Port of Political Brawling

IS ANYONE ELSE AS OUTRAGED THAT THIS WOULD BE BUSH'S FIRST EVER VETO SHOULD HE EXCERCISE IT OVER THIS MATTER?

I'm against ANY foreign government or company controlling our ports or security. While it may be a good way to bring value to our U.S. Dollar in UAE and the rest of the world, why put these dollars into the hands of a government that once (still does?) supported terror right here in NYC. Another big "FU*K YOU" from Washington DC to NYC.

I wouldn't give this responsibility to Pakistan and they are a far bigger ally in spite of the populace not supporting the alliance. Even Israel, the masters of security, would be suspect for me because of the large amount of organized crime channeled through Israeli ports.

Let's give the ports back to the Mob where it rightly belongs; okay seriously, anyone but foreign companies or government interests (UAE controls all industry so they are one and the same).

These ports are already being commercially managed by foreign companies. And the UAE has nothing to do with port security. That is provided by the Coast Guard, Homeland Security, etc. The UAE will not be controlling who comes and goes from our ports.

But it is fun to watch liberals pretend to be staunch defenders of national security. I guess you are in favor of it as long as it doesn't require you to open up your backpack.

Well Mickster, what tune were you singing when these ports were under British control?

Also, isn't painfully easy for you, Papercutninja, to just say 'how much cash this company is slipping into ol' Dubya's coffers?'

First of all, we all need to learn and understand the details behind this deal before blurting out such a wanton and ill-informed charge against the current administration and convince yourself into thinking that the US government has ulterior motives in this deal.

This entire situation was a result of two foreign companies annoucning a merger/aquisition that was approved by regulators. The Gulf-based Dubai Ports World (DP World) aquired the UK P&O Ports for $6.8 billion which manages ports in the US and many other countries.

Of course it's fair to question if this deal is in Americas best interests. However, where were the legislators BEFORE this deal denoucning foreign nations managing our seaports? Would any more care if this merger was between two European countires?

This story reeks of political opportunism and is an easy, rosk-free opportunity for politicians to show they are tough on terror and defense while attacking Bush at the same time, which is indeed a rare opportunity. However, their knee-jerk reaction to anything Arab is just as disturbing as the deal itself and will further divide our relations with Arab nations.

Is it so unreasonable to take a moment to learn more about this deal before drafting legislation? Does anyone else know if or what other Arab nations are controlling are managing in the United States?

I do not agree with the apparent rubber stamp of approval this administration gave to this deal. It warrents more time and discourse with political leaders. However, I do not agree with the bi-partisan knee-jerk reaction of Congress either.

All Americans have to take the time to understand the nuts and bolts of exactly how this plan affects the United States before stamping it with rejection and asserting empty-headed comments about ulterior motives.

SD - I didn't say that only liberals were squawking about this. Political opportunism exists in all parties. I just find it particularly amusing when it comes from the same people who cry about wiretapping, bag inspections, etc.

Jack - You are a perfect example of that "everything Bush does is wrong" fanaticism. Citing Sopranos episodes as evidence - come on!

Three things I would like to share:

This is the moment when the mask comes off, the curtain is pulled, and everyone—but especially Bush supporters—gets to see the sad little wizard pulling the strings and relying on his megaphone.

Leave aside the question of whether having our ports controlled by UAE will actually make us less safe—I don’t like it, but I don’t have hard evidence. The larger political point is that Bush has lived and died by the war on terror. He has accused those he believed to be less zealous of, virtually, treason. Etc. etc.

Being a War President, and the War on Terror itself, eclipses everything.

Except when it doesn’t.

The people who voted for him genuinely believed that he would keep them safer than any alternative we could elect. And now he’s blowing it all off, under the guise of “fair play” for countries that have “played by the rules.” Aside from the cribbing from Clinton, just which rules is it he thinks the UAE has played by?

The cynicism of his defense of the port deal is just staggering. He’s not even interested in pretending he didn’t know, or hadn’t considered the psychological ramifications, etc. Not even a nod to “maybe we should review this one more time.”

Could be it’s money—there is clearly some conflict of interesting running around the Treasury Dept.

But maybe they just don’t care. It’s all been a show, from day one. Or, I should say, Day 911.

I hope this knocks some sense into Republican heads. From what I heard on Sean Hannity today, perhaps it has.

Second-
Washington - The Dubai firm that won Bush administration backing to run six U.S. ports has at least two ties to the White House.

One is Treasury Secretary John Snow, whose agency heads the federal panel that signed off on the $6.8 billion sale of an English company to government-owned Dubai Ports World - giving it control of Manhattan's cruise ship terminal and Newark's container port.

Snow was chairman of the CSX rail firm that sold its own international port operations to DP World for $1.15 billion in 2004, the year after Snow left for President Bush's cabinet.

The other connection is David Sanborn, who runs DP World's European and Latin American operations and was tapped by Bush last month to head the U.S. Maritime Administration.

3-
Administration Failed To Conduct Legally Required Investigation Before Approving UAE Port Deal
In ordinary cases of foreign direct investment the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) first conducts a 30-day “review” of the transaction. After the review, the committee makes a judgment as to whether a 45-day “investigation” is necessary to address national security concerns.

The law, however, was amended in 1993. That amendment makes the 45-day investigation mandatory in cases like the Dubai World Ports transfer. From the CFIUS website:

The Dubai World Ports purchase triggers the automatic investigation. First, the company is “controlled” by a foreign government. Second, it’s undeniable that port operations “could affect the national security of the United States.”

Yet, the investigation never happened. Bush administration officials “could not say why a 45-day investigation did not occur.”

Draw your own conclusions. Or pick between: croynism, getting help for freezing Iran's assets, basing (airforce) quid pro quo, etc.

It all stinks.

g - Exactly what makes me more of a troll than any of the other posters? Are you upset because I don't hew to your party line? Sorry if that upsets you. Maybe you should stick to Kos and the like if conservatives get you in a tizzy.

Max - Every week the lefties claim that "the mask is off and the curtain is pulled" - and then nothing happens. There are no policy disagreements in your world - only scandals. Fortunately the voters don't buy into your hysteria.

Nola, occasionally you have points I can agree with but in this case you appear to be the knee-jerk whiner you so quickly accuse liberals of being. All of your responses on this have been superficial and tangential. If you actually have something concrete to contribute as many of the other commenters have, then by all means, make your case. Otherwise you are, in fact, simply trolling. And just because others have done it in the past doesn't make it ok. If you're not part of the solution you're part of the problem.