Right on.

"Bush did it, therefore it's bad" shows no more thoughtfulness than "Trust our leader for he is good."

It's just something that's easy to spin into a racist political issue, but there's no meat behind it.

Nope, not missing anything. Just xenophobic hysteria and grandstanding on the part of our political effetes/elites and their media whore pals I too am surpised that for once, Bush makes sense.

Apparently there is some connection between Dubai, Al Qaeda and the financing of 9/11. Go figure. I mean why would that worry people?

Sounds about right to me, although everything I know comes from Lounsbury. My only quibble is that I don't think it's correct to look at this as something "Bush" "did"; it's an agreement between two foreign companies which affects the US and was duly vetted by the Treasury Department officials who do this kind of thing. The White House had nothing to do with it.

It's politics - what was all the "Substantive/factual" fuss over the Swift Boat Vetrans for Truth?

It would give Rove too much credit to say this was a manufactured issue.

But it is a stellar way for the Republicans in Congress to establish their independence from the Bush administration. Plus how seriously they take security.

My guess is that even if they didn't create the issue, they will capitalize on it as such. With Bush's numbers in the tank, they need to distance themselves prior to midterms.

Bush did it, therefore it's bad" shows no more thoughtfulness than "Trust our leader for he is good."

In absence of substantive information on what criteria were used to give this contract, one can only go on past history. As a result it immediately becomes more logical to assume that it is "bad" because Bush did it.

Simple probability, statistics and estimation theory.

Lib: You've got a fair point there....

Reef: I dunno. The al-Qaeda financing stuff doesn't seem to amount to much. But I'm certainly open to hearing more about it.

In the 90s the Chinese Cosco company tried to gain control of some abandoned shipyard at Long Beach and the Republicans absolutely plotzed.

I'll be interested to hear what the usual trolls on this blog have to say about this. I think it confuses them.

The Brits think the Americans are overreacting. We get on P&O ferries to go to France and Ireland; if they're going to be infiltrated by terrorists we're in serious trouble here too.

Well the 9/11 commission report says UAE has "finanacial and operational ties" to Al Qaeda and the successful 9/11 plot. The UAE government owns the company, right? Not to mention Dubai is confirmed as an access point for nuclear weapons materials sent to north Korea and pakistan among others.

Do you seriously not see why this is a BIG deal? Bush has based his presidency on protecting us from terrorists yada yada.

If Dubai Ports hadn't purchased them, PSA International of Singapore would have acquired them instead.
-Kevin Drum

Yeah, and Singapore sent troops to Iraq!
Way more reliable!

Note that PSA is probably already helping with your military supply chain in Singapore. Its pretty reliable.

I actually got to walk on the deck of a carrier pre-9-11. A seaman complained about being bored, lots of nintendo and cards.

Apparently there is some connection between Dubai, Al Qaeda and the financing of 9/11.

If so, then how come we never invaded Dubai? If we suspect them of financing Al Qaeda, then is it enough to just keep them from running our ports?

And what should we do to the country that provided pilot training to the 9/11 hijackers?

Substantively? Who cares. He who lives by paranoid xenophobia dies by paranoid xenophobia. I see no need to protect the Bush Clique from the wrath of its own base -- built on hatred that it has spent years fanning with its attempts to blur the line between al-Qaeda and Arabs and Muslims more generally as part of the sales effort on Iraq (how many Bush supporters have you heard say Iraq was necessary because "they" attacked us on 9/11? What do you think "they" means?)

i think it has to do with fear of a brown planet, mostly.

also, many kevin's points are valid. however, i'm more content just to sit back and lazily watch this curling match play out.

If so, then how come we never invaded Dubai?

The same reason we never invaded Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, who had (and have, for Pakistan and al-Qaeda, particularly) even bigger connections to the Taliban and al-Qaeda.

Because, except for Afghanistan because they felt they couldn't get away with not doing it, we don't invade people because they actually had anything to do with 9/11, we invade them because their on the Leninist Neoconservative Hitlist. Starting with Iraq.

It was selected as a target before 9/11, and it was attacked for reasons that had nothing to do with supporting al-Qaeda. Pakistan had close ties to al-Qaeda, has nuclear weapons, was shopping nuclear technology to every two-bit dictator on the planet, and is now a major US non-NATO ally.

None of the overt justifications for US war under Bush are substantively true.

I think it is a big deal, but not necessarily for the reasons being bandied about on talk radio. At one level this is a replay of the early 1970s when the Japanese were buying up Rockefeller Center etc. We run these huge trade deficits and then wonder at the predictable result. I will probably be writing about this later in the week.

"Am I missing something? Substantively, that is, not politically."

Yes, you're missing the fact that the substance doesn't matter. Politically this is a knife that Bush has obligingly placed in our hands, and we'd be fools not to use it (cue the Democratic leadership....). Bush has spent the past five years "catapulting the propaganda" that Arabs are filthy terrorists who all want to destroy America, and now he wants to place our ports in their hands? Let him try explaining the substance to his rabid base -- why should we do the work for him? Why on earth are you trying to find an excuse for him?

And what should we do to the country that provided pilot training to the 9/11 hijackers?

Posted by: JS on February 22, 2006 at 1:59 AM | PERMALINK

Ran it into debt, and caused it to lose control of its borders so far. But you've always done that.

Maybe you Liberals can count re-electing Bush as retaliation against yourselves since you hate him so much.

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

Kevin, if you want a solid argument.

I would presume the process used to clear the sale before the tender would have taken into account subsequent sale to a different foreign owner, and been rigged to be safe regardless of the actual owner of the company.

The nature of the actual people doing the work would be more significant than ownership.

Heck, if you don't like it, give it to Singapore. Or failing that, give it to Haliburton. Cheney needs a new shotgun, yeehah!

Three chears for Drum. He's right, whereas most liberals have shown themselves to be hypocritical (what happened to "no racial profiling"?) and to not understand the issue at all (UAE isn't staffing ports with a bunch of terrorist operatives, they'll be American union members). Opposing the UAE purchase makes liberals look both dumb and unprincipled, which is funny since that's how they view everyone else.

And in the end, this will be a winning issue for Republicans. Don't think for second Rove didn't have a media strategy planned for this move. McCain has lined up behind Bush, and the MSM will fall in behind McCain. And they'll love how it makes Dems look like hypocrites.

The substance of it is kind of immaterial. As a 20 second sound bite, it looks bad. And it feeds off of the xenophobia Rove et al have worked so hard to nurture.

Remember that the GOP has done everything they could to drag down the level of political discourse, using oversimplified phrasing and appeals to ignorance, fear and suspicion of anyone who can be defined as "other," particularly if they are from the middle east.

Time for them to reap what they've sown.

Anyway, I'm far from convinced there aren't real security issues here.

Politically this is a knife that Bush has obligingly placed in our hands, and we'd be fools not to use it (cue the Democratic leadership....).

We'd be fools to use it, but we'd bigger fools to stand between the elements of Bush's base that are using it and Bush himself.

There's no reason for Democrats to get much involved in this, beyond supporting, perhaps, investigation into the process, etc. Let the wingnut base denouce Bush -- its about the only support he has left.

Port security is the real issue. Dubai Ports is the race card / congressional independence issue that Republican politicians have decided to capitalize on. Democratic politicians are using it to posture about port security. It's not all bad if it leads to a greater public awareness of real security issues.

It wouldn't surprise me if this turns into an orchestrated dance. Republican politicians don't want the administration to give in too easily. They want to get in a few "movie punches" first.

BTW, it's a cop out to say security is in the hands of the coast guard and customs. At best they inspect 5% of freight. The practices of private companies here and abroad matter.

Three chears for Drum. He's right, whereas most liberals have shown themselves to be hypocritical (what happened to "no racial profiling"?) and to not understand the issue at all (UAE isn't staffing ports with a bunch of terrorist operatives, they'll be American union members).

And American union members can't also be terrorist operatives, and corporate headquarters policies have no effect whatsoever on how work gets done, right?

One distinction is that the British company is a private firm, while Dubai Ports is state-owned. Another is that much of our armaments/munitions to go overseas is shipped through ports Dubai/UAE would be managing; what if they suddenly took a dislike to another Bush invasion? Could they just refuse to let the stuff out? (Not to say that might always be a bad idea; let your imagination go. What if Tony Blair had refused to go along with Iraq?)

McCain has lined up behind Bush, and the MSM will fall in behind McCain. And they'll love how it makes Dems look like hypocrites.

Posted by: Tom on February 22, 2006 at 2:11 AM | PERMALINK

If this sucks, imagine how you'll feel when Cheney resigns to give him the nomination.

When you run attack ads, they'll say "He's so moderate, he got offered the vice-presidency by Kerry! that's how far left the angry Democrats have got...."

Then he'll take power and use his former POW status to deflect all accusation of brutal torture.....

Rove planned all of this years ago. The Bush - McCain rivalry was all faked. You have no choice but to migrate too Canada...oops, too late.

nother is that much of our armaments/munitions to go overseas is shipped through ports Dubai/UAE would be managing; what if they suddenly took a dislike to another Bush invasion? Could they just refuse to let the stuff out?

They could, though that would be over-the-top -- or they could engineer a crisis with labor which conveniently cripples the ports. Or they could instituted "cost saving" policy changes that negatively impact efficiency in selected areas.

The latter could even, if cleverly planned, be pulled off by a small clique without being official policy.

And American union members can't also be
terrorist operatives

The point is that practices won't be essentially different than they are now. If this is a big security issue, where was the big Dem proposal to take the ports out of union hands and into some TSA-like organization? Oh wait...there would never be one because union members are favored citizens to the Democrats. The Dems are both hypocritical and spineless. Maybe you can say they don't represent you, in which you case feel free to point out all the work you've personally done to secure the ports.

Kevin, you're right - the politics is the worst of the stink. But smell is caused by something, and the culprit here is the administration.

In the 'post 911 reality' we are beaten with daily, terrorism is the world's great evil. It's presence allows pre-emptive war, rendition, torture, executive privalege, wiretapping, datamining and watchlists. We are told this struggle has changed our lives and requires the reduction of our liberties.

If all this is true, then even the whiff of the percieved impropriety from a deal like this should have laughed it out of the board room.

Instead, Bush warns that congessional blockage of this deal is where he may use that first veto.

This single decision directly exposes the hypocracy of those that push our fear button incessantly.

This is important.

Buzz kill, Kevin! Couldn't you have like, kept quiet and focused on the politics. Man, we are fighting for our country here, attempting to take it back from the plutocrats. Don't douse the red hot poker. Shove it up their bums, for chrissakes.

I think it is a big deal, but not necessarily for the reasons being bandied about on talk radio.

Depends on the talk radio. Rush, for one, seems a bit puzzled as to what all the fuss is about.

I suspect from the hard-over administration defense on this that there is some underlying diplomatic factor behind it. Some reason we need to be particularly nice to the UAE right now. Any speculation?

This blogger makes a good point:

On the other hand, I think Bush has a point when he says we aren't doing ourselves (or anybody else) any favors by taking a "no Arabs need apply" position on doing business. That's a bad way to make friends--and enemies. Whether or not you buy the line 'we are not at war with Islam,' we are not at war with every Arab on the planet. We really are trying to win people over in that part of the world. Throwing what appears to be a normal business transaction back in the faces of a decent ally is not going to help our cause.

I agree that whoever manages the ports, we need to push security harder than we have been.

Incidentally, those who are going to play the "race card" on this issue, on either side, are idiots.

The problem isn't that the company is foreign, it's that it's owned by a foreign government that was one of three in the world to recognize the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan, and served as banker to Al Qaeda. There's substance to this.

Thanks cmdicely for the substantive answer, though the question was tongue-in-cheek, as the next one should have made clear. I'll have to work on my sarcasm.

BTW, teofilo makes a good point earlier. This isn't exactly something Bush "did." What he is doing is trying to prevent the Congress from squashing a private transaction for what some in Congress see as a legitimate security issue.

I would not be averse to seeing it debated if the usual suspects on both sides of the aisle could somehow avoid making it into another partisan dog-and-pony show.

Hey, I was just going to do some posts as Fake McA, but somebody beat me to it.

Hint to Fake McA: you have to write less grammatically to be believable.

Look at it this way. Next time something happens. Your lawyers have assets to freeze and use to pay off the lawsuits.

You have to look at details more carefully to assess this.

Does the deal allow them to change management?
Some deals can restrict that.

Other thing to look at is the restrictions on use of foreign labour?

By the way, if you are all anti-Arab nowadays, why do you let Democrats buy political advice from Mr. Zogby. He's of Arab descent y'know.

Are Chinese descent, nuclear scientists the only people you pick on? At last check, they already had the bomb.

The problem isn't that the company is foreign,
it's that it's owned by a foreign government
that was one of three in the world to
recognize the Taliban as the legitimate
government of
Afghanistan, and served as banker to Al Qaeda.
There's substance to this.

Oh please. You'd be bent out of shape over any predominantly Muslim country operating ports. Don't try and say it's cause it's the UAE in particular.

And think about the situation. You really think UAE will help terrorists to infiltrate the US? It's probably even less likely under them than it would be under the Brits.

LOL! Mercury 7, is that you?

If this is a big security issue, where was the big Dem proposal to take the ports out of union hands and into some TSA-like organization?

What the hell do unions have to do with anything? Shut up.

Are Chinese descent, nuclear scientists the only people you pick on?

No, you freak; they're the people the Republicans pick on. That was a GOP-led scandal.

What the hell do unions have to do with anything? Shut up.

Posted by: brooksfoe on February 22, 2006 at 2:33 AM | PERMALINK

Unions are actually Arab owned. Really. Lets ban them.

:)

..Depends on the talk radio. Rush, for one, seems a bit puzzled as to what all the fuss is about.

So finally the secret is revealed. Flanders gets his talking points from Mr. Oxycontin.

"Man, we are fighting for our country here, attempting to take it back from the plutocrats."

Well, some of us are, but Kevin's gunning to be known and accepted in the more genteel society of national journalism.

Such as it is....

even Rey Suarez moved up into the corporate shill class... what a bummer that was!

What the hell do unions have to do with
anything? Shut up

Nice O'Reilly impression. This is like a bizarro-blog where liberal posters decry the opportunity for swarthy foreigners to run a business and use Fox news style debating tactics.

As for unions, most of material at ports is handled by unionized workers, while little is inspected by cutoms agents. Changing that work to some government-run security agency would put a bunch of union members out of work.

Cultists see nothing wrong with this.

I assume that their reaction would be ths same if President Hillary Clinton handed over the conduct and oversight of the National Health Service to the Government of India.

Here's the compromise solution. Move the work to a domestic company like Haliburton to satisfy the Dem objections, and ban unions to get support from the Republicans!

McCain's next bipartisan compromise!

It wouldn't be a big deal if it were a British company ... BUT DPW IS OWNED BY UAE! Kevin, I normally side with your moderation, but don't go all Lieberman on us!

Recall that CNOOC's bid for Unocal was also seen as a national security issue, though 27% of its proven oil reserves and 73% of its gas reserves were in Asia. How did a Chinese oil company threaten national security but a port operator is being portrayed as a non-security issue. Also recall that Lenovo's take-over of IBM went ahead as did TCL's bid for RCA and same with the Haier Group's bid for Maytag.

The unique security threat that a UAE purchase would create would be in the mid to upper management ranks creating personnel turnover upon the sale of the company and UAE executives with Islamist sympathies or family in the ME susceptable to influence being used to advance the operation of some terrorist plot or to provide in-depth intelligence on port operations. None of this would necessarily reflect on the ownership level but it would certainly be a concern at the management level and such a concern wouldn't be as immediate if the management personnel were being drawn from Singapore, for instance.

That's all that I can come up with on a cursory examination.

brooksfoe: What the hell do unions have to do with anything?

From the Bitburg thread, today's op/ed in The Atlanta Journal-Constitution on the UAE and U.S. seaports written by Georgia conservative Bob Barr concludes: [Emphasis added]: "If these guys were serious about improving the integrity of and security at U.S. ports, a little housecleaning by a company not beholden to the unions and the status quo might be just what the doctor ordered." Maybe an R-counter-strategery perking up. Corruption and unions and all that. Union workers usually favor Dems, right?

Yeah! Sell it to Singapore. But give 'em a good price.

But ban the unions. They've paid for political advice from Mr. Zogby, Arab American international man of mystery!!!!! :o

The point is that practices won't be essentially different than they are now.

How do you know what practices will be?

but I can't help but think that Bush may be right about the whole thing

Exactly so. The opponents will eventually be revelaed to be mostly motivated by unthinking anti-Arabism, anti-Islamism, or parochial political/commercial interests. Bush will come out looking better than his critics, and the Republicans and Democrats alike looking thoughtless and hysterical.

Instead, Bush warns that congessional blockage of this deal is where he may use that first veto.

Bush says everything is where he may use his first veto, and but, even when Congress gives him essentially what he threatened to veto, doesn't follow through.

Why should any of our ports be run by foreign controlled companies? I dont get it. This blog is one of the homes of big stick security dems and you want to bend over and go all soft for this free-enterprise-over-security schtick!! Lieberman, Lieberman, where for art thou Lieberman?

One of the problems for me and my wife is that we didn't know any ports were being run foreign owned companies. That by itself is a shock. Now you're telling us it's a benign fact that one of those companies is actually owned by UAE, a wacko coalition of Wahabi royalists?

What losers. Equating unions with terrrorists. Hankering for the 60 hour work week and the 10 year-old workforce with charity health care. Oh yeah - the good old days.

substance, kevin, you want SUBSTANCE?

that's easy.

this whole dustup uncovers the previously un-dealt-with larger question..

WHY ARE OUR PORTS OWNED BY OTHER GOVERNMENTS?

what's UP with this crap? how long has it been going on? how does this benefit our country in any way?

and why is bush the (failed) oil tycoon (remember, condoleeza had a TANKER NAMED AFTER HER) handing the ports over to a bunch of OIL TYCOONS?

DON'T get me started on this crap. it has NOTHING to do with anti-arab racism.

it's the OIL, stupid. ("stupid" joke alert; no personal insult intended...)

-neal in long beach

"Substantively, that is, not politically."

Boy, that's a telling sentence, isn't it?

I don't care if I'm peddling arrant bullshit - as long as it dupes the rubes and gets my side a few more votes, I'll run with it.

Disgraceful.

If objections to the port deal are grounded in a
"Bush did it, therefore it's bad" mentality then why are leading Republicans like Frist and Hastert doing
the unthinkable...joining forces with Democrats to scuttle the proposal? Indeed, the entire fabric of the Republican party appears to be unraveling over this matter. How come? Why has this controversy accomplished what no other has: the mangling of Republican solidarity?

1. Corporate ownership of critical infrastructure seems to me to be a bad idea in general. For example roads, bridges, and etc.

2. Foreign corporate ownership of that infrastructure seems to me to be a worse idea, specifically when it comes to accountability, accessibility, transparency, and etc.

3. Ownership by foreign state-owned corporations seems to be even worse (for example the recent CNOOC attempt to buy Unocal).

4. Ownership by foreign, state-owned corporations controlled by a government with deep ties to Wahabbist Saudi Arabia, that qualifies as a pretty insane oligarchy (I've been there, and it is weird), that recognized the Taliban, that at the least turned a blind eye to Al Qaeda financing operations, logistics, and personnel operations in their country...and may have deeper ties to either that organization or its sponsors (back to the Wahabbist issue)...seems spectacularly stupid.

It seems to me that for a bunch of chest beating, centrist "liberal hawks" to now side with President Bush on an issue that is tailor made for you centrist Hawks to bash BOTH the GOP and the liberal left with...is kinda funny.

Makes me think that you talk a lot about opposing Bush, but you really don't know WHY you oppose him, you can't seem to articulate any of the reasons, logic, rational basis, or historical reasons WHY Bush's policies are so insanely stupid...and so on.

Pathetic, really.

On the other hand, if them A-rabs is running the Port of Elizabeth, NJ, maybe they's less likely to nuke it?

Dang. Maybe we shoulda done sold the World Trade Center to tha A-rabs.

Kevin:

Look. This is another of your attempts to play a role of contrarian wizardry. Grasp the wand and pronounce the politics as nothing more than pixie dust. All we have to do is quiet our emotions and the enlightenment will be seen in it's clearest form.

What has happened Kevin is the American electorate has now been informed that our ports are for sale to the highest bidder. They now see that money, (not our security, not our common interest,not the war on terror) is what drives the Bush Adminstration's decisions. That is not a question of ethnic race card flipping... it is central to the concerns of most Americans. Bush failed to take that into consideration.

He should be held accountable for it. The Republicans in office are livid at Bush's political tone deafness. He is a lame duck, however those who are looking at getting reelected have the most to lose for Bush's stupid stance on this issue.

Why the hell do you care about substance, in this case Kevin, when it is such a winner politically, but refuse to focus on substance in the Franklin/AIPAC case, in favor of political pragmatism?

I don't get it.

I'd feel sorry for Bush on this one had he done anything to improve port security over the past five years.

What I don't understand is why UAE/arab state owned companies are suddenly a problem now.

I mean, lots of people are scared of a UAE company running the commercial side of some ports. What on earth do they think of Emirates (the UAE state airline) flying 747s in and out of New York and Washington? What about Saudi airlines?

If muslim port companies are a risk of terrorist infiltration then why aren't muslim airlines a risk for a second WTC type attack? Why aren't we banning muslim oil tankers/container ships from our waters in case terrorists get into the companies and turn the ships into colossal floating bombs?

There's definitely something strange going on here.

Kevin, thanks for getting it!

Now, back to Rummy and his continual shadiness...

You said it yourself Kevin Drum. We've already got fucked up port security.

This is just what opened our eyes. I sure didn't know that China or other countries managed terminals on our coasts. I would have objected to that out of hand. Who handles airline security? The federal government. Why shouldn't they handle port security as well? Just because Bush is there now doesn't mean that competent administration wouldn't be able to make it work. We just didn't KNOW because no one told us.

Thats the substance. Don't be dense.

"Facing objections from both parties, Bush took the unusual step of summoning reporters to the front of Air Force One to condemn efforts to block a firm from the United Arab Emirates from buying rights to manage ports from New York to New Orleans." -
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/02/22/bush_stands_by_shipping_pact_with_emirates_firm/

Rovolio! Convoke the serf-heralds, forthwith! Ah, there they be. It has been made known to Us that Several amongst our Subjects do question the Propitiety of our Gift of the Ports to our Favorittes, the Emirs of Araby. Most foul Calumny! Is not the Word of your Sovereign reassurance enough? By what immoderate Conceit do you magnify your Station, that you would seek to Chastize the Crown? What boots it you, 'pon whom our Favor falls? Was it to you that Heaven the sword of freedom did bequeath? Now get the hell back to economy class where you belong, peons.

Tim: Your analogy is misleading. Using the airport and running the airport are two separate issues.

Here's what's wrong, per The Cunning Realist:

http://tinyurl.com/o3asv

And, what the hell, I'm gonna give y'all the punchline:

"But here's what really stinks. The deal for the port takeover was cleared by the U.S. Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS). This group meets in secret and is headed by Treasury Secretary John Snow. As I noted in a previous post, DP World purchased part of the U.S. company CSX for over $1 billion in 2004. Before he became Treasury Secretary, John Snow was Chairman and CEO of CSX. While he had left CSX by the time that deal closed, there is no way Snow should have presided over secret deliberations about any DP World transaction---much less one that involves national security. It's beyond belief that he did not recuse himself from this transaction given the sensitivity of the issues involved."

Again, the whole post:

http://tinyurl.com/o3asv

(And if you don't know TCR's blog, you should give it a look.)

"Tuesday was an apocalyptic day in Iraq. I am not normally exactly sanguine about the situation there. But the atmospherics are very, very bad..."

That's Juan Cole. Here's the whole post:

http://tinyurl.com/p92n5

Poncho and Lefty: It's not an analogy with using the airport. If UAE companies are a threat in terms of getting goods/terrorists through a port then they are a threat in terms of getting terrorists into a legitimate pilot seat on an Emirates aircraft. Or putting a few tonnes of explosives onto a container ship/tanker.

Who is to say that Al Qaeda aren't trying to recruit current Emirates pilots to take a short detour on their return flight out of NYC? Why is that different from trying to recruit middle managers at Dubai World Ports? Or getting their own guys into the company and working their way into crucial positions.

MN Pundit: port security will still be handled by US Customs and Border Patrol (part of Homeland Security), just as it is at the airport. To use the airport analogy - these are the guys staffing the check-in desk and the offices, not the metal detector or the computers that tell the check-in staff who can and cannot fly.

what is wrong with you kevin...are you living in a time warp? name one thing of substance that has mattered one iota the past 5 years? its been traitor karls' magic kingdom of all politics, all the time to the extent that truth no longer exists, only image.

Am I missing something? Substantively, that is, not politically.

—Kevin Drum

Substance doesn't matter, moron. Have you learned no lessons in the last 6 years?

They were frothing at Little Green Fuckballs against the UAE port deal. Whew!

Yesterday evening, CNN's Lou Dobbs, who regularly beats the drum against exporting American jobs and outsourcing, hosted two geopolitical wonks -- Frank Gaffney and Gordon Chang.

Gaffney, prez for the Center for Security Policy and author of "War Footing: 10 Steps America Must Take to Prevail in the War for the Free World," wrote about the UAE deal a few days ago on Townhall.com calling it, A Harriet Miers moment. Chang is author of "Nuclear Showdown: North Korea Takes on the World."

From the CNN transcript:

DOBBS: Well let's not be oblique about it. But the fact is that two terrorist from 9/11 originated from the United Arab Emirates. Funding for the terrorists originated, much of it, from the United Arab Emirates. It -- the United Arab Emirates was a focal point in the transfer of nuclear technology from Pakistan to Iran and North Korea. I mean, that much, it's incontrovertible.

GAFFNEY: Yes, and when you think that this company will have the opportunity to in place personnel, it will have oversight of the cargo coming into these ports -- and by the way it's eight ports now including two that they will be operation for the United States Army.

And then you have the fact that they will be read in on the security plans for these facilities. It's just mind-boggling, as has been said. I think the best that you can say is it's sort of an attractive nuisance, like a swimming pool without a fence around it. You're inviting terrorists to take advantage of these opportunities at our great expense, I'm afraid.

DOBBS: Gordon, an attractive nuisance. I see it as frankly an outrage against the national interest of the United States and I won't sugar coat that at all. How do you see it?

CHANG: Well absolutely the same way. I mean, when we look at what's going on, especially after 9/11, we just don't have any more excuses for saying, "This might not happen."

You know, we talk about nuclear terrorism, most people think about a nuclear bomb in a container. There are 50,000 containers that come into this country every day, most of them through the ports. I mean, why do you need a ballistic missile when you can put a bomb in a box, which sits on top of a deck, which sails right into the United States?

DOBBS: Frank Gaffney, I know that you want to find the best in this. But can you see any reason on earth: political, geopolitical, in terms of the national interest, national security. Is there any reason in the world for this deal to go forward?

GAFFNEY: I don't see any. Lou, I think we have enough of a problem. Any Homeland Security expert can tell you, we have enough of a problem with securing the ports today. Making it worse is simply irresponsible. I hope the president will find a way to back away from this. He was set up by his inner agency process. It shouldn't happen again.

DOBBS: He was set up by the inner agency process that one might stipulate to that, gentlemen. But the fact is, the president tonight, after that process, said he will veto. It would be -- should he do it, the first veto in five years of office -- veto legislation to stop this deal.

What possibly could be the investment on the part of this president in a deal in which the leadership of both houses of Congress and our elected officials on both sides of the aisle, Democrats and Republicans say, it's utter madness?

GAFFNEY: It won't happen, Lou. This is a case I think where his veto will be overridden. And there's no point in the president expending the political capital to do that. More to the point, he doesn't need to be giving his critics, his opponents, the political cover of being able to say, "They're better on national security than he is." This is a loser all the way around, most especially for the national security.

DOBBS: Well, on this issue, it doesn't seem to me, and I'm going to give you the last quick word if I may, Gordon. It doesn't seem to me anyone can be possibly worse than this administration on this issue.

CHANG: Well certainly not. I mean, the ports are just absolutely critical.

The Boy Emperor Clown Criminal is being WAY to stubborn about this deal, even with a lot of Congressional Republican opposition. Smells like Bushie family money may be at stake here. Wouldn't surprise me that Poppy Bush has business interests in Dubai.
.

DUBAI PORTS WORLD IS OWNED BY THE GOVT OF UAE. P&O IS NOT OWNED BY THE BRITISH GOVT. BIG DIFFERENCE. Sorry for the caps but this is fucking obvious.

About the "UAE funded and hosted al Qaeda" ideas.

al Qaeda transferred money through many banks in may countries (such as the US and Germany - and the UAE). Before 9/11 there were lax banking rules and oversight here. Now there isn't. Now, to open a bank account or deposit any money you have to swear that the money is of legit origin, and show some sort of proof.

Secondly, after 9/11 the UAE cleaned house of any and all fundie imams, and shut down all the radical mosques. They now watch the mosques like hawks (taping all the sermons, and so on.) Secret police hang out in markets, malls, coffee shops and schools (including the one I work in), keeping an ear to the ground for radical talk and actions. Trust me, this country is at much greater risk than the US from al Qaeda, and they have done much more to protect themselves (and, by extension, the rest of the world).

The notion that any member of the business and political elite in Dubai or Abu Dhabi will suddenly become an al Qaeda stooge makes as much sense as saying that Rick santorum will cross the floor and sit for the Dems. It's absurd on its face. This is not Saudi Arabia. In fact, the local tribes kicked out the wahhabis in the 1850s and rebuffed an attempted Saudi annexation in 1955.

The local government was not actively complicit in the money transfers or planning, in the same way the Helmut Kohl was not complicit in the "Hamburg Cell" and Jeb Bush wasn't complicit in the flight training. This is a relatively free country in terms of personal movement and entry/exit, (like the US, and unlike Saudi, we do not need internal passports or permission to leave, and tourist visas are easy to come by) and al Qaeda took advantage of that. al Qaeda used the UAE as a physical and financial transit point, the same way they used many other countries. There was and is no connection between the UAE government and al Qaeda.

BTW, the UAE has peace-keeping forces in Afghanistan. The UAE buys military hardware and donates it to the new Iraqi army. The UAE brings Iraqi brigades down here for training, on their own dime. The UAE hosts US U-2 spyplanes that spy on Iran and Pakistan from very close by. Jebel Ali Port in Dubai is the most visited foreign port in the world for the US Navy. Avast proportion of the upper management of this country (including business, health, education and military) is run by US/Canada/UK expats, and many US institutions have massive presences here. The UAE is about as hostile to the US as Canada is.

Why might Bush threaten to veto (his first BTW) any bill that would stop this deal? Oh, maybe this ...

SOLD!

To the highest bidder!

It's the Republican Way!

On the question of Arab ownership/management, I think Bush is right, but the whole issue of his neglect of port security issues has been opened up. This is going to play very badly in the Muslim world.

A couple of somewhat disconnected comments.

Terminal 4 at JFK airport in New York is owned and managed by a Dutch firm--the same company that runs Schiphol airport in Amsterdam. The Port Authority police, TSA, customs, and the INS are in charge of security.

I'm not sure that the concerns about the U.A.E. deal are necessarily racist. Xenophobic maybe. Imagine how many on the right would respond if a French state-owned company had bought the ports contract. Or a Russian state-owned company.

I think the public perception is that our airports are now relatively secure. But there has been much discussion about how porous our port security is. My sense is that the Coast Guard can barely keep up with drug smuggling, much less dangerous cargo. Allowing port management to belong to any foreign company, especially an Arab one, is politically problematic regardless of the reliability of the company.

The answer to your question is yes, we would be safer if the ports were operated out of Singapore instead of the United Arab Emirates.

"Tone deaf?"

Go look in a mirror, Kevin.

> Substantively, that is, not politically.

Since September 12th, 2001 Scott McClellen has answered every question asked of him and his master with "unlike the traitorious liberals who have forgotten 9/11, this administration understands the need for strong security".

Now we have a situation involving security, and Kevin wants to know what the "substantative" issues are? And give the Bush Administration the benefit of the doubt? When was the last time the W Administration engaged a substantative issue? Kevin?

I start to think that you and Whittman really would sell the Radicals not only the rope, but the crossbeams and nails to build the gallows they will hang you on.

Cranky

A far more apt comparison would be to Jimmy Carter giving the Panama Canal back to the Panamanians, who have wasted no time handing it over to the Chinese.

Subsequent to Panama's approval in the referendum of October 23rd 1977, in early 1978 President Carter sent the treaties to the Senate for its advice and consent. Thus began one of the most controversial debates in the upper chamber of the US Congress, eliciting strong reactions from conservative sectors which, in the immediate aftermath of Vietnam, saw treaty approval as the equivalent to giving away US property to the enemies of the United States. These were met by inspired argumentation focusing on notions of fairness deeply imbedded in the tradition of the US founding.

So, in effect, Bush has forever linked himself to President Carter--who, of course, backs the deal. President Bush...President Carter...same dude if you ask me. They even have the same haircut. Perhaps President Bush has a significant decency deficit where President Carter is a bit dithering and ineffective. Both seem to think that it is perfectly okay to give away the farm in an effort to appease dictators and thugs.

And were he alive today, Ronald Reagan wouldn't recognize either one of them as legitimately defending American interests or the American way.

There's no race card to be played here--this is bad policy. Too many reasonable people from both sides of the spectrum think handing the management of six US ports of entry to a company that may or may not have the best interests of the US at heart is not a good idea.

Uh...especially in an election year.

Yes, I would suggest you are missing something. Here is background info about the family that will be involved with US port security. And make no mistake about they will be involved with port security. It will impossible not to.

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/entity.jsp?id=1521846767-531

There is a world of difference between a foreign-owned company controlling our ports, and a foreign government-owned company controlling them. That is what makes this such a disastrously bad idea, with or without the war on terror.

The deal includes ports that are responsible for 40% of our military cargo. Is that something we want a foreign nation, one from the most unstable area of the world no less, to play a role in?

I think the main concern is that while P&O is just a normal corporation incorporated in Britain, Dubai Ports World is actualy run by the UAE government - its not a private corporation. And since the UAE government supports terrorism, DPW supports terrorism. I think the only substantive problem is that now that DPW owns the port facilities, they could fire all the americans and replace them with terrorists. Sort of far fetched though.

Kevin, I generally agree with what you said - this story will die soon. Good luck with Jeopardy!

If this really is no big thing, then having a more transparent review in Congress shouldn't be a big thing, either. So why all the pissing and moaning from Bush? If it's a good deal, it's a good deal, and it will stand up to public scrutiny.

Follow the money. I suspect that the big time lobbyists who worked in the Nixon, Ford and Reagan administrations, who have cashed in enormously in connecting Saudi oil money with western corporations, are raking in the dough somehow on this deal. Without going to the trouble of actually documenting this suspicion, these same people figured heavily in bringing GWB to the presidency.

One very ironic point to be made is that we don't want them managing our ports but we'll buy the shit out of their oil that is financing deals like this.

Just another little diversion on the road to global collapse.

I agree. It's a controversy so that right wingers can distance themselves from Bush for the 06 elections.

The deal includes ports that are responsible for 40% of our military cargo. Is that something we want a foreign nation, one from the most unstable area of the world no less, to play a role in?

This is a very good point, Alex, and it speaks to the issue of how this administration handles military affairs, planning and logistics.

What with the war in Iraq--which today took a giant step forward towards all-out civil war today with the bombing of the holy shrine--and other considerations, the lack of planning has left our military vulnerable to having to use more and more civilian facilities for movement and these same facilities are less and less secure. Where is the outrage from the Pentagon over this deal? Oh, that's right--more silence. Well, can't blame them for wanting to have a career.

This administration handles military logistics like they handle a hot potato--they shriek like a terrified idiot and throw it out the window. They simply cannot be trusted to defend America.

And that is the bottom line--they will sell out their own country for a dollar and they cannot be trusted to defend America. What has greased the wheels to make this deal happen? Money from lobbying groups and interest groups. I don't care if it is a Republican or a Democrat who has taken money from these people, it's wrong either way and it should be condemned as an affront to decency and common sense.

And that really is the next 'meme' you'll start to see in the next few days--BOTH parties will get hush money from the lobbying group that backs this port deal to try to grease the skids and send the deal flying through Congress.

People with common sense have to throw sand in the grease and stop this deal.

Kevin needs to get over his inclination to bend over backwards to make sure he's being fair to Bush.

I think port security should be a government function. If it's to be outsourced, it should be outsourced to a US firm that is well vetted.

But of all countries to put in charge of port operations, UAE would be pretty low on my list.

I can't point to specific plots, would-be terrorists, or anything else. But the chances of something going wrong seem greater when the company is owned by an Arab state that is an outpost for Muslim extremist groups and nuke-shipping to rogue states. For me, that's good enough to block the deal.

I wouldn't hire a babysitter who had the slightest whiff of a connection to kiddy porn. I wouldn't hire security for our most vulnerable and dangerous entry sites that has the slightest connection to terrorism.

What's so hard about this?

Is it racist/xenophobic to decry our "reliance on foreign oil"?

here's the rub: what have we hard from those people for nearly five years? "9/11 changed everything."

okay, granted, uae ownership of a port managment co. should not be a big deal. however, since "9/11 c e" wouldn't it be a good idea to have done extra due dilligence to prepare for this and NOT fast track the approval process?

that way bushco. could reasonably say 'our friends in the emerates are with us fighting the gwot. they are important allies in the arab world, etc etc etc.'

but instead of moving the debate in a positive way, those tone deaf, reality-creating ding dongs have rushed in without thinking again.

"...The Brits..."

Don't you mean "the Great British?"

1) The ports are being sold to a GOVERNMENT, not a "company". Would you want Tony Blair or Jacques Chirac in charge of our ports? Didn't think so. And they wouldn't want Bush in charge of their ports, either -- and rightly so.

2) This government is friends with the Taliban. You remember them -- Osama's best buds?

"...The Brits..."

Don't you mean "the Great British?"

What Tom said at 8:08.

I guess this means The Bin Laden Construction group will be invited to help "rebuild" Iraq?

Hell, maybe they could put NOLA back together again.

NPR is basically raising the same points as Drum et al. This, of course, shows one enormous difference between 'left' and 'right' - we have a fair number of people (obviously not everyone, yes, yes) who want to sit down, try to look at things reasonably and fairly, in a manner that is to some degree reality-based (although in an attempt to steer away from unquestioning partisanship and bigotry/xenophonbia, I think they drop off the other side) and deal with issues in a substantial way.

Meanwhile, the other guys have spent the last couple of years screaming that we're filthy traitors because we didn't think going to war was a great idea.

Obviously this isn't an absolute difference. But in terms of tendencies, averages, and political power . . .

Frankly, besides the "anybody can just wander in and buy our ports?! Are you kiddin me?!" bit, this reminds me of that marvelous moment in the golden days of radio when one of the kiddy-show folks didn't realize that their mike was still live as the commercial break started, and muttered, "that'll hold the little bastards for a while." As everyone's been saying - they've stoked all this tremendous fear, but suddenly folks have gotten a look past that and seen a bunch of guys leaning back and chucking about the rubes as business as usual goes on, well, as usual. Mask-dropping, Toto-pulling-aside-the-curtain, etc., etc.,

Check out the latest Political Comics from H.L.

Bush Ports Deal: Even Repubs Pissed Now
See it at.
The Hollywood Liberal

So finally the secret is revealed. Flanders gets his talking points from Mr. Oxycontin.

Big surprise, not. Now here's a pop quiz for Tom "liberal media bias!" Brosz: Do you think Rush a) really doesn't understand what all the fuss is about or b) is attempting to defuse a politically damaging situation for the President he supports?

Amzing how that even in his "reasonable tweedy suit" guise, tbrosz' intellectual dishonesty in carrying water for the GOP peeks through.

It isn't port security. It's baggage handling. They're buying the right to hire the guys who off-load containers and stack them up. Meanwhile, US Customs and the Coast Guard will still inspect the containers.

It's a "sounds like" controversy so that Frist and Hastert can oppose the president with great sound and fury. All over nothing of consequence. It's a D.C. ritual to let the menaced partisans distinguish themselves from an unpopular president.

In absence of substantive information on what criteria were used to give this contract, one can only go on past history. As a result it immediately becomes more logical to assume that it is "bad" because Bush did it.
Oddly enough, I agree with this reasoning. Only I use Jimmy Carter. Since Jimmy supports this, I can only assume it's bad for the United States. Because Jimmy's history is supporting things that are bad for the United States.

Mr. President, shut down this sale!
-Frist

: )

Speaking of right-wing intellectual dishonesty, I love how one of the Bush apologists' talking points on this issue has been something to the effect of "I thought liberals were against racial profiling!"

Of course, as many have correctly pointed out, the company in question is owned by the government of the UAE, which had uncomfortably close ties to the Taliban and al Qaeda.

It's truly amazing that Kevin seems so eager to give Bush the benefit of the doubt on this question. The bottom line is, whatever the substantive issue, we have once again a situation in which Team Bush subordinates US national security to gaining political/corporate advantage, and this time his base noticed it. Couple that with the increased attention tothe fact that our port security overall is still so lax -- and say-hey, let's not forget the inept response to Hurricane Katrina by the so-called Department of Homeland Security -- and we see an increasing perception that Bush simply can't be trusted with national security. Why go out of one's way to provide political cover for him?

I'm still getting over the little shock of P & O being sold. I can remember when it was the civilian version of the Royal Navy.
It's like seeing Tower Bridge being sold to Euro-Disney.

Kevin,
Would you object if the government of North Korea bought a company that operated major ports? How about if the North Koreans owned and operated the Port of Long Beach? How close is that to your house?

North Koreans didn't fly airplanes into the World Trade Center and Pentagon, and the North Korean government wasn't involved in the financing of al Qaeda. So, by your reasoning, any objection to Kim Jong Il owning and operating U.S. ports would be motivated by racism.

The UAE is a non-democratic, despotic, Wahhabist regime. We would be crazy to allow an Islamist dictatorship to run our ports.

Is this anti-Muslim bigotry? Well, let's take the subset of people who don't object to foreign governments operating our ports. Of that group, I doubt that many would have any problem with the government of Malaysia running our ports.

The only concern that I have is that the ruling junta in UAE is heavily involved with the South Asian mafia, which traffics drugs, women and also from time to time hass been dablling in terrorist activities. Reportedly S. Asia's biggest mafia group "D-Company" operates out of Dubai and was one of the first pioneers of conducting urban terrorism when they bombed simultaneously across 9 locations in Bombay killing more than 1000 people. In that case as well high grade explosive "TNT" was smmuggled into India from the ports in Dubai.

Well as an outsider who ordinarily would support free enterprise I would think hard before committing to this deal.

This is what I am concerned about and haven't heard properly addressed by those who are explaining this deal away. At best it seems that because DPW is owned by members of the royal family it could be funding terrorists or those who fund terrorists.

I think this might have something to do with it. (sorry, I don't know how to do links.)

http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Bush_nominated_executive_from_Dubai_port_0221.html

From Watertiger

Kevin, you are missing something. This issue brings together the reflexive Republican hostility to government with hypocricy and incompetence on security. There are proper functions for government, and security is one of them. Arguing for Bush on this is precisely equal to arguing that private companies - or foreign governments - should be our airport security screeners. Bush has made "making us safe" the cornerstone of his presidency. But, like Katrina relief and essentially everything else that the Bush administration has done, when it matters everything is either done badly or done for the profit of his friends.

The US government should have absolute control of port security in the US, and foreign governments of any kind should not be running our ports. This is not xenophobia. I'd also argue that foreign corporations should not be running our ports. And I'll bet, right now, that there is some corruption underlying this as well. We are, after all, talking about the Bush administration.

Bush wins hearts and minds elsewhere . . .

Nearly half of South Korean youths who will be old enough to vote in the country's next elections say Seoul should side with North Korea if the United States attacks the communist nation, according to a poll released Wednesday.

Not.

Bush: A Foreign Policy in Disarray

BTW, if, as the administration says, all Muslim nations should be held to the same standard as European nations like Great Britain, ignoring any ties to terrorism, then why is Iran being treated using different standards?

Why was Iraq treated using different standards?

Why was Afghanistan treated using different standards?

And so on, and so on, and so on . . .

There was probably a financial connection between terrorists and Swiss banks, we should be wary that Nestle will poison our baby formula.

Substantively missing something? Yes. It was an incredibly stupid thing for him to do.

Given a choice, why would we place the management of 6 ports to an Arab nation that has had known terrorist ties? Why even go there? Why risk anything at all when it comes to port security? We are spending all this time debating whether this deal is safe or not. The very existence of the debate means that we should not be doing the deal at all.

We should not be giving our ports to any government-owned company that merits debate over whether it is safe or not. We should not be going there. Period.

Let's say you have a 7-year old daughter, and you need a babysitter badly. You are considering hiring a boy who previously has been a terribly unsafe babysitter, but who has cleaned up his act of late. Would you hire him? Would you go there?

I don't think so. Neither should we when it comes to the safety of our country.