Posted on 02/22/2006 1:18:57 AM PST by bd476
WASHINGTON, Feb. 22, 2006
A nefarious multinational corporation secretly controlled by a hostile Arab government has engineered a covert takeover of six major U.S. ports. America is at risk of losing control of its borders and compromising national security in an entirely preventable way.
Horselips.
Never have I seen a bogus story explode so fast and so far. I thought I was a connoisseur of demagoguery and cheap shots, but the Dubai Ports World saga proves me a piker. With a stunning kinship of cravenness, politicians of all flavors risk trampling each other as they rush to the cameras and microphones to condemn the handover of massive U.S. strategic assets to an Islamic, Arab terrorist-loving enemy.
The only problem -- and I admit it's only a teeny-weeny problem -- is that 90 percent of that story is false.
The United Arab Emirates is not an Axis of Evil kind of place, it will not own U.S. ports, it will not control security at U.S. ports and there is nothing new about foreigners owning U.S. ports. Odds are higher that you'll be wounded interfering with a congressman providing soundbites than by something smuggled into a port terminal leased by Dubai Ports World.
But please: let's not let the facts get in the way of a good story. And what's wrong with a little Arab-bashing anyway?
I am no expert on ports, transportation or shipping. But it takes very little reading and research to cut through the gas on this one.
Myth #1: That an Arab company is trying to buy six American ports.
No, the company is buying up a British company that leases terminals in American ports; the ports are U.S.-owned. To lease a terminal at a U.S. port means running some business operations there -- contracting with shipping lines, loading and unloading cargo and hiring local labor. Dubai Ports World is not buying the ports.
Several companies will lease terminals at a single port. In New Orleans, for example, the company Dubai Ports World is trying to buy (P&O Ports) is just one of eight companies that lease and operate terminals.
P&O Ports does business in 18 other countries. None of them are in righteous lathers about the sale of the business to a company owned by the United Arab Emirates. Dubai Ports World already operates port facilities all over the world, including such security-slacker states as China, Australia, Korea and Germany.
Myth #2: The U.S. is turning over security at crucial ports to an Arab company.
No, security at U.S. ports is controlled by U.S. federal agencies led by the Coast Guard and the U.S. Customs and Border Control Agency, which are part of the Homeland Security department. Local jurisdictions also provide police and security personnel.
Complaints about security at ports should be directed to the federal government.
Myth #3: American ports should be American.
Well, it's too late, baby. According to James Jay Carafano of the Heritage Foundation (a place really known for its Arab-loving, soft-on-terror approach), "Foreign companies already own most of the maritime infrastructure that sustains American trade…"
At the port of Los Angeles, 80 per cent of the terminals are operated by foreign companies. Chinese companies operate more than half the terminals. So why is this suddenly a threat? After all, political outcry managed to scupper the deal a few months ago in which a Chinese company was going to take over the Unocal oil company.
Go to any port in the country and you'll be lucky to see a single giant vessel with U.S.A. on its stern. Foreign-owned airplanes fly into American airports every hour. Many U.S. companies have foreign entities among their largest shareholders.
My colleague Charlie Wolfson reports that State Department sources say Dubai Ports World already handles port calls for U.S. Navy ships from the 5th fleet for their regular port calls in the United Arab Emirates -- a pretty high measure of trustworthiness.
Myth #4: the United Arab Emirates has "very serious" al Qaeda connections.
That's what Republican Rep. Peter King says. It's also what the administration said of pre-war Iraq, but that doesn't mean it's true. I suppose you could say each and every Arab and Islamic country has al Qaeda issues, but even on that yardstick the UAE is a pretty good player and by most accounts, getting better.
Politicians have been quick to point out that two of the 9/11 hijackers were from UAE. And we're turning over our ports to them? Well, by that logic, we shouldn't let Lufthansa land in our airports or have military bases in Germany, because that country housed a bunch of the 9/11 hijackers as they were plotting.
Yes, Dubai has plenty of blood in its hands, especially as a source or courier for terror funds. But it is not a rogue state. It has been among the closer and more cooperative Arab allies for the past two years (another conspiracy theory: the U.S. is paying them off).
Some combination of these facts led the Dubai Ports deal to be approved by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States. Certainly the security of American ports is an important issue. Certainly who controls the finances of companies that lease terminals at ports is far down the to-do list of how to improve security at ports.
That has everything to do with adequate funding and proper management at the relevant agencies. Management is the responsibility of the executive branch, while funding and oversight is the job of Congress. There is scant evidence that Congress or the administration have excelled in their duties.
That's why it's so tempting for politicians of both parties to indulge in xenophobic Arab-bashing on this matter of minimal national security importance. One Republican said that regardless of the facts, the administration was politically "tone deaf" on this one. Appearance is more important than reality.
Often bipartisanship is a sign of pragmatic consensus or noble common cause. In this case it is merely a scene of a politician occupational hazard: cover-your-arse-itis.
Dick Meyer, a veteran political and investigative producer for CBS News, is the Editorial Director of CBSNews.com, based in Washington.
Maybe you're the one who doesn't understand the difference between western thinking and islamic thinking.
Can't help you there, you either get it or you don't
good luck! lol
"-This whole thing is really amusing. The emotional vs. the thinking crowd."
It takes a few minutes of thinking to realize that this is a very innocuous business deal, and nothing more.
DP World's ownership wouldn't change port security one single iota.
>>>> Yes, Dubai has plenty of blood in its hands, especially as a source or courier for terror funds. But it is not a rogue state. It has been among the closer and more cooperative Arab allies for the past two years (another conspiracy theory: the U.S. is paying them off).
Add child slaves!
don't spoil the giant hissy fit going on here with facts!
Have you all taken total leave of your senses? The loading and unloading of shipments is exactly the kind of thing we don't want Muslims to control! Unless we have a hostage as a guarantee - and I mean a hostage as in their entire nation becomes ours if anything happens due to their control of these terminals - then Islamic Arabs cannot be trusted... and even if we do have such a guarantee, they are still less trustworthy than the French.
DP World's ownership wouldn't change port security one single iota.
I just can't understand the knee jerk reaction by many conservatives. The liberals I am not surprised by at all, but Tony Snow is about the only rational, finder of fact I have heard on the radio and talk shows.
Mary Matalin was great on this issue saying...LOOK AT THE FACTS PEOPLE!!
The loading and unloading of shipments is exactly the kind of thing we don't want Muslims to control!
GET THE FACTS....they WON"T control it. Good grief!!
Ok then. What does the Cole have to do with security at American Ports?
The American public is truly stuck on stupid on this issue. The Democrats are demagoguing it, and the Republicans are acting like lemmings, scrambling to get to the right of the Democrats on it.
I have never seen ignorance prevail in such a blatant way.
They're not going to control unloading shipments. Get educated on how this deal works and calm your jerking knees.
This is directly from the article. This is not a fact?
And while we're at it, the "hiring local labor" part is not something I want Islamics doing, either.
So you are disputing the article's contention that that is the case?
Herein lies the REAL scandal:
Bush said he is continuing his commitment to seek out alternative fuels and lessening the dependence on foreign oil. However, that does not mean he's going to support offshore drilling in the Gulf of Mexico.It's time to realize that George W. Bush is nothing more than an OPEC sockpuppet.
"I made a commitment that nothing is going to happen within 100 miles of this coastline, and I'm honoring that commitment," Bush said. "I don't care what people might be saying. It's a commitment that this government has. There's a lot of technologies that are coming on the market, and we're spending money. It's a good use of taxpayers' money it seems like to me in order to achieve some big objectives."
"The American public is truly stuck on stupid on this issue."
It's understandable when you have people with the security competence of, say, Frank Gaffney stating that it's a dubious deal. But when you read his editorial you find his reasoning is weak and unconvincing.
You shouldn't be so shy about stating your opinion. :)
You are missing the fundamental point which is everything that is done is overseen and dictated by US rules and regulations. It's NOT a bunch of "muslims" calling the shots.
Tune in to Tony Snow and relax. He makes it all clear.
WAIT A MINUTE! Does this mean the UAE closes down hotbeds of Islamic extremism?? Damn. I thought the UAE encouraged Islamic extremists! At least to hear Chuck Schumer and Hillary Clinton talk about it!
I think we rank right up there, on this big controversy at least, with the "big boys".
"""Yes, and Timothy McVeigh--the Oklahoma City bomber--grew up in New York state, didn't he? I suggest the United States immediately withdraw all contracts and business with any company in New York. After all, it was home to our worst domestic terrorist."""
Bad anology; New York city is not hell bent on killing all Americans and infidals
Sound like you will make an excuse for anything.
Union dockworkers with union management load and unload ships. If you think union workers are going to sabotage their own country, I guess you're entitled to that cynical view.
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.