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-

[Cboldt]

Minor compared to the Harriet Myers selection.

Harriet was a "Miers." The "Myers" is Julie, recess appointed.

But agreed, the port deal is a relatively small tempest. The NSA terrorist surveillance one is bigger (as was Harriet Miers); and the Warner/Senate counterpart to the Reid/Levin amendment (cut and run from Iraq) was smaller.

[commonerX]

Can you guarantee that the chances of a terrorist supporter or sympathizer working at the ports owned by Dubai is the same as the chance when the British Company owned, honestly?

[johnny7]

It's no '“Miers moment” 'fer sure... this is more like not telling the Senate you're re-painting the lines in the parking-lot.

[pissant]

ROFL. Perfect analogy.

[commonerX]

(0)

[Darkwolf377]

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

LOL!!!!!

That's awesome! My first laugh of the day!

[XJarhead]

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.

They can get that anyway simply by gathering information from all their ships that visit those terminals. They're not going to get anything extra just because DPW runs some terminals.

One thing I have noticed -- and its pretty universal -- is that the more people know about ports and port procedures, the less concerned they are about this deal. The shipping experts, whether civilian or our own military, almost uniformly agree that this is much ago about nothing.

[zook]

My logic, DPW's track record, along with the absence of any strong evidence to suspect otherwise leads me to believe that there will be no significant difference between the service provided by the two companies.

By the way--won't British ports now be serviced by DPW? I suspect the Brits have also done quite a bit of investigation into this.

[commonerX]

"""They can get that anyway simply by gathering information from all their ships that visit those terminals. They're not going to get anything extra just because DPW runs some terminals."""


Anyone can be lulled into a false sense of security.

If security is so good that we need not worry, then how come even after 911 people have still gotten guns on planes?

There are always weakness in security and you wish to allow a terrorist supporting people own part of our back door.

Like I asked a previous person.
Can you guarantee that the chances of a terrorist supporter or sympathizer working at the ports owned by Dubai is the same as the chance when the British Company owned, honestly?

[commonerX]

My logic, DPW's track record, along with the absence of any strong evidence to suspect otherwise leads me to believe that there will be no significant difference between the service provided by the two companies.

No one is questioning the service ability of the 2 companies.

UAE track record is spotty at best
2 hijackers came from there.
They have laundered money for terrorist groups.
Support Hamas, a know terrorist organization
Don't recognize Israel
Not a democracy.

And no red flags go up in your mind.

The question is:
Can you guarantee that the chances of a terrorist supporter or sympathizer working at the ports owned by Dubai is the same as the chance when the British Company owned it?

[XJarhead]

Anyone can be lulled into a false sense of security.

Huh? What's that got to do with anything? Your argument for the danger was the "access" they'd have to our security procedures. My point is that they already have equivalent access because of all the arab flagged ships that visit our ports regardless of whether this deal happens or not.

If security is so good that we need not worry, then how come even after 911 people have still gotten guns on planes?.

That also has nothing to do with this deal. Explain what it is about the exact tasks that this company will have that make us potentially less secure. Keeping in mind that other arab-owned companies have been operating shipping terminals in the U.S. for years.

The problem is that you don't understand port operations. This isn't letting them in through either the front or back door.

Can you guarantee that the chances of a terrorist supporter or sympathizer working at the ports owned by Dubai is the same as the chance when the British Company owned, honestly?

No. Could be more, could be less. Ownership matters very little, and the type of services this company will be performing are not things that would be of much value to a terrorist.

[zook]

1. UAE has by most authoritative accounts behaved in trustworthy fashion toward the US since 9/11.

2. The fact that 2 hijackers came from there is virtually meaningless. There are terrorists in England as well.

3. Money laundering was widespread prior to 9/11, not just a Middle Eastern activity. See point 1.

4. Many nations support Hamas financially. I'll bet (though I don't know for sure) that some European nations are currently sending aid to the P.A.

5. Whether or not a nation formally recognizes Israel is really irrelevant. There are many nations, for example, that refuse to formally recognize Taiwan. For the U.S., UAE's position may raise political questions, but not necessarily security or military ones.

7. In my opinion, it is not necessary for a country to be a democracy in order for its companies to do business in the US.

Now, what do you make of the fact that DPW already operates some ports in the US; that Saudi and an Kuwaiti companies do, as well?

What do you do with the fact that DPW will likely be managing British ports?

I suppose I won't persuade you on this, but I'll stick to my assertion that American ports will be just as safe, if not safer, under DPW as under British management.

[commonerX]

I can't believe how many people on here are willing to sleep with the enemy.

Question if a German owned company during WWII wanted to buy one of our airports and given that our security is the same as now, would you see that as OK also? I doubt they would have flow in paratroopers.

Your are wrong to do business with a terrorist supporting country. We need to set an example, no Terrorist supporters here, and not look the other way because we want to be far to the Muslims.

They will be far with you though. They would cut your head off just as much as they would cut a Muslims head off if he supports or helps the USA.

I do not trust these people one bit. They are very clever and patient and will take advantage of our good nature the first chance they get. The problem is we may not get a second chance.

No ports or any business with Arab counties that support terrorism.

"""Now, what do you make of the fact that DPW already operates some ports in the US; that Saudi and an Kuwaiti companies do, as well?"""

Put them up for bid on the American market. If American companies can't afford it, then what does that tell us?

"""What do you do with the fact that DPW will likely be managing British ports?"""

That is a British problem, I can only hope they wise up.

[commonerX]

Anyone can be lulled into a false sense of security.


"""Huh? What's that got to do with anything? Your argument for the danger was the "access" they'd have to our security procedures. My point is that they already have equivalent access because of all the arab flagged ships that visit our ports regardless of whether this deal happens or not."""

You can put 2 and 2 together. I know a guy who could sell you the shoes on your feet he is so persuasive. But when you walk away and think clearly you can see though it.

Open your eyes Muslims are not our friends they don't give a damn about you or me or any American. Their ultimate goal is our destruction even if it takes a long time and deceptive means to do it.

There is no way someone can tell me that the chances of a terrorist supporter or sympathizer working at one of these ports is no different than with the British owned company. Logic just doesn't support that.

[zook]

We are not at war with UAE, so the German analogy doesn't sway me. Moreover, I do not believe, and the President doesn't believe, and past presidents have not believed, and the leaders of our armed forces do not believe that the UAE is a terrorist supporting country.

[Cold Heat]

What are the naysayers going to do about CITGO and it's Commie owned Venezuela operations with thousands of potential fuel air bombs traveling the U.S. highway system freely, or the Chinese owned port facilities in California or the fact that all of these entities are financing our National debt through the purchase and holding of the bulk of our borrowing?

I suggest someone do a little thinking before the knees jerk too far and cause a head injury.

[commonerX]

""""We are not at war with UAE, so the German analogy doesn't sway me. Moreover, I do not believe, and the President doesn't believe, and past presidents have not believed, and the leaders of our armed forces do not believe that the UAE is a terrorist supporting country."""


Has UAE supported terrorist? Do they support Hamas a known terrorist organization?

All things I've read says yes, and that is reason enough for me to consider them as much an enemy as the Germans of WWII.

Would you do business with someone that gave a guy down the street a $1000 to kill your neighbor. I see the UAE as no different and no better, no matter how much the Pres. says otherwise.

[CWOJackson]

Strange why we would turn over logistical support for our troops fighting this war to those UAE terrorists. Amazing how we rely on them to provide port services to the largest collection of U.S. Navy ships outside of U.S. ports.

[commonerX]

"""What are the naysayers going to do about CITGO and it's Commie owned Venezuela operations with thousands of potential fuel air bombs traveling the U.S. highway system freely, or the Chinese owned port facilities in California or the fact that all of these entities are financing our National debt through the purchase and holding of the bulk of our borrowing?
I suggest someone do a little thinking before the knees jerk too far and cause a head injury."""

Last time I checked the Chinese didn't fly planes into our buildings, strap bombs to themselves and blow up buses in Israel. Nor, have a religious doctrine that calls for the death of all non believers. There is a bit of a difference, if they do then they should be treated the same.

[commonerX]

"""Strange why we would turn over logistical support for our troops fighting this war to those UAE terrorists. Amazing how we rely on them to provide port services to the largest collection of U.S. Navy ships outside of U.S. ports."""


Yes you are right it amazing.