What, exactly, is wrong with letting a company from the UAE handle this? Despite the hyperbole being thrown around, it is not like we are handing over security to them.
Actually, I bet this is a Karl Rove plot to get the left all up in arms, letting them argue that a group with no known ties to terrorism poses a terrorist threat to our ports.
Agree with sparkle on this one, seems like a bunch of political posturing in the eleventh hour, and a media willing to tell the story in such a way that makes it seem like we are outsourcing port security to terrorists.
Bush is a stand up guy. He is doing what is right, and is backing up an ally and upholding the principles of private property and free enterprise. The list of reasons for this deal is so long I am daunted by the prospect of listing them. The objections strike me as petty.
I don;t say this often: In this one instance I actually agree with the Arab-Americans who think that objections to this port deal may be rooted in bigotry.
I have to admit that I am more than a little bit concerned that former President Carter shares my opinion of this. Since he has been demonstrably and consistently wrong about security issues since the beginning of time, we will just have to hope that his opinion on this issue is simply proof of the broken clock being right twice a day.
I am sure that if Carter understood the issues, he would make the wrong decision. He probably thinks its about America giving up wealth and power to to foreign states.
As a Bush fan....I'm extremely disappointed. I do NOT think this is a good idea. I don't care if we do hold the security of the ports it is just like putting a fox in the henhouse. I don't care if I'm called a racial profiler or not....I do not want an Arab country with any type of control of our ports. I didn't have all three of my sons go and fight this war on terrorism to have that terrorism allowed into my backdoor. I think Bush has been so strong on the war on terror but that does not put blinders on me to follow him no matter what.
See, here is the thing; Arabs have this thing called money. This money stuff sort of makes the business world go around. You cannot simply ignore their financial capital because you have an irrational phobia of Arab people. We are talking about administrative functions here. The dockworkers are still American and all union (should make liberals really happy). The inspection team is still US Customs under DHS. The security is still kept in check by the US Coast Guard. It has been this way for years while a foreign company (from the UK) operated these same ports. There is no risk from a UK company, but there is from a company based in the UAE? This makes no sense to me. Why was there no panic when a Chinese company took over IBM? Do you know how many government contract the new company supplies. My goodness, what if those dirty commies put some sort of destructo chip in all of their laptops. It may shock you to know that not all Arabs are terrorists hell bent on blowing themselves up and killing Americans. Just like not all Americans are ignorant xenophobes.
Honestly someone against this plan please, please illustrate any viable scenario where our national security would be compromised even if this company had nefarious intentions. Please tell me how they would hatch some evil plot with both the US Customs and the US Coast Guard looking over their operations.
This is a world economy, money knows no artificial prejudice. If we are to be a player in a global marketplace we need to be open to players from all over the world.
Perhaps the funniest thing about the UAE deal is that Bush apparently didn't even know it about until the deal was done:
http://customwire.ap.org/dynamic...-02-22-10-50-
29
BTW, that info comes directly from the White House. Check the link.
So, what does it say about a President who is willing to go tot the mat to defend a secret backroom deal that he didn't even know about? I think it speaks volumes...
The UK did not have terrorists trained in their country. The UK did not have citizens as part of the 911 attack. There is definitely a difference. Do you not think learning our security, strengths and weaknesses, at the ports is a threat? With this information another attack could be helped.
MR. FIELDING: Yeah. Well, I would appreciate that on behalf of the Commission if you could do that because it seemed that this -- when the intelligence was so good, and that by the time the camp was dismantled days and days had passed. So I would appreciate
-- MR. TENET: There's also a question, I believe, as to whether bin Ladin was inside or outside the camp --
MR. FIELDING: Of course.
MR. TENET: -- it was a complicating issue in this whole thing -- and whether he was there or not. So there's a second complicating factor here. The third complicating factor here is, you might have wiped out half the royal family in the UAE in the process, which I'm sure entered into everybody's calculation in all this. But in any event, I would like -- I will try and reconstruct the data as best I can, in terms of what I had in my possession at the time.
Yes, we didn't take out Bin Laben because he was meeting with the royal family of the UAE in Afghanistan.
I mentioned this on the open thread, but I'll ask it here, too.
"Last I checked, the UAE is one of our biggest supporters in the Arab world. Did something change when I wasn't looking?"
JD
"it is not like we are handing over security to them"
Sorry JD but we would be handing over all our security plans to them. They wouldbe able to asses the strength and weakness of our security system. Call me racist but I have yet to hear anyone from the UAE denounce terrorism (unless it's in their own country) or do anything publicly that would lead me to believe that they are our allies in this war on terror. As for trusting this administration's judgement, they have squandered what little faith they ever had. Starting with "welcomed as liberators" and ending with "Had a beer at lunch" from a two time convicted drunk driver.
The UK did not have terrorists trained in their country. The UK did not have citizens as part of the 911 attack.
Ahem, Richard Reid. What about the IRA?
we would be handing over all our security plans to them
What makes you say this? I used to work for an agency at the airport here and we handled security for the IAB (International Arrivals Building). We never instructed the employees in the IAB what our security practices were, we fully enforced the law. They did not even know which people were our agents and that they were carrying concealed handguns.
I think that concern over this is perpetuated by those that have no understanding about how the security is run at such places.
Please also recall that on 9/11 the security breach was in the DOMESTIC terminals of the respective airports which have significantly less security.
The UAE was the home nation of 2 hijackers. Fifteen of them were Saudis, should we preclude Saudis from business ownership as well? The Saudis direct 60% of their global investments to The United States. We are talking about a $700 billion dollar pot, folks.
BTW, the Saudis own a large chunk of NewsCorp (aka Fox) 5.46%. I'll bet they used their influence to make sure that no pundits badmouthed Saudi Arabia on the Fox News Channel. haha
The isolationist mentality will drive the country to ruin. Here is a wake up call, if these companies are investing in America (in particular in our infrastructure) then they have a vested interest to see that their investment is not destroyed via terrorism. duh! If they were not investing us, they would likely invest in say China, well that would be helpful to us, yes?
What Nic said. In addition to isolationism, over-regulation and excessive taxation will ruin this country. Politicians think that they can regulate the hell out of private enterprise and property, and it won't have a negative effect or even improve things.
What will happen if this deal is blocked? Why, the value of the property will decrease, as you make it less attractive and profitable to investors. And other people will sit up and take notice, investment capital will go elsewhere. You can't trust those Americans to uphold a contract. They broke a deal. Take your money elsewhere where it will be safer.
The maddening thing is that this has nothing whatsoever to do with security. For Pete's sake if anything, massive investment by the UAE will encourage the investors to take an active interest in protecting their property!
The unions don't want these ports modernized. when Chuck Schumer starts talking, listen closely for the BS.
30% of our ports capacity is owned or leased by foreign governments. Singapore. Red China. Denmark.
This isn't what people want to make you believe it is.
Ahhh, Dave. I knew there had to be another angle to Schumer's views on this. I KNEW it had nothing to do with national security. Because you suddenly can't just begin to care about national security overnight, after what the Dems did, putting politics over natl security with that unions/Homeland Sec deal (the Max Cleland fiasco)...
Now Carter's take on this is more puzzling. But you can't trust any of em. And I never will.
Sorry BigDog but I can't agree with your economic assessment.
Actually, if the price of the property decreases it will become more not less profitable. Perhaps you could name that place that is safer to invest than the United States. I can't think of any and in a large measure it is BECAUSE of gov't regulation. Would you invest in the Polish stock market? How about Russia or China? Can you be sure that the gov't will remain stable. The fact is that these ports are of vital interest the safety and securitty of this nation. There will be another buyer, hopefully it won't have quite so many ties to Al Queda.
Really. Would you buy the twin towers before you blew them up? That's just goofy.
RWS,
You mentioned earlier that you were willing to trust Bush on this. Today the White House stated that Bush had no knowlege of this deal until after it was completed. Does your trust extend all the way to these bureaucrats?
I heard reports that there are only about 6 companies in the world capable of handling all the logisitics involved, and none of them are American Owned.
This is a very important function throughout the world, and the amount of data that can be gathered about shipping channels, "irregularities" in shipping cycles, manufacturing capabilities, etc. leads me to beleive this is an industry that the U.S. should be involved in.
The Government could easily find a comprimise on the current deal by requiring the U.A.E to "partner" with an American Company who could eventually become a competitor of theirs.
The model worked very well for Chinese manufacturers of high tech equipment, and can work on almost any scale.
Plus, the Infrastructure which currently exists at the ports was largely subsidized by the U.S. taxpayers. There is no reason to be giving the profits away.
(and I won't even go into my rant about how the Foriegn National Debt most likely had quite a bit more to do with this decision making process than it should have.)
The reason the US has prospered is because of Property Rights. The government was designed and has historically protected private property, encouraging people to invest and develop. People who want the port deal stopped are capriciously and arbitrarily interfering with the free market, degrading property rights of the owners. Thus degrading the value of their investment. This is unethical and will have repercussions beyond the harm to the current owners. Investors sit up and take note when any government action butts into the market, and especially when the government tells people who can and cannot invest. It won't mean ALL investment will stop. Investors will also note that most private property is still being protected, and will weigh that in balance.
There is a legitimate government and societal interest in national security, which has already been assessed in this case. So that point is moot.
BTW, the Poles are doing pretty well. The issue in foriegn examples is which governments protect private property rights and which do not. You do not want to invest in a nation which either fails to protect private property rights.
typo: strike the 'either'
Dumbya : Why exactly should President Bush know about this ? Apparently, it was being monitored by the regulators. This is a case of a private company buying another private company, and due to some of their existing contracts, apparently we have some say over whether or not the sale is executed.
Still waiting to hear what your plan is for this, since the current plan is so fundamentally flawed.
jandrew : The quote you posted does not say that OBL was meeting with the Royal Family. Unless I read it wrong, just implied that we could not bomb the location without taking out others as well. What time period was this quote referencing ?
Despite all of the political posturing, hand wringing, and hyperbole, there is absolutely not one shred of evidence that we will be handing over the security of our ports to them. Is Great Britiain currently in charge of our port security? No. Will the Coast Guard and Customs quit doing their jobs just because the ownership of the administrator of the ports changes ?
jandrew : That is all well and good, except that it is not our government's job to attempt to create those companies. If the government thinks it should be done only by Americans, then by all means, have the Congress create a new agency for port administration. The market is a wonderful thing, and if somebody wants to invest the capital and resources to fill a need in this market, then they will do so. It is not governments role.
JD: some people have odd ideas of what the President's job is supposed to be.
BigDog : Odd is a very kind and generous way to describe it.
Am I wrong, or if you took the opponents position on this to its logical conclusion, we would be forced to not allow Middle East capital to be invested in anything that could be tangentially tied to our domestic security ?
What Nic said. In addition to isolationism, over-regulation and excessive taxation will ruin this country.
BogDog, I agree with you about isolationism.
However, I'm a little puzzled by your reference to excessive taxation.
Big Business as a whole pays less in taxes now than at any time in years. For example, in 1943 U.S. corporations provided 40% of tax revenue. Today it is just 7%. Almost 2/3 of U.S. companies operating between 1996 through 2000 paid no taxes at all.
http://news.pacificnews.org/
news...08e419e38633198
http://news.pacificnews.org/
news...9de616552365e53
Now if you're talking about taxation on the middle class, that's another story. But corporate taxation as it currently stands is a sad joke.
Sorry BigDog,
But the ports I am aware of(At least as far as I know) are owned by the Port Authority of New York and Nee Jersey. A quasi gov't agency. Taxpayers own this property and have spent millions in capital improvements.
1943 U.S. corporations provided 40% of tax revenue.
Oh that is so bogus. Fiscal 43 what when withholding was introduced, until then you wrote the check once a year.
Show me your source on that dumbya, I don't believe a word of it.
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0...a/
A0005921.html
The bottom tax rate rose from 4 to 19 percent between 40-43. Top individual rate was 88%
http://home.att.net/~resurgence/
...TaxTimeline.htm
Paul: so what?
Dave : Clearly you must have learned that it is in nobody's best interests to request that the moonbats actually traffic in facts.
Just remember this. The wealthy in American pay no income taxes. Corporations pay no income taxes. Only the middle class and the poor pay taxes. Repeat. Then repeat again. Say this over and over until you start to believe it. Then, say it again.
The Left and facts just do NOT get along. 
it's better than that JD
I pay no income taxes.
me and my Republican 6-figure salary plus 6f bonuses.
I get capital gains breaks, from the blood of children.
And as of this moment right now, I don't pay another DIME into Social Security.
sweeeet
The class warfare struggle vis a vis our bastardized system of taxation has never made sense to me.
Though it is completely off of the original topic, I have come to the conclusion that left to their own devices, politicians will continue to carve out niches for new classes of desirable voters to be privileged enough to receive tax breaks. As is, we currently have a system where fewer and fewer people actually pay income taxes.
I am not going to bother to look up the numbers, so forgive me if I am off a bit, but I recall that the most recent numbers showed that the top 5% of wage earners paid almost 25% of the income taxes, and the top 10% of wage earners paid over 50% of the income taxes.
There will be a point where there is no longer a sense of a shared sacrifice in our nation.
OK, well I am looking over my tax papers so I can get ready for the painstaking financial raping that comes anually. Suffice to say, I pay an awful lot. I would like to pay less and get less. May I get the blue light special government please?
Dave in Texas,
And how did you get out of SS taxes????
RWS,
By capping out the max SS taxed salary level with today's paycheck.
I heart bonuses
Commenting by HaloScan
