Let me come right out and say I am completely against this.

Considering that almost all of the 9/11 hijackers were of Arab origin and from Saudi Arabia the sale of the control of these 6 ports simply cannot be under the control of the UAE.

Here are some links concerning the sale:

Forbes

Reuters

Question for debate:

Would the sale of control of these 6 US ports to the UAE be a step backwards in the war on terror and for Homeland Security Department?

It would be a huge step backwards. What in the heck was John Snow thinking? (or is that presumptious)

I realize that there is a difference between the company and the country, much like Google vs. the US Government, but there are differences of scale and magnitude. Though I guess since border security really isn't a priority for anyone in Washington, why should port security be?

Would the sale of control of these 6 US ports to the UAE be a step backwards in the war on terror and for Homeland Security Department?
Hm, I wonder if the U.A.E. is able to buy the British firm directly due to its high energy exports. The U.A.E. is a strongly federalist country composed of seven emirates who are governed by one constitution but retain considerable power and autonomy over their own “states.”

From the State Department:


Squeaky clean. A quick CIA search didn’t yield anything dubious, but do a search on The Center for Cooperative Research. Even if the U.A.E. cooperates with the U.S. it doesn’t have a track record of successfully containing terrorism.

The last time the Committee on Foreign Investment faced congressional pressure to block a foreign takeover was the Chinese bid for Unocal, an energy exploration company, on the basis of a law that was geared for protectionism against the Japanese. I thought the reasons for blocking CNOOC were very 1962.

I view the U.A.E. bid a little differently. It gives the U.A.E. logistical access to our ports. While a non-Muslim company controlling maritime access to our ports is not a safeguard against a terrorist act in and off itself, terrorists may have an easier time accessing our ports and assessing our weaknesses through a Muslim corporation and the Committee on Foreign Investment should block the U.A.E.

Feel free to correct me if my idea of how that port business works doesn’t hold up.

Edited to link bipartisan letter.

Would the sale of control of these 6 US ports to the UAE be a step backwards in the war on terror and for Homeland Security Department?

Definitely. I find it very odd that any organization, government or otherwise, would opt for external services when the same services are available internally. Aside from the obvious benefits of spending American tax dollars on American companies based on American soil owned and operated by Americans, it also has an additional benefit in the matters of security. Our fellow Americans all have a personal interest in our common security. An Arab company messes up, and it's bad business. But if an American company messes up, the lives of the friends and families of the owners and managers are at stake.

Sometimes I wonder if this administration is really concerned about national security.

Would the sale of control of these 6 US ports to the UAE be a step backwards in the war on terror and for Homeland Security Department?

I am definitely against this although I’m not sure if it would be a huge step backward. Especially considering how must stuff comes into the country that isn’t inspected. Given how terrible our border security is right now, it appears the Bush administration believes the only way to stop the threat is by aggressively perusing it abroad.

President Jimmy Carter doesn’t think this is a bad idea. That’s enough for me to be totally against it.

Geez..I hate to do this, but I might agree with this idea...

In my opinion (no matter how flawed), the debate makes two assumptions I think are incorrect. First, that the UAE had anything to do with 9/11. I wouldn't trust anything our government says if I had video evidence. So, I'm not sure what level of international terrorism as it relates to us they've been responsible for as opposed to a half dozen other "allies" that have been far more culpable and we have no problem doing business with them (I understand they are not running portions of our country, but I will get to that).

But the biggest assumption that I think is flawed, is that this somehow affect the security of those ports when in reality, there is none to begin with. Bush has only implemented a miniscule percent of recommendations by the 911 panel and the ports are no exception. The prevailing argument seems to be that although the DHS and Coast Guard will be in charge of the port's security, the UAE will learn these methods to circumvent it.

What security? That's the problem. Whatever exists doesn't amount to a piddle of spit. Just like our border security.

Given this, the financial incentives the UAE would gain in terms of a world economy could be enough to get it to play nice. Bush's social experiment in Iraq is a total failure because all he's done is breed anti-western hate. So, it's no accident that candidates running on anti-western platforms are winning the elections Bush thought would fix everything. MOAB democracy will not help fight terror. It only creates more. But DVD players and nice cars might get people to think twice about being uncivilized. So, over the long term, this could be a long-term cold war type victory.

Or not. But I don't see how it makes anything worse. We're doing very little as it now. So, until I learn more, I'm on board with this idea...

Damn, that is sad commentary.

To be clear, the heading “Selling control of our ports to the UAE” is a bit of a red herring. I definitely believe there is a protectionist motivation guiding politicians who oppose the transfer. The ports are already in foreign control. Those against the transfer may be motivated as much by scoring tough-on-terrorism brownie points as genuine concern for seaport security.

However, given the administration’s poor implementation of the 9/11 commission’s recommendations and Congress’ complete disinterest in funding said recommendations (bridges to nowhere generate more interest), protectionism will have to win out in my view for what miniscule security it affords us at this moment until these two players pull their heads out their hairy, egomaniacal sphincters.

Would the sale of control of these 6 US ports to the UAE be a step backwards in the war on terror and for Homeland Security Department?

I can sort of understand the sentiment, but it's a bit of a quagmire, this.

First off, the port ownership is not in question - only the port operations. And the port operations of the six locations in question are already owned by a foriegn company from a country that has been the source of at least two separate attacks or attempted attacks in the War on Terror, at least one of which was against the USA.

Namely: Britain. British born Muslims carried out the 7 July Tube bombings last year, and British-born Richard Reid, the "Shoe Bomber" was intercepted on a Us-bound flight. And the company that currently operates the ports is P&O, a British company.

If the problem is therefore with international terrorism, the objectors should be saying that only US-based investors should own and operate US ports, which has it's own set of problems, particularly when a large part of US foreign and commercial policy is to persuade other countries to open up their infrastructure to US contractors. You can't have it both ways.



The UAE is a sovereign nation entirely separate from Saudi Arabia. It does have, and has had since it's creation, full and friendly relations with the USA. Some terrorist funding may wel have been channeled through there, but we also know some was channeled through various tax havens around the world, and none of them are being told they cannot invest in strategic US assets.

The point is, ownership by P&O of these six ports hasn't meant that the people running them are all British, or it's a way of by-passing the Green Card system so British people can immigrate into America off the books for nefarious purposes (and there is a net migration form the UK to the US anyway, so the demand would be there if this were a threat).

All this would really mean is that any profits that were made from these six ports would go overseas to the UAE, rather than overseas to Britain as they do now (they don't stay in the USA).

So the objections to UAE control seem to be based not on any particular strategic concern (the UAE is considered an ally, though maybe not as close an ally as the UK), or on simple patriotism (nobody seems to mind them currently being owned by a foreign business) but on some idea that because the business is owned by Arabs, it must therefore be problematic.

If it can be demonstrated that there are stronger links to terrorism in the UAE than has been done so far, or that the UAE company hoping to take over P&O's port business has substantiated terrorist links, that's another matter.

But until then, this just sounds like playing the race card. Another suit from the usual one, perhaps, but still the race card.

Before responding to this thread I was waiting for more detail as to “how” the ports are operated under foreign ownership. Here is just one detail that should ring the alarms:


So if this proposal is defeated then we could have Arabic speaking security personell running the show. Nice one Dubya.

It not only allows cracks for terrorists but since we now have a record trade deficit our ports are more critical to our economy than ever before. The goal of Bin Laden wasn’t to kill as many people as he could, but to cause economic disruption in the States (and he nearly succeeded). Could we have aided any more in furthering his cause?

What happens if the relationship with the UAE sours, shut down the ports?

I understand we need a solid ally in the Middle East, but to put our trust in a country with a short and shaky track record isn’t a sound idea. Let the UAE prove over time that we are in this together.

And today from MSNBCRepublican Maryland governor Robert Ehrlich:


Once again the King George administration has been caught working in a vacuum from their thrones. I’m sorry but not giving the governor of the state a chance to voice their concerns before this was made public and to not engage them earlier in the process is inexcusable.

So you have to wonder what the motivation is from the “war on terrorism” administration. It’s no secret that the Bush family has long, profitable ties to the UAE and their banks were used as part of the Iran/Contra deal. This smacks of cronyism only this time we’ve all assumed a greater risk.

Well I live in one of the states effected, I could care less. I live less than 20 miles from the Baltimore port and the kids and I go down quite often to the beach and watch the shipping boats go slowly and quietly into Baltimore.

I have no idea how the fact it was owned by a foreign company before is ok but now all of a sudden it is a big deal because it is not just foreigners but Arabs *gasp*

I hope you all realize how much this story is more about political posturing and up and coming elections than it as about actual security concerns at our ports.

I think it is also important to know what operations this new company actually has at the Baltimore port:
Potentially lost in this uproar is a clear understanding of what a stevedoring firm such as P&O does. For the record, its employees do not touch cargo. They aren't in charge of port security. They do not oversee shipping manifests. Stevedores are the middle managers who tell longshoremen when and where to load and unload cargo. That's pretty much it. In Baltimore, P&O employees are local people, most with extensive port experience, who help manage container operations at the Seagirt and, to a lesser extent, Dundalk marine terminals.
source

Now this isn't to say I am not concerned about port security, obviously I am as I said above my own security is related. I do think the current admin's attention to port security is seriously lacking . I just don't think this stevedore company is where our main concerns should be.

Personally, I think you should care more. Not necessarily about this deal, but the entire bumbling of port security. This is just a symptom.

For Bob Ehrlich to say something, to me it says a lot. I've known Bob since we we were in the same class at Arbutus Jr. High School (now a middle school) and he's so much of a party parrot, I'm embarrased to have been a classmate of his at times.

But I still have a sister that lives in Dundalk, a brother who lives in Severna Park, and parents who live in Glen Burnie. Everyone of them (including you, bucket) is in danger because there is no security at those ports to speak of. And the big WMD threat will start from there in my opinion.

Giving this deal to UAE is simply stating that it's as good as it's going to get. That's horrific. But in a zero-sum situation, this deal may be the best chance to eliminate a threat from at least one of our enemies. God knows military force can't do it.

Would the sale of control of these 6 US ports to the UAE be a step backwards in the war on terror and for Homeland Security Department?

Talk about a mountain out of a molehill...

This does not sell US ports, nor does it change who is running the ports. The British company is being bought out by a UAE company. The people doing the work are unlikely to change. The profits will simply go to the UAE instead of the UK.

Security at these ports are not handled by these companies. Security is handled by US Customs and the US Coast Guard.

CNN has been blasting the President all day long on this issue. I've heard the word impeachment used more today on Cable TV than ever before.

Congress is against this, which is pretty understandable. It is political posturing: Bush is outsourcing our security!!

It's a fundamental misunderstanding of what's going on.

Bush has said he will veto any law which blocks this sale. I think his angle is that he does not want to further alienate Arabs by discriminating against them doing legitimate business here (considering this was done by a British firm formerly).

"I think it sends a terrible signal to friends around the world." --President Bush

"If there was any chance this would affect the security of our country this deal would not go forward." -President Bush

Bush is sticking his neck out on this one big time. I think he will probably lose in this politically, but I think he has his reasons. He doesn't want to further alienate foreign countries, especially those that have been allies in the war on terror.

It wasn't really highlighted much but Lesly linked a bipartisan letter currently being hosted at Fox News, this thing was put together by a group of 7 democrats and republicans.

It doesn't claim UAE was responsible for 9/11 or anything but they do list some significant facts that should give anyone pause here.


Edited to add:

As you know Amlord the "i" word is largely a question of political power and the president could do almost anything without worry as long as the GOP supported him. He has certainly done a whole lot more worthy of those proceedings than lying about oral sex. Given that Republicans of all stripes are turning on him, including both the Senate Majority Leader and the Speaker of the House, that becomes more of a possibility for his political opponents. Now I haven't heard the CNN coverage and don't know what specifically they are talking about but taking this position, especially before midterm elections is going to significantly weaken him.

Why all of a sudden? Is he serious? Why all of a sudden a Middle Eastern company is held to a different standard than a Great British company (if this is the word for word quote it explains a lot, Great British?). OK, even a C student should know the answer to this one: Probably because the last time we were attacked by the Brits was over 200 years ago when you stood 30 yards from a clearly defined enemy and blasted away.


For over twenty years the folks in the Bluegrass state have more than welcomed Shiekh Maktoum of Dubai. As an avid horsemen he has one of the most picturesque horse farms in central Kentucky and has paid handsome sums for top notch colts at the yearly sales. My point: there are far too many investment opportunities for Arabs to drop their billions on. This isn’t one of them.

Only for the agenda of the War on Terror or the agenda of the department. It may not be the most seemingly intelligent plan (but grouping those words with this administration is a novelty in itself) but if we are to truly participate in this world as a producer or a consumer we must have a little bit of faith in another country to regulate its people or its personnel in order to allow this sort of international business. I am sure that some countries do not like having Americans in their ports, now granted, they may need the revenue we give and since we do not this is easy to say: but they do it anyway! To be an active member in this world's economy, we have to make some sacrifices. If that means allowing a questionable nation in with strict regulations and stipulations, that is acceptable.

At some point we've got to decide what is actually more important, profits or border security. I suggest that the time has come, and that while the U.A.E. is, as one poster said, "squeaky clean," it can also serve as cover for radical Muslim extremists to have access to our ports.

Folks, I know that for some reason known to God and George W. Bush, this is an undeclared war. And as such, perhaps it is okay for the U.A.E. to manage six of our seaports.

However, should this backfire and find us crawling with zealots who are supposed to be fighting our troops in Iraq, we will suffer. We will suffer as far as loss of lives, but also because there could quite likely be the imposition of martial law to round these people up, and the American people would lose yet more freedoms in the interest of "security." So why open this can of worms?

Would the sale of control of these 6 US ports to the UAE be a step backwards in the war on terror and for Homeland Security Department?


I don't think the sale from one foreign company to another is grounds for a civil war inside the Republican party over this issue. And I think President Bush has a point to make about the message this sends to countries of the Middle East that are considered allies in the war on terror.

However port security has been a long-term post-911 issue that many Americans have felt uneasy about. It is easy to do so. Add to this growing criticism about the Bush adminstration's policies and secrecy by disgruntled Republicans AND growing nativism against Muslims and Arabs and this is a political pinata that many members of the beltway can't help but beat with a stick.

For me the problems lie partly in the lack of transparency about this deal and largely in the conflict of interest involved in the transaction. On closer look, people very close to the Bush administration have close ties to this corporation, including a person who played a leading role in approving this sale.


Bush says he will veto any bill to stop UAE port deal


Port Deal: Business As Usual

This has the appearance of cronyism and not an impartial and through look at the feasibility of this company in providing these services in the United States.

Additionally, another person from this company is in the process of joining the Bush administration:


White House Personnel announcement

I don't think the fact that the company is based in the UAE is a deal breaker in itself, but this short-lived company and its roots need to have a clear and open investigation because any such company should.

The UAE is not Saudi Arabia but it may have some significant security issues of its own that may affect this company's ability to manage these ports.

But it seems that the Bush administration is very familiar with the leading officers of this corporation and knows that they are all likely to do a heckuva job.

Whether or not this is a good idea is up for grabs. There's nothing I'd like to see more than a civil war in the Republican Party, but there's more to it than that. This will be an emotional issue back home. Bush doesn't face reelection, but all 435 House members and a third of the Senate do.

If Congress acts and Bush follows through on his veto threat, I predict there will be enough combined Republican and Democratic votes to override a veto.

Meanwhile look for Bush's poll numbers to further plummet.

Just because there are political points to be made doesn't make it good policy to say that a company from an allied country is a security risk. And you should know that I would not stop a rift in the republican party but I by no means want to be an active supporter of nativism. Yet where Bush seems to be defending an ally, behind the curtain seems to be cronyism not a moral stand.

For all of the war rhetoric by this administration, this decision has outed them as "frauds" on the war on terror.

We all know that they were manipulating the "Terror Alert" status to win the presidential election, that was a fact.

Now if anyone had any doubts that this administration is using fear and terror itself to get money deals and bennys for their special interests, this should push you over to the truth.

This administration does not fear terrorists. And they're probably using the wire tapping to spy on politicial rivals.


If you were serious about the threat "coming in the form of a mushrrooom cloud" then you wouldn't let the UAE be privy to our procedures for port security or access to control our ports.

The simple fact that Bush was coddling the elderly Saudi Prince as if HE were Bush's master should be condemning enough. The Saudis are a terrorist supporting nation. They have telethons to raise money to support terrorism against Israel for goodness sake.

Bush cares about oil and special interests. He wants to please his "supporters".

I'm getting a unpleasant feeling here that there is some sense that it is somehow worse for the United Arab Emirates to play this role than some other foreign nation; that citizens of Islamic nations in the Middle East are not to be trusted in general. I reject this notion.

We've got Jimmy Carter agreeing with this policy, and he's not exactly been shy about speaking his mind about his disagreements with the current administration.

I tend to think that this is a non-issue.

I'm essentially in agreement with Victoria on this, but would like to add the following difference. There are clearly all sorts of political issues here. You have, as has been pointed out, potential issues with the company being based in an Arab country, and also potential issues with some of their executives having ties to the Bush administration. As Victoria points out, it is easy to criticize the Arab connection...but does that have true merit in job performance? Julian aptly points out that Britain itself (where the company was previously based) had direct ties to terrorist attacks on the US, but that was never raised as an issue. Consider therefore that denying the sale might also have had ramifications on Middle East relations...it would have been easy to point to the denial as yet another instance of the US suppressing the Middle East. The issues with Snow and Sanborn could just as easily be desribed as extensive experience as they could ties to the current administration. Therefore, it seems this might be an issue of not allowing politics to rule out an otherwise acceptable decision, and also one where foreign politics might have been ruled more important than domestic. There might certainly be grounds to debate whether this was politically astute or not, but that might be more of an issue than those that are being discussed, and I think the likely Arab reactions had the sale been denied have been completely ignored.

So where do you draw a line on cronyism?

Cronyism (to me) isn't putting people that support you in places where they are competent, it is placing them in positions where they are incompetent.

Your example is one of putting someone in place that has actual experience in the transportation industry. That isn't cronyism. By your (inferred) definition, you'd have to hire all complete strangers to avoid cronyism. That just doesn't fly.

Besides, there is no substance to your charge. Just because a guy happened to work for a certain company and then that company buys controlling interest in the business that operates some US ports does not mean the administration had anything to do with the acquisition transaction. The US government did not decide to award this contract to DP World--DP World bought the company who had the contract.

Your position is that we should disqualify DP World because they have competent managers that would be good candidates to work in the US Department of Transportation? Hardly a defensible position in my view.

I agree. Completely.

But after further review, I'm sure Bush is doing the right thing.

I'm being consistent here. Invading Afghanistan? Good call. But President Hillary would have done that. Invading Iraq? Horrific decision. We're fighting an enemy that wasn't our enemy on 9/11/2001 while those that did exist, still exist unscathed. This is not a zero sum game. A finite amount of terrorists do not exist that once killed in Iraq, go away forever. Instead, more terrorists than we can find and kill are created daily as a direct result of Bush's policy.

So, what should have Bush done differently? Besides taking on the true threats and true state sponsors of terrorism (Iran, North Korea, Syria, etc), Bush should have gotten countries capable of policing their own country to clean up their own backyards so we don't have to do it for them (something impossible for us to do). To that end, it's steps like this that make it possible. This is a step forward.

To be clear, if Bush were truly fighting a war on terror, he would have sealed our borders and ports before stirring up a hornet's nest. But he's not. The attack on 9/11 has become a scam to get more money from us and expand our government and it's powers - a liberal's wetdream.

I have not seen any evidence that the UAE was behind 9/11. A couple hijackers came from there and money transactions originated there. But you could say the same thing about Britain and Saudi Arabia. Heck, Timothy McViegh fulfilled that "connection" with the United States. I think the case against the UAE is weak.

This step - in my opinion - is the right step for the right reasons. However, he should have done this first. Not after diving a country and world that stood united on 9/12/2001.

I think my opinion on this whole matter might be changing. I kind of agree with Dayton on this one. The ports aren’t secure right now, and I can’t see how different ownership is going make a difference. However, I part ways with Dayton about what we should be doing. The costs of properly inspecting everything coming into our ports would be unbelievable and unsustainable. We can’t just build a wall around the country and hope that the terrorists will go away.

Now for the quote above… We all know that the “Terror Alerts” were manipulated in win the election? Wow, that is quite a bold statement. Do you have anything beside ideological conjecture to back those statements up? I read somewhere today that Halliburton is an American company that could run the ports. I suppose there would be outrage about that as well.

The UAE welcomed Michael Jackson with open arms and we all should be grateful for that.

Border security is a completely seperate issue from this one. Throwing security into the mix is Congress's way of "out Roving" Bush.

Customs and Border Protection spending is up 10% again this year. We x-ray inspect 100% of the containers coming into the US. Plans are in p;ace to equip the busiest ports with WMD sensing technology (radiation detectors mostly): Radiation Portal Monitors .

U.S. Customs and Border Protection Budget

Security is a red herring to this UAE deal.

I have yet to read an argument that actually supports the idea this sale somehow jeapordizes our security.....how?

This is another interesting article that was in the Baltimore Sun today...
Growing criticism puzzles many in shipping industry: We haven't done a good job of explaining how we work'
Just about any given time, it's possible to find a Greek-owned ship flying a Liberian flag, employing a Filipino crew and carrying cargo from China into a U.S. port terminal managed by a British company that hires American longshoremen.

This is how Wal-Mart, Best Buy, Target and others get their socks and stereos for the U.S. consumer.


In the major U.S. ports where Dubai Ports World would operate terminals - Baltimore, New York, New Jersey, Miami, New Orleans and Philadelphia - many of the shipping lines, the stevedores that load and unload ships and terminal operators have foreign owners.

The top 10 containership fleets are based in Denmark, Switzerland, Taiwan, China, Germany, France, Japan, Hong Kong and Singapore, said Peter S. Shaerf, managing director of AMA Capital Partners LLC, a merchant banking firm that focuses on the maritime and transportation industries. All call on U.S. ports, and some of the shipping lines manage terminals.

Other terminal operators with U.S. operations are based in England, Denmark and Hong Kong.

Panama has the world's largest ship registry, and Liberia is second. Brad Berman, president of the company that runs the Liberian registry, said about 2,300 ships fly that country's flag and that they carry 10 percent of the world's cargo tonnage.


I think the issue of port security is a global effort, much in line with the global effort on terror. We can not do this alone, we are nota closed isolated nation, and most of us have no desire to be.

I have to admit, my opinion has gradually changed on this matter. At first, the alarmist in me saw UAE's potential role in support of terrorism and projected 100% of that onto the potential risk. After reading more into this, I'm less concerned.

First, the only real change here is that a British company is being consumed by one based in the UAE. Arguably there would be little, if any, real change in personnel.

The UAE company already operates many ports in the world, and hasn't had its integrity questioned on those operations. Why is the US different?

Finally, as many have pointed out, we aren't outsourcing our security of those ports, that is still under DHS control (for good or ill).

My only wonderment is, why can't a US company do this and elminate this as an issue altogether?

Doc, like you I’m starting to loosen up a bit as the details are uncovered, still not convinced this is a good move. But then along comes this story:



There’s a dangerous pattern that’s been established and perpetuated by this administration of working on critical issues in a closet. It’s good to see our government function as designed with republican and democratic congressional leaders joining to fight the immediate approval of this sale and put additional scrutiny behind the deal.

I would expect nothing less from congress, it’s their job. This administration has just removed the balance part of the ‘checks and balance” equation. Again.

Um Fife and Drum, I think you have your own comments intertwined with your article quote. I thought it was a really biased article you were offering us at first but the article from your source doesn't actually say that whole end bit about ineptitude.

That aside I think CFIUS did approve the sale and security issues are taken into consideration. IS there really any proof this committee did a poor job? I am aware there are stories that Snow was in fact compromised because of his past relations with this company, but that doesn't appear to be the focus of concern.

Also in the same vein of your own questioning, why were the state's governors, specifically my own state governor not aware, it is their state after all. Is it so difficult to get a look at what is on the docket for CFIUS, or is it some secret hidden committee? If my gov. had so much concerns about port security why was he not keeping himself "in the loop" ?

I will admit, one of the things I'm liking about this discussion in the country is that it is in fact focusing (even if incorrectly so) on the security of our ports. We seem to have lost sight of that discussion in this country.

Based on the article Fife linked, I think the deal at a minimum should get Congressional review. There are certainly more questions than actual threats here, but I believe the questions are worth answering.

Now, if we can just get more light on the fact that Border Patrol uniforms are being made in Mexico, maybe the border security discussion will get the same amount of focus. Hope springs eternal.

It seems like the facts just keep getting uncovered about just how good of an ally UAE is. The following comes from the 9/11 commission hearings:


What Tenet is referring to here is why the CIA didn't take out Bin Laden in Afghanistan on one particular occasion. In part that was because several members of the UAE royal family were visiting him and they didn't want to take them out.

I have a feeling that things like this will continue to come to light because people in Congress are actually taking a look at the issue. They are doing this to save their own skin in 2006, but at least they are doing it instead of just blindly following the President.

I don't see how anyone here or in the media can say that this sale is perfectly acceptable because we really don't know too much. So unless you are just taking the word of the President there really isn't any evidence one way or the other. At the very least this means that Congress should put the sale on hold until a proper investigation can be done.

Cube Jockey:

CFIUS (Committee on Foreign Investments in the United States) IS the mechanism set up by CONGRESS to check into these things. link

And CFIUS did its job and ok'd the deal. The Congressionally mandated oversight procedure was followed.

Are you saying we need more bureaucracy or we need checks and balances on our checks and balances?

This is an issue because certain members of Congress want to spin this into a security issue. People like Chuck Schumer (haha, Spellcheck wants Schumer to be Schemer), who have no notable record on security, are trying to make it seem like they care about it. What this boils down to is a knee jerk reaction by people that don't fully understand what this is and how it was checked out by six Cabinet departments (Treasury, State, Defense, Homeland Security, Attorney General, and Commerce).

The more people take a step back from the rhetoric, the more they see that this does not affect security and sends the wrong message to our allies in the Middle East.

Amlord, with all due respect this is not "certain members of Congress" it is a significant contingent of both legislative bodies, perhaps enough to overturn a veto. The strongest objections are coming from the GOP! You have both the senate majority leader and the speaker of the house on record as being against this. Yet you are trying to paint this as yet another conspiracy by the Democrats. It isn't, the Republicans are eating their own here and the Democrats have nothing to do with it.

So unless you are stating that the majority of the GOP doesn't know anything about security, then I think you might want to reconsider your statement. You also might want to examine where the pressure is coming from on this and it isn't from the Democrats, although they are certainly piling on.

Thinkprogress.org has an excellent rebuttal of the current controversy over the UAE acquisition. For obvious copyright reasons I can't post it all here, but here are some highlights:

There are many links backing up the claims in the counterpoint, but overall the more this plays out, the more it seems like political posturing vs. legitimate security concerns.

I'll admit, the John Snow connections to DPW are interesting, and the idea that Bush didn't even know about the deal until after the uproar is amusing, but overall this controversy seems to be overblown.

After doing my own research I should concede I jumped the gun on this one... I first learned of this story on CNN and the way they broadcast it, it made it seem like control of these ports(including security) was being handed over to the UAE. Which I see now is not the case at all. I stand corrected on my opening position.

Also I think that just pushing the UAE out for the sole reason they are the UAE would give only allow the terrorists to say, "See the Americans DO hate anything that might have a tie to islamic religion!"

I think the Republicans are trying keep the Democrats down. There were so many "bipartisan" proposals yesterday my head was spinning.

I agree that it seems like a large number of Congress critters are up at arms about this. But outrage is generally theatrical in politics rather than substantive.

The Republicans don't want the Democrats to gain traction on this issue, so they are joining the "tsunami" of outrage.



I agree that CNN's coverage yesterday was a bit unbalanced. You'd have thought that we were giving control of the ports to Hamas or Islamic Jihad.

I’m not sure what you’re implying here. The article states:

I find it hard to believe that this didn’t warrant a least a bullet point during the “War on Terrorism” presidents daily briefings with “his administration”. The ineptitude comments would have justifiably been mine, for several reasons.


In my first post on this subject I questioned the fact that your governor wasn’t involved in the process. And it’s hard for your governor to be kept in the loop on something when apparently hardly anyone was aware of the loop, including the president (if you believe today’s statement coming from the White House).

Amlord that just flat doesn't make any sense at all. Bush will not be on a ballot again, many of the folks in the House and Senate will in 2006. They are doing this because they feel Bush is compromising their position on national security and this has absolutely nothing to do with the Democrats, it is their opinion and it has been repeated on major networks including FoxNews.

Your contention that Republicans of all stripes up to and including the leadership of both legislative bodies are piling on the President to outflank the Democrats is simply ridiculous, especially when they haven't done that on any other issue that has been raised in recent years where the Democrats didn't agree with the President.

You are creating crazy conspiracy theories here that don't follow logic. There is no reason for the GOP to not back the President on this (like they have done almost without fail), especially if there is nothing to it as some are suggesting here. The only possible reason is that they either believe there are security concerns or they are concerned about votes in 2006 and 2008 - or both. Either way it has nothing to do with the Democrats, they didn't orchestrate this.

Look at the knee jerk posts that started this topic. This topic was started by Sleeper, a Republican, who was "totally against" this. I assume his concern was security.

Now, after taking a step back and seeing the issue a bit more clearly, he sees that there is no security angle here (or at the most a very shallow one).

The same thing happened with Congressional Republicans, who saw this through the lens of security (rightfully) but they opened their mouth and inserted their foot before thinking it through.

Now they are stuck: should they ""flip flop" on security?? I don't think many will do so which sets up a showdown. Bush got in front of this one by threatening to veto any kneejerk legislation.

There is a Congressionally mandated procedure here which was followed and has concluded that this transaction (essentially the acquisition of one company by another) does not pose significant national security problems.

I wonder how many Congressional Republicans are wondering which is more embarassing: having a foot in your mouth or someone else noticing you taking it out...

Do Americans have any say whatsoever in who runs our seaports?

You know, it really blows my mind that a President who was so convinced that the Iraqis had it in for us that he had our troops invade on less-than-convincing evidence takes this "leap of faith" regarding the United Arab Emirates, a place that some of the known-terrorists came from to attack the United States.

Ah, but these are "good" Arabs, some may say. They are until it is proven otherwise. So how would it be proven otherwise, and on our soil? Take a wild guess.

With or without a mushroom cloud, terrorists really could attack. Witness the nervousness with which our people received the news that one man who works with untreated animal skins from Africa contracted anthrax--Tell me, would x-rays taken of all the cargo that comes into United States seaports divulge which containers might contain biological weapons?

President Bush has consistently scored highest in national security issues. Now he's saying, Aw, these guys (U.A.E.) are good--it might send the wrong message to other nations if we don't let them do this...

Since when did he give a flying you-know-what about what other nations think? Have I missed something here? Is he concerned for domestic security or not? Or is all this wiretapping business just a means to obtain other ends unrelated to the "War on Terror"?

Maybe I'm just tired of feeling that the American people have consistently been manipulated ever since 9/11/2001 by their leaders. Well, Mr. Bush, call it nativism or not, but YOU shaped the feelings about arabs to your advantage, all the while inadvertently strengthening the forces against the United States, the UK and Israel by your pronouncements and troop deployments. What the hell did you expect to hear from us after all the rhetoric? Remember, the 'peaceniks' are not part of your base.

Who among us can guarantee that arabs working at these seaports are all sterling individuals who wouldn't dream of working for al Qaeda while they have the opportunity? We can't even guarantee that our own people aren't smuggling in illegal stuff, if not terrorist-related, especially when we know the ubiquitous appeal of making easy money!

So, which is it? War against terrorism, or a fraud? A little bit of honesty from our Commander-in-Chief and his cabinet would be refreshing. I'm not sure we'd recognize it if we heard it, though.

I still fail to see how this was some sort of plot orchestrated by the Democrats Amlord, or more specifically as you mentioned in your previous post a plot by Chuck Schumer.

Of course there are a lot of political issues at stake here and based on the positions that Congressional Republicans have taken and things that Bush has said there is basically no good way out of this for them. But that is a situation they created themselves, the Democrats didn't leave them enough rope to hang themselves or anything.

The DNC didn't plan this, they didn't plant thoughts in everyone's heads from people like Sleeper up to the speaker of the house.

You are claiming that the Democrats caused them to take this position as a "defense" when that is patently false and you even admitted as much in your post. They took this position because they felt it was a national security concern (and it hasn't been conclusively ruled out that it isn't) and then Bush in his usual style stuck his tounge out like a petulant little teen determined to always get his way.

To be fair CJ, I don't see where AMlord said this was a plot orchestrated by Democrats. Now they might have jumped on this after the fact and tried to spin this to their advantage. And if they didn't they would be fools for not taking the opportunity. This is a time where democrats can look strong on national security.. I mean look how I jumped the gun when I originally saw this story and I like to think of myself far more informed than the average US citizen.

Heck, they had people believing Newt was trying to let old people *wither on the vine* and *take away school lunches*.

I think that he was, here is what he said:

So basically Amlord's position is that this is still an issue because "certain members of Congress" -- reading between the lines he means Democrats -- want to spin this into a security issue. He then goes on to confirm that by mentioning Chuck Schumer.

It is completely ridiculous to say that the Democrats are behind GOP leaders coming out against this deal as well as a large majority of the GOP in general. Amlord argues it like they caused it, or they are the ones keeping it going for their advantage. The GOP made this a security issue, not the Democrats.

This is a fight between the President and his party and the Democrats are at best enthusiastic observers to the fight.

Do you seriously think this would have made the news if Democrats had objected to it? That is a given. It made the news and is staying in the news because the GOP objects to it. Bush in his impressive way of dealing with PR decided to escalate the fight. Now you have all sorts of lovely emails pouring into places like Fox News from his base excoriating him for it.

It would be great if for once someone among the party faithful would take responsibility for something instead of trying to pass the buck. This is a GOP squabble plain and simple, they started it and they are the ones that will walk away with bloody noses and wounded egos going into 2006.

My concern is ethics and often I feel that I am way far away from the mainstream in this concern. What seems like clear common sense to me is often seen as acceptable business as usual to other people I usually agree with.

But I think serving the public needs to involve avoiding the appearance of conflicts of interest.

I think that too often ethical has been confused with legal. Today I think that if an action can be construed to be within legal bounds then there doesn;t need to be a concern about ethics. An action is either legal and justifiable or it is illegal and punishable. I think ethics are important.

I think it is a conflict of interest for Secretary Snow to be heading a committee that decides whether a company that he used to work for (at least part of his old company is now DP World) can assume these responsibilities. Where there are ethical concerns, transparency should be exercised.

Instead of saying this person is a friend trust me, the attitude should be despite the fact that I have a personal relationship with this person, we have engaged in a thorough search that shows that this friend is clearly the most qualified person to step into this position.

A new appointee is coming in to head maritime transportation from this company and here there is a major step forward for his former company inside his new jurisdiction.



That is quote a loaded mouthful to stuff in my mouth. I think the catch phrase that I am concerned about here is the revolving door between business and government. I think these practices violate standards of good governance and that someone else should have been in charge of the review of this transaction that did not have a conflict of interest. We have no proof before this that DP world has competent managers or that the USDOT seeks competent managers and sees them as good candidates. But we do have proof of possible conflicts of interest that were not addressed with recusal and/or transparency.



It flies just fine. There is no one saying that experience isn;t a good thing and that the business world isn't an acceptable place to draw that experience from. But yes, the people should often be strangers when you are drawing from a pool of 300,000,000 Americans. When all of the people you happen to find as qualified candidates happen to be friends, I think we have cronyism going on. Yet when you bring people into government positions they should follow a high ethical standard and not do things like Secretary Snow did in this case. This was a secretive board that he headed that approved a major deal. He should have recused himself. (IMHO)

I know I read the article what I am implying is that your quote does not match your source. I was asking you if those were your comments interwind and appearing here as a quoted piece from the article? It is confusing.



How are they not aware, that is my question, shouldn't they make themselves aware of these things, like through staff briefings or something? Or do they all need to be hand fed by the federal gov? Thats seems a bit off to me, I would rather my Gov. was actively pursuing his own oversight on topics such as this instead of just swallowing whatever the federal gov had to say or give press releases on.

Was this committee held in secret? Because that is how many are acting.

And we all already know Bush doesn't read and apparently his staff didn't include this topic in his latest DVD compilation of recent events.




Well I fail to see how it hasn't been orchestrated in my region. It has been the Dems that have pushed this story, many of who are up for election and in desperate need for an issue that makes them stand out or at the very least get some press attention. All these calls for congressional hearings going on in Baltimore is pure politics.

Bush should just have that second stage review instigated and have 45 day review, and the same results will occur and we can all move on.

Honestly if someone wanted to bomb the port of Baltimore doing so by container ship would be the most difficult route. I would imagine using a recreational ship would be far easier. People come and go all the time out of this area on their personal vessels from all over the world.

You can't be seriously trying to claim that the Democrats have successfully tricked the Speaker of the House, the Senate Majority Leader and a large contingent of the GOP in both bodies into criticizing the President on this issue.

Furthermore conservative pundits of all stripes are criticizing him on this issue, FoxNews has been doing it and there are tons of angry emails pouring in and being broadcast on air from people in the GOP base.

Do you think the Democrats are the illuminati or something? How could they have done all that. Have they just been biding their time and barely managing to capitalize on every single issue that has crossed their desks while waiting to strike here? Please.

The Republicans chose the position they did of their own free will and I'm certain the Democrats are attempting to take political advantage of it as they should, but they are certainly not behind it.

Oh and by the way, last time I checked the polls Democrats are positioned well right now to make gains in 2006 over Republican incumbents and they are also positioned to remove some DINOs from office as well.

Can we please drop the conspiracy theory stuff? The GOP did this to themselves, it isn't any more complicated than that.

I my have jumped the gun on ethics. This appears to be poor government procedure, but secretive poor government procedure.

Bush says that he didn;t know about the deal until a few days ago. If approval has already been granted and this organization has given its approval recommendation then the president should have known shouldn't he have?

Just thought this part of the law was interesting. Nothing here to keep Congress in the dark legally.


emphasis mine


Committee on Foreign Investments in the United States

It seems the President should be involved in this process.

Then, I was completely wrong about the conflict of interest of the Committee Chair, Secretary Snow. He was apparently not involved.


link

link2

I drop the conflict of interest complaint for Treasury Secretary Snow.

Eeyore from how I understand it that is in regards to the second phase of the CFIUS review. This sale review didn't get that far as apparently CFIUS didn't believe a further investigation was warranted under any security concerns. So Bush wouldn't have been notified.

But thanks for the Snow update, I had been wondering about that.

cube jockey I plainly stated that my opinion was in regards to local or regional views and actions.

I have yet to see a rational, nonpartisan discussion as to why this sale is a security risk, if anything this issue seems to illuminate how little many understand about the shipping business and the fact it is by nature, a global operation.

Eeyore, small but significant issue with regards to the President being notified...

.

This wasn't a foreign acquisition of a US cmpany...it was a foreign acquisition of a foreign company. There isn't any inherent reason that this order would apply.



This can lead to an interesting, but off topic, discussion. The generic issue is whether appearance of conflict of interest should have the same importance as actual conflict of interest. There are valid arguments on both sides...one very pragmatic point in favor strong stances against appearance of conflict of interest is that it can be preventative....ie, if you prevent even the appearance, it helps avoid the actual. It is easy to see how this particular issue fits the generic discussion to a T. For myself, I have always believed that appearances of conflict of interest should be treated in a much more minor way, but that actual conflicts should be treated very harshly (thereby instilling some preventative measures, as well). In this case, I think having able, experienced people running our ports far outweighs any appearance of conflict of interest...but that such appearance can bring heavy political consequences. Such seems to be the case here.