Arab Firm to Manage Our Seaports?

[03cavPA]

OK, so all that is really happening is the purchase of the present firm by an Arab corporation. Same company, different management. Congress doesn't think it's such a good idea, either.

There isn't an American firm that can do the job? OK, dumb question: are there any American firms left?

Comment as you see fit.

[Muscletang]

How did that dirty bomb get into the United Sta...oh yeah.

[carrrnuttt]

I am genuinely surprised it took this long for a thread about this issue to pop up. Had a mind to start one about it, but besides what I listened to in talk radio, I wanted to read more about it from other news sources before I made comments about it.

Guess what? The President already made his comments:

Bush Comments on Ports Controversy

Staff and agencies
21 February, 2006


By The Associated Press 4 minutes ago

Excerpts of President Bush ‘s remarks Tuesday on Air Force One and at the White House about an Arab company taking over operations at six major U.S. seaports. Bush threatened to veto any congressional effort to stop the deal. His comments appear as transcribed by the White House.

I do want to talk about this port issue. A foreign company manages some of our ports. They‘ve entered into a transaction with another foreign company to manage our ports. This is a process that has been extensively reviewed, particularly from the point of view as to whether or not I can say to the American people, this project will not jeopardize our security. It‘s been looked at by those who have been charged with the security of our country. And I believe the deal should go forward. This company operates all around the world. I have the list somewhere. We can get you the list. They‘re in Germany and elsewhere — Australia.

In other words, we‘re receiving goods from ports out of the UAE, as well as where this company operates. And so I, after careful review of our government, I believe the government ought to go forward. And I want those who are questioning it to step up and explain why all of a sudden a Middle Eastern company is held to a different standard than a Great British (sic) company. I‘m trying to conduct foreign policy now by saying to people of the world, we‘ll treat you fairly. And after careful scrutiny, we believe this deal is a legitimate deal that will not jeopardize the security of the country, and at the same time, send that signal that we‘re willing to treat people fairly.

Q: Mr. President, leaders in Congress, including Senator Frist, have said that they‘ll take action to stop the port control shift if you don‘t reverse course on it. You‘ve expressed your thoughts here, but what do you say to those in Congress who plan to take legislative action?

___

Bush: I don‘t view it as a political fight. So do you want to start your question over? I view it as a good policy.

I can understand why some in Congress have raised questions about whether or not our country will be less secure as a result of this transaction. But they need to know that our government has looked at this issue and looked at it carefully. Again, I repeat, if there was any question as to whether or not this country would be less safe as a result of the transaction, it wouldn‘t go forward. But I also want to repeat something again, and that is, this is a company that has played by the rules, that has been cooperative with the United States, a country that‘s an ally in the war on terror, and it would send a terrible signal to friends and allies not to let this transaction go through.

Holy crap.

The above is coming from the man who mentioned the word "terror" in all its forms almost a hundred times in his State of the Union speech. The man who would drop the words "nine-eleven" at the drop of a hat, in order to back up his controversial policies that skirt, and possibly defy, our own Constitution and by-laws.

Did he not get briefed that at least a dozen of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi nationals?? Or that Osama himself is not only Saudi, but has ties to the Saudi royal family??

WTF? Our rights can be forfeited for the sake of "national security", yet the country that harbors and funds Islamic fundamentalists all around the world can take control of U.S. ports in the major cities of New York, New Jersey, New Orleans, Miami, Philadelphia and Baltimore??

Well, at least Bush has managed to unify the House...against him.

[tenguzero]

Clearly there's other motives here. I'm inclined to think that it's an olive-branch to the UAE/Saudi governments -- a way for the president to retain ties with what key interests in this country see as important allies for whatever reason. Bush already made his stand about moving away from foreign energy sources (aka Middle Eastern oil) and focusing more on domestic/alternative energy (nuclear power, etc.) it would appear to me that this is obviously a leveraging of interests in order to keep support from the above mentioned countries.

Do I agree with it? Who cares -- not like our opinions on the issue really mean a damn one way or the other. Frankly I'm becoming quite tired of questioning the motives of this government (shit's gonna happen regardelss of whether the american public agrees with it to or not -- I mean, what do you think this is, a democracy?)

[BNaylor]

What's the big deal? A lot of companies in the US are foreign owned and operated.

Look at it from the bright side. If there is a security breach or the company has ties to terrorists good use can be put to FISA and Bush's propensity to authorize wiretaps and electronic surveillance since it is a foreign company.

[YogsVR4]

The last time I checked, the coast guard was still in charge of securing our ports. The commerce department was still in charge of inspecting cargo and approving/disallowing ships. When did the port authority suddenly take charge of those things?


I fully believe that the company should be gone over with a fine tooth comb before the sale. Has that happened? I don't think so. I'm all for putting the sale on hold, changing the laws on how the approval process is done. But, to discount the sale to a company just because their home base is in the Middle East is xenophobic and boarderline racist. An Arab, probably Muslim dominated company thats one of the largest port managers in the world makes a sound business decision and its all about terrorism? Paranioa is getting the better of a lot of people.

.

[kman10587]

I fully believe that the company should be gone over with a fine tooth comb before the sale. Has that happened? I don't think so. I'm all for putting the sale on hold, changing the laws on how the approval process is done. But, to discount the sale to a company just because their home base is in the Middle East is xenophobic and boarderline racist. An Arab, probably Muslim dominated company thats one of the largest port managers in the world makes a sound business decision and its all about terrorism? Paranioa is getting the better of a lot of people.

That may be true, but the point is that Bush has made every effort to pound that paranoia into the people, to paint an extremely negative view of the Muslim world; and all of a sudden, the man who led the people to believe that has turned around and given management of our seaports to a firm from a Muslim country? If you never bought into Bush's "national security" bullshit in the first place, then this is obviously an attempt by Bush to further give the country away to his Middle Eastern business buddies. But if you are a loyal Bush follower and supporter of the war in Iraq (which I'd say that a good portion of Americans are), then this comes across as a stab in the back from the President.

Also, it's amusing that Bush, after vetoing nothing so far in his time as president, is threatening to veto congressional efforts that both parties are firmly behind.

[YogsVR4]

Originally Posted by kman10587

Also, it's amusing that Bush, after vetoing nothing so far in his time as president, is threatening to veto congressional efforts that both parties are firmly behind.

I think this might be the second time he's threatened a veto. I wish he had gotten the veto pen out on the last five budgets that came in front of him as well as the CFR.

[jpolicke]

It's a problem because even though Homeland Security still gets to make the rules, it gives these people knowledge of all the systems, procedures, equipment, techniques of port security and, yes, the weaknesses and vulnerabilities of same. These are all topics that will inevitably be discussed with the "home office". I don't think the Emirates have any clue as to who is in their country, and I'm far from convinced that they sincerely want to do anything about what they do know.
We could probably get a great deal and save lots of money finding a Chinese company to repair radar and comm systems for our fighter planes. But it won't (pray to God) happen because they would learn too much. Sometimes it isn't about the money.
Bush is talking out of both sides of his face. First he says it was thoroughly discussed, then he says he didn't know about it till after the fact. WHich is it? Of course, it's just a coincidence that Treasury Sec. John Snow has money invested with Dubai Ports World, right? Or that we want the Emirates to go through on the purchase of aircraft from Boeing?

All I want is the answer to one simple question: In 1999, when Clinton was about to strike the camp where they knew for certain BinLadin was staying, the raid was called off at the last minute because some VIPs from the Emirates were staying at the same camp. (As related in the 9/11 report) Now the question is: what possible legitimate business could the Emirates royal family have with Osama? Tell me all about how this was above board and maybe I'll drop my objections to this deal.

[jpolicke]

Originally Posted by kman10587

..Bush has made every effort to pound that paranoia into the people, to paint an extremely negative view of the Muslim world..
...Bush's "national security" bullshit ...

Hey kman, go get yourself a video copy of the 9/11 attacks.

Then watch it, over and over, as many times as it takes until it sinks in that there is a faction in the world who WANT TO KILL US. All of us. As many as they possibly can. If that isn't a national security issue, please be so kind as to enlighten me as to what would constitute one.

Then go look up who did it. NINETEEN MIDDLE EASTERN MUSLIMS. Not a European, Asian, African, or Eskimo in the lot. No Christians, Jews, or Buddhists. Do I blame all Muslims? Of course not. But you have to be total idiot to suggest I should trust them all either. Muslims may not like being associated with terrorism, I'm sure it's hurtful, and will cost them opportunities in business. But history is what it is, and that's a burden they'll just have to bear.

"It's not paranoia when they're really after you."

"Even paranoids have enemies."

[666_speed]

on the bright side, bush has only til 2008 to keep fucking over our country :/

[03cavPA]

Originally Posted by 666_speed

on the bright side, bush has only til 2008 to keep fucking over our country :/

Yep, then someone else will get a chance to stick it to us. Same action, different face.

I hope they use lubricant next time.

[YogsVR4]

Originally Posted by jpolicke

Hey kman, go get yourself a video copy of the 9/11 attacks.

Then watch it, over and over, as many times as it takes until it sinks in that there is a faction in the world who WANT TO KILL US. All of us. As many as they possibly can. If that isn't a national security issue, please be so kind as to enlighten me as to what would constitute one.

They certainly are and they'll try any means to do it.

Then go look up who did it. NINETEEN MIDDLE EASTERN MUSLIMS. Not a European, Asian, African, or Eskimo in the lot. No Christians, Jews, or Buddhists. Do I blame all Muslims? Of course not. But you have to be total idiot to suggest I should trust them all either. Muslims may not like being associated with terrorism, I'm sure it's hurtful, and will cost them opportunities in business. But history is what it is, and that's a burden they'll just have to bear.

Yes, all of them were middle-eastern muslims. That means people and businesses should be scrutinized more then most others, but just being Muslim from the middle-east should not mean that business opportunities should be denied to them.

"It's not paranoia when they're really after you."

"Even paranoids have enemies."

There's a radio station around here thats been using that tag line for thirty years.

[jpolicke]

Originally Posted by YogsVR4

just being Muslim from the middle-east should not mean that business opportunities should be denied to them.

Sorry, but there are certain areas that for obvious reasons need to be off limits. Reasons such as 9/11, Madrid, London, Holland, and Southern France. (Gee, I can't imagine why anyone would distrust Middle Eastern Muslims!)

During the cold war, certain countries were blocked from purchasing a broad variety of technology. It cost us money and probably caused hardship to the people there. Tough. Today there are broad areas of business that we simply will not permit US companies to engage in with China. Because they're Chinese? No, because they're communists.

As I said in the previous post, putting them in control gives away the entire playbook. The only way to protect this info would be to background check the entire country. Obviously impractical. And it only takes one ringer to give the game away.

Sorry, I don't want to hear any whining about what's "unfair", and if you want to throw out the dreaded "r" word (racist!), try to imagine how little I care. Current events simply make this region and its people ineligible for certain sensitive positions. If the governments there find it a hardship, then it's their responsibility to get control of their people. We don't have any obligation to accept an increased risk to our people in order to prove something.

[TexasF355F1]

I don't know where I stand on this. I see where both sides are coming from. I don't see why the government, or a company here in the states can't run it. Although, our government can't run itself now, so I wouldn't exactly see how they could operate a port.