BS: Bush Gives US Port Security to Arabs!

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Gives US Port Security to Arabs!
From: Donuel
Date: 22 Feb 06 - 02:10 PM

here is a strange twist

http://www.angelfire.com/md2/customviolins/bushport.jpg

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Gives US Port Security to Arabs!
From: Barry Finn
Date: 22 Feb 06 - 02:46 PM

DP World is owed by the government of a foreign nation, the UAE.
Therefore our ports will be managed by a foreign government.
Now, how is this no true?

What's unclear about this?

This is not questioning about wither or not to give a job to someone not of this country.
This is not a question of wither or not someone is allowed to buy at a store owned by someone born else where.
The P&O, before it was sold was a privately foreign owned company. It was not owned by the British government, if it had been then I would still have a problem with that.
My comment was not about giving up security

Barry Finn - 06 - 10:00 PM

"We're out-sourcing matters of national security to a business owned by a foreign government."

From: Teribus - PM
Date: 22 Feb 06 - 10:57 AM


No you most definitely are not. The US Coast Guard and the State and Federal Security Agencies have not delegated their responsibilities with regard to security to Dubai World Ports Ltd in any way, shape or form. Dubai World Ports has negotiated a take over of the British Company P&O Ports to MANAGE the ports, they do not own them, they are not in sole charge or custody of those Ports. In terms of security NOTHING will change.

AGAIN DP World IS owned by a foreign government, THAT's what changed.
My reference to a foreign government hiring Air-America to manage an airport on foreign soil was only to point out the lunacy of it all. Though if Iran was stupid enough to hire Air-America for that reason would we be the ones who'd love to pay a little/alot extra & go along with he deal, in a NY second, yes, & we would & loving it.

When you manage a port, like a construction site you control not just a part of it, you control the whole ball of wax, from nuts & bolts to soup. From what & who can & does come in to what & who can't. From what's searched & off loaded in port or off shore, what's refused & sent elsewhere to traffic control. What tankers are not doubled hulled & therefore a possible safety threat to the port areas. Who's to make a judgment call on LNG tankers & port acceptance, a company owned by a foreign government? No, that's a call for local, state & federal agencies, without the advice & consultation of a foreign government owned company that in these cases we would have to give quarter to because of their already held position & on hand knowledge of the overall situation. In other words they would control the whole ball of wax including security.

Maybe we should just bite the bullet & create our own company or God forbid aide an existing American company(ies) to manage our ports? We were not above trying to help the Steel & Auto industries. Maybe this time we could try & get it right. Keep it up, afloat & going, using our own & keeping it home.

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Gives US Port Security to Arabs!
From: Donuel
Date: 22 Feb 06 - 03:05 PM

OOPs Bush broke another national security law - big time

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/02/22/legally-required-investigation/


I guess this is why they are saying W knew nothing of the deal until this week. so i guess "he" didn't break the law, it musta been sumbudy else.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Gives US Port Security to Arabs!
From: artbrooks
Date: 22 Feb 06 - 03:54 PM

Ebbie, these ports have been run by a "foreign entity" for some time now (and I don't know how long). However, that entity was a corporation, responsible to its owners and stockholders and to its bottom line profits. The new "company" is a government-owned organization, also interested in profit, of course, but also usable for foreign-policy purposes by the government of the UAE.

It is entirely true, as many people have stated already, that the day-to-day operations of the ports will likely not change, they will be subject to the same US port regulations and, except for top management, the same people will keep working at them. I just don't like the idea of something so vital to our economy and security being controlled by another country. Maybe it's like buying your gas from BP or from Citgo...the car runs the same, but gas from Citgo is directly controlled by the government of Venezuela, who can cut it off or not as they see fit.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Gives US Port Security to Arabs!
From: Don Firth
Date: 22 Feb 06 - 04:26 PM

"'Living in a port city as I do (containers are off-loaded at docks directly adjacent to the downtown area), I have heard a fair number of discussions on both radio and local television about port security.'

"Means absolutely nothing if, like you, those doing the talking know nothing about the subject."

Is the Seattle Port Commissioner good enough for you, Teribus? I can't think of anyone who would know better than he does, and he says 4% are actually inspected, the rest, they just check the manifest. This, he says, is outrageous and wants to get it changed.

Once again, you try to stun with cut-and-paste, but great volumes of blather is still blather.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Gives US Port Security to Arabs!
From: DougR
Date: 22 Feb 06 - 04:37 PM

Dumbest political move the Bush administration has made to date. I think the Congress should get involved in the investigation. The deal should not go through until they are satisfied that it would be in the best interest of the US of A.

Anyone know what other companies operate ports around the world?

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Gives US Port Security to Arabs!
From: Bobert
Date: 22 Feb 06 - 04:54 PM

I can't believe this!!!

Here I go and agree (kinda) with Bush on one gol-danged thing and now Dougie wants to disagree with Bush?!?!?!?!?!?...

Beam me up!!!

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Gives US Port Security to Arabs!
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 22 Feb 06 - 04:55 PM

its funny that when a Chinese company wanted to buy UNOCAL there was a lot of US opposition to the deal, I cant remember if it was blocked or they withdrew but it seems to me another indicator that globalism is dead.

(now the US has a strategic oil reserve, Canada for instance doesnt, but boy was there a ruckus when Trudeau tried to establish govt control with the National Energy Policy)

the same goes for the recent attempt by Mittal steel. Its ok if western companies buy and control assets in nonwestern countries but not vice versa.

Little Hawk, doesnt everyone form their opinion on the basis of their belief system? even in fact if its a neutral opinion such as yours.
cheers.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Gives US Port Security to Arabs!
From: Don Firth
Date: 22 Feb 06 - 04:56 PM

Let me put this another way for you, Teribus:   what they are supposed to do is not necessarily what they do do.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Gives US Port Security to Arabs!
From: artbrooks
Date: 22 Feb 06 - 05:59 PM

DougR: there was an article on CNN earlier this afternoon about port operations on the West Coast. They mentioned the ports of Seattle and LA, and said the majority of terminals at each (e.g., 4 terminals at the Port of Seattle) were run by non-US owned companies. They noted that some of these companies are located in China, Taiwan, South Korea and Denmark. However, none of these companies are owned by another government.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Gives US Port Security to Arabs!
From: Bobert
Date: 22 Feb 06 - 06:21 PM

I'm not too sure why it matters if the business is government owned or not... Hey, with the corporatists in bed with governemnts all around the world these days, like ain't it kinda academic as to who owns the business??? In a way, I'd rather see the governemnt own it... I think they are slightly more transparent, or at the least accountable, than the corporations... The Bush governemnt, of course, being one exception...

But I just don't get the argument here that it would be better to have a company, perhaps with murky ties to bin Laden as many of his businesses are, working the ports than a company owned by the Saudi royal family... Or closer to home, I'd rather see the US governemnt hire folks and run the ports rather than turn them over to Halliburton...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Gives US Port Security to Arabs!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 22 Feb 06 - 07:01 PM

Yes, petr, and that's why people usually form their opinions a bit hastily. Just something to keep in mind.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Gives US Port Security to Arabs!
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 22 Feb 06 - 08:55 PM

The word "emir" gives me the creeps. Isn't that just another way of saying that this loose knit federation is controlled by facists? Personally, I don't like anything about the UAE and would not like to know that they were controlling U.S. ports. Seems to me that the U.S. should control its own ports. It kinda makes a mockery of the intense border security between Canada and the U.S.

I lives in a port city too. Anyone who lives in a port city knows that heroin arrives via our ports. Anyone who lives in a port knows that people are smuggled into a country via those containers. Anyone who lives in a port city knows that its ridiculous to have a 'war on drugs' and a 'war on terrorism' and at the same time allow our ports to be managed by another country.

I have nothing against Arabs, its the Emirs I don't trust.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Gives US Port Security to Arabs!
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 22 Feb 06 - 08:59 PM

Here's one for Donuel:

Bush exports democracy and imports facism.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Gives US Port Security to Arabs!
From: artbrooks
Date: 22 Feb 06 - 09:04 PM

A fascist is a person who believes in and practices a particular economic and political system. An Emir is a hereditary monarch, and may indeed be a fascist...or might preside over an entirely constitutional government. What I don't like is having our ports effectively an instrument of some other country's foreign policy, and I would feel the same way if the British or French government owned the company in question.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Gives US Port Security to Arabs!
From: SINSULL
Date: 22 Feb 06 - 09:06 PM

I have reported here repeatedly Bin Laden is working as a Security Agent at Portland's Jetport. And what do I get? Lots of abuse about the term "jetport".
Why are you all upset? Little bush wouldn't agree to this if there were any danger. You'd think he was a fool the way you act.
Meantime, I am restocking my supply of Saran Wrap and duct tape.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Gives US Port Security to Arabs!
From: GUEST
Date: 22 Feb 06 - 09:49 PM

'Medieval feudalism' is how one senior western banker described Dubai's style of government, 'with a veneer of 21st century regulations.' "

Maybe the Emir's are not facists but as a loosely knit federation, the could be called a medieval feudalism with a veneer of 21st century regulations.

The secrecy in Dubai is legendary. There are also many reports of Al Quaeda having close ties to the UAE where banks are notorious for laundering money. Doing business with the UAE is like doing business with the Middle East mafia.

I'd feel better if Korea or Iran were managing the ports of the USA.

The UAE? They aren't likely to threaten our security but when it comes to white collar crime and a lack of human rights, the UAE are the masters. It really doesn't surprise me that the Bush administration sees the UAE as allies. Oil money is the driving force behind their existence.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Gives US Port Security to Arabs!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 22 Feb 06 - 10:04 PM

So they're "thick as thieves"...

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Gives US Port Security to Arabs!
From: Alba
Date: 22 Feb 06 - 11:18 PM

I think there are several issues happening on the fringes of the sale of P&O to the UAE owned DP World.

I mentioned David Sanborn's appointment earlier in the Thread.
Then I read something else that caught my attention.

Where is The Secretary of State at the moment? and where is she going next?

I think this is a jig saw puzzle of a Deal and I need more pieces of the puzzle before I can understand this administration's strong approval of this Sale going ahead.

J

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Gives US Port Security to Arabs!
From: DougR
Date: 23 Feb 06 - 12:47 AM

I have read and heard a lot more about this deal since I last posted and I am less concerned about the security. There is a risk, sure, but I think the harm that would come to the U. S. would be greater by not agreeing to the contract.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Gives US Port Security to Arabs!
From: Donuel
Date: 23 Feb 06 - 01:08 AM

dianavan that is a good twist
here is the last import export theme I did
http://www.angelfire.com/md2/customviolins/business.jpg

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Gives US Port Security to Arabs!
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 23 Feb 06 - 01:19 AM

Alba, re: your link.

"Rice is expected to argue that Iran is destabilizing the Middle East by supporting extremist groups in the Palestinian territories, Lebanon and Iraq."

Whats that say about Egypt and Saudi Arabia? They both support Hamas. So why is Iran the only bad guy on the block?


So don't leave us in suspense, Doug. I know, the real reason Dubai will have control of our ports is so that we can use Dubai in some way. Is it for their oil or for their strategic importance?


It really is a game between the power brokers of the world. The health, education and welfare of the people is no longer the concern of the government. When big business takes over the government, you can kiss human rights good-bye.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Gives US Port Security to Arabs!
From: Peace
Date: 23 Feb 06 - 01:28 AM

"The White House said that President Bush had not known about the $6.8bn (£3.9bn) sale of the British company P&O, which manages the eastern US ports, to Dubai Ports World before it was agreed, but he rejected suggestions that it might endanger US security."

'Larry Johnson, a former counterterrorism official at the CIA and the state department, and now a private security consultant, said the UAE had a poor record of security: "Their ports are some of the biggest smuggling centres in the world."'

And there ya have it, folks. From here.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Gives US Port Security to Arabs!
From: GUEST,grace stimpson
Date: 23 Feb 06 - 04:15 AM

Now I know Bush is a madman. Why dont he just sell our airports to the arabs too. Let them conduct the security checks. Please dont ask me to take off my shoes in the airports anymore.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Gives US Port Security to Arabs!
From: Ron Davies
Date: 23 Feb 06 - 07:47 AM

As the posting by Peace (1:23 AM 23 Feb 2006) indicates), what happened was the British company which used to handle those ports has been sold to a firm run by the UAE government.

"Martin" is against this deal, so it must be right. Sure enough, he's wrong.

As Q and some others have pointed out, this deal does not have to do with security at the ports--that would continue to be handled by US entities. We are not handing our security over to the UAE.   With this sort of uproar, the US authorities will be on notice to keep security fully under control at all times--and that's good.

Panic and xenophobia are not necessary.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Gives US Port Security to Arabs!
From: Once Famous
Date: 23 Feb 06 - 07:56 AM

I may not be wrong at all, Ron and it is arrogant of you to put it that way, but that is your nature, obviously.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Gives US Port Security to Arabs!
From: Ron Davies
Date: 23 Feb 06 - 08:16 AM

Sorry "Martin"--as usual you don't have all the facts--but that has never stopped you from sounding off--and calling anybody who doesn't agree a traitor.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Gives US Port Security to Arabs!
From: Greg F.
Date: 23 Feb 06 - 08:53 AM

Now I know Bush is a madman.

No, just a capitalist. Anything for the almight dollar & fu$k the consequencs.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Gives US Port Security to Arabs!
From: GUEST,Whistle Stop
Date: 23 Feb 06 - 12:42 PM

There are an awful lot of people weighing in on this issue who know absolutely nothing about how ports operate, or what the "operation" of particular port terminals actually means. I am not a fan of the Bush administration, but I think this particular issue is more about perception than reality, and it is the perceptions -- not the realities -- that are causing people to criticize Bush for his support for this deal.

I spent about seven years of my life working in port operations and port security for the US Coast Guard. I have inspected merchant vessels and onshore terminals of all types, and have conducted many inspections of intermodal cargo containers based on training I received from the Coast Guard and the US Army. I have conducted numerous inspections over a number of years -- of port facilities, vessels, and cargo containers -- at Port Newark, one of the ports that is part of this deal. To put it simply, Teribus is right; the nationality of the company that "operates" that port has very little to do with security at that port. Port security is handled by US government agencies, primarily the Coast Guard and Customs, and that will continue to be the case after this deal goes through.

There are redundant mechanisms in place to provide some level of security that is intended to prevent shipments of unauthorized materials into US ports. The system is not foolproof, and everyone involved acknowledges that only a small fraction of intermodal cargo containers are physically inspected. It cannot be otherwise if we want our economy to continue to thrive; mandated inspections of all or most containers would be so burdensome and time-consuming that it would have dramatic negative consequences on the US economy. And since the strength of the US is dependent on our continuing to have a robust economy, and continued foreign trade, matters that affect the US economy also affect US security.

Port security, in an age when shipping worldwide is containerized, is a difficult issue, and like most difficult issues it requires that we accept certain tradeoffs. We cannot weigh the various factors that go into these decisions without getting into the details. When we reach snap judgments based on scary-sounding headlines, without examining the underlying facts, we do ourselves, and our country, a real disservice. I would suggest that it might be better if all of us suspended our preconceptions ("Arabs will now be running our ports? OH NO!"), and tried to figure out the facts behind the rhetoric.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Gives US Port Security to Arabs!
From: freda underhill
Date: 23 Feb 06 - 07:37 PM

News Flash: The United Arab Emirates says we will get our ports back if we take Michael Jackson back.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Gives US Port Security to Arabs!
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Feb 06 - 09:00 PM

Panic and xenophobia?

I'm not going to wear those accusations when the only thing that concerns me is the fact that the UAE is well known for smuggling and money laundering. The U.S. may control the security of our ports, they cannot control the UAE, who owns the company. If it were a private company, I might not be so concerned but its not. The UAE will now control the ports of the U.S.

For all of you who prefer to call names and point fingers at those of us who are concerned by yet another form of bigotry, I suggest you try to counter the arguments about money laundering and smuggling. Pointing fingers and calling names doesn't convince me that this sale is without a great deal of back room dealing.

How can the U.S. claim to have a war on drugs and allow this to happen? Hmmm... I smell Cheney again. Wasn't his daddy involved in the heroin trade as well?

Kinda explains the effort to bad-mouth Canada. Yeah, right. We threaten the security of the U.S. and we are responsible for all that marijuana getting into the States. Seems like pretty small potatoes when you consider the probability of drug smuggling through the U.S. ports managed by the UAE.

Sure, so ahead, and sell your ports to the UAE. Just don't ever point a finger at Canada or Mexico again. In other words, quit chasing after the little guy so that the big guy can get away. In this case, the big guy is the UAE and the rest of Cheney's drug smuggling buddies.

What was the Swiss ambassador doing with Cheney's hunting party that day? Hmmm........ Cheney is the master of money laundering. He learned it from his daddy and the Swiss banks and the UAE fit right in.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Gives US Port Security to Arabs!
From: CarolC
Date: 24 Feb 06 - 12:39 AM

I'm actually in agreement with Bush on this one. I don't see what all the fuss is about.

If we send the message to the UAE (and the rest of the world) that the US is unfriendly to foreign investors (based on knee-jerk, racist bullshit), it's going to have a very bad effect on the US economy.

For instance, the UAE has a contract to buy a bunch of very expensive Boeing aircraft from the US. They might reconsider that deal and also a free trade agreement that's in the works between them and the US if they see the US as being unfriendly to their investors just because they're Arabs. And they wouldn't be the only country to think twice about investing their money in US interests as a result.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Gives US Port Security to Arabs!
From: Amos
Date: 24 Feb 06 - 08:03 AM

WASHINGTON, Feb. 24 (UPI) -- A United Arab Emirates government-owned company is poised to take over port terminal operations in 21 American ports, far more than the six widely reported.

The Bush administration has approved the takeover of British-owned Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation Co. to DP World, a deal set to go forward March 2 unless Congress intervenes.

P&O is the parent company of P&O Ports North America, which leases terminals for the import and export and loading and unloading and security of cargo in 21 ports, 11 on the East Coast, ranging from Portland, Maine to Miami, Florida, and 10 on the Gulf Coast, from Gulfport, Miss., to Corpus Christi, Texas, according to the company's Web site.

President George W. Bush on Tuesday threatened to veto any legislation designed to stall the handover.

Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y. said after the briefing she expects swift, bi-partisan approval for a bill to require a national security review before it is allowed to go forward.

At issue is a 1992 amendment to a law that requires a 45-day review if the foreign takeover of a U.S. company "could affect national security." Many members of Congress see that review as mandatory in this case.

But Bush administration officials said Thursday that review is only triggered if a Cabinet official expresses a national security concern during an interagency review of a proposed takeover.

"We have a difference of opinion on the interpretation of your amendment," said Treasury Department Deputy Secretary Robert Kimmitt.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Gives US Port Security to Arabs!
From: CarolC
Date: 24 Feb 06 - 09:55 AM

Wolfgang, re: your 22 Feb 06 - 11:09 AM post...

You are beginning to catch on to how things really are over here. It's so bad, almost nobody even realizes they're doing it. And you are correct to see similarities between this mindset and the mindset of the people in your country in the 1930s. That's the direction in which we are headed.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Gives US Port Security to Arabs!
From: Ebbie
Date: 24 Feb 06 - 10:23 AM

A columnist makes the point that the main reason that the US is alarmed about this is that our government has successfully bent its efforts the last 4 years toward making us believe that it is 'Arabs' that are the enemy,

"But more to the point, after years of systematically suggesting that Arabs who didn't attack us are the same as Arabs who did, the administration can't suddenly turn around and say, "But these are good Arabs."

Paul Krugman

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Gives US Port Security to Arabs!
From: Donuel
Date: 24 Feb 06 - 12:07 PM

Yeah Carol whats the fuss?


Its just another secret deal that only got complicated when some blabbermouth gummed up the works.

We wouldn't need so much secrecy, stealth and speed if we only had a dicatatorship.

People have complained that the administration broke the 45 day law.

The fact that we needed to bypass the law for a 45 day investigation regarding this sale, is a perfect example of how goverment and corporate regulations are the real enemy ;)

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Gives US Port Security to Arabs!
From: GUEST,Whistle Stop
Date: 24 Feb 06 - 12:39 PM

Well, let's separate the issues here. One question is whether there's anything wrong with the pending business deal. Another question is whether the Bush administration is bypassing established rules concerning consultation with/review by Congress. These are not the same question.

From what I can tell about the pending acquisition by a company from Dubai, I'm not particularly concerned. A foreign country is investing in an American asset; as long as it's done properly, without bypassing normal review processes, I don't have a problem with that. As Carol states, we want to be welcoming to foreing investors. And many of the objections to this do smack of an "all Arabs are terrorists" mindset, as well as a complete lack of understanding of how port security works.

As for the Bush administration, I'll wait to see whether further analysis establishes that they broke the rules, and then tried to justify it by offering a tortured interpretation of what the rules "really" mean. It wouldn't be the first time.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Gives US Port Security to Arabs!
From: Bobert
Date: 24 Feb 06 - 12:40 PM

Good posts CarolC, Ebbie, Whistle Stop and GUEST, 9:00pm...

It's about time we look at this issue with less emotion and more facts...

But I still disagree with these jobs ever having been outsourched but that's purdy much the way I feel about most outsourcing...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Gives US Port Security to Arabs!
From: DougR
Date: 24 Feb 06 - 12:50 PM

Since more information has come out on this deal, I'm favoring the president's approach. I think more harm would come to our relations with Arab countries were we to cancel the deal (and I'm not even sure we could). This is a business deal between two corporations. The title of this thread is misleading. As I understand it, security at the ports will still be conducted by the U. S. Coast Guard. It's a bit difficult for me to understand how folks that are so opposed to racial profiling could justifiably criticize the deal. What's the word? Oh, yes, hypocritical. That's it.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Gives US Port Security to Arabs!
From: robomatic
Date: 24 Feb 06 - 02:20 PM

One thing that I think is reasonable to criticize the Administration on is their lack of political/situational acumen on this case. They could have headed this off by 'prepping' the congressional leaders on one or both sides of the aisle. Whether one agrees with it or not, Pres. Reagan was labeled "The Great Communicator" and unfortunately we lack one now.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Gives US Port Security to Arabs!
From: Don Firth
Date: 24 Feb 06 - 03:38 PM

There has been a lot of information pouring out of the radio and television, and over the internet, about this issue, including numerous discussions, both reasonable and mouth-frothing. Having listened to much of this and learning a lot more about it, it becomes obvious that it's very easy to get lost in the immense pile of goat feathers surrounding this issue.

When I initially spoke out in opposition to this deal, someone accused me of being a bigot, presumably bigoted against Arabs (an ironic charge indeed, coming from this particular individual). In fact, there seems to be a lot of this going around, accusing people of prejudice, bigotry, and, of course, "racism." That is not the issue here. My concern is not with Arabs. Along with Muslim Arabs, there are Jewish Arabs, Christian Arabs, and Arabs of religious beliefs we have not even hard of, not to mention Arabs who hold no particular sectarian beliefs. My concern is with the particular brand of criminally inclined religious fanatics that the Bush administration has chosen to label "enemy combatants in the War on Terrorism." The problem is not Arabs per se. The question is, how easy is it for the Dubai company to be infiltrated by someone who might manage to get a dirty bomb or a chemical or biological agent smuggled into a cargo container? Point:   two of the 9/11 hijackers were from Dubai.

I've heard several Right-Wing commentators accuse liberals and Democrats (not necessarily the same thing) of using racist arguments to attack the Bush administration about the Dubai deal. But let it be noted that there are a lot of Republicans who are howling about turning American ports over to a Middle Eastern government-owned company, too. Just a few minutes ago, I heard Phyllis Schlafly (not exactly someone you could call a "flaming liberal") having an absolute hissy-fit over turning American ports over to an "Arab company."

It's a damned shame that the issue has come up in the first place, but it seems that somewhere around 26% of American sea ports are operated by foreign companies. When we're out-sourcing just about everything else, why not this as well?

What the hell, let's sell the whole friggin' country and retire to an island in the Caribbean.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Gives US Port Security to Arabs!
From: GUEST,diana
Date: 24 Feb 06 - 08:39 PM

If there is any hypocracy going around, it belongs to the Bush administration.

The UAE is a monarchy and a feudalistic society. If he were true to his own stated morality, perhaps he should liberate and bring democracy to the Arabs (mostly Muslim) of the UAE. Instead he OK's the sale of U.S. ports to an undemocratic country. I thought he wanted to be a beacon of light to the down trodden of the Middle East.

I could care less if the UAE is Arabic. What I care about is the mixed messages the Bush administration continues to give to its citizens.

Arabs are good but Muslims are bad.

Muslims are O.K. but not sectarian Muslims.

Doesn't matter if it was a free election, sectarians are bad.

Saddam is bad because he was not a sectarian Muslim.

The only bad guy in this scene is that stupid oaf you call Mr. President. He's pretty damned confused and continues to confuse all of you as well. When are you gonna wake up and realize that this is not a private business buying U.S. ports, its another government. A government with a long history of smuggling and money laundering. Is this really the kind of people you want running your ports? Why don't you just give them to the Mafia?

Just because we object to the UAE doesn't mean we dislike Arabs. In fact, if we gave the ports to Iran, we could probably eliminate the heroin trade and smuggling too. I would trust the Mullahs far more than I would trust the UAE.

Here's a question for you. What the difference between Saddam and the Emirs of the UAE?

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Gives US Port Security to Arabs!
From: Azizi
Date: 24 Feb 06 - 09:56 PM

When other tactics fail, pull out the race card.

Well, I'm here to say, "beware of people playing the race card.

See this Wikipedia entry for "Playing the race card":

Playing the race card is an idiomatic phrase, referring to an allegation often raised against a person who the accuser feels has unnecessarily brought the issue of race or racism into a debate so as to obfuscate the truth. The allegation tends to stir up controversy. See also wedge issue.

The phrase is used in two contexts; In the first, and more common context, it refers to someone allegedly falsely accusing another person of being a racist in order to gain some sort of advantage. An example of this use of the term occurred during the O.J. Simpson criminal trial when the prosecution accused the defense of playing the race card in trying to present Mark Fuhrman as a racist and thus not a reliable witness against Simpson.

In the second context, it refers to someone exploiting the fear of another race for political or some other advantage. The use of the southern strategy by a political candidate is said by some to be a version of playing the race card, such as when former senator Jesse Helms, during his 1990 North Carolina Senate campaign ran an ad showing a black man taking a white man's job, intended as a criticism of the idea of racial quotas. The ad was interpreted by many people as trying to play to racist fears among white voters of black people taking their jobs.

There is no limit to possible constructions, and similar phrases have also been used, such as "Playing the religion card", or "Playing the anti-Semite card" (or in German: Auschwitzkeule)"

Meaning of "Playing the Race Card"

When concerns about the United Arab Emirates' corporation managing 6 principle US ports reached a fever pitch for reasons enumerated on Mudcat by GUEST 20 Feb 06 - 11:58 PM and others in the national media, the meme came out that opposition to this deal was "Arab bashing".

Somehow I just can't see Bush as being sincerely concerned about the masses of Arab people. And for some reason, I get suspicious when folks or groups-such as neocon Republicans who have no track record in caring about black and brown and other people of color start pointing fingers at others and labeling them racist. Can anyone say "Red Herring?" I bet you can. And in my opinion, this term is applicable to the Republicans pronuncement that those who oppose this UAE deal are racist.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Gives US Port Security to Arabs!
From: Azizi
Date: 24 Feb 06 - 10:05 PM

See this combination of multiple posts from a dailykos dairy:
Xenophobia?That's What You're Going With? by Hunter Fri Feb 24, 2006 at 03:31:06 PM PDT

"Republicans playing the race card:

"Observant folks know that this is far from the first time Republicans have played the race card. If you oppose school vouchers, you're a racist. If you oppose Social Security phase-out, you're a racist. Heck, if you opposed the invasion of Iraq, that made you a racist, because you were saying that "those people" weren't capable of democracy.

We were branded as racists - anti-Italian racists - for referring to Justice Alito as Scalito...

Other examples of Republicans playing the race card:

Anyone who opposed Clarence Thomas was a racist, not simply concerned by the fact that he was not terribly bright, a demonstrated liar and a first-order right wing nutcase.
I believe similar accusations of anti-Latino bias were thrown around during the Gonzales AG confirmation hearings.

If you support Civil Rights legislation, you're a racist. Because it's "demeaning" to suggest that blacks, Hispanics, or Native Americans can't pull themselves up by their own bootstraps in the face of some little thing like officially sanctioned legal discrimination"
Source: various posters to that thread

Also see this particular post from that thread:
"I know racism
But concerns about this deal from where I sit are hardly racist. I happen to be a black woman who lives in one of the port cities. I work across the street from the Port of Miami, where drugs manage to come through fairly regularly already.

I do care who runs port operations, and resent the idea that any foreign government gets the opportunity. I would have been just as pissed had I known the Brits were running the show till now.

For Dubya to play the race card is silly. Well, no it isn't. He's used race to scare his base whenever they threatened to get out of line.

The only good thing about this particular mess is that the race baiting is biting him in the ass -- big time.

by CocoaLove on Fri Feb 24, 2006 at 03:58:57 PM PDT

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Gives US Port Security to Arabs!
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 25 Feb 06 - 12:19 AM

Thank-you Azzi, for exposing this for what it is.

Absolute f#@$ing bullshit.

A red herring is right!

I hope you're right Azzi when you say, "The only good thing about this particular mess is that the race baiting is biting him in the ass -- big time."

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Gives US Port Security to Arabs!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 25 Feb 06 - 12:23 AM

Well stated, Azizi. Thank you.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Gives US Port Security to Arabs!
From: CarolC
Date: 25 Feb 06 - 12:38 AM

You make some good points, Azizi. For my part, however, during the first few days of reportage on this issue, the situation was never just described as a problem with allowing the UAE, a corrupt and repressive government, to manage our ports. It was pretty much always described as a problem with allowing "Arabs" to manage our ports. So based on my experience, it sure sounded like racism to me.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Gives US Port Security to Arabs!
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 25 Feb 06 - 01:08 AM

Thats whats called the race card, Carol.

Its called deliberately pulling the wool over the eyes of not only the people but the congress as well. Its seems to be a favourite trick of this U.S. government.   

I think by now we know that the U.S. media tows the party line.

The U.S. government and their media conspired to make this an issue of 'race' when in fact the issue is the history of the U.A.E.

Thats the red herring.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Gives US Port Security to Arabs!
From: Azizi
Date: 25 Feb 06 - 07:04 AM

Just for the record: I may love cocoa, but I am not CocoaLove.

Also, some people who are spouting arguments against the United Arab Emirates government owned corporation managing United States ports may indeed be racist.

But people aren't automatically racist because they are opposed to giving US port security to a foreign nation, any foriegn nation, but particularly a foreign nation with proven ties to terrorists connected to 2/11.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Gives US Port Security to Arabs!
From: Ron Davies
Date: 25 Feb 06 - 08:12 AM

Time for a few more facts. (From the Wall St Journal--which should know something about the issues here).

22 Feb 2006: "While terminal operators play a role in security, including the fencing and access by employees, dockworkers and truck drivers, they don't normally touch the cargo inside the box. Security is provided by law enforcment, such as the Coast Guard and Customs and Border protection."

"Most US container ports consist of multiple terminals, each of which is leased to a separate operator, such as P & O. Such terminal operators are responsible for developing and operating the terminal and may subcontract to a stevedoring company that supplies the labor to load and unload the ships. Stevedores usually hire unionized dockworkers who are US citizens."

You may want to push for Customs, etc. to inspect a higher proportion of goods than the current number, about 5%. As I recall, Kerry pointed this out in a debate.

23 Feb 2006: WSJ: The UAE was "the first in the region to implement the US cargo-security initiative to prescreen containers destined for the US. Five US Customs officials now work in the Dubai Customs Intelligence Unit."

As for concern that 2 of the hijackers came from the UAE--how many came from Saudi Arabia? Would Mudcatters like to cut ties with the Saudis?

"Current and former US officials say the UAE (parent state of Dubai) has provided significant assistance both in passing along terrorism tips and in helping apprehend suspects."

One of the ironies of this is that in fact the US ports were not the primary focus of Dubai.    The income from the US ports is a small percentage for P & O (the British company bought by the UAE.   Dubai's main sources of income are business and tourism, not oil--they are seeking to establish themselves as one of the main trading centers of the world--going so far as to sponsor ad campaigns with the tagline "Forget London". What they are seeking by this deal is P & O's access to the booming economies of the world--primarily China. And by this deal, they do get that Chinese access.