
http://www.nydailynews.com/02-21-2006/news/local/story/393280p-333478c.html
4:21 pm [ Quote ]
Elguapo: What jobs are going to people outside the country? Believe me I have no dog in this hunt, but the UAE company is a management company, the front office, and all the labor still stays with longshoremen and American workers to do the actual work.
As I said – if people want to argue about whether or not a UAE or British company or any foreign company should manage US ports – fine. My only point is that this is apparently NOT a security issue, or an outsourcing of labor issue, but solely whether or not an Arab country should manage a US port and whether or not it is a states rights or federal issue!
Also,I am not happy about the Congress getting involved and passing legislation as I am very concerned that we are moving to a point where the Executive is no longer a separate and equal branch; but in every single matter the President and Executive Branch are becoming wholly subservient to the Legislative Branch. A very dangerous idea!
4:24 pm [ Quote ]
Am I the only conservative who tries to avoid conflicts of interest?
I agree with TheRobot. Let’s assume that the gov’t of UAE is on our side, that does not mean that their people are too. Saudi Gov’t keeps claiming to be our ally, but … ‘nuff said.
4:32 pm [ Quote ]
Oh, that’s right it’s a national issue. Well, abortion effects women all over the country so I guess that is a national issue as well. So is gay marriage, etc….
Hypocrisy.
4:36 pm [ Quote ]
It is certainly true the security fears regarding the sale might be out of proportion. But as I said earlier there is already enough money the flows from the US over to Arab countries and there is absolutely no reason there should be more.
The sale of operations is not likely to lead to drastic change in port security. There have been routine smugglings of immigrants in ship containers and those are not likely to increase or decrease giving the already poor state of port security. If immigrants can be smuggled in, then so can terrorists. Is it far fetched to think that a terrorist group could infiltrate or recruit a DP world employee working at the ports? I am certainly no expert in this domain so all I can do is guess.
Nevertheless, the UAE is one of the three countries in the world that recognized the Taliban government. It’s been a transfer point for illegal shipment between terrorist supporting nations. The FBI has cited the 9/11 hijackers are using UAE’s banking system for some money transfers and in additon for not cooperating in the financial tracking of terrorists after 9/11. For me these are reasons enough to do the sale, but hey, what do I know.
4:37 pm [ Quote ]
“You see, this is exactly why Democrats should not be in charge of national security.”
Ian I think this issue is a little more important than you using it to try and score cheap political points over it. The outrage at this is bipartisan. There are some serious heavy hitter Republicans who are completely floored by the way in which this whole fiasco has been handled.
“The UAE company is the landlord, they make the money, and they control the land”
Exactly, so is everyone happy that US dollars are going to be channelled to a terrorist sympathetic country by the millions for said landlord duties? Remember the UAE was 1 of only 3 countries to recognize the Taliban government in Afghanistan – a government that aided and abbetted Osama Bin Laden, you remember him, the guy who masterminded 9/11.
Umnumzana: “As I understand matters today, the UAE company will only ‘manage’ the freight in and out of the ports, but Customs, Coast Guard, Homeland Security and other American agencies will still control all port security. That is according to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.”
And with them inspecting less than 5% of the containers that come into this country don’t you think its a little scary that a terrorist sympathetic country can be placed in a position to exploit that “port security”.
What happens if they exercise the right to reduce security, fire US employees, sign exclusive stevedoring deals with other foreign nations and generally squeeze out any US controls, let alone the fact that jobs and control are being sold to the international market. Too many “What if’s” if you ask me, questions that nobody will answer.
4:41 pm [ Quote ]
Port Deal – Scrutiny Heralded …
But this is the first time in the last 4 years that Democrats have acknowledged that we have an enemy whose name does not start a “B” and end with a “ush.”...
5:42 pm [ Quote ]
Interesting point. I did some more background googling on current port security and cases of smuggled immigrants are quite frequent. Not to mention immigrants crossing the mexican border, security there is a joke.
So could it really be that Al Qaeda is so weak that even with our poor border security they still can’t hit us? I’d have to believe so. It’s either that or Al Qaeda simply does not exist.
Back to the port sale, the company that is about to own the operations also manages ports in plenty of other places including Australia and Europe, yet no problems there. The problem really isn’t about security becomming compromised – port security is already a joke. The issue is that with this deal we will see yet more US money flowing into an Arab country which may or may not be an ally. As if enough isn’t going over there already.
6:04 pm [ Quote ]
David, switch to decaff.
Jack Frost: you need to watch the news more often and get out of that pre9-11 mindset. They just busted a terror ring in Toledo Ohio, again. A sleeper cell waiting for orders to be relayed from the local imam.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,185551,00.html
And I heard a good comment today; “we need to worry about terrorists sneaking into this country as much as we do about them already being here.” See above link.
TheRobot: yes, our border security is awful. And Mexico does not want to help because most of the $$ that the illigals make here goes back to the Mexican economy in one way or another. It would hurt them to help. Although the long term fix if uncorrupting their gov’t and fixing their economy would help them and us more than their short term fix of a decision to ignore the problem.
I do not want any more of our $$ going to countries where we know there are tons of people willing to sign up for a suicide mission at the drop of a hat and kill anybody, American or not
7:25 pm [ Quote ]
War With Oceania – So Yesterday…
The Bush administration is allowing the sale of several American ports to the United Arab Emirates, and of course cronyism is involved. Before today the Republicans were sending surrogates around the country whipping up anti-Muslim and anti-Arab sentim…
7:55 pm [ Quote ]
Bush veto threat on bill that would stop port sale to UAE company (PM UPDATE)...
Via Reuters:
ABOARD AIR FORCE ONE (Reuters) – President George W. Bush said on Tuesday that a deal for a state-owned Dubai company to manage major U.S. ports should go forward and will not jeopardize U.S. security.
Bush told reporters traveling back…
8:04 pm [ Quote ]
The U.S. Port Controversy: Good or Bad?...
Everyone needs to calm down and take a deep breath.
That’s Squiggler’s advice. And she offers some insight from another credible source.
There might be less to worry about than meets the eye. But that leaves Instapundit asking: “Of…
8:41 am [ Quote ]
The Sum Of All Fears…
Rescind Mr. President. Faith is a misplaced emotion in the long war on terror, and the assurance that U.S. ports will be secure when they are managed by a firm owned by a government in one of the most volatile parts of the world, is worthless….
10:18 am [ Quote ]
[...] This has to be one of the best examples Democratic hypocrisy It has to be the most (may I say it?) asinine things I have seen in sometime. I agree with Expose the Left when he admitted he didn’t know too much about the topic. At first I was strongly opposed to the sale, however now I am open to both sides. First of all, the fact that Chuck Schumer is against the sale, should be a signal that the other side needs to be checked out. Since when do Democrats care about our national security? [...]
12:14 pm [ Quote ]
Hey! Why dont we let the Saudi Clerics baby sit all our children? You are not trying to profile them are you? I mean what is wrong with Saudi clerics? You people are betraying everything American from George Washington to Lincoln to Reagan. Bush family has dark ties to the Saudis and the BinLadens and you just go along. I wish Reagan was here to kick Bushes ass and set all you traitors striaght.
1:59 pm [ Quote ]
[...] Glenn Reynolds and Walter Shapiro appeared on CNN’s Reliable Sources this morning to discuss the Dubai port deal, the media’s coverage of the War in Iraq, and briefly blogging. Host Howard Kurtz started the segment by bringing up “blog first, ask questions later” on the matter of the Dubai port trade off. Reynolds agreed, saying that “the deal sounded bad and the first media story that I read was a NY Post story” that was “pretty negative”. After researching and talked to several experts, he is now “reasonably comfortable” with the port sale. (SIDE NOTE: I never was against the deal) Shapiro says that the story was “overrated”, I agree. [...]
11:34 am [ Quote ]
This is another bad decision..
Our Country needs to restructure itself, to be self relient. Which is necessary for our future. This is bad business giving control of our ports (or ounership) to any
other Country. It doesn’t matter how they want to say it becuase even if the security part is still in the hands of the US. It still opens the whole Country up to another way in to destroy us. We have enough company’s right here in the good of US of A to run it. Reading what the Teamsters union has to say impressed me the most. the Arab Company does not believe in unions therfor the very people who load and unload freight have no rights or say in the conditions they work- not to mention there benifits and pay… Are we going to allow our hard working American Citizens to be treated like third world employees?? They same old story of Bush the hard working middle/ to lower income gets it again. So it’s not only about our safety (it being number one) but also about USA workers.. Something the President keeps forgetting about.