Port Whine: Why Republicans should stop their bickering about the Dubai debacle.

Slate ^ | February 22, 2005 | John Dickerson

[quidnunc]

Republicans, who usually have the good sense to avoid fratricide, are engaged in perhaps the most vicious intramural squabble of the Bush presidency over the deal allowing Dubai Ports World to control operations at several major U.S. seaports. The controversy ignited in an instant and has now involved virtually every prominent Republican in Washington and a bunch of Republican governors near the affected ports.

-snip-

Congressional leaders are feeling cranky and neglected. Bush is always doing stuff without telling them, and they're always grumbling he doesn't recognize that they're up for re-election this year. So, it probably feels very satisfying to push back at him for a change. And their opposition also seems like smart politics, at least superficially. …

Those political calculations may make sense for today, but in the long term, this fight will harm the GOP. Republicans can't distance themselves from Bush on security issues. He's not only the head of their party; he's the commander in chief. By pouncing on this issue so quickly and joining Democrats like Chuck Schumer and Hillary Clinton, Republican leaders send a global message: They don't trust Bush. They don't trust him enough to even wait to understand the facts of the deal. They don't trust him enough to even worry that they might have their facts wrong and wind up embarrassed.

-snip-

The squabble will also irritate the president. He's tired of congressional second-guessing—especially in a case like this where GOP leaders willfully refuse to acknowledge the complexity of global diplomacy and the value of global capitalism. You don't hear the deal's critics explaining who exactly will control port security if not Dubai Ports World. …

-snip-

[Vicomte13]

"Many, if not most of the new Hispanic immigrants are not Roman Catholics, they are Pentecostals -Evangelical Protestants."

The same University of California study I cited for piety showed that 59% of Latino immigrants are Catholic, 22% are evanglical Protestant, 12% profess no religion, and the remainder are "Other religion"

[Vicomte13]

"Bull!!!!
Get you head out of the sand and take a look around."

Explain to me, very specifically, where the THREAT TO SECURITY is in having a foreign owner of a port unloading facility in the US.

He does not own the Coast Guard or police, and cannot restrict their operations in any way. We are long, long past the day when a private owner has any power to block national security and police actions on his own private property. Some people have mythical beliefs in what property rights OUGHT to be, but the reality is that the Coast Guard and various port authority police and inspectors are going to continue to operate at will in these ports no matter who owns them. "Ownership" of a port unloading facility or a lease gives diddly-squat power in America to stop the authorities from their security mission.

So, the same security officials will be there.

The owner of the company does not own the workers. He doesn't control the immigration or labor laws of the United States. Business people in America have no liberty at all anymore to "import their own" workers or anything like that, even if they wanted to. The owner of this company has to use unionized workers. The same people unloading the ships NOW will be doing it then. No owner of anything can change that. This is a heavily unionized industry. Owners do not have power over labor. They cannot replace the American stevedores with foreign imports.

Having an Arab boss is not going to in any way make an Irish-American dockworker or a Polish-American Teamster more likely to assist in terrorism.

So, WHERE IS THE THREAT?
Americans are still going to be doing all the loading or unloading. All that changes is the upstream cash flow. Now it goes to Britain. Then it will go to Dubai. No difference on the ground.

You tell me to get my head out of the sand. It is. I'm looking at the sand crabs, and looking straight and hard at how a port works. Spent a long time at sea and in ports around the world, and years in American ports. You tell me, specifically WHERE the SECURITY risk is.

I think you can't, because there ISN'T one.
You just don't like the IDEA of an Arab owning something that has something to do with a port. While I understand the concern, in the abstract, if you're going to get down to the point of telling me to get MY head out of the sand, I must retort: EXPLAIN WHERE THE THREAT IS. Concretely.
What will change? Will the Irish stevedores be corrupted? Will Teamsters start carrying bombs? Will the unions collapse and get off the docks because some Arab somewhere wants to ship in foreign Arabs to unload ships? How the hell is THAT going to happen without a massive strike and intervention by the immigration authorities?

There is no threat here.
The problem is purely optical.
You say otherwise. So walk me through the scenario, of how having an ultimate upstream Arab owner makes it more likely that a bomb is going to get into an American port.

[commonerX]

Simple and if I can come up with it, I am sure the terrorist will have more ideas 10 fold.

All of these people working at the port will not be Americans. The parent Company will send people over to oversee operations and run management jobs. No foreign company is going to invest all that money with out having some of its own people there.

I don't know how many it would be but lets say it is just a dozen or so per port.

These people will have family back home. The terrorist know this. They can and have taken their own people hostage to blackmail them into doing their bidding and getting information about how the security and port operations here in the USA work will be one of them. They will inform them on areas of weaknesses, laxness, and schedules with regard to security. Let them know of any holes in security or workers. They will be there everyday with access to observe these operations unlike someone just stopping nearby to spy on the port which anyone can do now. After that it may be no long in the hands of the port worker. The terrorist cell will take over operations based on the information from the worker. And of course they still have his family so they can demand him to do more. Most people would be more than willing to sacrifice their lives and wouldn't care about the company he works for if his family is being threatened. This is not a far fetched scenario and is rather simple. I am sure the terrorist can come up with much better one.

It wouldn't be the company doing the terrorist attack. it would most likely be a handful of employees that came over with the parent company. The dock workers will no nothing of this until it's too late.

Why do want this deal to go through so much? What is in it for you?
There is nothing good here but to raise the risk of another terrorist attack. Giving them access to a vital avenue to our country.

Why can't you see this?

[Ben Mugged]

I refer you to post 24.

[KC_Conspirator]

There is nothing unreasonable about demanding scrutiny of this deal. What IS unreasonable is the demand to fast track and rubber stamp this thing. Furthermore, its a false argument to say that Dubai Ports World is the only company that can do the job. There are plenty of companies that can do it. The same lie is also said that illegals do jobs that Americans won't do.

[Cincinna]

That may have been previously true, especially in California.
The Hispanic population in Texas and other SW States is now predominately Pentecostal. There is a demographic shift in this population, and now more Evangelical Protestants, Pentecostals and others are coming here.
Traditionally, they are extremely conservative socially, and much more economically conservative than the RC population that most often voted Democrat.

[CWOJackson]

"The parent Company will send people over to oversee operations and run management jobs."

No more so then any of the other commercial operations in the U.S., all of which are foreign owned. That includes those already owned by Saudi Arabia.

[Quick1]

Would you rather be in Jimmah's bed?

[XJarhead]

All of these people working at the port will not be Americans.

They're not all Americans now. And there also are arab-flagged vessels that routinely visit our ports even now and have ample opportunity to review our security. It's not like that level of security is secret.

The parent Company will send people over to oversee operations and run management jobs. No foreign company is going to invest all that money with out having some of its own people there.

Exactly how will those jobs enable them to compromise security? What specific knowledge do they have?

[Once-Ler]

And you sir, are assinine enough to post at DU.

After my last post I'd have to agree. I went way over the line and I offer my apologies. In my defense my wife and kids are away and this allowed me to indulge in too much scotch. Quite frankly, I only vaguely remember posting the last response.

I looked at some of your earlier posts and I fear I mistook you for another Freeper I have spared with before. However, even if you were the Freeper I mistook you for, it still doesn't excuse my last reply, and I sure didn't make a compelling case to change your opinion.

I can't remove the post, but I wish I could.

[Once-Ler]

She MIGHT have. But then again, she might not have.

That is the opinion of many untrusting conservatives. IMO, with the exception of CFR, Dubya has supported everything he said he would. Because of this, there is no matter of trust for me. I have not liked everything Dubya promised to voters so he could be elected and re-elected, but Dubya promised conservative judges. History has proved him honest.

I'm not comfortable talking about my religous beliefs but, I really like Christians. Like Dubya, Harriet Miers is a Christian. I believe good Christians are motivated by the Holy Spirit, but they must contimplate the problem to recieve guidence through prayer. I look into the President's eyes, I listen to his words, and I see they way he conducts himself, and I see a man of faith, and I see the spirit of God.

I know that sounds really unconvincing to those who don't see the devine reality we live in.

But even outside of religion, I trust Dubya because if I was in his shoes, and the fate of the world rested on my shoulders, I would be thinking about my children, and their children, and my friends. My assured future wealth would be low on my concerns list.I don't know that I could sleep with the responsibility of protecting my child's world.

I can't explain my faith, but I trust Dubya.

[commonerX]

"""No more so then any of the other commercial operations in the U.S., all of which are foreign owned. That includes those already owned by Saudi Arabia."""


Two wrongs don't make a right. I would question there ownership as well.

I am sorry but my families safety is more important then making nicey nice with people who hate us and want to subject us to there laws or kill us if we don't.

What was it 15 hijackers came from Saudi Arabia. They also support Hamas and don't recognize Israels right to exist. They are not a democracy either. I believe 2 came from UAE and also they support Hamas, funded terrorist and don't recognize Israel.

These countries people are not to be trusted until they can prove they are trustworthy. They can start by finding and handing over Osama.

Do you live near one of these ports?

[CWOJackson]

"These countries people are not to be trusted until they can prove they are trustworthy."

Which was apparently proven sufficiently to the DoD to trust them with being the critical logistic support link for our troops in combat.

[commonerX]

"""They're not all Americans now. And there also are arab-flagged vessels that routinely visit our ports even now and have ample opportunity to review our security. It's not like that level of security is secret."""

It is not a matter of secrecy but a matter of allowing people who want to destroy this country (not just anybody)observing, weaknesses, patterns, and schedules of the security departments operating there. A person from Britain is not inclined to want to kill us or send info back to terrorist organizations, the risk is far less.

People who are for this deal seem to think that people who are against it think that the UAE government or the Dubai Company would be doing the attack. They wouldn't but someone within there company or government might. Terrorist will take worker families hostage and threaten them in order to get the info they want. Once they have it the worker is no longer needed, the terrorist will have what they need.

This is not a far fetched scenario and I am sure the terrorist are far more creative I fear.

Everything the US government does isn't always the right thing and if we the people don't call them on it we deserve what we get.

[commonerX]

"""Which was apparently proven sufficiently to the DoD to trust them with being the critical logistic support link for our troops in combat."""


You are talking about the UAE government. Which I still do not trust. But it is not what I am referring to.

DoD doesn't have the security concerns that most Americans have because they are the DoD. The DoD can provide themselves with as much security as they wish so I am sure they don't see a problem with respect to their safety.

We on the other hand have to be vigilant as a group to protect ourselves which is what we are doing now by not wanting a terrorist supporter to operate our ports.

But I guess you don't understand that.

Do you work for the Government by any chance?

Do you live near one of these Ports?

[CWOJackson]

"DoD doesn't have the security concerns that most Americans have because they are the DoD."

You'd be surprised at how much the Secretary and the Chairman take the concerns of their people seriously.

"But I guess you don't understand that. Do you work for the Government by any chance? Do you live near one of these Ports?"

Wrong, no longer and yes. I had over thirty years active duty in the Coast Guard. Much of that involving MDZ planning and port security. I'm very familiar with almost all the ports mentioned and am intimated familiar with how port operations function as opposed to commercial operations and I'm still involved with the industry.

[commonerX]

"""Wrong, no longer and yes. I had over thirty years active duty in the Coast Guard. Much of that involving MDZ planning and port security. I'm very familiar with almost all the ports mentioned and am intimated familiar with how port operations function as opposed to commercial operations and I'm still involved with the industry."""

Sound like you have a personal motive to seeing this go through. You want to prove that your security work is up to snuff for most any situation.

I appreciate the work you have done to keep this country safe. I was in the Army back in the 80's and know that security is only as good as the weak link. Which is what the terrorist will look for given the chance, which I want to keep to a minimal amount, hence no ports in the hands of terrorist supporters.

And I too live near one of these ports.

[CWOJackson]

No personal motive at all, just first hand knowledge about the subject and just how phoney this whole non-crisis is.

[maryz]

Frist, Schumer and Clinton versus Bush and Carter

I suspect Carter came out for precisely because he believed the early headlines and thought we were selling the ports! ;-)

(Would reflect well on his Panama Canal deal?)