Like everything nowadays, it will have to be the Republicans who stop Bush on this one.  In fact the more that Democrats say the more the Republicans will go along with Bush.  The advantage of speaking out is to let voters know we understand how homeland defense has to work, and turning it over to a country that helped back the 9/11 group isn't that way.  So, I suppose if we really don't think having Dubai in charge of our ports is such a bad thing, we need to be vocal against it, but if we do think it is a bad thing, we need to keep under the radar.  Reverse psychology has at least a slim chance of success.

Hoppy in Sacramento

Two things:

1. If you so smart, why ain't you prezident? This is too clever for its own good; you wind up strategerizing yourself into irrelevancy. Dems should just say what they think.

2.  In fact, putting a Dubai-based company in charge of some port operations isn't such a big deal. Not when you consider that the current administration is doing virtually nothing to get American port companies to increase security - or nothing that might be inconvenient, anyway. Dubai is not "a country that helped back the 9/11 group"; that's an absurd thing to say. Dubai is one of the most progressive states in the Arab world. But it is right to point out, as Reed Hundt does, that letting foreign companies run port operations but not own TV stations is completely ridiculous, and, while not a world-ender, it's a bad idea and a good issue for Dems to make some hay with. And make hay they should.

Yeah, let's add some xenophobia to the Democratic party's discourse and make some hay with it.

Even though there's no serious security issue behind the deal, playing the anti-Arab card is just irresistible for politicians.

Time mag says that over 80 percent of the Port of Los Angeles is run by foreign-owned companies.  What are we going to do now?  Hide under our desks?

Okay, but the thing that concerns me is that DPW is owned by members of the UAE royal family, and members of the UAE royal family have been connected to Osama Bin Laden. (see Tenet's testimony at the 9/11 hearings.) Now, it's apparently a big royal family so who knows, but, you know, a little oversight and due diligence seems like a good idea in this case....

Connections so far between Dubai Port World and Bush Admin officials/cronies, from the NY Daily News:

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

J. McCutchen "JmacSF"

San Francisco. CA

Republicans don't trust the "trust me" defense.

Imagine that.

 I'm not president because I don't chose to run and if nominated I wont run and .....

Let's start from the beginning here:  Our president says we are in a vast global war, a war against terrorism, and that war entitles him to pretty well ignore the Constitution because he is Commander in Chief.  He says that we will be at war for a long time, and that another attack will come.  Ok, so far?

So, our nation being in a state of war against a group that works by unconventional warfare, using airplanes as guided missiles, planting bombs on trains, etc., it only follows as night follows day that these terrorists will decide to use our incoming ships as a means of getting a really big nuclear warhead into one of our major cities.  Ok, so far?

Now, accepting all of the above, as difficult as that is (and I don't), then it has to follow that our country must be on a war footing with all of the ports of entry to our country.  As I recall our history, a war footing most decidedly does not include turning over the operation of some of the largest sea ports in our country to a corporation from and owned by a country that contributed two of the terrorists who flew aircraft into our buildings, and which is known to financially support terrorists.  But, our president is doing just that.

Therefore:  using the assumptions being crammed down our throats by the Bush administration - that we are a nation at war, that islamic radical terrorists are the enemy, that this war is a hot one that will go on for a long time, and that the president, as our commander in chief, is bound to do everything he can to protect us,  then - this contract with a Dubai corporation is something all of us patriotic Americans just have to fight to the bitter end.

Hoppy in Sacramento

Jayzus, I just can't imagine that the GOP congressfolk are going to want to get the President's back on this one.  Standing up for an arab state-owned corporation's right to oversee American port security is a complete loser.

J. McCutchen "JmacSF"

San Francisco. CA

Did I hear right? One of Bush's few defenders on Keith Oberman

This entire flap is the product over-active (post 9/11) imaginations

 

HELLO!

EyeRak n Roll

and I rest my case.

Let's real all over the place, starting with the Democratic "Leadership", Marshall Wittman and his council of "leaders"

Ports schmorts Your time has come. Your time has gone. It is time for you to go

 US Experts Explore Iraq Exit Strategies 

WASHINGTON, DC, United States (UPI) -- More than 2,270 Americans have lost their lives in the ongoing war in Iraq. The recent elections there and the establishment of democracy have not solved the main problems. As the bloody insurgency continues, the search for a viable exit strategy has intensified.

 

At the Washington D.C. launch of the Independent Institute, a non-partisan think-tank, analysts recently said U.S. withdrawal hinges on a successful counter-insurgency strategy, yet there was little agreement on the form this should take.

Many observers believe a specific timetable for withdrawal would greatly diffuse the insurgency. Lawrence Korb, Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress argued that timetabled extraction should remove the bulk of U.S. troops by 2008.

\'This would give the Iraqis the incentive to get their act together\', Korb said. Many Iraqis want an end to U.S. `occupation`, and these, as yet unfulfilled demands, are fueling guerilla warfare. \'There are large numbers of Iraqis, particularly in Sunni areas who think its ok to kill Americans\', he said.

Timetabled retreat may bring additional domestic benefits for the U.S. Withdrawal would ease pressure on the currently over-stretched army, and would enable the National Guard to return home.

In addition, Korb argued troop extraction could benefit the U.S. in the international arena. Withdrawal would enable the military to deploy personnel in other theatres of the War on Terror; indeed he estimated an additional 20,000 troops are required in Afghanistan.

This is endorsed by Lt. Gen. William Odom, Senior Fellow at the Hudson Institute. According to Odom, the U.S. \'has lost all strategic and diplomatic flexibility\' by becoming entrenched in Iraq, and thus \'we cannot get our troops out of there fast enough\'.

Moreover, timetabled retreat may galvanize neighboring countries to foster stability. According to the rules of Islam, all Muslims have a duty to repel non-Muslim invaders of an Islamic territory. This faith in defensive jihad has transformed post-invasion Iraq into a magnet for foreign jihadists.

U.S withdrawal could reduce this flow, and provide nearby nations with a real interest in Iraq`s future. \'None of the countries in the region want an Iraq which becomes the homeland of radical jihadists\', Korb said.

The argument about UAE's drug transshipment doesn't impress me.   Geography and a banking system pretty much guarantees that there will be transshipment and vulnerability to money laundering.  Compare the review of the Emirates to Country A:

consumer of cocaine shipped from Colombia through Mexico and the Caribbean; consumer of heroin, marijuana, and increasingly methamphetamine from Mexico; consumer of high-quality Southeast Asian heroin; illicit producer of cannabis, marijuana, depressants, stimulants, hallucinogens, and methamphetamine; money-laundering center.

It's not a transshipment point only because it is a consumer, an end-point.  Now, would you want the US running this country's ports? 

Why were the warning signs leading up to 9/11 ignored?

Why were Saudi nationals secreted out of the country the day after 9/11?

Why didn’t Bush go after OBL?

Why did the administration go after Saddam H?

Why was our intelligence about Iraq supposedly so grossly in error?

Is our intelligence capability really that bad?

Why, for the first time in our history, did we have a tax cut (that principally benefited the top five percent of the people) while we were at war?

Why have we had a defense budget increase exceeding 30% while cutting social benefits?

Why does the production of an OPEC barrel of oil cost about $1.50 and sell for almost $70.00?

Why has Iraq been allowed to be such a tactical screw up?

Why is post Katrina NO being left to rot?

Why does the administration typically operate in opposition to data that reflects the wishes and needs of the American people?

Why would we place a government owned, Arab state company in charge of our ports?

So many questions. And only crap answers from the administration.

thepeoplechoose

if we really don't think having Dubai in charge of our ports is such a bad thing, we need to be vocal against it, but if we do think it is a bad thing, we need to keep under the radar.  Reverse psychology has at least a slim chance of success. 

Couldn't disagree more. "Under the radar reverse psychology" is exactly the wrong idea for Democrats.

The GOP is using this HLS issue to try and establish itself before midterm elections as a credibly independant opposition to Bush. As crazy as that is, they must by elections, becasue scandals will surely worsen and Bush's popularity continue to fall.

So long as the GOP controls congress, it still has power and a common agenda, no matter how low Bush's popularity falls. Nor will Bush risk impeachemnt. Bush has everything to lose if the GOP loses congress. To win, the GOP must distance itself from Bush, and play the independant reformers. Hence the unfolding Kabuki drama.

The worst thing Dems could do it let Republicans stage manage this sham while remaning silent. The GOP can't and won't side with Bush  becasue it'd be politcal suicide, an easy campaign issue to get battered over the head with. They will try and present themselves as the "real" reformers, and independant check and balance on executive power. As absurd as it is, that's been the GOP message for a couple weeks now, and this "scandal" has Frist and Hastert tripping over each other to show how independant they are.

Reed Hundt is perfectly correct, Democrats must take charge on this issue, and they'd be fools not to.

Arab and/or OPEC states are already getting enough U.S. dollars from oil. Giving them even more to use for spreading terrorism is right on par with Bush think.

thepeolechoose

Reed Hundt is exactly right on facts and exactly right on tone.  He's making an economic nationalist argument, one that's totally appropriate in this context.  Port management and security should not be outsourced.  That should be the lead. 

I'm not going to say a thing about the UAE, a subject about which I know nothing, other than that Bush's stubborn insistence (to the point of veto threat) that he and he alone has the ability to judge between a good Arab (one he or his friends have dealt with in the oil business) and a bad Arab (all others) is not playing too well to the base now.

J. McCutchen "JmacSF"

San Francisco. CA

Simon Jenkins in the Sunday Times (UK) asked Is Osama Winning?

The hysteria he spawned on 9/11 led the US/UK to a calamitous invasion of Iraq. (Which just took yet another serious turn for the worse yesterday with the mosque bombing in Samarra), and it fully accounts for the lastest firestorm over Port Security, so much so that even the weak and craven Democrats might even be able to convince some that they aren't weak after all. (Good luck with that!)

Is Osama winning?

Judge for yourselves...

  Bush and Blair have brilliantly done Bin Laden's work for himSimon Jenkins
Is Osama Bin Laden winning after all? Until recently I would have derided such a thought. How could a tinpot fanatic who is either dead or shut in some mountain hideout hold the world to ransom for five years? It would stretch the imagination of an Ian Fleming.

Now I am beginning to wonder. Not a day passes without some new sign of Bin Laden’s mesmeric grip on the governments of Britain and America. His deeds lie behind half the world’s headlines. British policy seems obsessed with one word: terrorism. The West is equivocating, writhing, slithering in precisely the direction most desired by its enemy. He must be roaring with delight.

Why on earth would we trust Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, or Rice when they lied us into a catastrophic war, while M. Chertoff "supervised" the absolute worst governmental and natural disaster ever recorded...Katrina? Trust them?...NOT WITH MY LIFE!!!

Even though there's no serious security issue behind the deal, playing the anti-Arab card is just irresistible for politicians.

There is considerable substance to raising an issue over several major US ports being operated by a state-run company from a nation that violates several international charters by honoring the Arab League boycott of Israel, and the extent that participation in the boycott sustains popular resentment and official Arab and Muslim rejection of Israel's basic national legitimacy.  Further, Democratic legislators could be wise to push this aspect of the issue as a way of advancing the Israeli-Palestinian peace process by highlighting the importance of wider regional recognition of Israel by more than the current ratio of 3 out of 22 Arab League member nations.

How in the world is it racist, in any way, for American citizens to not want to have a GOVERNMENT whose  citizens were among those  responsible for the biggest and most deadly terrorist attacks in the history of this country not have ownership of our ports?  HOW?  If, I have been bit by a dog and I don't want a dog protecting me....that sounds pretty damn reasonable and not like I am a canine hater!!

It seems to me, it would not matter if these people were Germans/French/Italians i.e. all caucasians...YET it had been the French/Germans/ or Italians who had attacked our country we would feel the EXACT same way...and JUSTIFIABLY so!!

I think that Bush's statement is ludricous and o so hypocritical  about us holding them to a higher standard simply because they are Arabs...YET he himself CONDONES racial profiling of ARABS for the very same reason that AMERICANS oppose foreign ownership by a GOVERNMENT whose citizens attacked us!!

I find it astonishing that anyone uses this specious RACIST argument that is so blantantly disingenuous.

Folks need to STFU about RACE and focus on the fact that this is a MONEY deal and it is about the BUSHS transacting business with the SAUDI's just like they FLEW those SAUDI's out of here on a private jet immediately following 9/11

WAKE up AMERICANS....Bush is selling the country off..outsourcing mfgrs and it is clear to anyone with the ability to look that America was BUILT on capitalism and it is going to FALL on that very same SWORD....chasing the all mighty dollar.

"...you would know that they are probably on the forefront of democracy and liberal economic policy in the Middle East."

Really!!

Well, I would probably know that this "version" of "democracy" is not for me: no suffrage at all (no political groups, no voting), not to mention strange "laws" and punishments revolving around family/religious/moral life, as viewed by the religious courts: a recent Wall Street Journal article detailed how the Emirates decided too much money was being spent by families on lavish weddings, which led to some not being able to afford to "keep up," which, by the convoluted religious logic, led to marrying of foreigners, which leads to divorce. Net logical outcome in this "democracy": jail for those who spend on weddings more money that the Emirates decided was appropriate.

Now this has nothing to do with the "corporate" democracy, and everything. Not what I consider the "forefront" of democracy, thank you. 

It might be of interest to discuss the issue of Israel with Ted Bilkey, COO of DPW,  when he comes to Washington next week

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/18/AR2006021800986.html 

to assure everyone that this is a great deal for America. He attended an interesting forum in 2001

http://www.mtexpress.com/2001/01-11-07/01-11-07forum.htm

and presented the following thoughts:

He didn’t answer this question, but he did have an answer to what he would tell President Bush.

'I think the first recommendation I would make is to take away a serious irritant by telling the Israelis to remove all the West Bank settlements,' Bilkey said.

'I feel our government and media are tiptoeing around the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians,' he said.

 'Our government is not addressing the problem in an [sic] vigorous way. If we don’t change our unqualified support of Israel, there is no way we can win the war on terrorism,"'Bilkey said."

"...the inability to track through their banking system"

Hrmm, I thnk if we followed this logic the Swiss should be shut out from doing business in our country also.  Right?

Follow the money indeed.  Note to journalists:  a story examining lobbying on the ports deal -- and who's behind it (e.g., Carlyle Group?) would be a good start.

Just becasue it's common practice doesn't make it ok for us to outsource National Security. Maybe in the past it's been off people's radar, but now we should look into changing practices. I don't even see this as a negligence issue really, more of a institutional blindspot that needs to be corrected. Although details are still forthcomng. If it turns out there are some Benedict Arnolds involved...

Nor is this xenophobia. Issues of National Security should be handled domestically. In places where they have great reliance on a foreign power, such as Japan, they're generally not happy about it and for good reason; despite thier close alliance with the US which is far cozier than the US and the UAE is or should be. It's not anti-Arab to say this company is a UAE government entity, it's a fact. The UAE does have some merits, but it's not on the same tier is as Britian, Japan, Germany, France, etc. And even Britian probably shouldn't be handling our National Security, just on principle.

Outsourcing call centers is one thing, National Security is another. If the UAE wants to do call centers, fine. But National Security, no.

WantsOut,

If you agree with Bilkey's statement, then we are both agreed.  The pattern is clear that when the Israeli electorate is confident in its security situation it elects Rabins and Baraks.  The less confident, the more it elects hardliners like Netanyahu and Sharon.  Surely by now the Arab establishment has noticed this pattern as well. 

So why aren't more Arab League member nations like UAE and the other GCC states engaging Israel, even as they back off from the tertiary and secondary obligations of the boycott, and even as Israel withdraws troops and settlements from Palestinian territories?  What if the Arab establshment has considered Palestine a better cynical platitude than a genuine cause all along?  How else to explain how so many, from the Atlantic coast of Africa to the Persian Gulf, are so certain that five and half million Zionists on 20Ksq kms of Mediterranean coast is a humiliating and existential threat to Arab sovereignty?

If Dubai Ports World (aka, UAE) wants this deal so badly, maybe they can sweeten it by rejecting the boycott, opening diplomatic relations with Israel, assisting with a Palestinian civil infrastructure, and spreading the fruits of all this new trade and good global will around their own neighborhood.

"

What I was trying to say is exactly what you said in your last paragraph.  And it's true regardless of the nationality they're outsourcing to, and regardless of whether people from that nation have extensive links to terrorism - or not!........Please note that nothing in that argument depends on any way on the involvement of the United Arab Emirates or of any particular nation.   That's what I'm talking about, and I think that's what you're talking about.  The Arab part is a distraction.

Yes, I totally agree!

My response to the counterargument some give that we outsourced west coast port management to China or wherever, last year, is who the hell let THAT happen, and how can we undo it.

Again, I also agree. With the added caveat that we also stopped China-owned company Cnooc Ltd, from buying Unocal Ltd, just a few months back...based on these same national security concerns that are being raised about Dubai World being government owned.  There was no hue and cry regarding racism then, as well there shouldn't be!  Americans understood this owas a national security issue and that there was no way we should allow the Chinese government to take over a US energy company.

Some folks are jsut too talk radio/show talkingpoints challenged to think without them.  All of this is about trade deficits and budget deficits.  The US government is being bankrolled by foreigners plain and simple. THAT is why Bush is supportive of this deal.

Along with the basic captilistic greed of corporations who do not want National Security concerns to in ANY way become part of the tbusiness transactional process of companies buying and selling property either here or on foreign soil. Corporations want unfettered control to do as they please in the capital markets. And the USA is 'bound' by their committment to 'free trade' to support that philosophy.  THAT is what the issues are here.

Ain't got a DAMN thing to do with RACE...it is only about one color and that is GREEN....

YES!!

And I believe it was Blitzer or Dobbs yesterday that showed how many billions of dollars UAE has invested in the Carlyle Group...I beleive it was about six billion

This is all about the greed of the capitalists which Bush and his family are HUGE players in when it comes to where oil money is invested.

Assisting in the establishment of a functional Palestinian civil infrastructure seems like a waste of time and money when the Israeli bulldozers are liable to come and knock it all down anyway.

read it and weep: http://www.americanthinker.com/ comments.php?comments_id=4515

<i>Little noticed in the kerfuffle over the takeover of major US ports by Dubai Ports is the key role being played by former Democratic Party leaders. Lobbying firms associated with ex-Democratic Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle and Madeleine Albright (Clinton’s Secretary of State) have been working to secure approval of the purchase by Dubai.
</i>

I stand by my original statement.

My response to the counterargument some give that we outsourced west coast port management to China or wherever, last year, is who the hell let THAT happen, and how can we undo it.

The fact that it was Clinton (assuming you're right) changes nothing. 

As to "progressives" claiming any higher ground on the issues... I have to take exception to Mr. Hundt's comments. That if democrats can't stop the Dubai/ports problem, that they might not even exist as a party... Mr. Hundt, so called "progressives" rationalized the election of the Bush administration, by so doing, they are guilty of complicity in what they rationalized. From what I continue to read from the so called "progressive" movement, so called, because they have abandoned the values that framed the movement over the decades in favor of advocating immiseration upon the most powerless in the hopes that the people will suffer so much that they'll be willing sacrifices to a "revolution".

These same "progressives" who like to claim credit for virtually all the social justice/civil rights advances that have taken place in this country over time.. have called for abandoning the labor movement as "anachronistic", they embrace the stereotyping and advocating marginalizing people and groups rather than addressing legitimate criticisms and concerns. They talk about the need to "propagandize", and they certainly don't shrink from rationalizing lying to people to further their agenda. This my way, or the highway"" mindset, is as offensive when it's adopted by the left wing, as it is when it's espoused by the right wing. In all honesty, there's very little difference between the neo-left and the neo-cons.. elitist movements looking to seize power for their own profit and power... 

Can democrats stop the Dubai/ports deal? I don't know... firstly they are in the minority in Congress.. and we do know that the so called "progressives" seek to further decrease their numbers there. As long as enough republicans join with them to stop the deal they will succeed. But then again, the republicans record on serving the best interests of the American people isn't one that inspires confidence.. that said, I'd place more faith in the republican party rather than in the so called "progressive" movement at this point in time. So spare us the propaganda. If we're looking to bring about change for the better, we have to elect people we can legitimately place our trust in.. and for me, that isn't in a movement that is unworthy of that trust, that willing imposes suffering on innocents,so they can exploit that suffering as part of a power grab.

I'll place my trust in the democratic party, I actually pay attention to what goes on on the house and senate floor. I don't agree with them on everything, but I do find that I can understand and even accept their reasons for differences, and not feel that I'm betraying my ethics and values.