Posted on 02/22/2006 5:41:07 PM PST by 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-
(Excerpt) Read more at slate.com ...
Why no advice for Democrats who feel the same way? Are they that irrelevant to politics now?
No one seems to be able to answer why they're against it other than "Arabs caused 9-11!"
I'd love there to be a thread here on FR from which the rest of us voluntarily don't post, and only those with experience in this field post back and forth. I know it won't happen but it would be cool to see only those who actually know what they're talking about talk about this.
It shows why the Republicans with a majority in congress have accomplished exactly nothing. They are so busy managing their image instead of the nation's business. If the democrats had any leadership they would be running rings around this bunch of wimps.
I've reconsidered. I'm on your side now.
The functionality of the company is not the issue here. American companies operate a number of port terminals all over the place. Maher Terminal in Port Newark (New Jersey), for example, is a private company that has a reputation as one of the best terminal operators in New York harbor.
The problem is that an independent terminal operator like Maher is in no position to pony up $6.8 billion to buy a major global corporate player like P&O Ports. And none of these global shipping conglomerates with terminal operations and maritime vessels all over the world are American-owned, because historically the nature of the global shipping business made it impossible for these companies to locate their headquarters in the U.S. due to our anti-trust laws.
Why didn't an American company submitt a proposal to manage them then?
Clearly conservatives do not trust Dubya. It was painfully obvious when they skewered Miers. Those who didn't betray Dubya then will probably blast him now so they can prove their independence.
Dubya is the Rodney Dangerfield of Presidents. He don't get no respect. How twisted must one's mindset be to think Dubya wants to leave a legacy of unsafe American ports? His speeches and battles to take down Afghanistan and Iraq all just a cynical ploy to reward his arab oil buddies.
Or perhaps conservatives just think Dubya is stupid.
I don't know if I want to call myself a conservative if the definition is just "cynic"...I'm a optimistic Reagan Republican.
Poor analogy. All security operations at the ports, such as they are, will be unaffected by the turnover.
It is possible, however, that the discussion could lead to needed improvements.
Listen I know enough about History to know the true religion of Peace has not been stellar either-That is Christianity. What amazes me is this yall have given in. Given in to that idiot bin Laden. Bin LAden wanted to created this war of civilizations. Its quite a shame. A few thousand muslims protesting and a few riots sent all yall over into a bigoted rage. In contrast , most of the guys I have talked to with the Louisiana National Guard that actually saw death and God knows what else are all on the same page. Democracy in Iraq can work. They meant everyday muslims and they found out they were not possessed by the Devil. Quite a shame a bunch of KIds age 19 to 24 now men really have more sense than most here. Well folks I am not giving in. Viva Freedom.
I think the information you provide here in a couple of paragraphs is more helpful in 'selling' this to the American people than the rhetorical shuffling coming out of the Bush administration. I think the world of "W", but the defense of the WH position on this has been, 'we looked at it, it's ok.' So, why can't they do what you do and try to bring some perspective to the situation? I don't think it helps anyone to go off the deep end and freak out about the decision but it sure would be helpful to have more info. We all know what happens when info is missing,,,it gets filled in from various places and then the problem just gets bigger and takes on a life of it's own. I think we are watching that happen here.
"see if the Secret Service would like to turn over their weapons to the Moos - good enough for all of us, good enough for him"
Non-sequitur.
Port security is handled by the Coast Guard and various port security agencies: the government.
And the loading and unloading is operated by American stevedores in the stevedores union. There will be no Arabs having anything to do with security. Some Arab owner somewhere will get a cash flow from this US company, because he owns it. He'll have no power to direct anything regarding security, because that's governmental, or about who unloads ships, because that's unionized.
There is no security issue here at all, when you drill down.
It just looks bad, because "port" and "Arab" are in the same sentence. But actually, there won't be any Arabs near any ports.
It amazes me, that instead of providing facts and outlining them to the pundits, politicos and the MSM, they stick their collective heads in the sand and ignore the problem, instead of taking the offense and putting it to rest.
It amazes me, that instead of providing facts and outlining them to the pundits, politicos and the MSM, they stick their collective heads in the sand and ignore the problem, instead of taking the offense and putting it to rest.
If Dubai Ports World has lost the bid to the only other company bidding, Singapore government-owned PSA, would we even be having this discussion? It's only because the company is owned by the United ARAB Emirates. Nevermind that the UAE is one of our allies in the war on terror, people are letting fear and prejudice overcome reason.
Private company ? Isn't Al-Qaeda a private organization ?
He is leaving a legacy of unsafe borders. He did as Governor of Texas and he is doing so as President.
Bush is a WSJ globalist at heart. And if the GOP fawningly goes along with this we could very well be out of power for a generation.
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.