NationStates Jolt Archive

COMMENTARY: Sigh. Isn't this rather like giving your house-keys to the brother of the guy who just raped your sister? I mean, com'on! WTF, over???


Governors Question Port Turnover (http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,88437,00.html?ESRC=eb.nl)


Associated Press | February 21, 2006
WASHINGTON - Two Republican governors are threatening legal action to block an Arab company from taking over operations in major U.S. ports and some GOP lawmakers say the deal should be closely examined.

In the uneasy climate after the Sept 11 terrorist attacks, the Bush administration decision to allow the transaction is threatening to develop a major political headache for the White House.

New York Gov. George Pataki and Maryland Gov. Robert Ehrlich on Monday voiced doubts about the acquisition of a British company that has been running six U.S. ports by Dubai Ports World, a state-owned business in the United Arab Emirates.

The British company, Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co., runs major commercial operations at ports in Baltimore, Miami, New Jersey, New Orleans, New York and Philadelphia.

Both governors indicated they may try to cancel lease arrangements at ports in their states because of the DP World takeover.

"Ensuring the security of New York's port operations is paramount and I am very concerned with the purchase of Peninsular & Oriental Steam by Dubai Ports World," Pataki said in a news release. "I have directed the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey to explore all legal options that may be available to them."

Ehrlich, concerned about security at the Port of Baltimore, said Monday he was "very troubled" that Maryland officials got no advance notice before the Bush administration approved the Arab company's takeover of the operations at the six ports.

"We needed to know before this was a done deal, given the state of where we are concerning security," Ehrlich told reporters in the State House rotunda in Annapolis.

The arrangement brought protests from both political parties in Congress and a lawsuit in Florida from a company affected by the takeover.

Public fears that the nation's ports are not properly protected, combined with the news of an Arab country's takeover of six major ports, proved a combustible mix.

Republican Sen. Lindsay Graham of South Carolina said on Fox News Sunday that the administration approval was "unbelievably tone deaf politically." GOP Rep. Tom Davis of Virginia said on ABC's "This Week," "It's a tough one to explain, but we're in a global economy. ... I think we need to take a very close look at it."

Democratic Sen. Robert Menendez of New Jersey said Monday that he and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., will introduce Legislation prohibiting the sale of port operations to foreign governments.

At least one Senate oversight hearing was planned for later this month.

Critics have noted that some of the 9/11 hijackers used the UAE as an operational and financial base. In addition, they contend the UAE was an important transfer point for shipments of smuggled nuclear components sent to Iran, North Korea and Libya by a Pakistani scientist.

The Bush administration got support Monday from former President Carter, a Democrat and frequent critic of the administration.

"My presumption is, and my belief is, that the president and his secretary of state and the Defense Department and others have adequately cleared the Dubai government organization to manage these ports," Carter told CNN. "I don't think there's any particular threat to our security."

Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff made the rounds on the talk shows Sunday, asserting that the administration made certain the company agreed to certain conditions to ensure national security. H said details of those agreements were secret.

During a stop Monday in Birmingham, Ala., Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said the administration had a "very extensive process" for reviewing such transactions that "takes into account matters of national security, takes into account concerns about port security."

Sorry to rain on your parade, but we've already had this thread. Twice.

Here's the second one:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=469756

I'm too lazy to dig up the first one.

Here's the real question, Eutrusca--what are you going to do to change things? Keep making threads that say "WTF, over?" while slamming the opposition party at every turn? In my private life, I'm working with candidates to try to get a new majority in the House and/or Senate so there will some opposition and some checks on these stupid sorts of deals. I don't like the status quo.

What about you? And don't give me that "the opposition is no better" line. If you're going to bitch about stuff, it's your responsibility to try to change it. So what are you doing? Whose feet are you holding to the fire and how are you doing it?

Here's the real question, Eutrusca--what are you going to do to change things? Keep making threads that say "WTF, over?" while slamming the opposition party at every turn? In my private life, I'm working with candidates to try to get a new majority in the House and/or Senate so there will some opposition and some checks on these stupid sorts of deals. I don't like the status quo.

What about you? And don't give me that "the opposition is no better" line. If you're going to bitch about stuff, it's your responsibility to try to change it. So what are you doing? Whose feet are you holding to the fire and how are you doing it?
I seriously question what tools I have available to hold anyone's feet to the fire. What I do to try and change things is my own business.

Don't worry. I won't give anyone that "the opposition is no better line." IMHO, they're far, far worse. :p

So WTF is up with you? When I don't question the Republicans, you raise hell, and when I do question the Republicans, you raise hell.

I seriously question what tools I have available to hold anyone's feet to the fire. What I do to try and change things is my own business.

Don't worry. I won't give anyone that "the opposition is no better line." IMHO, they're far, far worse. :p

So WTF is up with you? When I don't question the Republicans, you raise hell, and when I do question the Republicans, you raise hell.
It's not enough to just question them. If they're fucking up, then you need to do something to hold them accountable for their fuckups. But all you ever do is bitch and moan and then say, with no backup whatsoever, that the alternative is worse. Well, if you're not going to try to change things, no matter how meager your efforts may seem, then just shut up about it. As Howard Dean once said in a speech, "if all you do is vote, then you've gotten a D in Citizenship 101." There's more to it--you have to actively challenge your elected officials, let them know that if they fuck up, they'll get voted out and/or prosecuted (if they break the law). Politicians have to be afraid or they'll be corrupt--it's that simple. Why should your local Republicans fear you? They can do everything short of shitting on the flag and you'll vote for them, maybe even send them money.

So again I ask you--what are you going to do to change things?

Why should your local Republicans fear you? They can do everything short of shitting on the flag and you'll vote for them, maybe even send them money.
No. I don't send anyone money for political purposes since I have almost none to spare, and if I did, it would be based on how honest they are, not on their party affiliation. :p

And since this article was the first I had heard of this, and since it's just now barely 9:00 AM, I've not had time to do anything. Happy now? :p

No. I don't send anyone money for political purposes since I have almost none to spare, and if I did, it would be based on how honest they are, not on their party affiliation. :p

And since this article was the first I had heard of this, and since it's just now barely 9:00 AM, I've not had time to do anything. Happy now? :p
It's pretty clear that I'm talking about your overall attitude toward issues, Eutrusca, but hey, don't let that stop you from carrying on the way you always have around here. Keep padding those centrist credentials.

Oh wow. What a surprise. Someone gets a payback for supporting the Bush admin. I am deeply shocked.

Found the first thread:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=469309

Found the first thread:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=469309
Well, GOOD for you! :p

It's pretty clear that I'm talking about your overall attitude toward issues, Eutrusca, but hey, don't let that stop you from carrying on the way you always have around here. Keep padding those centrist credentials.
Were you born the South end of a North-bound horse, or did you have to take lessons? :p

Well, GOOD for you! :p

Well since this thread clearly isn't going to discuss the actual issue, I thought I'd link you to a thread that is.

Well since this thread clearly isn't going to discuss the actual issue, I thought I'd link you to a thread that is.
Snideness seems to have become a social disease around here of late. :p

Were you born the South end of a North-bound horse, or did you have to take lessons? :p
Are you the front end of a donkey?
no?
Then are you the back end of a donkey?
no?
Well, sir then you must be no end of an ass.

Here's the real question, Eutrusca--what are you going to do to change things? Keep making threads that say "WTF, over?" while slamming the opposition party at every turn? In my private life, I'm working with candidates to try to get a new majority in the House and/or Senate so there will some opposition and some checks on these stupid sorts of deals. I don't like the status quo.

What about you? And don't give me that "the opposition is no better" line. If you're going to bitch about stuff, it's your responsibility to try to change it. So what are you doing? Whose feet are you holding to the fire and how are you doing it?
When you say "working with", what scope does that take?

From past experience with volunteering, I figure that my money is worth more than my time, so I donate to the "good guys", whoever that might be. Right now, it's my Congressman and sponsor of the Fair Tax. If our Republican senators ever get their heads into the daylight, I might support them, too. Right now, they get a steady stream of letters letting them know exactly what low opinion I hold of their legislative efforts.

At the risk of hijacking this thread by discussing the OP, I find it amusing that the main argument against having this company run USian ports is that this company is 'arab'. This seems to be one of those arguments centered on the Coulterlike premise arab=muslim=terrorist.

Ms. Clinton makes an interesting suggestion that I believe should be explored further: have a USian company do it. Or do as they do in Canada, and have the federal government run the major ports.

Carter's support of Bush seems a little odd, until we remember that Carter probably does not believe the arab=muslim=terrorist premise, and believes that this company may simply be the best for the job, as it has passed the required tests with respect to security.

At the risk of hijacking this thread by discussing the OP, I find it amusing that the main argument against having this company run USian ports is that this company is 'arab'. This seems to be one of those arguments centered on the Coulterlike premise arab=muslim=terrorist.

Ms. Clinton makes an interesting suggestion that I believe should be explored further: have a USian company do it. Or do as they do in Canada, and have the federal government run the major ports.

Carter's support of Bush seems a little odd, until we remember that Carter probably does not believe the arab=muslim=terrorist premise, and believes that this company may simply be the best for the job, as it has passed the required tests with respect to security.

The problem is that, as is usual with the Kingdom of George, the Administration is refusing to tell anyone about how this company was vetted. (http://www.newsday.com/news/local/newyork/am-port0220,0,7514795.story?track=rss)


Republicans and Democrats alike are fuming over a Bush administration deal to turn over a vital security role in New York's port to a company based in the United Arab Emirates, a country with links to some of the 9/11 hijackers.

The company, Dubai Ports World, last week purchased a British firm that had been operating and performing key security functions in six ports nationwide, including New York and New Jersey.

The Bush administration signed off on the plan, insisting it has screened the company using criteria that it will not reveal because of national security concerns.


The "just trust us" attitude simply doesn't fly very well with people anymore..... it has been broken too many times.

Oh yes, and I should also point out that the articles are being VERY misleading on one major point.

Dubai Ports World is not just BASED in the UAE, it is in fact WHOLY OWNED BY THE UAE GOVERNMENT (http://www.hoovers.com/dp-world/--ID__138092--/free-co-factsheet.xhtml?cm_ven=PAID&cm_cat=INK&cm_pla=CO1&cm_ite=dp-world)

So this action, in effect, gives a foreign government control over your port security.

A government that was one of three to recognize the Taliban. A Government implicated in facilitating transfer of nuclear tehnology to North Korea and Iran. A government that backed up it's (equally state-owned) banking system for refusing to help on intel tracking funds transfers for al qaeda. A government often cited as being one of the most intransigent in helping root out extremist elements.


This is how the Bush Administration safeguards your national security.


for their next trick, maybe they're gonna let Columbia take over the drug interdiction duties of the coast guard in the Caribbean, let the mexicans take over immigration, and maybe get the north korean government to handle security at Los Alamos.....

I mean - why not?


Right?

I can see how that would be a problem in Washington right now. Then the next best option would be to have a USian company deal with it. I'm sure Halliburton could put together a great offer. Why, it would be so sweet, the court of King George would not even have to consider other bids!

Okay...I'm British so I might not get this and not buy into the whole 'Muslim=Terrorists' thing the US seems to be suffering under - but whats the big deal here? A company from the Middle East got the Port...

...and?

When you say "working with", what scope does that take?

From past experience with volunteering, I figure that my money is worth more than my time, so I donate to the "good guys", whoever that might be. Right now, it's my Congressman and sponsor of the Fair Tax. If our Republican senators ever get their heads into the daylight, I might support them, too. Right now, they get a steady stream of letters letting them know exactly what low opinion I hold of their legislative efforts.
It can take the form of donations to local or national politicians, but it also involves getting involved in local races, races for things like school board and city council, State Representative and Senator, Mayor, etc. It means knocking doors for your candidates or carrying around petitions for referendums if they're available. And most of all, it means making sure that the people in office know that you, as an activist, will not hesitate to try to get them knocked out of office if they're crooked or incompetent. They need to know that no one is guaranteed a vote, but that they have to earn it. Too many politicians feel safe in their seats right now. If I could make it happen on my own, you'd see every district competitive for the House of Representatives (You'd also see corporate money gone from elections completely as well, but that's another story), because a safe politician is a temptable politician. Fear keeps them, well, not honest, but at least worried that if they do something too egregious that they'll lose their seats.

Okay...I'm British so I might not get this and not buy into the whole 'Muslim=Terrorists' thing the US seems to be suffering under - but whats the big deal here? A company from the Middle East got the Port...

...and?
A company owned by a nation we actually know supports terrorists.

Snideness seems to have become a social disease around here of late. :p

Shove it. You're the worst offender out of anyone on this forum. If "snideness" is going around like a disease, you're the one spreading it.

The problem is that, as is usual with the Kingdom of George, the Administration is refusing to tell anyone about how this company was vetted. The "just trust us" attitude simply doesn't fly very well with people anymore..... it has been broken too many times.

Agreed. The lack of transparency in the administration is causing all sorts of problems. Transparency will continue to be more and more necessary, IMO, now that technology and modern education levels permit nearly every citizen to see and understand government activity on a play-by-play basis. The boy's club favor-swapping system of the old days will no longer be acceptable to most citizens, who generally don't benefit from the favors and resent their tax dollars being spent in that fashion.

Isn't this a moot point anyway, as the security of these ports is still solely under the jurisdiction of the Department of Homeland Security and the USian Coast Guard?

http://www.duluthsuperior.com/mld/inquirer/news/nation/13901834.htm?source=rss&channel=inquirer_nation

The deal has also triggered renewed debate over the growing number of mergers and acquisitions in the ocean-cargo business. Last year, P&O sold its ocean-ship line to A.P. Moller-Maersk, of Denmark.
"A lot of people are really upset about this. Our customers are concerned that this is a sign of diminishing competition," said Dennis J. Colgan, chief executive officer of Barthco International Inc., a Philadelphia customs broker and freight forwarder....
The ocean-cargo industry consolidation that Colgan cited gained momentum in 1999, when CSX Corp., then headed by John W. Snow, now U.S. Treasury secretary, sold its large ocean-cargo unit to Maersk, the Danish ocean-cargo carrier, for $800 million.
CSX badly needed cash because its bidding war with Norfolk Southern Corp. had raised the price of Conrail Inc., the Philadelphia freight railroad, from $91 a share to $115. The two Southern railroads fought to a stalemate, and jointly bought and broke up Conrail.
In 2004, CSX sold its Hong Kong and South American port operations to Dubai Ports World for $1.15 billion.
As Treasury secretary, Snow chairs the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, which approved the Dubai deal. The panel includes the secretaries of state and homeland security and other administration officials.

Oh, now I get it. This Snow guy has no connection to Halliburton, so that's why they didn't get the deal.

Shove it. You're the worst offender out of anyone on this forum. If "snideness" is going around like a disease, you're the one spreading it.
LOL! Not to put too fine a point on it, but bite me, dweeb! :p

Agreed. The lack of transparency in the administration is causing all sorts of problems. Transparency will continue to be more and more necessary, IMO, now that technology and modern education levels permit nearly every citizen to see and understand government activity on a play-by-play basis. The boy's club favor-swapping system of the old days will no longer be acceptable to most citizens, who generally don't benefit from the favors and resent their tax dollars being spent in that fashion.
Actually, that's one of my biggest complaints against this administration. Things like putting that doofus "Brownie" in charge of FEMA, and trying to "reward" an internal legal counsel by appointing her to the Supreme Court really bother me. :(

Isn't this a moot point anyway, as the security of these ports is still solely under the jurisdiction of the Department of Homeland Security and the USian Coast Guard?
The problem in this story, as I understand it, comes from misunderstanding the ownership part of the process. US law enforcement will still be in charge of security, such as it is--and that's a whole 'nother discussion, as only 7% of cargo containers are inspected and many ports have no radiation detectors. What this Dubai firm will handle is basically the contracting between the various firms that run cargo in and out and the unions that lode and unload the ships and the trucking companies, etc. They'll be the paper pushers, in other words.

That said, I still don't like the deal, just as I don't like (as I discovered this morning) that foreign firms do similar work at some of the US's largest airports. This ought to be something handled in house, in my opinion. I don't want global companies handling this kind of stuff, because there's the potential for difficulty should a conflict arise. Do we really want a company owned by another country, no matter how friendly, with the ability to shut down major ports by simply refusing to do the contracting anymore? I don't. And I wouldn't expect any other country to want that either.

A company owned by a nation we actually know supports terrorists.

The security is still going to be done by the US government and a vast majority of the workers are still going to be Americans. It's not as though DP World is going to fire all the current workers and bring over al Qaeda to run the ports. Nothing is going to change except who is making money on the ports.

A company owned by a nation we actually know supports terrorists.
Which also happens to be a nation that owns F-16s more advanced than anything the USAF uses...

There's more to it--you have to actively challenge your elected officials, let them know that if they fuck up, they'll get voted out and/or prosecuted (if they break the law).
How do you know he doesn't? How do you know that any of us don't?

I still have a lengthy e-mail saved from a Maryland state delegate where I held her feet to the fire over a vote of hers that angered me. I don't care who you are, Democrat, Republican, or whatever. If you do something wrong, I'm calling you on it. I've called Bush short a number of times (both of them), and I've called Clinton short (and probably will end up doing so to both). I've debated a Maryland state senator on air and basically called him a liar.

LOL! Not to put too fine a point on it, but bite me, dweeb! :p

That's right. Entirely dismiss everything I have to say with a snide little remark. Wouldn't want you to actually address anything anyone ever said to you.

That's right. Entirely dismiss everything I have to say with a snide little remark. Wouldn't want you to actually address anything anyone ever said to you.
Just giving as good as I get, old boy.

Just giving as good as I get, old boy.
The new pills the doctor gave you are really making you grouchy, aren't they?
Or did someone destroy your cushion fort again?

Just giving as good as I get, old boy.


If only you could say that about your contribution to the actual debate around here....



But hey. Becoming the Troll King is, I suppose, a lofty goal to shoot for.

Back onto topic, the latest update is this:

Bush threatens veto in ports row

US President George W Bush says he will veto any law blocking a deal giving an Arab company control of six US ports.
The threat came as Bill Frist, leader of the Republican Party in the Senate, said he would move a blocking law if the government did not delay the deal.
...
(Bush) called on opponents to explain why they opposed a Middle Eastern firm taking over when they did not oppose a British company being in control.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4737940.stm

Wow. Most asinine statement ever from Bush. How does that make you feel, brits? Being compared to a middle eastern country?
After all the crap you went thru with international condemnation and embarassment in completely and blindly following Bush. And now you find out that he thinks of you on the same level of an arab country which 2 of the 9/11 hijackers came from. One which officially recognised the Talibun, to boot.
Must make you feel real good.

UAE must have done something big for the Bush admin, for them to go to the length of veto to give them their payback.

It's pretty clear that I'm talking about your overall attitude toward issues, Eutrusca, but hey, don't let that stop you from carrying on the way you always have around here. Keep padding those centrist credentials.


Not that Eutrusca needs anyone to defend him, he does well on his own. But, jeez, enough with the ad hominum attacks already. Way to hijack a thread.

Back onto topic, the latest update is this:


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4737940.stm

Wow. Most asinine statement ever from Bush. How does that make you feel, brits? Being compared to a middle eastern country?
After all the crap you went thru with international condemnation and embarassment in completely and blindly following Bush. And now you find out that he thinks of you on the same level of an arab country which 2 of the 9/11 hijackers came from. One which officially recognised the Talibun, to boot.
Must make you feel real good.

UAE must have done something big for the Bush admin, for them to go to the length of veto to give them their payback.

There is probabaly something going on where if America bans UAE companies from anythign in the US then the UAE will ban american companies from doing anything in the UAE and unfortunatly the UAE is too much of a honey pot for for business for that to happen.