Bush has really lost it

[Ed]

in my opinion.

Remember the UAE port thing? Well, this is what he thinks...


WASHINGTON, Feb. 21 — President Bush said this afternoon that he would veto any legislation seeking to block the administration's decision to allow a state-owned company from Dubai to assume control of port terminals in New York and other cities.
Mr. Bush's rare veto threat came as Republican leaders and many of their Democratic counterparts called up today for the port takeover to be put on hold. They demanded that the Bush administration conduct a further investigation of the Dubai company's acquisition of the British operator of the six American ports.
"After careful review by our government, I believe the transaction ought to go forward," Mr. Bush told reporters who were traveling with him on Air Force One to Washington, according to news agencies. "I want those who are questioning it to step up and explain why all of a sudden a Middle Eastern company is held to a different standard than a Great British company. I am trying to conduct foreign policy now by saying to the people of the world, 'We'll treat you fairly." '
The confrontation between Mr. Bush and his own supporters escalated rapidly after the Senate Republican leader, Bill Frist (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/f/bill_frist/index.html?inline=nyt-per), and the House speaker, J. Dennis Hastert (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/h/j_dennis_hastert/index.html?inline=nyt-per), joined Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/b/michael_r_bloomberg/index.html?inline=nyt-per), Gov. George E. Pataki (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/p/george_e_pataki/index.html?inline=nyt-per) and a host of other Republicans in insisting that the transaction must be extensively reviewed, if not killed. That put them on essentially the same side of the issue as a chorus of Democrats, who have seized on the issue to argue that Mr. Bush was ignoring a potential security threat.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/21/politics/21cnd-port.html?hp&ex=1140584400&en=e827d4ad67222520&ei=5094&partner=homepage

For some obscure reason, he dosen't quite see why people might be a tab uneasy with a mid-east country managing our ports.

[Zep]

WTF???

Seems daddy didn't step in and clue the boy in before he opened his damned fool mouth...

[TragicMonkey]

Snort. Like he's really going to use the veto, for the first time ever, over this.

eta: Anemone words!

[Ohmer]

For some obscure reason, he dosen't quite see why people might be a tab uneasy with a mid-east country managing our ports.
So just being from a mid-east country automatically makes them a security threat? This sounds more racist than rational.

I guess we better stop the oil shipments. Nothing from the Arabian Peninsula can be trusted.

[CrossHair]

I guess we better stop the oil shipments. Nothing from the Arabian Peninsula can be trusted.

Might be an interesting idea! The largest supplier of imported crude is Canada anyway. :)

Seriously though, if they are totaly on the up-and-up and it is a good thing then a little extra scrutiny should not hurt. It seems as if a lot of people are nervous about it so just go the extra mile to prove there is no worry.

[kittynh]

It's kind of a publicity thing too.

I think the company can run the ports safely. So part of me is thinking "wow, Bush is being rational?"

But then the other part of me is thinking, "the oil companies and big business must want this."

[The Fool]

in my opinion.
For some obscure reason, he dosen't quite see why people might be a tab uneasy with a mid-east country managing our ports.

Israel is a mid-east country and there would be no problem with an israeli company would there?

Why don't we call it like it is Ed?

[Hutch]

Well, lets see, Congressional pressure makes the US Government step in and nix the deal. And of course the UAE can't do anything about it, can it? After all, it's just a little ol'Arab country...

Well, they could deny our Fleet docking privileges in the only really modern deep-water port in the Arabian Sea. You may like the idea of having our aircraft carriers have to sail an extra 4-5,000 miles to a European or Asian port for service and crew rest/leave, but I'm pretty sure the Navy isn't all that thrilled.

And then maybe they deny basing and overflight routes to US aircraft. We have assets there...and pretty damn important ones, especially if you look at where the UAE is located vis-a-vis Iran...

Oh yeah, while they're at it they just might cancel their F16 deal, that'll take care of a few hundred if not a few thousand jobs (more than a few of them in Texas, IIRC).

Not that the Emiraties would take such steps, mind you, but they could. Yes, Qatar, Bahrain, Oman might step in, but they might be a bit leery (and they're populations even more so) of enlarging US presence.

I very, very seldom agree with President Shrub, but I'm with him on this one.

[shecky]

Could be worse. He could sell to the French.

[kalen]

Apparently this deal has been reviewed. A security review was done, too - by the country that is the most uptight, anal, and over-the-top to the point of stupidity about national security. The US made Cat Stevens go back to the UK for crying out loud! See how safe you are!

[Zep]

Someone only has to mention "9/11" and the whole thing will fall on its face...

[Manny]

Well, lets see, Congressional pressure makes the US Government step in and nix the deal. And of course the UAE can't do anything about it, can it? After all, it's just a little ol'Arab country...

Well, they could deny our Fleet docking privileges in the only really modern deep-water port in the Arabian Sea. You may like the idea of having our aircraft carriers have to sail an extra 4-5,000 miles to a European or Asian port for service and crew rest/leave, but I'm pretty sure the Navy isn't all that thrilled.

And then maybe they deny basing and overflight routes to US aircraft. We have assets there...and pretty damn important ones, especially if you look at where the UAE is located vis-a-vis Iran...Then there's the billion or so Muslims whom we're trying to convince that we're at war only with the Islamists and not Muslims generally -- some slap that would be to say to one of the few Muslim non-oil companies of global scale, one with a long history and a good international reputation, that globalization and free trade applies to Britain, of course, and even the Communist Chinese, but not to Arabs or Muslims.

I like Mayor Mike, and I respect the work that Senator Schumer has done on port security specifically, but I think they're not thinking two moves ahead here.

[Ed]

My main point was the breathtaking maladroitness of his response and overall handling of this thing.

Like Katrina, he should have seen it coming. The time to handle it, like Katrina, is long before the damn thing hits.

Once again, it appears to me that wishful thinking is the operative phrase in the WH.

And, yes, I'd trust Isreal long before I'd trust any Islamic country. I am not sure, in this case, whether the UAE is a good idea or not. Frankly, I don't trust a "security review" by my country worth a damn. It probably has a checklist : Porn? no. Birth control? no. OK, you are in.

[Amapola]

I thought the big issue was that the new company actually belongs to the country itself (UAE) and is not a private corporation. In other words, I thought the issue was having another country actually in charge of the ports, instead of a privately owned business. My understanding was that it did not matter WHICH country it was, that there would be protest no matter the country.

[Ducky]

The US made Cat Stevens go back to the UK for crying out loud! See how safe you are!



Strawman. Cat Stevens was actually sent back as a punishment for writing Moonshadow and inflicting it upon the American public.

[Regnad Kcin]

Someone only has to mention "9/11" and the whole thing will fall on its face...9/11.

Wow, power is cool!

[Zep]

There always has to be SOMEONE who pushes the button marked "Do Not Push"...

[peptoabysmal]

Apparently this deal has been reviewed. A security review was done, too - by the country that is the most uptight, anal, and over-the-top to the point of stupidity about national security. The US made Cat Stevens go back to the UK for crying out loud! See how safe you are!
It was the humane thing to do. We didn't want him to have to endure American Idol.

[brodski]

It was the humane thing to do. We didn't want him to have to endure American Idol.
Yeah, endless broadcasts of "the X factor" (and the original pop idol) are so much better...
Actualy, maybe I understand now why Bush is so keen to see a UK company replaced. At least the UEA never exporeated a reality show foramt to the US.

[a_unique_person]

The ports were sold some time ago to British business interests. These interests were bought out by a company from Dubai. Now it is suddenly an issue. The US could pass a law banning the right of the Dubai company to own the ports, but then who would buy them out, and at what price. The next time a business from a foreign company wants to buy something that has ties to the US, it is going to be thinking twice.

[zenith-nadir]

How dare some Americans - 9-11/suicide bombing/beheading/cartoon jihad - have a reservation - 9-11/suicide bombing/beheading/cartoon jihad - over an Arab country - 9-11/suicide bombing/beheading/cartoon jihad - doing security watch - 9-11/suicide bombing/beheading/cartoon jihad - over American ports.

Why that is just pure and simple anti-muslim racism. :rolleyes:

[hgc]

I don't yet know the actual merits of doing or stopping this deal, but something the boy king uttered yesterday made me smile...They ought to listen to what I have to say about this. They ought to look at the facts and understand the consequences of what they're going to do. But if they pass a law, I'll deal with it, with a veto ... they need to know that our government has looked at this issue and looked at it carefully. Again, I repeat, if there was any question as to whether or not this country would be less safe as a result of the transaction, it wouldn't go forward.Uh huh. I gotta trust you after all we've been through?

Here's what gives me pause: The administration claims this went through a "national security review" process involving Depts of Treasury, Homeland Security, Defense and Justice. Guess what Rummy said the other day about it.
I am reluctant to make judgments based on the minimal amount of information I have because I just heard about this over the weekend.

[hgc]

Israel is a mid-east country and there would be no problem with an israeli company would there?

Why don't we call it like it is Ed?Call it like it is? An Israeli company isn't in this position, so until then it's just your fantasy.

[CFLarsen]

If you will allow a foreign power (whoever it might be) to control your seaports, would you also allow them to control your airports? Your nuclear power plants?

What parts of your infrastructure will you not give up, and for what reasons?

If it can be sold, you will give up control, as long as it turns out to be profitable for you, even though you are completely indifferent to possible future consequences?

Can I suggest a little historical perspective here, even though it inevitably will be viewed as condescendingly Euro-centric?

[Ed]

The ports were sold some time ago to British business interests. These interests were bought out by a company from Dubai. Now it is suddenly an issue. The US could pass a law banning the right of the Dubai company to own the ports, but then who would buy them out, and at what price. The next time a business from a foreign company wants to buy something that has ties to the US, it is going to be thinking twice.

It is "managing" the ports, not owning. And, to be honest, I have no idea what that entails. Smuggling mainly, I guess.

[Ed]

If you will allow a foreign power (whoever it might be) to control your seaports, would you also allow them to control your airports? Your nuclear power plants?

What parts of your infrastructure will you not give up, and for what reasons?

If it can be sold, you will give up control, as long as it turns out to be profitable for you, even though you are completely indifferent to possible future consequences?

Can I suggest a little historical perspective here, even though it inevitably will be viewed as condescendingly Euro-centric?

Again, it is not "sold" it is "managing" but your point is well taken. The WIs (Washington Idiots) say that Dubai will not be responsible for security. Fine and good. This begs the question, however, of how any company can operate in a port without knowing all about the security employed. And, if they do, how does one control the flow of information back to that parent company in Dubai? That remote viewing bastard Frist is correct on this one, there are a lot of questions that are unanswered. I'd start with a public exposition of the history of support for terrorist organizations on the part of the leadership of Dubai and their families. I'd also like to know what kind of stuff they teach their kids. Is it the hateful stuff that we find with our other good friend in the ME (Saudi Arabia)?

[Anti_Hypeman]

Rape Rooms!

[Ed]

Rape Rooms!

You, sir, are a great American. No, I really mean that.

[CFLarsen]

Again, it is not "sold" it is "managing" but your point is well taken.

"Controlling" is a better word. Hm?

The WIs (Washington Idiots) say that Dubai will not be responsible for security. Fine and good. This begs the question, however, of how any company can operate in a port without knowing all about the security employed. And, if they do, how does one control the flow of information back to that parent company in Dubai? That remote viewing bastard Frist is correct on this one, there are a lot of questions that are unanswered. I'd start with a public exposition of the history of support for terrorist organizations on the part of the leadership of Dubai and their families. I'd also like to know what kind of stuff they teach their kids. Is it the hateful stuff that we find with our other good friend in the ME (Saudi Arabia)?

You are not answering the questions.....

[zenith-nadir]

Rape Rooms!Rape is never funny....that is, unless you're raping a clown. :eek:

[Ed]

"Controlling" is a better word. Hm?

Define "control".



You are not answering the questions.....

And I am not likely to contribute to another multipage exercise in futility.

[Manny]

The WIs (Washington Idiots) say that Dubai will not be responsible for security. Fine and good. This begs the question, however, of how any company can operate in a port without knowing all about the security employed. Well, they can't. They'll know most security operations (presumably some will be sooper sekrit, just like with American or British or Chinese operators). But Dubai Ports World is a real company with a real history and a real reputation. They are state-owned. So is Citgo, and by a state which is no friend to the US.

The UAE is not a paradise on earth. I have complete confidence that one would find objectionable material in their schools, etc. And yeah, terrorists come from there. But the government has been cooperating in the war on terror. The country has among the better human rights reputations in the Arab world -- Shari'a court exists only for family and religious disputes, for example, and is not enforcable against non-Muslims. If there is such a thing as a "moderate Arab" state, the UAE is it.

So now it's time to decide -- are there "moderate Arabs?" If not, OK, fine, let's pull out of Iraq and go to war with the Arabs. If so, let's make them stakeholders in the US' own security. It's worth noting that Dubai World has a lot, lot more to lose if this acquisition closes and one of its managed ports subsequently becomes a delivery method for a terrorist attack than if they never close the deal at all. Let's let the moderate Arabs get some skin in the game and follow through on our high-minded talk about democracy, openness and equality.

[Ed]

Well, they can't. They'll know most security operations (presumably some will be sooper sekrit, just like with American or British or Chinese operators). But Dubai Ports World is a real company with a real history and a real reputation. They are state-owned. So is Citgo, and by a state which is no friend to the US.

The UAE is not a paradise on earth. I have complete confidence that one would find objectionable material in their schools, etc. And yeah, terrorists come from there. But the government has been cooperating in the war on terror. The country has among the better human rights reputations in the Arab world -- Shari'a court exists only for family and religious disputes, for example, and is not enforcable against non-Muslims. If there is such a thing as a "moderate Arab" state, the UAE is it.

So now it's time to decide -- are there "moderate Arabs?" If not, OK, fine, let's pull out of Iraq and go to war with the Arabs. If so, let's make them stakeholders in the US' own security. It's worth noting that Dubai World has a lot, lot more to lose if this acquisition closes and one of its managed ports subsequently becomes a delivery method for a terrorist attack than if they never close the deal at all. Let's let the moderate Arabs get some skin in the game and follow through on our high-minded talk about democracy, openness and equality.

Very good points, Manny. Thanks.

[Almo]

I don't trust ANY other country to run our ports. Yeah, Dubai is friendly now, and I seriously doubt there will be any problems in the near future. But years from now things could be really different, and the control issue could become a real bugger.

[ImaginalDisc]

Not that I'm actually agreeing with the shaved ape in a suit pretending to be a President, but the UAE won't be running these ports. They will be doing to labor of moving cargo on and off of ships, trucks and trains. The employees will be mostly American. The security personnel are still Port Authority, and Coast Guard, and every other domestic, home grown security service. I have no objection to the UAE running a terminal, someone has to do it. Our security measures will still be in place, independent, redundant, and domestic.

My problem with this isn't concern over the UAE, it's concern over W thinking that a clandestine backroom deal like this can be rammed through Congress without so much as a "by-you-leave". It's Dick Cheney, not Dic-tator Cheney.

[Ladewig]

I don't trust ANY other country to run our ports.

I'm not sure I even trust the U.S. to run U.S. ports. We're screening around 6% of what is coming through these ports, but billions are going into Star Wars Missile Defense because ICBMs are the only way an enemy would ever deliver a nuke to a coastal city.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20060222-122115-8912r.htm

Several Bush-administration security officials expressed concerns yesterday that terrorists could infiltrate seaports through a United Arab Emirates company that is vying to manage six U.S. ports.
Intelligence and security officials opposed to the deal with Dubai Ports World said ports are vulnerable to the entry of terrorists or illicit weapons because of the large number of containers that enter U.S. territory, regardless of who manages them.
A Persian Gulf state such as the United Arab Emirates could provide an infrastructure for terrorists to penetrate U.S. security as part of a major terrorist operation, the officials said.
One long-term worry is that al Qaeda terrorists will attempt to smuggle a nuclear device into the United States through a port via a shipping container.
Allowing a Middle Eastern company to manage key ports "would be like putting the fox in charge of the henhouse," said one security official, who, like most other critics, spoke on the condition of anonymity.
Another official said the problem is not the company but its location in a region rife with Islamic terrorism.

[CFLarsen]

Define "control".

Control. As in controlling the airports etc the way the seaports will be controlled.

And I am not likely to contribute to another multipage exercise in futility.

Take just one, then:

If you will allow a foreign power (whoever it might be) to control your seaports, would you also allow them to control your airports?

[Manny]

My problem with this isn't concern over the UAE, it's concern over W thinking that a clandestine backroom deal like this can be rammed through Congress without so much as a "by-you-leave". It's Dick Cheney, not Dic-tator Cheney.But that's just it. It's not a clandestine deal! Stuff like this happens all the time and is routine. Dubai World bought P&O. It was announced in the business section of the newspaper. Whenever there's a change in control of any major company the government does an entirely routine investigation. When the acquirer is foreign (even if the seller is also foreign[/i], another routine investigation is done by a different agency. CFIUS approves hundreds of foreign investments every year. Calling this approval clandestine (or the CFIUS a "secretive committee" like the Washington Post does) is like saying that the "secretive" Federal Trade Commission gave it's "clandestine" approval to Maxtor's acquisition of Seagate Technology.

[ImaginalDisc]

Control. As in controlling the airports etc the way the seaports will be controlled.



Take just one, then:

If you will allow a foreign power (whoever it might be) to control your seaports, would you also allow them to control your airports?

Your point is, in general, legitimate, but not in this case. In the case of U.S. ports, and this UAE contract specifically, the contrator *moves cargo* onto and off of vehicles and vessels. Secuirity still rests in the hands of numerous redundant U.S. agencies.

[Ed]

Control. As in controlling the airports etc the way the seaports will be controlled.

That is a tautology. What does "control" mean?



Take just one, then:

If you will allow a foreign power (whoever it might be) to control your seaports, would you also allow them to control your airports?

Sorry, no takers for a Clausathon.

[ImaginalDisc]

it might be) to control your seaports, would you also allow them to control your airports?

"Control your airports" in the same sense that the UAE would "control" the Port of Miami? Sure! It happens every day. They'd have as much "control" over the Port of Miami as Virgin airways has over Miami International Airport. They're a contracted service provider, nothing more.

[Dcdrac]

Get used to it, the French have owned most of the UKs utilites for some time, ironic really because a lot of those French companies are state owned...............so much for privitisation

[CFLarsen]

Your point is, in general, legitimate, but not in this case. In the case of U.S. ports, and this UAE contract specifically, the contrator *moves cargo* onto and off of vehicles and vessels. Secuirity still rests in the hands of numerous redundant U.S. agencies.

So, what's the hubbub, Bub?

That is a tautology. What does "control" mean?

If you can say that Bush has lost it, because he wants to hand over "control" over American seaports to Dubai, you must know what "control" means.

Sorry, no takers for a Clausathon.

You're not getting old, are you? ;)

[Manny]

If you will allow a foreign power (whoever it might be) to control your seaports, would you also allow them to control your airports?It's something of an interesting question on first look, but the analogy quickly breaks down on a second look. Some background:

In the United States (and most other countries), the "gate-keeper" function of seaports is privitized, whereas at airports (again, both in the US and most other countries) that function is controlled by the government. Prior to 9-11, the government controlled the gatekeeper function itself through it's control of the air traffic control system but basically made security the responsibility of the airlines at each airport. Then foreign countries were in fact influential in security at airports with a lot of foreign traffic such as JFK. Following 9-11 the security function was nationalized and the government handles both passenger security and traffic control. However, individual airlines are still responsible for internal security along their own gates, hangars, etc.

It's something of a patchwork, and I think most people find it less secure than the centralized control exercised by port operators. To be fair to the airline side though, they're working at a disadvantage, particularly at international airports. Specifically, the expectation is that almost everything coming into an airport will clear customs in minutes or hours, whereas in a seaport there can be a wait of a day or days for non-perishible cargos. Additionally, port operators can send security and customs agents out to meet incoming ships prior to them reaching the port, an option that is not available to airlines.

[ImaginalDisc]

So, what's the hubbub, Bub?

My only objection to this whole thing is that Bush made this deal in secret, the details of which are classified under Execu-sock privilages. http://ozyandmillie.org/2002/om20020209.gif

[Dcdrac]

Isn't this state interference in free market mechanisms?

[Ed]

So, what's the hubbub, Bub?



If you can say that Bush has lost it, because he wants to hand over "control" over American seaports to Dubai, you must know what "control" means.



You're not getting old, are you? ;)

From my OP:

"For some obscure reason, he dosen't quite see why people might be a tab uneasy with a mid-east country managing our ports."

And a bit later

"My main point was the breathtaking maladroitness of his response and overall handling of this thing.

Like Katrina, he should have seen it coming. The time to handle it, like Katrina, is long before the damn thing hits.

Once again, it appears to me that wishful thinking is the operative phrase in the WH."

I am not certain of all the issues, my point is that this was handeled badly.

[hgc]

Maybe if Bush was somehow involved with running this government, he'd have had a better response. Turns out he didn't know about it until we did.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/11494815/

[Manny]

It's a $6B acquistion. Of one foreign company by another. The President isn't supposed to know about this piddly stuff. I also don't expect him to have personal knowledge of whether the FTC will approve the Boston Scientific/Guidant deal or how the judge will rule on shutting down RIMM, both of which I see as affecting more people (and in RIMM's case affecting national security more) than this deal.

[hgc]

It's a $6B acquistion. Of one foreign company by another. The President isn't supposed to know about this piddly stuff. I also don't expect him to have personal knowledge of whether the FTC will approve the Boston Scientific/Guidant deal or how the judge will rule on shutting down RIMM, both of which I see as affecting more people (and in RIMM's case affecting national security more) than this deal.Except that in this case, the purchasing company is owned by a foreign government, and such things are supposed to go through a 45-day security review, by law. Are you more or less pleased now, knowing that Bush can't even keep track of all the piddly ways his administration breaks the law?

[Ed]

It's a $6B acquistion. Of one foreign company by another. The President isn't supposed to know about this piddly stuff. I also don't expect him to have personal knowledge of whether the FTC will approve the Boston Scientific/Guidant deal or how the judge will rule on shutting down RIMM, both of which I see as affecting more people (and in RIMM's case affecting national security more) than this deal.

Manny, I just cannot get it thru my head that someone, somewhere in the administration did not stop to think that a bunch of guys wearing towels inspecting the operations of one of their companies might not play really well with middle america. Not to queer the deal, understand, just to maybe raise a flag. Like "jimminy Mr. President, looks like a BIG hurricane is coming. Maybe we ought to sorta gin up the old disaster relief stuff NOW".

Wouldn't this possibility have occured to you if you were aware of it?

[CFLarsen]

Aren't we all thinking of the same scenario?

Sail a ship into a seaport. Say, New York.

Let it dock. Nice and easy. Nobody is really paying all that much attention. Just another ship in a long line of ships.

Only thing is, there's a big nuke on board.

Makes one hell of a bigger impact than planes hitting WTC and the Pentagon, hm?

[Jekyll]

Aren't we all thinking of the same scenario?

Sail a ship into a seaport. Say, New York.

Let it dock. Nice and easy. Nobody is really paying all that much attention. Just another ship in a long line of ships.

Only thing is, there's a big nuke on board.

Makes one hell of a bigger impact than planes hitting WTC and the Pentagon, hm?
So the terrorists are saying "Let's buy a port we don't need to own, just so we can blow it up!"?

[Hutch]

Aren't we all thinking of the same scenario?

Sail a ship into a seaport. Say, New York.

Let it dock. Nice and easy. Nobody is really paying all that much attention. Just another ship in a long line of ships.

Only thing is, there's a big nuke on board.

Makes one hell of a bigger impact than planes hitting WTC and the Pentagon, hm?

CFL, that could happen right now, and who is running the Port wouldn't make a damn bit of difference.

I've been to the Port of New Orleans and P&O Offices. Basically they control what ship docks where, what equipment is needed to load/unload the ship, and keeps the dockside/entryways maintained. And BTW, for an English company most all their employees spoke American--as I expect the Dubai folks will..just a different symbol on the hard hat. If more than three Emiraties move to the US I'll be surprised.

And if something like that were to happen, the problem is at the OTHER end..and Dubai ports manage other worldwide ports (at least the ones in Dubai) that I am sure reach US ports and have been doing so for many years.

Once the Port managers have delegated the ships to the docking and assigned equipment/longshoremen to offload, then the shipper is responsible for onward movement, Homeland Security/Customs checks the paperwork/does inspections, and various truck lines move the material. None of which will be controlled or influenced by the Port Managers.

ID, me and manny versus the world. What a triumvate(sic)....

[Ed]

So the terrorists are saying "Let's buy a port we don't need to own, just so we can blow it up!"?

You are looking for a capitalistic rationality among people who really, really think that it is just a jim dandy idea to fly a plane into a building?

[Ed]

CFL, that could happen right now, and who is running the Port wouldn't make a damn bit of difference.

I've been to the Port of New Orleans and P&O Offices. Basically they control what ship docks where, what equipment is needed to load/unload the ship, and keeps the dockside/entryways maintained. And BTW, for an English company most all their employees spoke American--as I expect the Dubai folks will..just a different symbol on the hard hat. If more than three Emiraties move to the US I'll be surprised.

And if something like that were to happen, the problem is at the OTHER end..and Dubai ports manage other worldwide ports (at least the ones in Dubai) that I am sure reach US ports and have been doing so for many years.

Once the Port managers have delegated the ships to the docking and assigned equipment/longshoremen to offload, then the shipper is responsible for onward movement, Homeland Security/Customs checks the paperwork/does inspections, and various truck lines move the material. None of which will be controlled or influenced by the Port Managers.

Id, me and manny versus the world. What a triumvate(sic)....

The question isn't the people on site. The question is how much do the management agents of a port know about security? I would think a whole lot.

[headscratcher4]

For me, the issue isn't terrorism, per se. WHile it all looks bad...I've no expectation from the Administration anyway. I wasn't surprised, I am not overly concerned that a UAE company will be any worse or more viable as a conduit for terrorism than any other company.

No, beyond the Administration's tone-deafness on this (build up the terror senario, accuse anyone who disagrees with you of being tacit or explicit supporters of terrorists, but its ok to let our rich Middle East friends manage our ports...) the real core, it seems to me, is what this company is.

It is a company owned by the (a) ruling family of the UAE. It is, essentially a "government" entitity of a government that is a "family" buisess. The danger isn't terrorism, it is the Sopranos. Letting a Family Business disguised as a Government operate a business that can buy other business on the free market is like letting the Mafia in on the deal.

This isn't fair competition...in the UAE there isn't fair competition if it is a company owned by the ruling family...your either with them, or you don't do business there.

In spite of all of the claims by some that not allowing the deal is somehow racist, we wouldn't (I suspect Bush wouldn't) allow the deal if a company owned by the Chinese military/government were the purchasor. Not only are they a potential enemy, but they aren't indipendent movers. They might try to manage things to the advantage of the Chinese government, even if it means a loss in the business side. Can't we expect the same here? A government run/owned business may have pretentions of indipendence and of capitalist reward, but in the end if the Shiek or Emir wants the busines to support his political/economic/social policies, than they will be willing to sacrifice profit to that end, is my guess.

In short, If we wouldn't let a company owned by a communist state buy the management of our ports -- and I argue that we would not for national security, economic and a host of other issues -- why let this deal go through?

Its really not about racism, it is about national security, and Bush blew it big time.

[Manny]

Wouldn't this possibility have occured to you if you were aware of it?Maybe. Certainly right now it looks like the White House politicos lost a round to Chuck Schumer, which is kind of like losing a game of tic tac toe to the chicken, I admit. But there's a few things.

First, I think the White House really, honestly doesn't see the US at war with Arabs or Muslims or Arab or Muslim countries. We're at war with terrorists and their supporters. And neither the government of the UAE nor Dubai World fits that bill. So mentally I think they saw this as exactly as controversial as if Singapore (the other main bidder for the assets) had won. Arab != terrorists, and they believe it. I think they're honestly astonished that other people think that we are at war with Arabs or Muslims generally. Naive? OK, naive. But on the side of the angels in this case.

Second, the government has been doing a lot of work on port security. And the main emphasis has been on getting the government to peek in on everything. Further, the main parties, from a security standpoint, have been (properly) the shippers, the receivers of cargo and (to a lesser extent) the shippers of cargo on the other side. "Port operators" basically schedule ships in and out and operate the cranes -- they're just not an important part of the security mix except to the extent they're supposed to get out of the way. They don't load or unload containers, nor do they inspect them. Whether the equity owner of a port is an Arab country or its general manager is an Arab guy doesn't have any bearing on whether the longshoreman guarding the warehouse or the ship's master allows access.

Third, this deal has been brewing for three months -- it was October 31 when Dubai World made its bid. November, not a peep. December, not a peep. 90% of January, not a peep. January 28th or so Schumer expresses "concern." Then the pile-on comes two full weeks after the deal is announced as done. Where was the press last week -- if this is really a national security story, where was everyone when Cheney's gun was on the front page?

[Jekyll]

You are looking for a capitalistic rationality among people who really, really think that it is just a jim dandy idea to fly a plane into a building?
I'm looking for a capitalistic rationality from anyone capible of putting together a bid to buy P&O.

Look, this takeover does nothing to compromise security and Clause's scenario would be possible regardless of who owns the port.

If the port management(who probably won't be replaced by bearded muslims, screaming for the death of infidels) are realy capable of controlling what customs do and do not search, it speaks volumes for the ineffectiveness of American border control.

[Manny]

It is a company owned by the (a) ruling family of the UAE. It is, essentially a "government" entitity of a government that is a "family" buisess. The danger isn't terrorism, it is the Sopranos. Letting a Family Business disguised as a Government operate a business that can buy other business on the free market is like letting the Mafia in on the deal.Funny you should mention that. Hutchison Whampoa, which is closely connected to the Chinese government through its majority shareholder Li Ka-shing, was curiously absent from the bidding. ([i]n.b.[/b] Neo-con demigod Richard Perle used to be associated with Hutchison). Probably because the price was too high -- they like to take over assets on the cheap, as when a government is privatizing a formerly state-owned port. I disagree that there would have been objection to Hutchison if they had bid and won, but of course that's speculation as they were never a serious bidder.

The cover bid here was from PSA International, which is also a state-owned company. Singapore, in their case. If they had won, PSA and Hutchison combined would have controlled 90% of the ports in Great Britain, a possible antitrust problem.

[headscratcher4]

Funny you should mention that. Hutchison Whampoa, which is closely connected to the Chinese government through its majority shareholder Li Ka-shing, was curiously absent from the bidding. ([i]n.b.[/b] Neo-con demigod Richard Perle used to be associated with Hutchison). Probably because the price was too high -- they like to take over assets on the cheap, as when a government is privatizing a formerly state-owned port. I disagree that there would have been objection to Hutchison if they had bid and won, but of course that's speculation as they were never a serious bidder.

The cover bid here was from PSA International, which is also a state-owned company. Singapore, in their case. If they had won, PSA and Hutchison combined would have controlled 90% of the ports in Great Britain, a possible antitrust problem.


you don't think that if Hutchinson bid and had won, that we'd now be having this debate in this country about a Chinese govt. controlled/influenced company runny the port?

I vaugely remember all kinds of big stinks back in the Clinton Administration about transfering technology to companies controlled by the Chinese military...I would imagine that the outcry if that were the case here would be as great...

[Regnad Kcin]

...Its really not about racism, it is about national security, and Bush blew it big time.Rest assured, it's only the END OF THE WORLD if a president is the blowee, rather than the blower.