American Ports run by WHO?
Apparently, the Bush Administration has approved a deal under which the company responsible for managing six major American ports, British firm "Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company", would be aquired such that they ultimately became part of "Dubai Ports World", a company based in the United Arab Emirates.
Forgetting for the moment that links have been identified between the 9/11 hijackers and the UAE, and some have suspected that the UAE may have other terrorist ties, at a time when there's already reason to be concerned with the level of security in our ports, does it make sense to be outsourcing security and management at those ports?
And at a time when large portions of the Islamic world view the United States as engaging in a wholesale war on Islam, isn't it problematic to put our already woefully inadequate port security into the hands of a company based in a country which may feel closer ties to our enemies than to us?
Hopefully the Administration has considered all of this and has some reason to believe this deal will ultimately be good for America, and I hope that it comes out that all of this has been considered. With the (meager) information we have now, it doesn't appear to pass the sniff test.
The six ports in question are in NY and NJ, plus Baltimore, MD, Miami, FL, New Orleans, LA and Philadelphia, PA.
Liam.
posted by Liam at 2/20/2006 11:23:00 AM
12 Comments:
stupid nitpick: your title should have read "... by WHOM"
:-)
I once again must quote David Brin:
"If you were enemies of the United States, and looked across our history for some weakness to exploit, what two disasters nearly ruined us? Dividing us, sapping our strength, wounding the economy, tearing down our alliances, frittering our military strength?
The Civil War and Vietnam.
Now look at last year's [2004's] electoral map. And look at Iraq. And wonder... which sworn enemies of our culture have access to every powerful person in this administration?"
Tuesday, February 21, 2006 11:09:00 AM
Re: Who vs Whom
I actually considered that, but decided I didn't want to be an uptight prig with regard to snooty adherence to rules that only matter to usage snobs. ;-)
Liam.
Tuesday, February 21, 2006 11:47:00 AM
You used the term "outsourcing security and management" in your rant. Did you really mean "security" in your description of the economic sale of management by the British Company to the UAE Company? I thought the Coast Guard would still be in charge of security.
Ross, I would be very careful before throwing rocks at someone else for their use of the english language. I think maybe you should examine your use of complete sentences in your response.
Thursday, February 23, 2006 8:05:00 PM
Good catch!
The original report I read on this, before I posted it, implied that the UAE company would be responsible for security.
Later reports have in fact reported that they handle administration but NOT security. Which makes me feel a little bit better about it.
However, the people that run a port are in the best position to get things around security, so I'm still not sure it's as safe as we're being led to believe.
But thanks for keeping me honest!
Liam.
Thursday, February 23, 2006 8:47:00 PM
Two thoughts...
First, I just can't get past the fact that Bush supposedly didn't know anything about this, and yet threatened to use his first veto of his Presidency on anyone trying to stop it. That doesn't wash. The only two things I can think of that make that make sense would be either A) Bush knew and McClellan was fibbing, or B) This just shows the extent to which Bush would rather win than do the right thing. I could believe that Bush would fight for something out of his White House just because he refused to have someone tell him he couldn't do it.
Second, Sean Hannity (who I generally think is beneath contempt as a human being, but who usually has the Right Wing talking points word for word) tonight suggested that in fact this was a brokered deal, in which Dubai's company gets to run these ports and we get the right to use Dubai's air strips when (yes, he said when) we invade Iran.
I hope Hannity is wrong. I really do. Because there are so many reasons why THAT would be bad. First, I can't see Dubai making that deal unless they planned to actually do something with the ports. Second, it means that once again, we'd be in a situation where the Administration is talking diplomacy while already planning another war.
(To say nothing of the fact that with recruitment numbers down and most of our armed forces battle weary, we're really not prepared for another war right now).
Ah well, this is all speculation. And as I said, it came from Hannity, which makes it only slightly more trustworthy than a used car salesman.
Liam
Thursday, February 23, 2006 10:03:00 PM
I am hearing you say that Bush knew nothing about the port deal and threatened to use his veto and then heard more about it later???...could you point me to some places where you heard or read this so I could be on the same footing as you. I havn't heard these facts.
Thursday, February 23, 2006 11:44:00 PM
Hmmmm. Let me do a little searching for a print source.
I've seen the video tape of a Scott McClellan press briefing on several different TV shows (most recently last night on Countdown with Keith Olberman). One of the reporters says something like "Let me get this straight, are you saying the President learned about this deal on the news?" and McClellan says "That's correct".
(Warning, that's entirely from memory, the specifics and even the tone of the question may be off. The statement that Bush didn't know of the deal until after it was approved was there.)
Anyway, I'll do a little searching and find you some print links.
Liam.
Friday, February 24, 2006 7:23:00 AM
OK, here is a link to the story.
I've found several different stories containing the info, and several different sites posting each story, but I think one should suffice, when it comes from from a reliable source like the AP (on Yahoo news).
If you want more, a quick google on the terms "bush" "didn't" "know" "about" "port" and "deal" comes up with a long list of results.
To quote the relevant part of the article:
"He became aware of it over the last several days," McClellan said. Asked if Bush did not know about it until it was a done deal, McClellan said, "That's correct." He said the matter did not rise to the presidential level, but went through a congressionally-mandated review process and was determined not to pose a national security threat.
I believe the transcript of daily White House press briefings is also available on the White House website, if you'd prefer to get it directly from the source (I know they're there, but I can't always find the one I want quickly, and I'm running late for a conference call for work this morning).
Liam.
Friday, February 24, 2006 7:31:00 AM
I'm way too OCD about this blog. In spite of being short on time, here's the link to the relevant press briefing transcript on the White House page. This was the Press Briefing for Wednesday, 2/22/06.
About a third of the way down the page, you'll find this interchange:
Q When specifically did the President -- how did he find out about this -- and when specifically? Was it last week when this blew up? He read it in the paper?
MR. McCLELLAN: No, it was coming out last week, and he learned about it over the last several days. I couldn't pinpoint the exact time, but last several days, recently.
And -- but I think it's important to keep in mind when you're reporting back to the American people what I just said. This transaction was closely scrutinized to make sure that there were no national security threats. There were no objections raised by any of the departments that are charged with being involved in this process. And that's why it didn't rise up to the presidential level. But even in spite of that, with all the attention that this transaction has received, the President felt it was very important to go back to each Cabinet Secretary who has responsibility for this process, and ask them, are you comfortable with this transaction proceeding forward. And they all said, yes. And I'm sure it's for the reasons that I spelled out to you in this very room, because of the agreements that were put in place, because of the working relationship that we have with this company, and because there were no national security threats raised.
Q So he found out through the news coverage, is that what you're saying? How did he find out about it?
MR. McCLELLAN: Yes, I think, initially, Steve, when this was becoming more -- it was getting more press coverage, that's how he found out about it.
Liam.
Friday, February 24, 2006 7:37:00 AM
ok, now I understand about President Bush not knowing about it and then seemingly standing up to it with a veto threat. When it was brought to his attention as a problem, he went back down the channels to all of his Secretarys who are charged by Congress with checking out any security threats that might be if the deal went through. As I understand this includes the armed services as well as the domestic, and all agreed that the deal should go through. Sounds to me like he is doing the George Bush line of backing all of the President's men and women. I guess it boils down to whether or not you believe and/or trust the President's men.
Friday, February 24, 2006 8:39:00 AM
It just seems an extreme threat from a President who has yet to veto ANYTHING, including huge, pork laden bills that have bloated our deficit.
What was there about THIS deal that he felt so strongly about that he was unwilling to let Congress have any kind of input?
I read somewhere (I'll try to find it) that deals like this are supposed to trigger a mandatory 45 day review if they might have an impact on national security. Given the special checks that were put into place for this deal by the White House, they clearly were trying to mitigate risks to National Security, meaning it DID involve national security issues. And yet the White House opted to skip the (supposedly mandatory) 45 day review.
As I said, I'll try to find the reference to that.
Liam.
Friday, February 24, 2006 8:47:00 AM
Here is one link to one such story.
What's so important about this deal that it can't stand a 45 day national security review? Given even the APPEARANCE of risk, skipping that review seems short sighted.
For a group that keeps labeling their detractors as having "a pre-9/11 mindset", this certainly doesn't seem to fit the "post 9/11, consider national security in EVERYTHING" mindset they claim to have.
Liam.
Friday, February 24, 2006 8:53:00 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home