previous post next post  

I'm *still* pi$$y about the Dubai Ports World thing.

By The Armorer on March 13, 2006 | | Comments (26)

I know. I should let it go and drink the Kool-Aid since it's over.

I *still* think what happened with the port sale to Dubai was effed up and stupid, with a whole lot of non-critical thinking going on, aided and abetted by the MSM - but most especially aided and abetted by politics and right-wing and left-wing politicians at their opportunistic worse. We look dumb as a nation (and the left was up to their armpits in it, too - principled opposition my a$$) *and* we confirmed for the world we can't tell one Arab from another (spare me, I know Dubai ain't perfect - neither are France and Germany, but they're both helping in Afghanistan) - and we *still* didn't advance the case on the real issue of port security - and now, having made the ports safe for someone like Ken Lay to turn over to Roger Hanssen as security manager, we will do nothing to help the Coast Guard and local authorities - the real nexus of port security - do their jobs any better. Well done, people. Anyway, /rant, and here's some backstory from Chickenhawk Express you might find interesting, if your attention span has any flex left on the subject. H/t, Tammy B.

Share This Article:

Categories:

26 Comments

By Jack on March 13, 2006 8:19 AM
Well, John, do you expect a population that has been presented over and over again by the government with a terrorist boogeyman to react rationally? The politicians were reacting to what they perceived would keep them popular. Playing the "keep the homeland safe" card has been successful in distracting from the mistakes of George W. Bush until recently, so it seems to me that there is no one to blame but those who started the cynical ball rolling.
 
By lex on March 13, 2006 8:34 AM
Terrible thing, horribly done. I'm very much afraid that this represents one of those historical pivots that are usually only clear in retrospect, and that we all might live to regret it. No country profits so much as ours does from globalization and free trade. No one needs more deeply to encourage modernization in Arabia. What a mess.
     
By Maggie on March 13, 2006 9:08 AM
Cannoneer - I saw Abizaid's comments and again I ask......where was he when this was going on? I first heard about this on 02/13/06. Did anyone catch FoxNews Sunday? Supposedly it's not over.
 
By John of Argghhh! on March 13, 2006 9:33 AM
Jack, fine, Bush is a criminally insane, misguided, terminally stupid idiot out to ruin the Constitution. I got the memo. So, that explains Clinton and Schumer, right? This really *is* principled on their part - as Bush is so dangerous to the US and the world that anything is justified to ensure he doesn't get re-elected. Good grief, here's Schumer:
But a role for Halliburton may not be such a "snag" after all, since the controversial company's involvement has already been endorsed by leading ports security critic, Sen. Charles Schumer. "I'd take Halliburton over U.A.E. at this point, if I had to take a choice right now," Schumer told the Fox News Channel on Feb. 20.
Oh, wait - too late for that. So that a Rethuglican doesn't get re-elected. All I'm saying is - don't just Bash Bush, name me some Dems, too.
 
By John of Argghhh! on March 13, 2006 9:43 AM
Maggie - it's not Abizaid's place to comment on this unless he's asked to - either by the President, SecDef, or Congress. He was asked by Congress. He responded. It's all wrapped up in "who's in charge". For policy like the ports deal - it's the civilians. The military doesn't have an opinion until they are asked by the appropriate people, or they get cleared by the appropriate people to put out their own opinions. And that's because someone like Abizaid can't put out a personal opinion without people assuming, rightly or wrongly, that it is also an official position. Small fry like CDR Salamander and I can, Salamander because he does so anonymously and no one mistakes him for an Official Voice, and me because I'm retired, powerless, and meaningless.
 
By cw4(ret)billt on March 13, 2006 9:45 AM
Chalk it up to another damage control failure. The instant the first "We're Selling Our Ports to Dubai" headline hit the street, the Powers-That-Be should have launched Scott McClellan with a Q and A session themed "DPW won the bid to run a couple of warehouses and and piers--just like Maersk-SeaLand, Samsung, Hyundai and Mackay do. Regardless of what you've seen in the papers or on the Six O'Clock News, we are not relinquishing ownership of those piers, the Coast Guard is still responsible for harbor security, we must still be informed of who is bringing what into the country and we still have final say over what enters and exits. BTW, the President's predecessor likes the idea. Any questions?"
 
By John of Argghhh! on March 13, 2006 9:49 AM
Bill brings up a different issue. The White House's seeming inability to manage it's affairs anymore. Maybe it *is* a sleep-deprivation thang.
 
By Maggie on March 13, 2006 10:46 AM
John - I agree with you and Bill that the WH dropped this ball completely. OK, so instead of asking where Abizaid was should I ask why someone from the WH ask him for his opinion sooner? "....me because I'm retired, powerless, and meaningless." Powerless??? That's not what SWWBO tells us.
 
By V29 on March 13, 2006 12:07 PM
The great unwashed reacted out of fear and a great deal of misinformation by the MSM. Our leaders...... poor choice of words... our politicians, who should know better fueled the flames. How better to get re-elected but by keeping the masses in a perpetual state of fear. They abrogated their mission, by not fulling informing themselves, then informing the public. I have come to expect no less from them. These same Arabs are responsible for checking cargo before it leaves. They don't need to spend billions to blow up our ports, when all they have to do is allow lax security on their end; an end not effected by the ending of this deal. All we accomplished was to offend a country that is trying to be an ally.
 
By Barb on March 13, 2006 12:24 PM
Thanks, John and Bill - for so clearly stating my frustration and concerns. I'm afraid that we are not only 'safer' now, the failure of this deal could have a lingering negative impact on our security. Worse yet, the preening congress critters get to behave As-If they 'protected' our national security. Feh! I also agree that this was handled badly by the PTB, poor communications all around - public and to the congressional leadership. That said - if *I* could figure it out ... why is it that people like UpChuck Schumer can't figure it out? (And no, I haven't forgiven Schumer for inserting himself into the Microsoft DOJ crap back in 2001). And the blather about Halliburton just makes me laugh out loud, suddenly everyone thinks they look like a knight on a white horse?? Last year *THEY* were the bogeyman. Give . me . a . break.
 
By AFSister on March 13, 2006 12:30 PM
Sorry, but I am still way more comfortable with a US company running these ports. I get global community. I get world economy. But I also get terroristic opportunity. If we don't address security issues at our ports, having an Arab country running them is just inviting even more trouble. I know the dockworkers are union, and I understand that what makes it onto the dock was loaded somewhere we had no control over, but I'm still under the opinion that letting an Arab country run these ports is opening our doors to trouble just that much wider.
   
By John of Argghhh! on March 13, 2006 1:08 PM
"but I'm still under the opinion that letting an Arab country run these ports is opening our doors to trouble just that much wider." Sorry, AFSis, it's not like there were suddenly going to be planeloads of jihadis landing to start working the docks. If anything, having an Arab company run the port might engender *more* security scrutiny. I stand by my assertion that Ken Lay and Roger Hanssen are *just* as likely an outcome as some DPW management type managing to suborn their American-born workforce.
 
By cw4(ret)billt on March 13, 2006 1:14 PM
Barb - Heh. The Left finally remembered Ladybird Johnson's been a major Halliburton shareholder since *forever*...
 
By AFSister on March 13, 2006 1:50 PM
John, I also realize that "planeloads of jihadis" won't be taking over working on the docks- that's why I said that I realized that union dockworkers would still be working the docks. My point is that if an Arab company is running the docks, it would be a hell of a lot easier for them to funnel weapons and terrorists into the US than if a US company was running the show.
 
By John of Argghhh! on March 13, 2006 2:07 PM
Um, how? How will it be any easier than it already is or isn't - since they aren't responsible for customs, etc? My whole point has been that it won't change the ease of smuggling anything through the port one iota. But turning the discussion away from "Oooo! Scary! Arabs!" to "Oooo! Scary - it's easy now, what can we do about it?" is a far more reasoned and productive response. It might actually get something done. But now, having 'done something,' little to nothing else will be done. But the political class will be sure to inform us come election time of how they saved us from those scary DPW guys.
 
By John of Argghhh! on March 13, 2006 2:20 PM
Um, how? How will it be any easier than it already is or isn't - since they aren't responsible for customs, etc? My whole point has been that it won't change the ease of smuggling anything through the port one iota. But turning the discussion away from "Oooo! Scary! Arabs!" to "Oooo! Scary - it's easy now, what can we do about it?" is a far more reasoned and productive response. It might actually get something done. But now, having 'done something,' little to nothing else will be done. But the political class will be sure to inform us come election time of how they saved us from those scary DPW guys.
 
By AFSister on March 13, 2006 2:25 PM
I'm not disagreeing with you totally, John. I've always agreed that increased security is an issue that needs to be addressed. However... DPW would have been able to hire any non-union workers they wanted, which is where part of my fear lies. My opposition to DPW is rooted in their ability to bring in management-types who may have terrorist ties- and I'm not so sure we have enough control over those hires. Customs checks should catch illegal shipments, but they aren't always getting the job done.. thus, the improved security concern we are all expressing. I know I'm in the minority here, and I've mellowed a LOT on this issue since I first brought it up, but I still don't think DPW was the best choice for management.
 
By ry on March 13, 2006 2:48 PM
"But I also get terroristic opportunity." AFSib, do you have any idea how mercenary truckers and trucking as an industry is? Do you realize that most truckers get into the biz because there's nothing else for them to do, being ex-cons(and I'm not even going to go into the recent reports which show half of the truckers going into ports have false credentials)? You do realize that sensitive military instillations have been infiltrated by illegal immigrant workers that work for the subcontractor? And want to talk about unions and how easily they are able to be penetrated by a sleeper cell? This Dubai deal did nothing. It was just a talking point. Real security costs MEGA. And nobody really seems to be willing to do the comprehensive background checks on drivers and dock workers to get real security(much less secure cargoes, which can really only be gotten by point of load supervision----which I've heard the UAE is allowing a bit of).
 
By Barb on March 13, 2006 4:15 PM
AFSis - Remember that this was a Financial deal. The company (DP World) is buying out the British firm which currently owns these port terminal roles. There are Very, Very few companies in the world big enough to make the purchase. The only option (short of killing the whole sale of the company altogether) is for DP World to sell off the terminals business in the US. It's not as if you can just nominate some firm you happen to like to 'take over' ... there's a little matter of somebody Paying for it as well.
 
By AFSister on March 13, 2006 5:18 PM
I hear all of your arguments- I really do. But this still just leaves a bad taste in my mouth, and I like knowing that more investigation into who will own these ports is being done. I want the best for our country, and the best business decision for the ports- I'm just not sure that going OUT of the country is the best thing right now.
 
By V29 on March 13, 2006 6:51 PM
And it starts! http://tinyurl.com/s3uwr If your European vacation or Japanese car costs more in the future......we asked for it.
 
By Maggie on March 13, 2006 10:34 PM
The funniest thing is all the people who imagined Emiratis coming over here and *taking over* the ports. Emiratis don't *work* in Dubai, it's comical to imagine that they will travel to Jersey to work.
 
By cw4(ret)billt on March 13, 2006 10:47 PM
And why would they *not* want to come to Jersey to work? Think of the invaluable backgrounds they'd have when filming starts on the Arabic version of The Sopranos...
 
© 2008 John Donovan
All rights reserved.