Posted on 03/14/2006 2:00:29 PM PST by Conservative Coulter Fan
There is much hand-wringing over the collapse of the Dubai port deal.
There is much gnashing of teeth in Washington.
There is much finger-pointing going on – much blame being spread.
President Bush says he's troubled by the political storm that reversed the deal: "I'm concerned about a broader message this issue could send to our friends and allies around the world, particularly in the Middle East."
Then, of course, it stands to reason he should have thought this process through a little better. The political storm is of his own making. It was predictable – if only he didn't have a tin political ear, he should have realized the American people might not take this lying down. If only he had a realistic and pragmatic understanding of the kinds of people he is crawling into bed with in the Middle East, he might have made the right decision in the first place.
Then there was U.S. Treasury Secretary John Snow, who said the United States is still "open for business." He continued: "I don't view this as anything but an isolated incident. We don't want to be isolationist. We don't want to turn our backs on the rest of the world." Here's a guy who doesn't get it. Here's a guy who is in denial. Here's a guy who chaired the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, which approved the plan. Before accepting his Cabinet post, Snow was chairman of CSX Railroad. Shortly after Snow joined the Bush White House, CSX sold their international ports contracts to Dubai Ports World for over $1 billion. So when he says the United States is still open for business, this is evidently what he means.
I also don't care about what Pierce Bush, the president's nephew, or his father Neil Bush, the president's brother, have to say in their defense of the deal. Their company, Ignite Learning, has major investors in the United Arab Emirates. In fact, the Bush family and Cabinet is up to their eyeballs in conflicts of interest that should have disqualified their consideration of this front company for the oil sheikhs as a potential operator for U.S. ports.
I also don't care whether other Arab companies ever invest in the United States again. In fact, I hope they don't – at least until they join humanity by recognizing fundamental human rights at home. So, please, don't tell me how this is going to be bad for business here in the United States. I don't want the oil sheikhs to have any more influence on U.S. policy-making than they already have.
And I'm not losing any sleep over the fact that the UAE has "coincidentally" postponed trade talks with the United States. The oil sheikhs need to remember that they need us more than we need them. Maybe Americans need to remember that, too.
President Bush likes to portray the so-called "moderate" Arab countries as "good guys" in the war on terrorism. If he really believes that, he is incredibly naive.
Al-Qaida's war with the West would never have begun without their subsidies of hate and fear and terror. And those subsidies continue today.
Whenever I speak out bluntly like this about the reality of Middle East politics, someone always writes in accusing me of "hating" Arabs.
That is so funny.
I speak the truth because, as an American of Arabic ancestry, I have a deep fondness and love for Arabs. I want them to be free – just like I want all people to have a chance at freedom. But the sad truth is they will never be free as long as the oil sheikhs protect themselves by stirring up hate and resentment against "infidels" everywhere – as long as they continue to provide the people with scapegoats who are to blame for all their problems.
I never pull any punches in my writings. I tell people exactly what I believe – and why I believe it. In the case of the Middle East, my views are shaped by my experience on the ground as a correspondent as well as my worldview as an Arab-American Christian.
The United States cannot afford to be seduced by the money and the power of the oil sheikhs. They are not part of the solution in the Middle East. They are part of the problem.
making a stretch aren't you?
They'll blame Bush.
;-) Sorry, couldn't resist.
No stretch at all. They can manage institutions important to our national security like ports, why not other institutions important to our national security? What the heck, let's have them take over subway management in NYC, and maybe airport management in Denver. It's all just management, no security involved at all.
Because port security is NOT the job of the manager, it is OUR job. Coast Guard, US Customs and DHS along with local authorities.
So, the reason you can't afford to keep her on dialysis is because Abuela Mexicana has to get her dialysis, and while she's there her daughter brings some of her whelps in to the emergency room to get a check-up. People better wake up to the reality of the situation we find ourselves in. I'm sorry about Grandma, but I'm even sorrier to see the denial going on, and on, and on. Sooner or later we're going to have to face some hard times. I'm not looking forward to it, but reality bites.
OTOH, just let me live in my fantasy land just a little bit longer, ok? I was never meant to learn how to mow a lawn.
He said who had introduced it, but I can't remember. I'm sorry. I think someone from CA, but I could be way off base.
I say let UAE run our golf courses. See? I'm not unfriendly. No port concessions, but they can buy up as many golf courses as they want, IMO. They can buy hotels, arenas (though I'm not so sure about that one) whatever, but no portals into the country.
Because port security is NOT the job of the manager, it is OUR job. Coast Guard, US Customs and DHS along with local authorities.
So why do we want to make OUR job harder by giving management of even part of the facility and thus increased control and knowledge of the facility to a state that is only arguably our friend? I would make the same argument for giving control to China or Venezuela, and I'd prefer to not have to make the argument at all, since so many of our allies have been at odds with us in the past. Better to remain free of foreign entanglements at the least in areas where national security may be affected.
Amen. I agree 100%. They can buy Disney and car rental companies if they want. They can make all the movies, tv shows, and consumer products they wish. But I don't want them overseeing egress points into the country, even tangentially. I don't want them running ports. I don't want them running power plants. I don't want them doing anything at the short list of places our military would attack first and secure if we were invading America instead of securing it. National security doesn't cover everything (see also federalism) but it at least covers international transit points for people and goods like ports and airports.
How would this make our job harder given the fact that the UAE is involved in the CSI and a mega-port project.
At any rate, I think Congress and the public reacted out of fear (and Congress with opportunism as well) and I don't think Dubai should be dumped on.
We will see whether this was a wise move by Congress or not. The results aren't in yet.
Who gives a rats a$$ if we're liked or not? Dang, you sound like a skerry sound bite, wanting to be liked. Pfft.
As I said, "giving management of even part of the facility and thus increased control and knowledge of the facility to a state that is only arguably our friend" is a bad idea. If you can't see that giving plans or even basic backdoor access to nationally vital facilities like ports, power plants, and other places is a bad idea, you need to call the President and tell him to put those plans back on the web pronto as an FOIA measure, and get him hiring managers from Dubai in other strategic points, too, to be 'fair' to our Arab 'allies.' It's just management, after all, not security.
I don't think that the CSI is all that great a measure, frankly. Sure, it's better than only doing the searches in our ports, but it still relies heavily on bills of lading provided by the shippers and the past performance of the shippers. It is clear what we're going to be doing every time to the containers we do search, and smugglers can defend against it if that is the case, knowing our procedures. As I recall, 9/11 happened because we relied heavily on the past performance of hijackers, and we paid the price for it. It makes far more sense to me to randomly search a percentage of everything coming in, under the threat of banning all trade with the country whose ship is searched and found with illegal immigrants, imports, or other contraband that might be dangerous to our country.
But your point here is just like your point about China running Long Beach. That the UAE is already involved in CSI and a mega-port project doesn't make it somehow better that we keep them involved in this one if they are a security risk. It means they should be less involved in those, too.
Maybe you should do a little research. Schumer was the go-to-guy for Eller & Co who was a partner with P&O and had an axe to grind with them for 3 years. The lobbyist for Eller actually singled out Schumer for his help. Be interesting to see if Eller ends up getting one of the contracts now.
the key here is they were NOT taking over the ports.
They will lose money because of their second rate investments
As in; why are we giving one red American cent to any other country for oil when we have plenty of our own if only we could drill in Alaska?
Yeah, dhimmie in waiting.
Right, that's always the key. Because whether they were taking over the ports or providing management or sweeping up makes such a big difference re: their access to those ports and the plans of those ports and their improved knowledge of the security of those ports as a result. Gosh, I was wrong. Let's let Dubai manage airports, power plants, and let's have them do it in your neighborhood, too.
/blistering sarcasm
Look, I understand you feel you must raise the irrelevant issue of just how much control they'd have actually had over the port--but it IS irrelevant, and the pro-port-deal side simply has to stop raising 'points' like this. It isn't a point at all when it has no effect upon the concern we raise that a country which we cannot fully trust as a partner in the war on terror is involved in nationally sensitive infrastructure such as our seaports IN ANY WAY. It hurts your ability to marshal support from the other side for your candidates and politicians to address us with such insulting irrelevancies, when you're not simply damning us personally when we disagree with you.
I've seen another irrelevancy raised time and again that 'China does it, too.' So? Get them out, too!
Of course there's always the 'opposing the deal is racist' trotted out, too, which is not an argument at all, but a personal attack that should result in the poster being suspended for it.
Worst of all is raising the specter of the UAE 'striking back.' That is like saying we're being blackmailed into doing the deal, so we'd better put up our end of it. No friggin' way does a tinpot oligarchy blackmail America. Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute.
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.