Posted on 03/10/2006 3:58:56 PM PST by Pikamax
Washington -- The collapse of the Dubai port deal was a victory for the politics of fear.
Democrats saw an opportunity to exploit the terrorism anxieties that have been used against them for the past two elections. Republicans faced the prospect that following their president could cost them the November midterm elections.
The result was an extraordinary bipartisan consensus to stand up to President Bush and shut Arabs out of U.S. ports, killing a deal that security experts generally agreed presented no threat.
Fear of foreign investment has been a factor in American politics at other times over the past century: the United States confiscated German assets prior to World War I, and Congress expressed alarm over Japanese investments in the 1980s and Chinese investments in the past few years.
But fear of terrorists in general, and Arab Muslims in particular, has been the driving force of American politics since Sept. 11, 2001.
Bush's unrelenting -- exaggerated, according to his critics -- campaign against terrorism underpinned the environment that doomed the port deal. Elevated terror warnings from the Department of Homeland Security, the war in Iraq and regular admonitions in presidential speeches of the looming danger have conditioned many Americans to anticipate the worst.
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
"This is not aimed at any company, it's not aimed at any country, it is aimed at trying to send a big wake-up call to our own government that we've not done what we need to do on security in our ports and so much else that has basically been neglected since 9/11,'' said Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y.
Such words did little to convince skeptics that opportunistic politics hadn't trumped policy.
"They are full of s -- ,'' said Zogby, himself a Democrat. "They know just what they are doing.''
I think we'll eventually regret this decision. Congress will move fast if it senses public opinion is strong about a subject.
The last time they did this was with the Terri Schiavo case, and that didn't work out too well, either.
In Washington ignorance rules the day.
"...any foreign operations at U.S. ports..."
So the Democrats are going to propose we do the same with the Chinese controlled ports?
Great! That way we won't appear to be unfair.
The ports deal was killed by the Bush administration's incompetence, and its' failure to get out ahead of this issue and defend it. Once again Bush is hurt by his inability to articulately defend his policies.
You're right...Bush is arrogant. I've been making excuses for him for so long...no more. This was unnecessary, and if he had reached out to other Republicans and if they all had the same notes, they could have beat the Dems and taken the racism train right out from under them. But, no...our spineless politicians caved. I'm so tired of it. I truly don't think it matters at this point who is in the White House.
This is bravo sierra. It is the appearances that sunk this deal. As my friend the lawyer says, "If I were seen discussing the weather with a juror in a case, I could lose my law license, and even be jailed for contempt". It is just too soon after 9/11. Pure and simple, it just fails the smell test.
John B.Dwyer
American Thinker
Bitt
spot on.
The DP ports deal is not dead. DP owns the port terminal leases. The value of these leases is about $700 million. No American shipping company is big enough or has the assets to buy the terminals. Congress has prevented the DP operation of the terminals by cutting funding for the 45 day extended security check.. DP must sell the leases or lose money or they can sell 51% ownership of the terminal lesses to a American company in a joint venture for about 350 million and still have access to the port terminals. A American company, SSA (Stevedoring Services of America) has wanted the leases but could not afford them. DP will sell 51% of the terminal leases and retain 49%. DP will have full use of the port terminals. Read below;
SSA of Seattle planned to work with DP World
By Alwyn Scott
Seattle Times business reporter
SSA Marine, by far the largest U.S.-based port operator, appears to be in prime position to take a role in running the U.S. assets of Dubai Ports World (DP World), the company at the center of the port-security controversy.
Seattle-based SSA had been planning to accept DP World as its joint-venture partner at ports in Philadelphia, Wilmington, Del., and Camden, N.J.
SSA was a partner in those ports with London-based Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation (P&O). DP World purchased P&O in a $6.8 billion deal that closed this week.
On Thursday, DP World said it would transfer P&O's U.S. assets "to a U.S. entity" either by selling them to another company or setting up a corporate structure without management links to its government-controlled parent in Dubai.
Bob Watters, vice president at SSA, declined to comment on whether the company was interested in acquiring DP World's half of the joint venture, or its assets at other U.S. ports that would have been acquired by DP World. Those include Baltimore; Newark, N.J.; Miami; and New Orleans, all ports where SSA does not have operations.
SSA manages one of the largest terminals at the Port of Seattle.
Through the P&O purchase, DP World would have acquired half of Delaware River Stevedores, the joint venture with SSA. The venture operates port terminals at Philadelphia and Camden; in Wilmington its role is limited to stevedoring, or loading and unloading ships.
SSA has 150 port operations in at least nine countries, Watters said. In 2003 after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, it won a U.S. government contract to operate the Iraqi port of Umm Qasr to handle aid and reconstruction cargo.
The company leases and operates seven container terminals in the United States. The next-largest U.S. competitor is Maher Terminals, which leases and operates the largest amount of terminal space at the ports of New York and New Jersey. Other large companies leasing U.S. terminals are foreign-owned, Watters said. And other big U.S. companies only operate terminals, but don't lease the land.
Watters said SSA saw no security issues in having DP World as its partner at the three East Coast ports.
In particular read below
Foreign involvement is nothing new - Kathleen Pender
Stevedoring Services of America is mostly a Democrat Party< donor.
Patty Murray's husband is big deal in the company.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1592783/posts?page=83#83
I would only ask of those who so vehemently opposed the port deal. How does it feel to have the Democrats party stick it so far up your A$$. How does it feel to help fund the Democrat party who used your fear and bigotry to misinform others. Does it feel good? I hope so. Congratulations
They admit to racism but say its ok because it will help them in the polls. Ish.
Bush certainly didn't get out in front of this issue. But Congress had agreed to a 45 day review, and they reneged on that. This was a sorry spectacle for all, but I give the raspberry to Congress.
Someone knows them!
Where werre the democrats opposition to China? Seem to me Clinton was ALL for it!
No, the collapse of the Dubai port deal was a victory for those that demand a little more information vice once again putting their blind faith in politicians that can be trusted like drinking a cup of hemlock is healthful!
If anything, putting out some simple facts could have saved this deal.
We heard that DPW would "run" and "operate" the ports, then out of the same side of the mouths saying that, all they would do is "invest" in it.
Many people invest daily in both this country and around the world without "operating" or "running" what they invest in. Yet, no one in this country could put out what exactly it is that DPW would do, what it's responsibilities were, and what information, classified or not, as either "investors" or "port operators" they would be privy too.
Those opposed also raised the BS flag on other "unfriendly" nations, such as communist China, also having some authority in like manner. Yet, the Pros ran around afterwards crying how we, the antis, simply don't like "Arabs."
And they're the ones talking about irresponsibility.
If the deal was on the up-and-up, then the same information that DPW would have had access too, should easily have been publishable in any major US newspaper or online source. If that wasn't possible, then this deal had issues and our other Port operations need to be looked at too.
Meanwhile, those desirous of actually transcending politics and truly interested in our nation's security, are the one's that those "oh so responsible" ones are now blaming!
Go figure!
PS, I wonder what the pros would say about outsourcing the Secret Service! Hmmmm.... Presumably we'd all of a sudden have a lot more "xenophobes" and "anti-global-investment" people around no doubt!
Wonder if we will have a rush now, to see who is most secure, in the WOT?
All the congress critters want to vote and get on record that they were against this.
"The ports deal was killed by the Bush administration's incompetence"
NO! This deal was killed by religious bigots like Rep Jerry Lewis(R) who used hatred in the hopes of votes. The GOP proved that they don't have a moral spine to run the country.
That's absolutely correct! But since the Bush administration is allergic to the media and other forms of communication with the American public, well, hey, this is the result.
Speaking for myself, and I know as a fact many other antis in this, if this had simply been an investment deal only with no influence otherwise, then I'd have been all for it. But that wasn't put out and neither were the details of exactly what DPW's role was. If it were all that classified, then IMO the deal was good to have gone down.
W/o this detailed information otherwise, politicians asking us to trust them is absurd! If anything, perhaps this will be a wake up call to politicians that think they can just ask for our faith and trust when there are a host of reasons not to give it to them.
It was killed by IGNORANCE. Plain stupidity for the underlings in the Admin NOT to recognize how this could look. Then the hatred and ignorance of the MSM and 80% of the American People just don't have the time or temperment to make an assessment of the situation.
True facts were/are hard to find on this topic if you are a plain ole Joe or Jane that watches CNN out in Iowa somewhere.
The long range plan of the Admin should have been put out on this last fall, a news conference by W to explain the pros and cons, allies, US bases and tell the Story of Why It Would Be GOOD for the USA...
Sadly, ignorance all around messed this up.
The repercussions will probably take a few years to show up.
G
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.