Ports of Politics (take a deep breath and read the Wall Street Journal's take on this one folks)

The Wall Street Journal ^ | February 22, 2006

[SE Mom]

Well- apparently this is not a business clamoring with eager new competitors.

More than anything, I see this as yet one more example of the adminstration's lack of thorough, competent PR people.
They need half a dozen FReepers to keep them on the ball.

[mathluv]

Tony Snow has had longshoremen call in - nothing will change from current operations. Rush is behind this for the economic stance, and talks about how poor the economic education of this country is.

E.D. just backed off saying UAE would be taking over security. That is not happening.

Who operates our ports around the country now? The majority are foreign owned companies. The three largest companies that 'do' ports are UAE, Hong Kong, and Singapore.

[mathluv]

The choice would be the government FORCING American companies to bid on this, whether they were interested or not.

[frankjr]

"Yes, some of the 9/11 hijackers were UAE citizens. But then the London subway bombings last year were perpetrated by citizens of Britain, home to the company (P&O) that currently manages the ports that Dubai Ports World would take over. Which tells us three things: First, this work is already being outsourced to "a foreign-based company"; second, discriminating against a Mideast company offers no security guarantees because attacks are sometimes homegrown; and third, Mr. Graham likes to talk first and ask questions later....The Coast Guard is in charge of security, not the corporation."

Alarmist nonsense is right. Oh well, I guess it gives people something to scream about.

[LowCountryJoe]

There's a good reason as to why Savage made it into Goldberg's book.

[LowCountryJoe]

It wouldn't matter. Far too many of us are knee-jerking statists who cannot separate fact from fiction...especially after our favorite xenophobic talkshow hosts [it is plural] have come out against it.

[Echo Talon]

Yep, the knee jerk was huge and I admit at first I was part of it. Although all along I did say their was probably something the MSM wasn't telling us. The headline just seemed a little to outrageous.

[Echo Talon]

What were those quotes from the Democrats saying Cheney
Shoots first and asks quesitons later? :)

[B4Ranch]

One word describes your post. EXCELLENCE!

[Rudder]

I give GWB a big fat 'F' in public relations concerning this deal. The so-called "facts" concerning this deal should have been "sold" to the American public before the deal was done, not after the horse left the barn.

[rollo tomasi]

Initially I was in a "WTF is Pres. Bush doing" mode but after five minutes of reading facts the question was "What else could Pres. Bush do". After all it's not like many American owned companies were in on the bidding.

[bobsunshine]

What American Companies? Haliburton is the only one which could handle this, but the DEMS hate them and would see it as a favor from Bush.

Next, port security is run by Homesecurity and the Coast Guard.

Second, port personnel will still be the same. There will not be a bunch of Arab people running around controlling operations.

If a war or issue emerges, the Gov. just takes over (Martial Law).

I don't see where this is a big issue. Our fear and the MSM is making it one. Don't you think that the Administration had done a through investigation? Take a read of some posts by AJ Strata. He hits the nail on the head.

http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/1375

[arizonarachel]

Thank you for posting this - my husband and I were discussing it this morning, and I asked him about the security - since that's what a lot of people here seem to think...(that security is being turned over to the company). He told me that the ports were guarded by the Coast Guard and that this company would 'own' the ports and basically make money on all the shipments that come in / go out from there. At least, that is his take on the situation...and I think he's not far off...If I'm wrong, I hope someone advises me!

[Sunnyflorida]

"A bidding war for the British-owned P&O has been going on since last autumn, and the P&O board accepted Dubai's latest offer last month. The story only blew up last week, as a Florida firm that is a partner with P&O in Miami, Continental Stevedoring and Terminals Inc., filed a suit to block the purchase."

That is the most telling part of the article"

Exactly. When the story first broke I just knew there had to be something behind it besides the national security issues. The fact that this originated in Miami cannot be a surprise. The Miami Ports (sea and land) are cesspits of corruption. Why would anyone worry about the UAE if they KNEW what goes on in Miami. Miami transits tons and tons of illicit goods every year (boats, cars, RVs, guns, drugs, people, you name it). And usually in the rare case of a bust there is an inside connection. No right-thinking terrorist would smuggle in WMB through the sieve of the Ports of Miami for fear that some petty thief on the payroll would steal it.

[bobsunshine]

Here is a another good article from AJ Strata on the ports.

From The Duh! Files

My sincere apologies to all the Bush critics on the UAE port deal - but I mean really:

Stewart A. Baker, assistant secretary for policy at the Department of Homeland Security, said at a news conference yesterday that Dubai Ports World, which won a takeover battle for a British firm now operating terminals in the ports, promised during an internal administration review that it would continue participating in security programs previously entered into with the U.S. government.

Duh! Of course they would, they are required to.

And Michael Seymour, head of North American operations for Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co., the British firm being bought by the UAE firm, said the workers handling security in U.S. ports are supplied by longshoremen’s unions — an arrangement, he vowed, that would remain in effect. “So it doesn’t make any difference whether we are their employers, or other terminal operators are their employers,” he said.

Well Duh! That’s there job and they are serious about it. Unlike the critics who make fairly silly scenarios assuming really dumb federal officials.

Stephen E. Flynn, a specialist in maritime security at the Council on Foreign Relations, noted that although the company is state-owned, several members of its top management are Americans — including its general counsel, a senior vice president and its outgoing chief operating officer, Edward H. Bilkey, who is a former U.S. Naval officer. And in the years since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the United States has increasingly depended on such foreign port operators to cooperate in inspecting cargoes before they head for U.S. shores.

Duh again! We need partners to help stop attacks before they happen. And companies are not ignorant of these realities. Only liberal eco-whackos used to buy into Hollywood’s caricatures of big business. Speaking of wild imaginations

“I think there’s some specter that people from the Middle East are going to come over here and operate terminals,” he said. “I don’t think anything like that is going to happen.”

Duh! They have highly trained, experience people in place. Changing them out would only ATTRACT attention.

Enough being flip. Serious people will read the article and learn about the subject. I had no idea US Ports were operated by foreign companies under contract. I did know port security was handled outside these companies because I am good friends with a former deputy commander of a major US port who recently retired from the Coast Guard. But all the rest is news to me.

[Sunnyflorida]

"The ports should be controlled by american companies"

So just what American company are you going to FORCE to become a port operator?

The gubmit in this case are the LOCAL PORT AUTHORITIES. The feds have no power to let these contracts.

[Constitutionalist Conservative]

Email me for the rest of this article.

No need; it's on their free site also.

[presidio9]

And there you have it.

It's over.

Only if I let myself be drawn into an irrelevant political discussion, which is what this whole controversy is about. Sorry, not interested. If you want to get played again by Senator Clinton, that's your perrogative.

[presidio9]

Again, the point is that the fact that a company is British-based, or even US-based does not necessarily make it safe. Unless you want the ports federally controlled, there are no guarantees.

[jaydubya2]

I wish I had a subscription to WSJ online so I could read the entire article.