kcvl wrote: "...It's time for politicians to study and issue before they engage their mouths..."
Wow, KCVL
- You just nailed that one on the head
- Truer words have not been spoken
- Bingo!
Of course, that's not bound to happen until
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.
Someone needs to tell Greg Norman, Bill Clinton's friend, that he is dealing with a terrorist supporter, Sultan Ahmed Bin Sulayem, Executive Chairman for Nakheel. Since he is designing golf courses with him.
http://tinyurl.com/hbgkw
Hillary call 'your husband'. You need to figure out which side of this issue is best to take for the most political support during your next election.
Not that you (Hillary) would ever take another position when it suits your political needs. /sarcasm
It's time for politicians to study and issue before they engage their mouths. Not that that will ever happen.
what is Dubai like? I've been to Port Said, Egypt, Tunisia, Israel, and Jeddah. But no Dubai. I've read on other posts that sailors have to stay on the pier in uniform, but could go out in town in civvies.
Great piece, particularly when put against the "But they're Arabs, 9-11, hell-o, case closed!" retard argument of the other side.
'this is all a matter of anti-Arab profiling: "I want those who are questioning it to step up and explain why all of a sudden a Middle Eastern company is held to a different standard than a [British] company," which last week was "sold to the UAE firm. With all due respect, Mr. President, here's why: * The UAE — and, specifically, Dubai — has been a breeding ground for terrorism. * Its banking system — considered the commercial center of the Arab world — provided most of the cash for the 9/11 hijackers. * * It... " '"..........
"It (DUBAI) UAE - is a breeding ground for terrorism.........."
Clinton sold Nukes to China under the table alleged (Cox Report), US didn't believe Japan would bomb Pearl Harbor us either. Our politicians are out cheating like Abramoff, Enron, Mexicans drug lords have their countries army at our southern borders, smuggling in dope.
Doesn't anyone know that the Islamic terrorists are supported by Arab and all those other countries. France is already concerned that their islam population is larger than than their regular French citizens.
I do not believe that only americans will be used to work on the docks security wise or anything else. It's time to wake up and smell the coffee. This is a TROJAN Horse if I ever saw one and US is asking for it.
Tell me, who's running this country? From now on I am only voting for politicians who vote against this issue. Americans better wake up and start protecting themselves, becayue there is a good chance we will have too. Katrina is a good example of the kind of care we will be getting in disaster.
CowboyJay wrote: "When someone starts telling me this is a good idea in oppostion to the will of the people and congress, my BS-meter goes off. They are an islamic nation. Islam declared jihad on us. Islam is the state religion of Dubai.
Israel gets it. There is no peace with islam."
CowboyJay, sometimes it is hard to get to the facts when headlines shout out the direction someone wants our opinions to lean.
In this case, it might be worth taking a little time to research this before assuming that the President has suddenly flipped his lid.
Do you remember the post 9/11 reaction from some who would not hear of the US going after the terrorists and those nations who would support them? I do, vividly.
Today I do not believe that the President has made a sudden u-turn or changed directions on our national security because he has not, nor have his closest advisers.
This is a political storm only.
'America is at risk of losing control of its borders and compromising national security in an entirely preventable way. '
OOps I thought he was talking about the US/Mexican border!
twidle wrote: "...Tell me, who's running this country? From now on I am only voting for politicians who vote against this issue. Americans better wake up and start protecting themselves, becayue there is a good chance we will have too. Katrina is a good example of the kind of care we will be getting in disaster..."
Twidle, headlines, 30 second news briefs, clever comments from pundits always alarm, that's what they are supposed to do, to get you to listen carefully and long enough to sell you some name brand soap suds during commercials.
The best way to get to the facts so that voting decisions are based on the facts is to research when you have some extra time.
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.
Well, that is something of a myth since this isn't just 'an Arab company' but is instead actually a purchase by an Arab emirate.
But this incessant beat that companies have no security role in our ports is patently untrue. In point of fact, private companies have received millions of taxpayer dollars in matching grants to improve port security in the last few years. Here is a program description from the Coast Guard.
The GAO wrote up a document analyzing port security U.S. in June 2004. What it found was that the security planning required from the thousands of private owners and operators needed improvement.
For instance:
Facilities and vessels can be vulnerable on many security-related fronts. Facilities such as container terminals, where containers are transferred between ships and railroad cars or trucks, must be able to screen vehicles entering the facility and routinely check cargo for evidence of tampering. Chemical factories and other installations where hazardous materials are present must be able to control access to areas containing dangerous goods or hazardous substances. Vessels, ranging from oil tankers and freighters to tugboats and passenger ferries, must be able to restrict access to areas on board the vessel such as the bridge or other control stations critical to the vessel's operation. To reduce the opportunity for terrorists to exploit these vulnerabilities, as well as to help minimize the effects of accidents or natural disasters, facilities and vessels need to take mitigation steps. For example, fences, security guards, and monitoring cameras can all be used to reduce the potential for unauthorized entry and help prevent vulnerabilities from being exploited.Dealing with such vulnerabilities involves a careful balance between the benefits of added security and the potential economic impacts of security enhancements. While there is broad support for greater security, this task is a difficult one because the nation relies heavily on a free and expeditious flow of goods. Particularly with "just in time" deliveries, which require a smooth and expeditious flow through the transportation system, delays or disruptions in the supply chain could have serious economic impacts. Striking the right balance between increasing security and protecting economic vitality of the national economy and individual port stakeholders will remain an important and difficult task. It is also important to keep in mind that total security cannot be bought no matter how much is spent on it. It is difficult if not impossible to successfully anticipate and thwart all types of potential terrorist threats that highly motivated, well skilled, and adequately funded terrorist groups could devise.
In this environment, MTSA required owners and operators of facilities and vessels to conduct assessments that would identify their security vulnerabilities and to develop security plans to mitigate these vulnerabilities. Under the Coast Guard's implementing regulations, these plans are to include such items as measures for access control, responses to security threats, and drills and exercises to train staff and test the plan. The plans are "performance-based," meaning that the security outcomes were specified, but the stakeholders were free to identify and implement whatever measures they desired as long as these measures achieved the specified outcomes.
You can also read the testimony of Rear Admiral Craig Bone to the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation subcommittee of the House, who is in charge of port security for the Coast Guard:
Culture of Security: Finally, and perhaps most importantly we have been able to take important steps to instill a culture of security within a system previously focused almost exclusively on efficiency. Reducing the vulnerabilities of our vessels and ports required a cultural security at the top of the agenda rather than as an afterthought. It is centered on the people who must implement the new security measures. Under our MTSA regulations, facilities and vessels are required to designate individuals with security responsibilities, including company security officers, facility security officers, and vessel security officers. These individuals must have knowledge, thorough training and equivalent job experience. They must be familiar with, and responsible for, implementation of the specific security measures outlined in their facility/vessel security plans and they must be knowledgeable in emergency preparedness, the conduct of security audits, and security exercises. In addition, facility security officers must have training in security assessment methodologies; current security threats and patterns; recognizing and detecting dangerous substances and devices, recognizing characteristics and behavioral patterns of persons who are likely to threaten security; and techniques used to circumvent security measures.Increase Operational Presence. Third, we seek to better protect critical maritime infrastructure and improve our ability to respond to suspect activities by increasing our operational presence in ports, coastal zones and beyond,--to implement a layered security posture, a defense-in-depth. Our collective efforts to increase operational presence in ports and coastal zones focus not only on adding more people, boats and ships to our force structures, but making the employment of those resources more effective through the application of technology, information sharing, and intelligence support.
Improve Response and Recovery Posture. Finally, we are improving our ability to respond to and aid in recovery if there were an actual terrorist attack. Understanding the challenge of defending 26,000 miles of navigable waterways and 361 ports against every conceivable threat at every possible time, we are also aggressively working to improve our response capabilities and readiness. While many of the increases in MDA and operational presence augment our collective response and recovery posture, we must also incorporate initiatives that will increase our ability to adequately manage operations and coordinate resources during maritime threat response or recovery operations. The Coast Guard is implementing the new National Response Plan across all operations. The Incident Command System is our mandated crisis management system, and we have years of practical experience in its use. At the local level, each port is ready with port-specific and even sub-area specific, response plans. All law enforcement agencies, public service providers, and port stakeholders have participated in the plan development process. The Coast Guard has confidence that if a maritime transportation security incident (TSI) should occur in one of our ports, the local responders (Coast Guard Sector Commander or Captain of the Port, other federal agencies, state and local authorities, and partners in industry) will immediately react with mitigation, response, and recovery activities in that port and region. At the same time, we are continuing to refine tools and analysis to aid senior leadership in their ability to rapidly respond to a crisis, minimize damage, and aid in recovery operations.
There are an enormous number of Freepers who have expressed hatred for Dubai, UAE, Arabs, Islam and the American Commander-in-Chief in these threads over the last couple of days. The internet works on that side of the world, too. Good guys will have to stop and explain to people they are working with and training and relying upon why their countrymen are writing such things.
There is so much fear and hysteria surrounding this issue that anyone not fearful and hysterical must be one of them and should be attacked fearfully and hysterically. Emotionalism is not helpful.
The dirty little secret is America will never be able to guarantee invincibility. We will never be able to inspect every container that comes in. Get over it. Suck it up. Drive on. Continue the mission.
kcvl wrote: "...It's time for politicians to study and issue before they engage their mouths..."
Wow, KCVL
- You just nailed that one on the head
- Truer words have not been spoken
- Bingo!
Of course, that's not bound to happen until
Dubai is like Disneyland, compared to Kandahar.
Thanks for the feedback Darkwolfe.
What was O'Reilly's take on it?
Please don't bring Al Sharpton into this... ;)
Who told you that you had to believe that? There is no requirement at most ports that the security officers or anybody else be American citizens. A lot of the security officers barely speak English.
DP World is not going to bring A-rabs over from Dubai to infiltrate port security forces and sabotage the Homeland. But what kind of proof of that would satisfy you?
BTTT
BTTT
You raised some good points, Cannoneer. As we try to assess what they are doing, it's inevitable that they are also looking closely at us.
They are also prey to similar mass hysteria generating headlines and news blips that we have seen here, of course written in the political direction which will get their attention best.
In these days of common literacy, we are obliged to make time for reading and researching current issues.
Fact gathering becomes critically important during times like this when some are encouraging conservatives to jump ship and switch parties with disinformation generating mass hysteria.
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.
