Check out http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/06/front2453780.0986111113.html

*boggle*

Ummm...What? Lets see, where to start. I know that people don't want to discriminate, but why open up the door to some company who has laundered money for AQ. Talk about opening up Pandora's Box. Even if they aren't working with AQ now why risk it. I know that there were Billions of reasons, but risk vs reward. Is the reward worth the risk of losing some Major ports.

Don't these guys watch 24?

Un-fucking-believable!

But, I guess it is the way things are going to work when you have CEO's looking at dollar signs running the country, rather than statesmen looking out for the best interests of the nation.

Marvelous.

What's wrong with the Saudis? Al-most President Gore says we are the problem (http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/02/12/D8FNUKEO0.html).

THe article is somewhat misleading. The "homeland activities that shouldn't be outsourced" are already outsourced. THe Dubai company is buying the London company to whom they're outsourced.

THe article is somewhat misleading. The "homeland activities that shouldn't be outsourced" are already outsourced. THe Dubai company is buying the London company to whom they're outsourced.


Sorry, but I see a huge difference between British folks running a company in charge of our ports and the Saudis who had a disproportionate number of hijackers involved in the 2001 attacks running them.

I agree. But if we don't have something we can use in court, it's not gonna be stopped.

Ya know... we could just outsource homeland security and solve a bunch of problems.

1. It would be easier for the terrorists to hit somewhere in the continental United States so we would not have to waste money elsewhere.
2. When a terrorist attacks somewhere inside the United States (and it would happen), we simply point fingers and say that the "contractor" let us down.
3. We're capitalists after all, so let's have a monetary penalty for the contractor based upon how many people are killed or how many buildings are destroyed.
4. We could point fingers at the current administration (no matter who was in office) and say that they let us down.
5. In fact, why don't we outsource the military while we're at it... after all, why let OUR soldiers get killed. Hire them other folks, let them get killed protecting us.

/rant off

Sorry, but I think this is a really bad idea. It's one thing to allow a British company to run the port authorities, but a country with KNOWN ties/connections to those people who most want this country blown off the map? <sigh> 'Nuff said.

What Gandaar describes has already happened. Privatization initiatives by the neocon New American Century movement would be an amusing satire of the later days of the Roman Empire except that it's happening to us.

5. In fact, why don't we outsource the military while we're at it... after all, why let OUR soldiers get killed. Hire them other folks, let them get killed protecting us.Aren't there (or weren't, I couldn't find any recent infos about it) like 20k mercenaries in Iraq?

Aren't there (or weren't, I couldn't find any recent infos about it) like 20k mercenaries in Iraq? You mean body guards and armed "translators" for contractors / journalists ? I'd be surprised if it was that low... especially factoring in all the other countries involved in building up Iraq.

Seven senators and representatives have written a letter (http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/Dubai_Ports_letter.pdf) to the administration expressing their concerns over this. The letter cites concerns including:

– The UAE was one of three countries in the world to recognize the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan.

– The UAE has been a key transfer point for illegal shipments of nuclear components to Iran, North Korea and Lybia.

– According to the FBI, money was transferred to the 9/11 hijackers through the UAE banking system.

– After 9/11, the Treasury Department reported that the UAE was not cooperating in efforts to track down Osama Bin Laden’s bank accounts.

Federal law requires an investigation of the impact of such a sale. Treasury Secretary Snow, Chairman of the group that must conduct this investigation, has apparently chosen not to look into the matter. The letter isn't long and worth reading, since it seems to confirm most of our impressions that this decision is, indeed, completely insane.

Bush's first ever veto might come out of this (http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/02/21/port.security/index.html).

So I'm curious, in a situation like this where it pits republican against republican how in the world will fox news spin something like this?

Would they implode?

There is nothing wrong with a littel stereotyping and having different standards for different people, someone who trusts everyone in the world is not only nieve but is allowing themself to be vulnerable to terrorism, American safety before hurt feelings.

I say give the ports to Halliburton.

I thought this Nation article covered the failure of the current "debate" nicely.

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat?bid=1&pid=62081

Fair warning to the rabid attack dogs -- unlike the sources you normally whine about, the Nation magazine actually does qualify as "the liberal media" you love to hate. You may therefore skip reading anything that might disagree with your presumptions about politics and save yourself the acid reflux.

1) Security for those ports will be controlled by the U.S.
2) Actual personal at the ports in the story won't change, just their paychecks.

http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=worldNews&storyID=2006-02-22T154059Z_01_WAT004914_RTRUKOC_0_UK-SECURITY-PORTS-INTELLIGENCE.xml&archived=False

It's a hack pr job inorder to spread more lies and discontent. What I'm surpised at is the amount of disinformation being spread about on this on.

And you wonder why I distrust any and all forms of the media atm.

Personally I'm of a stance that we allow far too many foreign interests to control important aspects of our economy. But this story is being blown out of proportion. On the surface it looks really bad, but a lil research and to be honest nothing is changing....

Just where the money is coming from. So Ole Tommy Jo Johnson down at the port harbor is now being paid by an UAE company instead of a British one.

I doubt he'll decide suddenly to become AntiAmerican and proTerrorist.


Fandros

Actually Malse I think that is a pretty good article.

Sadly the media spin is about security in general and should be focusing on Dubai's inability to manage our ports economic concerns instead.

Fandros

So I'm curious, in a situation like this where it pits republican against republican how in the world will fox news spin something like this?



All the reporting I have seen from the talking heads on Fox seem to be in solid agreement that this is not a smart move on the part of king george; and, the fact that we are presently involved in a war with some folks in their neighborhood has been mentioned by one or two Fox folks as well, as if they want to to remind our leader of this small item he seems to have forgotten.

Like Leno said last night, are we going to give the mexicans Border Patrol contracts next?

I'm usually behind bush about 80% of the time, this one definitely falls into the 20% where I don't.

Seriously how the fuck can this be a good idea?

The dockworkers may not change, but I seriously doubt there won't be effects on management personnel at the ports. Dubai will want their own people in charge, and they are the ones I would worry about.

I'm by no means saying this is a good idea. But I am agreeing with Sen McCain that perhaps we need to find out more about this before we react.

Fandros

Seriously how the fuck can this be a good idea?

The operative question is "Will it be any worse than the already bad state it is in now?" to which the answer is no. Dock security is still a joke, and the current foreign company that owns it won't give any less of a damn than the new one.

I'm not familiar with the linked site, but this (http://in.rediff.com/news/2004/mar/25osama.htm) isn't very comforting.
The Central Intelligence Agency did not target Al Qaeda chief Osama bin laden once as he had the royal family of the United Arab Emirates with him in Afghanistan, the agency's director, George Tenet, told the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks on the United States on Thursday.

Had the CIA targeted bin Laden, half the royal family would have been wiped out as well, he said.

Fair warning to the rabid attack dogs -- unlike the sources you normally whine about, the Nation magazine actually does qualify as "the liberal media" you love to hate. You may therefore skip reading anything that might disagree with your presumptions about politics and save yourself the acid reflux.

Is this the same "liberal" media, such as Reason and The New Republic, that I have often linked to in the past that you fail to note? But Woe unto a conservative who links to a conservative mag or blog. The teeth gnashing and hand-wringing that follows is always a fun site to behold.

I'll wait patiently for your arrogant all-knowing ass to ever link to the Weekly Standard or National Review to make your point.

I don't frequent the Weekly Standard but National Review does carry a few decent writers. I particularly liked the Ann Coulter goodbye flamewar. However their points are usually sufficiently well represented elsewhere. On the other hand, the entire absurd notion that we should allowing foreign corporations, nationalized or otherwise, to run American national resources (the harbors and ports) has been barely noticed at all behind the ranting about evil Arabs (which could easily be true, but only in the Crazy La-La Land of our modern privatization policy!)

The fun part is watching continued against attacks sources instead of what they're saying though, which remains the underlying point.

It's enough to disclaim, here, that The Nation is a liberal periodical, and the above represents their point of view. Let us not accompany such presentations with pre-emptive attacks but instead decry that behavior if/when it occurs.

I agree with the central point about foreign corporate ownership of US resources (especially if that entity is essentially or truthfully state run). I'm even leaning toward the view that ports should be overseen by state or federal entities and not profit-minded concerns at all, tho' I'm open to being convinced otherwise.

I'm by no means saying this is a good idea. But I am agreeing with Sen McCain that perhaps we need to find out more about this before we react.

Fandros

That seems to be exactly the point both Democrat and Republican dissenters are wanting Bush to see, but he refuses to look at anything other than what he wants, just as he has with the war and his failure to heed the military advisors.

(Bold in quote is mine)

http://images.redstate.com/images/myrickuae.pdf

'What Gandaar describes has already happened. Privatization initiatives by the neocon New American Century movement would be an amusing satire of the later days of the Roman Empire except that it's happening to us.'

- Well, let's not be too dramatic, although I do see a healthy comparison.
Your barbarianisation is a tad different, but no different than what's happening elsewhere.

First off, I will say that I do not totally agree with this, I think that the ports should be government controlled. (not private sector). But, that being said, there has not been a issue with this until a middleeastern company/government decided to get involved. Now, that people are blowing a nut over this is clearly racial profiling, and is wrong. To say that Dubai taking control of the business operations would lead to national security failures without any precidence is wrong. Yes.. I know that 2 of the terrorist use to live there, the banks were used to transfer money.. blah blah.. but until that happened, there was nothing wrong with them living there, or using the banks. Yes, they recognized the Taliban, and they are mostly muslim, but really, what does it really matter in the long run?


Do you really think that the Dubai company would risk comprimising the UAE by allowing any terrorists to come thru the ports? If there was ever a link to another terrorist attack and them, that country would cease to exist. Remember, Dubai is not a private company.. they are controlled by the king. The UAE is a leading friend of the US since 9/11 and have not shown any sign of backing off that. To allow a british company to run it, but not a arabic country is just wrong.

That is certainly the position Dubya is taking. In normal circumstances I would even agree with it. I don't see the situation today as being conducive to political correctness though.

Is it fair to discriminate against UAE because just they are an arab country? No.

Is it fair to discriminate against UAE because a large portion of their population is sympathetic to Al Qaeda and the Taliban? Because they have already been implicated in shady financial dealings supporting both organizations? That is less clear.

If someone can show me that there is little chance Al-Qaeda could take major advantage of UAE people running our ports, perhaps I will change my mind. Yes, I know the security aspects have been OKed by the pertinent US intelligence organizations, but these are the same people who have been wrong about a lot of things and have a well documented history of being caught with their pants down.

Some information (http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-5640688,00.html) on the deal between the administration and Dubai Ports World. One interesting graf:
The administration did not require Dubai Ports to keep copies of business records on U.S. soil, where they would be subject to court orders. It also did not require the company to designate an American citizen to accommodate U.S. government requests. Outside legal experts said such obligations are routinely attached to U.S. approvals of foreign sales in other industries.
One defense of this decision is that legislating against it amounts to discrimination against an Arab owned company -- racial profiling. But it seems here that DPW is receiving special treatment, a reversal of one of the very talking points used in supporting the sale.

That is a very valid point Thor. I will bother me that they get considerations that other companies would not.

will bother me that they get considerations that other companies would not.

This is the track record of the Bush administration. He chooses who he wants to do something and gives the finger to anyone who challenges this.

It would be fun to find out how often he got his ass kicked in college for his attitude that he is right and fuck everyone else.

It would be fun to find out how often he got his ass kicked in college for his attitude that he is right and fuck everyone else.


Apparently not too often...

http://www.snopes.com/politics/bush/rugby.asp

This is the track record of the Bush administration

This crusade is getting old. For someone who has been around as long as you have Byl, stop blaming Bush, and start blaming the system. Bush is not the first nor will he be the last President to give considerations to companies. So what that Haliburtan got a majority of the contracts in Iraq. I know I was well fed by them, and that is what I cared about. If you think that Bush and Cheney are the first to abuse the system, then do a little research.

For example, read this article. This is not a bash at Clinton, but more importantly, read the first paragraph.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/president/players/brown.html


Ron Brown, who died in a plane crash in April 1996, was far from being the first Commerce Secretary to be accused of using his job to pressure American businesses for political contributions or to reward those who have written his party checks. President Bush's Commerce Secretary and campaign finance chairman, Robert Mossbacher, faced similar allegations when he was the nation's top business official


This is something that has been abused throught the history of the Presidency and is just as wrong as the power of the President to Pardon whoever he wants. I am not condoning the abuse of power, but I accept the fact that it happens. I am sure that whoever the next President is will have the same problems...

This all really stems from lobbyiest, and the power that they have over both parties. If someone is donating to you.. there is a reason for it. Whether it is to affect the spreading of Gambling establishments (Abramoff/both parties) to having private business build the information highway (Clinton/Gore and the phone companies).

The difference is starker when the subject is national security. Consider, for example, the administration's use of the tactic of declassifying data that supports their views (or using classified data to attack critics a la Wilson/Plame). I regard this as considerably more serious than than the usual forms of corruption that plague not only US politics but authority at all levels since the beginning of time.
This is something that has been abused throught the history of the Presidency and is just as wrong as the power of the President to Pardon whoever he wants.
Why do you hate our Constitution? :p

While that last comment was made in Jest, there is a serious issue in regards to the Presidential Pardon. If you look throughout the last 5-6 Presidents, you will see abuses of this power that make you want to scratch your head and drool. That being said, some of the pardons are legit. For example, clearing a guy who was convicted of a crime that is no longer a crime or something petty is one thing, but to clear your friends or former business associates is another.

It's an absolute power that has its upside and downside, to be sure.

Apparently not too often...

http://www.snopes.com/politics/bush/rugby.asp


You are seriously going to use a link showing a photo of Bush "supposedly" giving a sucker punch to another athlete during a competition to refute my wondering about him getting his ass kicked in college?

/boggle

All your link shows is that he really can be looked at as a dirty playing little coward, heh. If we accept the photo at face value, that is; and, I never do in this day of digital manipulation.


Seriously tho, to reply to your statement that there has been corruption always in high office, I do not know of any comparison on this scale; and, I was not even talking about corruption, but was pointing out that Bush makes up his mind and then tells any opposed to get fucked, which is his track record.

Yes, it may have made perfect sense to hand the "rebuild Iraq" contracts to HB since they were already in the area due to their questionable dealings with Iran (what exactly was the Cheney/HB role in developing Iran's nuclear program?). Unfortunately Shan, there are too many like you who will say "Hey, they met my needs at the time, so I have no complaints.", and not question how it can be deemed acceptable to give billions of dollars to a company without allowing competitive bids, even tho there are questions of a conflict of interest with the Vice President's past(?) connection to said company.

And, even after it is proven, and admitted to, that said company was grossly overcharging for services, and even for some not rendered, those contracts were renewed. Why does this not set off alarms for you? You pay the taxes that these folks are stealing.

Anyway, I was not wanting to dredge all this up again, but am content to oblige since you raised the issue. My point is that we have a President who is unwilling to listen to anyone but himself, unless they are supporting his position.

Sorry for any typos or context errors, I am eating as I type this.

Weirder by the minute. Michael Chertoff claimed to be unaware (http://www.washtimes.com/national/20060224-123748-3727r.htm) of the ports deal:
Mr. Knocke said the reason Mr. Chertoff was not informed was because CFIUS canvassed scores of government agencies and none objected to Dubai Ports World's (DPW) bid to buy terminal operations on national security grounds.
Yet now it turns out that DHS, Chertoff's own department, did object (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=1661530) to the deal, at least initially. Rice, Rumsfeld and Snow say they didn't know about it either until after the fact, the latter stating (http://today.reuters.com/investing/financeArticle.aspx?type=bondsNews&storyID=URI:urn:newsml:reuters.com:20060223:MTFH34 018_2006-02-23_19-10-57_N23265870:1), "That is the way the process should work. It should come to the Cabinet-level people if there is a security issue ... in this case, they found the issue did not present a security issue." But DHS did have issues.

Perhaps their opposition had something to do with things like this (http://www.upi.com/SecurityTerrorism/view.php?StoryID=20060223-051657-4981r)"Under the same law, port facility operators may have access to Coast Guard security incident response plans -- that is, they would know how the Coast Guard plans to counter and respond to terrorist attacks.

DPW has asked for a renewed investigation.

The link of Bush was in jest Byl and nothing else. I was not even trying to prove a point, I just thought the photo was funny and fit the question.

As for HB, you brought up some points, but it still boils down to practicality. So, HB is caught charging to much, so you want to award the contract to another? How difficult would it have been for another company to bring in assets to replace the current ones. I am talking Man Power, logistics that HB had in place, local contacts.. the list goes on and on. It really boils down to HB having the US over a barrel as far as being replaced. Now, enforcing the standards and ensuring HB follows the rules is much easier.

Also, I have a issue with the Lowest bidder comment. I know that the current rules are for the contract going to the lowest bidder, or if possible a mom and pop company, but it was not feasible again. HB was in the best position to provide, so a exception was made (and that is allowed in certain situations). I am not sure if it had anything to do with Iran, or just the simple fact that when you are one of the largest defence contractors, you are ready for situations that arise.

I also think that the lowest bidder rules suck. I hated that fact that everytime my M-16A2 jammed due to sand, I was reminded that the lowest bidder built it. There were other models of weapons that were more resistant to a little sand in the bolt. ( And yes.. I cleaned my weapon everyday.)

Awarding contracts to the lowest bidder is one of the most short sighted policies our DoD has ever adopted.

It gives you crap for crap....Equipment that flat out doesn't cut it because the materials are subpar....fugaboutit

Fandros

Watching Face The Nation yesterday, I was somewhat amused by the national security lady spokesperson who was unable to go more than two sentences without inserting an "ummm", and then restating a previously given response. I am not sure if she answered a total of four questions, as she consistently was falling back on the prepared replies regardless of what was asked, and most often starting with "ummm".

And as far as Chertoff and Homeland Security signing off, he is little more than another Bush pal who was given a job and will roll over irregardless in order to keep the favor of King George. He most likely actually surprised some at the table when he initially voiced an objection, but then reverted to lap dog form and went along with whatever the master wanted.

The more we are learning about this entire process the more questions that are being raised.

Awarding contracts to the lowest bidder is one of the most short sighted policies our DoD has ever adopted.

I thought we had learned a lesson on this with the introduction of the M-16 during the early years of Viet Nam, when we were losing troops left and right due to guns jamming, before they got their act together.

However, competitive bidding does not always mean the low-bidder (read shoddy work) will be approved. It simply opens up the door for more than one option to be viewed, and helps to avoid conflicts of interest.

I'm not sure how this will affect review of the sale, but evidently Dubai and DPW participate in the boycott (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1139395502196&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull) of Israel:
"Yes, of course the boycott is still in place and is still enforced," Muhammad Rashid a-Din, a staff member of the Dubai Customs Department's Office for the Boycott of Israel, told the Post in a telephone interview.


"If a product contained even some components that were made in Israel, and you wanted to import it to Dubai, it would be a problem," he said.

A-Din noted that while the head office for the anti-Israel boycott sits in Damascus, he and his fellow staff members are paid employees of the Dubai Customs Department, which is a division of the PCZC, the same Dubai government-owned entity that runs Dubai Ports World.

Moreover, the Post found that the website for Dubai's Jebel Ali Free Zone Area, which is also part of the PCZC, advises importers that they will need to comply with the terms of the boycott.
I don't think giving DPW control of our ports would implicitly result in the US boycotting Israel as well. Rather, having 21 (http://www.upi.com/SecurityTerrorism/view.php?StoryID=20060223-051657-4981r) of our ports run by an entity that participates in such a boycott is the issue. The US has taken a strong stand against (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/2403303.stm) the boycott before:
The United States has threatened to fine US companies that take part in an Arab lead economic boycott of Israel.

"The US government is strongly opposed to restrictive trade practices or boycotts targeted at Israel," said Undersecretary of Commerce for Industry and Security Kenneth Juster.

"The Commerce Department is closely monitoring efforts that appear to be made to reinvigorate the Arab boycott of Israel and will use all of its resources to vigorously enforce US anti-boycott regulations."
Given this qualitative difference between DPW and the British P&O, the defenders of the sale have one less leg to stand on.