Kevin - good info.

Great posts, Kevin. I was beginning to get a little indignant about this situation, and you've made me feel a little ashamed for jumping the gun.

"I've said before that engaging seriously with the Arab world is the best way of fighting terrorism, and I meant it. This is a chance to do exactly that."

Then let Bush do the right thing, and suffer the political consequences. After twenty five years of suffering politically for being right, I'd like to see that shoe on the other foot for once.

I asked that before:
Kevin, why don't you mention this other UAE company of the past, (in)famously scandalous BCCI, the "Bank of Crooks and Criminals" (CIA)?

There has been a great report on the investigations in, guess where, Washington Monthly:
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2004/0409.sirota.html

Yes, good info, but when oh when will you ever learn Kevin?

If the roles were reversed do you think Rove and the Republicans would play nice because it is the right thing to do?

No.

They re-wrote the rules of the game, and until we learn to play by them we will always lose.

That said, I think the best thing the dems can do here is stand aside and watch the GOP implode.

Dude - The royal family of the UAE has met persoanlly with Osama Bin Laden after he had attacked the US. The port company is owned by the UAE.

What am I missing?

Not going for short term political gain by people like you is why we have Bush ruining the country. Everything bad for Bush is good for the country.

Also, you say "engaging the Arab world," but i am not sure enriching a bunch of dictators is going to endear us to the bulk of the Arab population.

engaging seriously with the Arab world is the best way of fighting terrorism

i'd say the third largest port management company in the world is probably already engaged with the rest of the world.

I think that the real issue here is not about whether Dubai should run the ports but how the decision/approval was arrived at.

Bush and Rumsfeldt now deny having any knowledge about the issue.

Laws may have been broken.

Josh Marshall: "The NY Times reported today that the law governing this sort of deal, when "the acquiring company is controlled by or acting on behalf of a foreign government," requires a "mandatory," 45-day investigation. That was never done, and what's more, "Administration officials ... could not say why a 45-day investigation did not occur."

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/22/politics/22port.html?pagewanted=1

The big story is here is that this is another example of the complete incompetence of this administration.

I find it amazing how fast Bush is backpeddling.

He was so sure of himself yesterday and now he says that he didn't even know about it when it was approved.

It seems to me that you shouldn't go out on a limb when you haven paid attention to the facts.

If this was a good idea why didn't Bush co. follow the law and do the mandatory 45 day review? Your view that this is purely xenophobia misses the larger point, that Bush is undermining every democratic institution and/or law that gets in his way. This is no way to run a democracy.

Oh goody, let's let Frist and the usual gang of thugs get the credit for blocking this.

Let's not worry about the little ole 45 day mandatory investigation that was circumvented.

Democratic Wimps for $50: A prominent blogger that talks the talk, but just cannot walk the walk.

Question: Who is....

"Yes, good info, but when oh when will you ever learn Kevin?

If the roles were reversed do you think Rove and the Republicans would play nice because it is the right thing to do?

No."

Exactly! Kevin may have a neutral position, ok, but at least he could present a roundup of critical voices, joining those who want to put up some pressure on the administration to explain the deal. And why doesn't he say that at least one UAE company of the past, BCCI, has turned out to be downright criminal? The sheikhs couldn't be trusted in the 80s, why shall we trust them now???

I agree, the concept of the deal is not troubling on its face. However, the execution is worrisome. I think the admin has given away its lack of real concern over security by not registering the potential security issues involved. This is clearly evidenced by the apparent lack of care that gave us:1)a unanimous committee clearance on a deal unknown to one of its members (Rumsfeld) 2)failure to comply with the law governing the process (45 day exam) and 3)Prez's acknowledged lack of involvement. The whole thing feels careless or inept, take your pick.

It seems like there might have been some type of deal in place. Residents in UAE have a 14 percent approval rate of the US. The fact that the Navy uses Dubai to such a great extent might inflame these numbers. Lets say that in return for the Navy’s contained use of Dubai, the US must allow this deal to go through. This might have been decided on along time ago, hence the confusion on Rumsfeld and others on when the deal had become approved. I wouldn’t be surprised if they end up say that this deal is essential to Iraq.

hey jerry, there are plenty of blogs that toe the leftie-blog party line on every issue. the reason Kevin is popular might just have something to do with the fact that he's not afraid to discuss opinions and approaches that aren't exactly the same as everyone else's.

Thanks Kevin. I agree with you completely on this matter. However, I am enjoying immensely the grief that Bush is getting on this.

Let's say this contract had gone through without any fuss or even noticed by the press. Then in a year or two something bad happens at one of these ports such as a bomb. Then word gets out that the company in charge is owned by Dubai. What you say (or scream) then?

Actually, this is big news is that it again shows the utter incompetence of the Bushies to follow the rules (they weren't) or to control the news cycle.

The problem here is the total lack of accountability. Bush has no explanation for why the administration simply waived the mandatory 45-day investigation required by law. Neither he nor Cheney was aware of any efforts to check out this company -- and indeed, they were unaware of the deal itself. Now they want us to just trust them that the levels of oversight required by statute just aren't necessary, becuase somebody in the administration has really thoroughly checked things out. Count me unimpressed.

The broader issue: if port security is so central to the war on terror, how come we are making no efforts to build capacity here in the U.S. -- preferably in public-sector agencies rather than private companies -- to operate ports efficiently? Why is privatizing port operations so necessary for efficiency? It seems to me that this just puts the profit motive on the wrong side of the port security question. The fact that we're talking about a foreign state-owned company makes matters worse, but not a lot worse. Let's stop privatizing our ports!

Dubai is the busiest port for the U.S Navy? Wow. Whatever happened to Golf Juan, France, Cannes, France and good old Alongapo, P.I. Now they were some well used liberty ports.

Kevin, you have poor political instincts-- I don't mean that in the sense that you don't know when there's blood in the water (though you don't). I mean it in the sense that you don't realize how politically tone-deaf you come across when you can't see why people are so agitated with the fact that port security is being handled by a company owned by the UAE government. Port security is probably our #1 most important issue facing us when it comes to dealing with terrorism, and you have no idea why peopleare agitated about this blindly ignorant move on the part of the administration.

After 911 new regulations required airport security personell to be American citizens. It led to a lot of layoffs (particularly at airports in immigrant rich regions, such as SFO).

This seems like an almost perfect parallel.

Given that Kevin can't seem to come up with a good argument against the deal, how about this? [reposted from the thread below.]

I haven't yet seen the following point made explicitly anywhere, which I find odd, because it strikes me as basic.

Let's even suppose that the UAE company actually WOULD do a good job at port security, and could be trusted to do so.

Still, it would be a very bad thing to grant the company the contract.

One key reason to refuse to hand this contract over to a company controlled by UAE is to communicate to countries that it will DAMAGE their ability to do business with the US if they coddle terrorists.

Really, if governments like UAE don't see any downside to cozying up, even literally, to bin Laden, what IS going to convince them to treat terrorists like the monsters they are?

What message is being sent to governments across the world if we simply go ahead with this deal as if it's routine business?

So...

This controversy is "just a little too much" for the Political Pussycat, huh?

Most. Overrated. "Liberal." Blogger. Anywhere.

The port of Dubai is the busiest port of call for the United States Navy outside the continental United States.

This is meaningless, since the port of Dubai is en route to a costly, needless ground war in Asia.

The one thing people need to know is that the UAE is ruled by a royal family, and royal families tend to look to maintaining their power by any means necessary. One bullet can change the entire scope of how the government of the UAE organizes and runs itself--it is not a democracy and it is not a harmless country.

If we don't mind having a company linked to the UAE running six of our ports, then let's allow them to run six of our major airports.

Why not?

Kevin, I've called you the Manchurian Blogger before and I'm calling you again. The CIA blew a chance to get bin Laden in Afghanistan because he was having lunch with the UAE royals. This is a security/commonsense issue, NOT a xenophobia issue. I resent you framing it that way, where we have no choice as liberals.

What is the connection between the Bush family, UAE, Terrorism and BCCI?

You are doing a heck of a job Kevin...

yeah, this is probably not a real problem for US security.

But it is definitely a real opportunity for Dems:

1) push the "rule of Law" story, asking why the legally mandated 45 day review did not happen. Why does the administration consider itself above the law?
2) push the point that the real issue is not "port management" but rather "port security" which Republicans have repeatedly voted against.
3) let the Republicans twist and turn in the stew of thoughtless anti-arab reaction, a storyline of their own creation which leads inexorably to mindless condemnation of this deal.

Surely the point is that Bush is now reaping the whirlwind. After 5 years of shouting "wolf!" as a way of justifying everything, for him to turn around and say "nothing to see here, just move along" is just too much to bear. Even - especially - for his own side.

You may be right on the facts Kev, but you seem to have missed the politics of this completely. It's got incompetence, cronyism, and lawbreaking all rolled into one - it's a metaphor for this whole administration. Why let them off the hook?

I wouldn't worry about it cleek, I mainly want to introduce jeopardy style smearing of one of our liberal bloggers that is the most fun to hate on.

Wussy Democratic Bloggers for $100: Most. Overrated. "Liberal." Blogger. Anywhere.

Arkie: I'm not sure what the deal is with the 45-day review. It might be a big deal or it might not. I need to learn more.

Gray: BCCI is a red herring in this regard. The UAE is a banking haven, but so is Switzerland.

Constantine: Port security is not being turned over to a company owned by the UAE. Port operations are. Big difference.

And of course I know there's blood in the water. I wouldn't waste my time writing if this if there weren't. The question is whether we give up our principles in return for some Bush bashing. In this case, I'm just not willing to join in the xenophopic hysteria unless someone gives me a really good reason to.

The real question is why Americans aren't owning and operating our own ports. Maybe we should let Mexico bid on Border Patrol contracts? What right does America have to keep Angola from bidding on the Secret Service contract? Isn't that the logical conclusion of liassez-faire trade?

This idea that all contracts are fungible and should be open to any bidder is dangerous. The question for Kevin, and other free traders, is what US contracts should be closed to foreign companies. None?

Besides which, there's a huge and obvious difference between our relationship with Britain and virtually every other country in the world. If you want consistency of principle, fine: no foreign country (even the Great British[sic]) should be allowed to operate critical, security-vulnerable infrastructure in the USA. There are plenty of Americans who would do the job just fine.

This DSSC post calls attention to the many times various Repub senators have opposed better port security. One benign aspect of the current uproar is that it just might lead some of them to change their votes.

Kevin, this is NOT "engaging with the Arab" world in any significant way shape or form.

This is engaging with a few very rich arab investors who are most likely royalty - these are not the sorts of engagements likely to improve the relationship between America and the typical angry male arab youth.

Read this post by Digby

...and get a clue, Kevin.

I'm still open to argument on the Dubai port deal, but this is looking more and more like a mindless feeding frenzy to me.

"As ye sow, so shall ye reap". The Administration had it coming, regardless of the merits.

The problem is that this is nothing new. As the Financial Times reports, state-owned companies already operate terminals in the U.S., including China Shipping at the Port of Los Angeles and APL in Oakland.

Why is that a problem? Single crystallizing events often provide opportunities to address problems that aren't new.

Segregation wasn't new when Rosa Parks was jailed, either.

If all of these firms are shut out of the country, we lose access to some of the best and most efficient port operators in the world.

Horrors! The US might actually have to develop the ability to operate its own ports efficiency, rather than relying on companies owned by foreign totalitarian regimes!

Unm, seems to me, developing that capacity itself would be an important gain in national security. Certainly a lot more than whatever gain there was from shutting out China from producing berets for the US Army. So I'm not surprised, at all, that people see this as a security issue, because it clearly is. Even if not in the simplistic way ("UAE=Arabs=terrorists") that some of Bush's insane base frames it.

Indeed, the "mindless feeding frenzy" that parts of the right is engaging in provides an opportunity for Democrats to get out with a reasonable argument on security between the corporate shills on the "free market" right and the bigots on the "evil Arabs" right, arguing that, yes, free trade may generally be good, but port operation is a critical capacity for the national security of the United States, and relying on state industries of non-free foreign states to provide it is bad for security, and, further, subsidizes totalitarianism.

But there are limits, and encouraging the xenophobic jingoism that's driving this controversy is a little too much for me.

You don't have to encourage the xenophobic jingoism to hold a strong line either on the apparent Administration violation of the law requiring additional review of when foreign government corporations are involved, nor do you need to encourage that xenophobic jingoism to criticize the real security issues that this deal raises. Indeed, one can criticize the irrational aspects of the right-wing response and turn the discussion to the real issues raised.

Unless there are serious substantive reasons to oppose this deal, I'm not willing to jump on the bandwagon solely because it's an opportunity for some righteous Bush bashing.

There are serious substantive reasons to oppose the deal. Port operation capacity is a critical national security capacity, and this deal underlines how the US is increasingly reliant on exactly the kind of regimes on which it should not be reliant to provide that capacity.

It also is yet another instance of the Bush Administration violating the law, and provides a pivot to discuss the general disregard for the law in this administration.

It also seems noteworthy that DPW's acquisition of P&O would give it control of port operations in lots of other countries besides the U.S., including P&O's home country of Great Britain, and everyone else seems to be OK with that.

Since when is, even assuming its true, "everyone else seems okay with it" any kind of argument on the merits? You seem to have developed the journalistic tendency to grap a bunch of ready sources, and judge an issue by what they say, rather than thinking about the issue itself. If I wanted that, I'd read a newspaper.

In the end, there's nothing left to this controversy except the raw question of whether the government of the United Arab Emirates is sympathetic to international terrorism and is therefore likely to implement policies that would make it easier for al-Qaeda to infiltrate ports in the U.S.

No, actually, there is quite a bit more left to it, though of course that's the issue that has mostly caused Bush's base to explode. The problem with Democrats failing to take advantage of issues like this is that, unlike the Republicans who have gotten very good at this, Democrats seem (institutionally, not individually) pretty bad at finding the useful issues raised by events and pivoting the discussion. Instead, a controversy erupts, and Democratic pundits want to look at the two sides, and if the one challenging the Administration is wrong on the details, be "fair" and defend the Administration, even when the controversy raises other issues that are (a) more important than the focal point of the initial controversy, and (b) more damaging to the Administration and potentially beneficial to Democrats than the focal point of the initial controversy.

The security issue here is the US, as this deal illustrates, is increasingly dependent an autocratic regimes, including major strategic rivals like China, to perform core operations like running US ports, and is losing or has lost the capacity to carry out that function, important though it is not only for trade but for security, on its own.

The "grand narrative" political issue is that the Bush Administration has once again chosen to ignore the law, and by doing so once again jeopardized American security.

Those are the issues Democrats should be pivoting to.

It would help me to understand the issues if I had some idea about the amount and nature of classified or confidential information that the company would handle.

Personally, I don't want any foreign business (especially not one that is state-owned, regardless of the state in question) managing our ports.

Paraphrasing Neal Stephenson: the first thing any living being learns, and the last thing to go away when it dies, is control of its own sphincters.

Just like Whittington was sure that Cheney knew precisely which direction his shotgun was pointed when he pulled the trigger.

Kevin -- Thanks for your post. I agree with you completely on the xenophobia, but there is something to the rule of law, "I'm GWB, trust me," and cronyism angles.

Kevin is just as confused as Bush. He thinks this is all about anti-Arab jingosim.

Everybody: Honk is you think this blog is misnamed (Political Animal), given its current occupant.

HONK HONK HONK HONK HONK HONK HONK

I think that this news coupled with last night's Frontline episode is really too much. Add the little seasoning of getting drawn into the mug's game abortion thread below and its the trifecta.

When is some Democratic leader going to have the cojones to stand up and question this disaster of a foreign policy? At least the various Cold War adventures might be justified on the basis that we didnt' really know the Soviet Union would collapse in 1990. But what justification now?

You watch the special last night, and its clear that these jihadi's don't have the slightest fucking clue as to what they are trying to achieve, other than someone told them that we are the enemy and we are occupying their country so boom.

If we didn't insist on a pointless world-wide military presence, these same guys wouldn't even be able to point out the United States on a map, let alone run around bombing our troops.

And, there wouldn't be any issue of dealing with the UAE or anyone on some commercial port deal. Now, because of the ridiculous foreign "policy" put forth by this administration, you actually have to potentially worry about this, slim as the chances of terrorist infliltration might be.

Agree with Kevin's assessment, even as a rabid anti-war leftie.

Upon hearing of this manufactured outrage, my first thoughts were, "you guys do know we have a huge military presence in Dubai?"

((It's funny when conservatives, or liberal hawks and pundits (redundant, I know) get all indignant over the dictators and monarchies in the Middle East, and profess to want to bring democracy to them - "I'm shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here!))

This port controvery exists because it fits the ONLY ACCEPTABLE method of criticizing Bush on foreign policy - from a MORE HAWKISH POSITION. Or, as the wishy-washy war-supporting "muscular liberals" around these parts try to position themselves, as the COMPETENT HAWKS.

But giv'em a break, how else can dumbass sold-out pundits (NYT, TNR, WashPost, etc), craven Democratic politicians, and "leftie" blog writers criticize Bush, after they've effectively bought into every foreign policy initiative of the Bush administration and the PNAC crowd?

Democrats: We're the COMPETENT HAWKS. We'd still kill 100,000 Iraqi civilians, but we'd have done it with better planning. And we'll give you TRUE HOMELAND SECURITY.

Wonder why a less agressive foreign policy isn't "politically viable?" Cuz all these dumbasses keep saying the same things.

There is no "mandatory 45-day investigation requirement" for the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States. (I've had to deal on matters involving CFI oversight in the past.)

Kevin,

I, for one, feel better about having this trashed out in public rather than just letting it go off behind the scenes, as the Republicans would have wanted, as they would like to be able to do everything.

Something that damages the glory that is W isn't just 'short-term political gain', it is really something deeply necessary.

What the fuck is up with people excusing a country that coddles terrorist financiers by pointing out that Switzerland might have done the same? Is Switzerland somehow above criticism? Are they trying to by into our shipping terminal operations?

Are you really putting UAE principles of banking secrecy ahead of American principles of nailing the bastards?

Kevin's right. Getting back at an inept lame duck President is not a good enough reason to whip up mindless jingoism.

Liberals should have values. And respect for others and the rule of (just) law should be two of those values. That's much more important than scoring cheap political points.

BUT - If what Atrois says is correct and the deal did NOT go through the full review required by law. Then refer to the "rule of law" value and let's pound away.

There are too many legitimate targets of attack to waste our time on illegitimate targets. Plus, it's not right.

Bravo to Kevin for doing the legwork on this.

William P. McLaughlin, public affairs director for the Philadelphia Regional Port Authority said.........security and other port operations issues are spelled out in the lease

.
whew.....glad we got that settled....

How about this?

The price for doing this deal with a country whose royal family's presence on a hunting trip with bin Laden prevented a missile attack from taking place in 1999, is that everyone who has a relationship to bin Laden that is less close gets released from Guantanamo.

The rank hypocrisy of holding people indefinitely in prison because they might know something about al qaeda, while making a business deal with people who are on a first name basis with bin Laden is a reason for some indignation.

What's the US intelligence relationship with Dubai? Has the royal family been interviewed? Have the managers of this company been vetted for relationships with bin Laden? Have they got any useful information about him?

"In the absence of serious evidence of untrustworthiness, though, I'd prefer to walk the liberal internationalism walk instead of jumping ship for short term political gain."

Jeeezus. These poeple like to go on hunting trips with Bin Laden's crew. What more do you want?

The UAE is much more closely tied to 9/11 and Al Qaeda than Saddam Hussein ever was.

The burden isn't on people to come up with reasons why we shouldn't turn over our ports to these people. The question is, why in the world should we?

Arkie: I'm not sure what the deal is with the 45-day review. It might be a big deal or it might not. I need to learn more.

Kevin: We already know that the adminstration has stated that the review wasn't done and that spokesmen don't know why. Do you need more evidence of incompetence and a disregard for the law?

I just want to make something super clear here. If jumping on the Dubai hysteria bandwagon merely hurt George Bush politically and prompted some additional interest in port security, I'd be all for it. What do I care if the DPW/P&O deal goes through? But the whole thing feeds on a mindless anti-Arab jingoism that's genuinely dangerous, and that's why I'm not joining the fun. As liberals, we're either serious about engaging with the Muslim world in a serious, non-hysterical way or we're not. Which is it?

It's just bad policy. The race card is getting played because the deck is so thin right now.

This has nothing to do with being anti-Arab. It's about keeping the operating capacity of our nation's ports out of the hands of a nation that has a leadership structure (a royal family, no less) that has been sympathetic to al Qaeda.

And people can oppose something that the Bush administration is for based on what's right or wrong and not a misguided sense of accomplishment about finding some 'blood in the water.'

What I'm interested in is the question of whether the Bush Administration yet again failed to do their homework. This is the sort of area where they absolutely suck, and it appears as if they've sucked yet again.

The reason it matters is that even intelligent, well-educated people can't be expected to become instant pseudo-experts on a question like this. I've got no idea what a major port looks and feels like, and I've got no idea how port security works, or what the risks might be of a foreign company running such a port.

I rely on the experts in government to deal with this sort of thing for me, and so do we all.

But there's no indication that any sort of nuts-and-bolts due diligence was done on this deal, nor is there any indication that there was any sort of oversight. Bush didn't know about the deal until after it was done; neither did Rumsfeld. The 45-day investigation required by law - was it done? Nobody seems to know.

Has anyone stepped forward and said, "I was the one whose shop reviewed this deal, and I put my imprimatur on it"? Everybody's saying they think someone reviewed it, but it's completely unclear who actually did.

Maybe this is a big deal, and maybe this isn't. But what the Dems should do is take advantage of the Republican-generated flak to publicly make the point that this is how the Bush Administration screws up everything.

cmdicely: the "administration" (by which you mean the Committee on Foreign Investment" did not violate Exon-Florio.

a good summary in layman's terms can be found here:

http://www.treasury.gov/offices/international-affairs/exon-florio/
The CFI unanimously approved the transaction..they are under no legal obligation conduct a further investigation.

Usually you have some legal basis for your claims...on this one you jumped the gun.

Saddam; falsely alleged that he met with al Qaeda representatives = Evil dictator! Must invade! Must liberate!

UAE; actually met with Osama bin Laden after 9/11 = Outsource US port security to them!

Why do the liberals have to squander opportunites like this?

It may not jive with our internationalism, but surely Kevin must be aware that not complaining about this confirms for the people that we are not serious about security.

Obviously there are two competing interests here. (A) Our principle that we should not be xenophobic and do everything we can to win the hearts and minds of the people in the Middle East. (B) Our need to show to the voters that we are serious about security even when it means exploiting the xenophobia of most of the Americans.

Under current circumstances opting for (B) is a win-win situation.

Actually if we opt for (A), I am sure that Swift Boaters will jump one more time.

Getting back at an inept lame duck President is not a good enough reason to whip up mindless jingoism.

That's completely irrelevant. The issue isn't "should Democrats whip up mindless jingoism?" -- the jingoism is already whipped and is driving the issue all over the media, mainstream and alternative.

The issue is "how should Democrats respond now?". There are several possibilities: (1) Agree with the xenophobes; (2) defend Bush from the xenophobes; (3) ignore the issue; (4) pivot to issues other than those raised by the xenophobes that this action raises.

I'd argue that (4) is what we'd ought to be doing; Kevin seems to favor (2).

I don't see the deal as a significant issue. To me it is the kind of thing that makes me wonder why people getting into an uproar about it can't find something more important to get into an uproar about.

For the right I guess it makes some sense. They get to say they criticize the president and do it on an issue that doesn't matter much, while thier xenophobic base loves bashing some arabs and thier pseudo-libertarian base loves bashing any state owned company.

However today it did become a good opportunity to ridicule Bush on his veto threat. He still hasn't vetoed anything right? He is seriously threatening that this will be his first veto? Of course it is an empty threat like the others, but it is still a stupid one.

So, as a preface, this stuff used to be my job. I did logistics for companies that had product manufactured in Asia that was imported to the US by ocean container and then shipped by train to the Midwest. I'm also working on a post-grad certificate in this.

Port operations means scheduling ships, loading and unloading, operating cranes, providing fuel, and otherwise handling product (mostly containers, these days). Most of the containers are sealed before they're put on a ship, and Customs (not port operations) inspects about 5% of them. Those containers are then put on trains which may belong to foreign corporations, are offloaded in privately owned rail yards (in the city where I live, our choices are the Burlington Northern or the Canadian Pacific) and often picked up by immigrant truck drivers to be delivered to their ultimate consignee.

Although the culture of a port operator would affect efficiency, it would still be very difficult for the company to have a serious effect on national security.

If jumping on the Dubai hysteria bandwagon merely hurt George Bush politically and prompted some additional interest in port security, I'd be all for it. What do I care if the DPW/P&O deal goes through? But the whole thing feeds on a mindless anti-Arab jingoism that's genuinely dangerous, and that's why I'm not joining the fun.

Fair point, Kevin. For me the fun is that the Bush Administration and its surrogates have sown the wind of mindless anti-Arab jingoism and now Bush is reaping the whirlwind.

That said, I completely agree that giving Bush the benefit of the doubt is not a sound policy as a general matter, and so I am not particularly inclined to defend Bush's policy either. I'd perfer to characterize it as yet another screwup from an incompetent Administration (isn't is a laugh that Bush's feeble recent defense is that he wasn't aware of the decision?).

Kevin I think that the core issue appears to be (again) that the Administration did NOT do the full review required by law.

They were supposed to do a full 45 day review. And they didn't. Thus it appears that the deal is OK. But the full review required by law wasn't done. And thus we really don't know.

What we do know that a lot of these big contracts do get fixed. So it could be horrible.

I'm not against furriners working in America, working on American ports. Personally I think we're heading into a global era and a lot of the concepts like "foreigners" and national pride and things like that are going to pass away. I should be able to hop anywhere in the world and take any job I want, as long as I'm qualified; the borders need to start coming down.

However, I am against cronyism and mismanagement of existing systems, and I don't see Kevin speaking to those issues. This seems like something that just happened and no one who should have known about it knew about it. That's the thorn that sticks out as far as I'm concerned.

...in short, what craigie said at 2:48 PM.

RT and all the others:

The CFI (the ones who are supposed to do this) reviewed the transaction and unanimously approved. There is no 45 day requirement. Period.

Read Exon-Florio or at least the summary I posted above.

Learn some facts before you opine without knowledge.

Kevin Drum is truly tone deaf. He keeps shouting Xenophobism. Some commenters have asked you questions to which you've refused answers.

Let me put it this way, whether it is privately owned or state owned, U.S. ports operations or security should be handled by the American govt. When will the commercialization of basic govt. duties end? We gave logistics and support oerinted duties in the military to private companies. Protection and security work for govt. officials are being done by mercs. What's next? Should we hire these mercs to replace the Security Service if they can better protect the President?

The bottomline is this, Kevin would fall of his high horse if the company were owned by the Iranian or North Korean govts. What would be your excuse in those cases? Please stop tring to lecture us on the difference between operations and security. At the end of the day, the two have to harmonized for things to work smoothly. Ergo, a long term concern for 'scared Americans'.

Isn't Dubai British-based but UAE funded?

the "administration" (by which you mean the Committee on Foreign Investment" did not violate Exon-Florio.

Your link contradicts that, at least based on the facts I've seen reported (that, while a regular "review" was conducted, an "investigation" under Exon-Florio was not).

a good summary in layman's terms can be found here:

http://www.treasury.gov/offices/international-affairs/exon-florio/

The CFI unanimously approved the transaction..they are under no legal obligation conduct a further investigation.

Per your link, an "investigation" as opposed to merely the standard review is mandatory, not optional, when, as seems from the reports pretty clearly to be the case here:

o the acquirer is controlled by or acting on behalf of a foreign government; and

o the acquisition "could result in control of a person engaged in interstate commerce in the U.S. that could affect the national security of the U.S."

But the whole thing feeds on a mindless anti-Arab jingoism that's genuinely dangerous, and that's why I'm not joining the fun. As liberals, we're either serious about engaging with the Muslim world in a serious, non-hysterical way or we're not. Which is it?

You tell me Kevin? Because you seem to be unable to distinguish between distrust for bloody royal dictators who are soft on terror, and "the Muslim world".

They're an indispensible aid in the war on terror?

Tell me, how many UAE princes are sweating, fighting and bleeding in Iraq?

Kevin's position coincides with Joe Liberman type democrats: never miss an opportunity to help GWB.

"I'm just not willing to join in the xenophopic hysteria unless someone gives me a really good reason to."

Answer the two following questions:

1) Let's say you are a Japanese baseball fanatic. If your brother's best friend's sister from Tokyo owns a contract to run all concessions at Yankee stadium, are you more likely or less to get tickets to the playoffs in 2006 -- or at least get the chance to move around the stadium and watch the game selling hot dogs?

2) If you are a young arab anti-bush terrorist and your best friend from childhood marries into a Dubai family that will soon operate ports around the United States. Have your chances of planting an explosive at an American port increased or decreased?

It's not merely a matter of imposing political pain on Bush. Intelligent commentary on all security issues has been stifled by the Rove's meme: "Pre 9/11 worldview vs. Post 9/11 worldview." Attacking the Dubai ports deal is terribly significant, as it forces Bush to repudiate the "Post 9/11 worldview" frame on which he has hung everything -- and almost everybody!

Sorry but the bottom line is that the American public does not want an Arab foreign nation with prior terrorist ties getting anywhere near its ports no matter what kind of work it will be doing in managing the ports.

This nation has recognized the Taliban as the government of Afghanistan.

The fact that we are having this debate is proof enough that the deal should not happen. Any risk in port security is too much risk. Why do we need to even go there?

Digby sums it up well in this excellent post,

"Perhaps the best way to put this is that the administration seems to trust the leaders of the United Arab Emirates more than the US congress or the secret FISA Court."

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2006_02_19_digbysblog_archive.html#114063032010821744

Having said that I think everyone should read the Dubai point of view as expressed by Bart886 in this post,

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2006_02/008272.php#830329

I think that's a valid position Kevin. It does seem to be the nature of the business and ground operations would not change. It's home office paper deal only. I do wish the home port was owned and run by the home. I think they should be a local government entity and not a private interest.

If jumping on the Dubai hysteria bandwagon merely hurt George Bush politically and prompted some additional interest in port security, I'd be all for it. But the whole thing feeds on a mindless anti-Arab jingoism that's genuinely dangerous

Yep....similar to when the Democratic politicians, afraid of electoral consequences, played along and rode the "Invade Iraq" gravy train. They couldn't then turn around and say, .."no, really, Saddam had nothing to do with Islamic fundamentalist movements, was basically contained, was substantively complying with the UN, and we didn't have any actual evidence of WMDs"....

Was too big a turnaround for the population to make.

These bandwagons can turn into lynch mobs. Ask the families of 100,000 dead Iraqis.

So, when will Kevin have the courage of his convictions, follow this line of thinking to it's logical conclusion, and call BULLSHIT on the War on Terror?

Playing the MORE HAWKIER, COMPETENT HAWKS role can have serious consequences (legitimizing a basically flawed premise)...OTOH, it has short-term political gains. Decisions, decisions.

Wow! calling us xenophobes makes us defensive and therefore the Bushes (i.e. Rove) roll over us again. What a strategy! We should try it sometime to their faces given that republicans are, for the most part, far more likely to be racist than demos or liberals, according to a recent national study. but, also, far less likely to become defensive when so called. Attack is a better strategy, as they well know.

The CFI unanimously approved the transaction..they are under no legal obligation conduct a further investigation.

My understanding is that the CFI has only once failed to approve a transaction since 1988 -- out of over 1500 cases.

If true, approval is functionally almost meaningless.

But you forget two crucial points, CM:

1. Nathan can't read and

2. Nathan can't read

More importantly, the management of both DP World and P&O is riddled with ridiculously honest British ex public schoolboys. :-)

But the whole thing feeds on a mindless anti-Arab jingoism that's genuinely dangerous, and that's why I'm not joining the fun.

—Kevin Drum

Nobody is asking you to join the fun, moron. We're asking you to understand -- which is apparently beyond your ability -- that much of the opposition to this has nothing to do with "anti-Arab jingoism."

It is an incredibly stupid move on its face -- from every conceivable standpoint. It is absolutely impossible to defend on any grounds. All your bullshit rationalization is tantamount to trying to prove a negative: that this won't hurt national security. You can't prove a negative, jerk, so stop trying.

Lots of reasonable people from both sides of the aisle who are not racists fear that this move is another mindless, incompetent strategic error by the gang that can't shoot straight. If a democrat suggested it, he/she would be impeached.

What is so hard to understand about this? You're in a hole, stop digging.

Rule of Law

I agree with those who assert that the Bush administration failed to abide by the law.

Amendments. Section 837(a) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1993, called the "Byrd Amendment," amended Section 721 of the Defense Production Act (the "Exon-Florio provision"). It requires an investigation in cases where:

o the acquirer is controlled by or acting on behalf of a foreign government; and

o the acquisition "could result in control of a person engaged in interstate commerce in the U.S. that could affect the national security of the U.S."

Now somemight argue that the term "could" should be read narrowly, but even then there is little question that it "could" affect the national security even if the possibility is remote or unlikely.

Secondly, this is not a matter of treating UAE different from the UK because if the UK government was buying it, they would be subject to the same provision (a private UK goverment held it)

This is so hypocritical coming from Kevin. The same guys who said it was ok to kill a few innocent Arabs with a missile as long as you kill a Al-Qaida leader with them. Winning hearts and minds indeed!!!! You make me laugh Kevin, try to be consistent.

Just a small question: if the workers are American, the security is American, the ports themselves are American geography, how did they become controlled by foreign entities? I'm not asking to be trite. Sneaker production gets outsourced to Malaysia because of lower production costs there, but this is the ultimate in non-footloose industry: it literally can only take place at the port in question. What does Dubai have that makes them the preferred managers of ports? More MBAs? doubtful. Better relations and understanding of American dockworkers? doubtful. Better engineers? doubtful, all their engineering came from us in the 1950s. Why the hell does the management of a home-country port ever get out-sourced? It makes no sense. It's not like we're Dubai's colonial holding, and their amazing new technology of big boats is beyond our cultural understanding...

For me, at least, Kevin's post brilliantly sets up and tears down a straw man.

The point in my mind is not in the first instance that there are Arabs who will own a major operator of US ports. The problem is that there is a legal procedure which, as I understand it, requires a 45-day period of analysis of a deal of this kind. As we are quickly learning in other contexts, the Bush administration apparently did not feel bound to follow the law in this case. That is the initial problem. After an appropriate evaluation (not hidden in the back rooms of the Bush crony network), then I might still be convinced that Arab ownership of these activities is a problem. But, really, how are we supposed to evaluate the situation if the whole matter is hidden and review is conducted in secret, without congressional oversight or even the involvement of principals in the implicated government agencies?

So please, spare me the "you are all a bunch of hypocritical Bush-haters" horse shit.

Rep Duncan Hunter knows why it's a bad idea for a foreign power to take over a U.S. Port

See
"U.S. turns a blind eye..." at
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1571/is_n14_v13/ai_19329282

How's that for hysteria?

Nice Kevin. If we're bothered by this port mess we're xenophobic gits. Nice. Maybe we're bothered that the people who run UAE and therefore run this company like to party with OBL. For most people, all you'd have to say is- 'the owners of this company party with OBL', and they'd get it. Not Kevin. Kevin, whenever you get in one of your 'tut tut you crazy liberals' moods all I'm reminded of is a contrary teenager.

It is completely obvious that turning ownership of the docks over to an Arab company would give terrorists a splendid opportunity to case the joint.

I was polite the first time. Your position Kevin is exactly the sort of mindless adherence to dogma which has lead to this country being run by crony /corporate/cultural facist Republicans.At least half the American people want to throw away the Bill of Rights out of fear of terrorists and you want a government of a country which finacially backed the 9/11 terrorists and was home to two of them, a government that recognized the Taliban, but does not recognize Israel, a government which regularly met with Osama Bin Laden and a government which may have played a role in nuclear proliferation by Pakistan, to run our ports? I sincerly do not care whether it is fair, xenophobic, racist etc, it is just plain dumb to give a government with that recent history control over any aspect of the operations of 6 of our major ports. Next you will suggest that North Korea be given the concession for running our missle defense systems. While Dumbya has presumably painted himself into a corner on this one, your position is what leads to cracks like the one about Democrats wanting terrorists to get therapy. Get real or become irrelevant.

But, GOD, no money changed hands, so what reason was there *not* to kill them?

I'm still not convinced economic engagement is working in China or having a military that is mutually dependant upon international private and state-owned corporations is a good thing. I don't really see any changes in the last week. I just find the it all a bit disturbing.

I'm still not sure I get the free trade dogma. Current trends in property rights, evironmental protection, and trade will eventually lead to my home being condemned and adjacent wetlands rezoned to allow a Dubai/China joint development -- 1000 homes and a giant foreign state-owned department store. Surplus federal land sales will likely head the same direction. Free trade and giant corporations are clearly very efficient. Just what exactly are they very efficient at doing? Growth? War? Bypassing regulations? Paying off politicians?

Jesus Kevin. DPW is STATE OWNED by the UAE (royal f*ckin' family). That is the SAME FAMILY that was buddy-buddy with OBL to the point of preventing a cruise missile attack on OBL years ago for fear that the strike would wipe out the royal family along with OBL (Boo-hoo, they are in bed with OBL, die in bed with OBL).

The UAE is NOT OUR FRIEND. Saudi Arabia is NOT OUR FRIEND. Giving taxpayer dollars to either is NOT doing us any good. None. End of story.

How about we offer Bahrain companies some deal on our port operations? Bahrain is a good country. How about Kuwait? How about Jordon? How about ANY friggin' M. East country that isn't run by a bunch of super-rich sheiks with close butthole buddy ties to OBL or Al Qaeda?

DPW is not, per se, a security risk. The MONEY that we hand to DPW goes into the coffers of the UAE government (and pockets of the Sheiks) which THEN goes on to Al Qaeda and other fine people and groups.

Then there's the issue of the LAW BEING VIOLATED...again. Where was the REQUIRED 45 day investigation on this? What about Snow and Sanborn's connection (very cozy connection) with DPW and the magical way DPW "won" the contract? I'm sure there was NO cronyism here, no payola. Afterall, EVERYTHING BushCo does is aboveboard and above reproach. They NEVER violate the law and never ever practice corrupt, abject cronyism. And the UAE Sheiks NEVER rub elbows with Jihadists, Islamists, or Osama. Never.

Again, just to repeat my argument from above, how about refusing UAE the contract simply on the grounds that UAE cozied up to bin Laden, and therefore won't get business from the US, ESPECIALLY that involving our own homeland security? Where we absolutely have to do business with them, we will, but when we don't, we won't.

They can do or say anything they want to try to remove the doubts of our officials, and the doubts of the American people. It doesn't matter. They have to pay a price for their intimacies with bin Laden, and this is one of them. It's punishment.

Maybe other governments will get the point, you know? And maybe that's a very good point for them to get.

cmdicely:

you are correct that the Byrd Amendment requires an investigation beyond an initial review under certain circumstances. assuming that those circumstances exist here: it should be noted that the administration has stated that an additional review was conducted. that appears to satisfy the Byrd amendment.

Why? cause Exon-Florio doesn't state that the investigation MUST last 45 days. rather, it states that it must be completed WITHIN 45 days. big difference...I'll grant that some of the news stories have been sloppy on this.

Just another post in Kevin's quest to be named Internet Editor of the New York Times (or perhaps the Washington Post).

And the analysis is the same: if you value "balance" and "objectivity", there are two sides in a conflict, and one side hides and lies all the time, which side do you end up supporting? Why, the side that lies of course, as they will have no scruple about saying whatever they need to say to get you to think they are "reasonable" and "centerist". Which you just eat up.

Right up until the day they drag you out of bed and hang you.

Cranky

Just to be clear: can some one point me to the location of serious, grown-up, reality-based policy making in the Bush Administration?

craigie said it.

The political process means, you know, engaging in politics. That doesn't mean xenophobically ranking on the UAE. It does mean not rushing out all Joe Lieberman to defend Bush against critics in his own party.

Stand aside and let this do its own damage. Reserve commentary to pointing out how the deal was done--nepotically, incompetently and lawlessly.

Just to expand upon my prior post, it would be completely unnecessary for the management of the Arab company to be terrorist, a secretary, a janitor, a minor level employee could obtain effectively case the joint.

Really - this is just so obvious.

I wasn't worried about the deal until Bush threatened to veto anything that delayed or questioned the deal. If W doesn't want us to know about it, that seems like a good enough reason to do a proper investigation.

When did he try to keep things secret that worked out for us?

The fact that the usual wing nuts have not already posted 100 snipets from RNC talking points on this thread demonstrates the salience of this issue.

If you're not corporate, you're little people.

To echo, sort of, what cmdicely said above, the hurricanes in the south have snapped a lot of people out of it and we need to move forward here before they get snapped back in again.

Helping GWB out of his own clumsiness can't help anyone.

Kevin, I am not someone who usually advocates a blanket of suspicion over all Muslims, but if you notice the cartoon fiasco, and if you have read the Clash of Civilizations, I think it is clear that Muslim loyalties always, always, go against the infidel, no matter how moderate someone says they are..

I am a disciple of Sam Harris, and I suspect all people who insist that they know who God is and what he wants.

And Middle East royal families (god I hate calling any human, royal) have divided loyalties....one to money and worldly success, and one to either paying off the extremists or helping them.

And it is not about our workers or our ports but who and what is coming into the ports that we don't inspect.

Kevin Drum, King of the Contrarians...watch him self-aggrandize...

The politicos who are bellyaching the most are the ones who want to be able to say that they're not simply Bush Toads. It's political fatuousness.

[insert Faulkner cliche]

Getting rid of this generation of especially graceless Republicans has to be our exclusive priority. It's the one central thing we can do that would help the most people, especially it would help the Middle East more than if they had a company running a few ports, simply because it will mean the Republicans will have that much less opportunity to kill and torture them.

I think you're correct, Mr. Drum. There's plenty of ammo for Bush-bashing without resort to crypto-xenophobia.

Anyone have any idea what a Sharia compliant bond issue called a sukok might fit into the question of the dollars?

Ok here's more.

Suggest STRONGLY that you folks look up the location of the UAE. The strait of Hormuz is of great strategical importance, as it is the only sea route where oil from Kuwait, Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar, as well as most of United Arab Emirates can be transported.
--

There is more here than meet the eye. This is a sweetheart deal for the UAE. They are being set up as a staging ground for an invasion of Iran. They are also an excellent geographic base for MidEast logistics.

I say this a payoff fo the next war: Iran.
--