News-Record.com

"You've stood fast on the issue of domestic spying without a warrant and even cleverly turned it into a political asset."

I sincerely hope this isn't the case. Every Republican who supports the administration, and every Democrat who turned away from opposing it on this issue deserves to be voted out of Congress. The amount of political ammunition available to opposition candidates for November is astounding. If there isn't a major shift in Congress this fall that leads directly to impeachment, it will only mean that this country is ready for the shift from Republic to Empire.

And they say this paper isn't liberal.

Yeah, the very idea of having a government that operates with separated powers is far too liberal for this day and age. Who would even WANT to live under such a dangerous set of rules as that blasted Constitution? I mean, how safe can we be if the President isn't able run the country exactly the way he wants, no questions asked?

So let me get this straight...someone who is not involved in the government and is not privy to the thousands of hours of intelligence and investigation that went into the decision to make this deal thinks that they know more than those who did based on knee-jerk reactions from Democrats and Bush-bashing by the major news media?
Gee...what was I thinking?
I think there IS abject stupidity involved in this action...by those that only know what they hear from the Democratic newsmakers.

I agree with you, Allen. It is not at all clear to me that Bush was wrong on the wiretapping issue. But the UAE/Dubai deal is probably the worst executive branch decision I have seen since Bush took office.

It is easy for those living inland to take this lightly. Consider the perspective of those living in port cities.

I don't think it's just a matter of living in port cities, Joe. Think of the possibilities for getting all sorts of material into the US through glitches in the security systems of those ports. Enemy agents who are informed or helped by sympathetic employees could manage to get just about anything into the country, which could then be transported anywhere.

According to what I read, the deal has provisions that would help someone do that. Including no requirement for business record copies to be kept on American soil (and therefor subject to subpoenas), and no requirement for the company to hire an American citizen to assist any potential investigations.

This looks fishy and really needs to be second-guessed.

Stupider to think that the accusation have anything but a political motivation, or that they have facts to support the allegations. They know that themselves already, but think that by creating a huge stink over this, they can confuse and obfuscate the American public into distrusting their Chief Executive.
Shame on them, and shame on all who swallow the allegations whole, with no critical review. We're all supposed to be smarter than that, it's part of the obligations inherent in being entrusted with the vote.
I am tired and disgusted by the efforts of some to convert the American voting public into a bunch of knee jerk intellectual slaves. It demonstrates a complete disrespect and disregard for the intelligence of the average voter, and creates the (I hope) false impression that this is a nation of unquestioning, uncritical, well trained sheep.

Stupider to think that the accusation have anything but a political motivation, or that they have facts to support the allegations. They know that themselves already, but think that by creating a huge stink over this, they can confuse and obfuscate the American public into distrusting their Chief Executive.
Shame on them, and shame on all who swallow the allegations whole, with no critical review. We're all supposed to be smarter than that, it's part of the obligations inherent in being entrusted with the vote.
I am tired and disgusted by the efforts of some to convert the American voting public into a bunch of knee jerk intellectual slaves. It demonstrates a complete disrespect and disregard for the intelligence of the average voter, and creates the (I hope) false impression that this is a nation of unquestioning, uncritical, well trained sheep.

Sorry for the above double post, my internet is being contrary today.

A good story on the ports question:

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0222/p01s01-usfp.html

Today's Wall Street Journal also has an extensive front-page package on the issue.

My reaction is not knee-jerk in response to Congress but I certainly hope theirs is to my and several million other Americans who said HELL NO! to this insanity. I have all the information I need just knowing that this is an opportunistic Arab government who have and will sell us and anyone else out if the price is right. they have done it before and will do it again. Keep pressure on Congress to ditch this deal.

It's pure political BS. The UAE company that bought the Brits company manages ports all over the world and no one seems to complain except here. The politicians on both sides that are screaming the loudest are the ones up for re-election and they want to look good for the folks back home. Vote for me I am strong on security. BS, half of them vote against anything necessary to beef up security around our ports. I would wager that not 1% of the people in this country even knew that our ports were managed by a British company until now either. Heck the Brits have got as many terrorist in their country as the UAE. So I guess we tell the UAE, sorry folks we want to keep our bases here and we want you to provide us with intel that we wouldn't normally get and we want you to take the heat and risk for allowing us to be in your country but NO a company from your country can't manage our ports .
Just more crap from the politicians who can do nothing but run for re-election. Throw the whole dang mess of them out. They are useless to do anything but run for re-election and posture and point fingers.

I find it amazing how quickly the Cheney story dropped off the radar this week. The port deal will be no different.

I read one commentary that said that ever since 2001, Bush and co have been relentlessly pushing the idea that we should be afraid of everything in the Middle East. Why should they be surprised when folks decide to carry on with that concern they've been fostering for so long?

A senior Dubai Ports executive, Edward H. Bilkey, said the company will otherwise move forward with 'its $6.8 billion purchase of London-based Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation Co., which operates in 18 countries.

"That sounds much unlike an Arab name to me."

Bilkey has said that for now the company will segregate the operation of US ports.
The announcement effectively leaves existing American and British executives in charge of the company's seaport operations in New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia.

"So nothing really changes nor will anything change should the deal be completed. Only some see a problem that the company has an Arabic name."

The reaction in the United States has occurred in no other country in the world," Bilkey said

"Mr. Bilkey evidently doesn't realize that this is an election year and much posturing must be done to insure re-election."

The implicit conclusion? The UAE is soon going to be sending nuclear-laden freight containers to a port near you.

Never mind that the UAE is a solid ally of the US in the war on terror and that it participates in the American container security initiative; and that US Customs officials are located at Dubai.

"Oh it seems that the opponents of this forgot to mention this fact in their rush to look good for the voters"

Forget that the Dubai port is the second-largest for the US navy outside the US. And that the security of US ports will still be run by American authorities.

This is an election year in the US. Republicans are nervous and Democrats have sniffed an opportunity.

"Now, that sentence says it all. As for the Repubs joining in the scream, check it out most of them are up for reelection. "

It's all much ado about nothing!

Though Bush is right on the facts about the integrity of the UAE company, he's wrong on the politics.

What surprises me is how a bunch of low level bureaucrats failed to give a heads up to the administration prior to announcing the decision.

They put this administration in the position of having to probably placate a country who has been a staunch ally in our war on terrorism. I'm not surprised that publically Bush is at this time behind the sale, but if he had been apprised before this had gone public would probably have said, whoa boys, and would have intervened with the UAE to explain the delicate situation politically this would mean for his admin. if the sale went through.

Jon:
As I read more and more about this controversy, I tend to agree with you. I still have some questions about the security angle, especially given the Department of Homeland Security's lackluster track record. But the lack of communication and the clumsy handling of this whole matter with Congress was, to be kind, grossly inept.

Congress knew it was coming they just didn't pay attention.Friend of mine in the Dept of Transportation had the report over a month ago. The information had been passed to Congress weeks prior to this. Guess some were to busy trying to get in some licks at Cheney and his accident. The rest , well most of them don't know what's going on 95% of the time anyhow.

The Brit running the UAE owned company understands and that is why he is holding off but some politicians are going to make as much political hay out of this as possible. Remember it's an election year and they gotta look good for the folks at home so they can get re-elected to go on still being lost unless it has to do with some pork coming their way.

The Aussie pols didn't pitch a fit with Mr. Howard since it's not an election year for them. And not a wisper from the other 80 some odd countries around the world who will be undergoing the same change.

Good ole USA, politics as usual take precedence over everthing.

It is getting betterer and betterer folks. UNITED PRESS INTERNATIONAL via The Washington Post had an article on this deal today that stated that there are 21 port facilities involved not the 6 reported. They are on all of our coast; East, West and Gulf Coast. Sort of wonder what kind of investigations were conducted when the investigators aren't even aware of the actual numbers of facilities to investigate.

Allen.

Wow,it is positively heratening to hear you are reading more about the ports deal and the real facts behind all this.

In view of your new found intellectuctal curiosity I recommend this :

http:www.csmonitor.com/2004/0224/p09s01-coop.html

( this is a new CSM post , not the one above )

Screw the political angle. Can you say courage,huevos, cajones and courage? Those are things the President has for standing by this ally. Do you know that our warships berth in UAE docks . Piss'em off and where do you suggest we park our fleet? The freaking Dead Sea? Sorry you are in the same leaking row boat with the big time demagogues Chuch Schumer and Hillary Clinton . Get out now before you embarrassingly sink with them and the others who rushed to judgement on this issue.

Here's a link to the .pdf document on former President Bill Clinton's wonderful scholarship program.
And where does Slick Willy send these students?
To DUBAI in the UAE!
Guess Hillary forgot about this one in her rush to assault President Bush once again over something she knows nothing about.

http://www.aud.edu/scholarships/ClintonScholarship-new.pdf

I'd rather go hunting with Dick Cheney, than driving with Ted Kennedy.

Fred we can always park in Yemen instead of friendly UAE. Perhaps some can remember what happened in Yemen? Does the name USS Cole ring a bell. No US Customs in Yemen and no control of security in that port as there is in Dubai. Just another case of political idiocy taking precedence over diplomacy. Not a good way to win friends and influence people.

Brenda, have you noticed also that these same "intelligent reporters" keep saying that these ports are being sold or that Dubai will own the ports? Do they not know the difference between manage and own? Of course they do but "own" inflames the ignorant and gives the pols more good stuff for re-election speeches.

Mr. P, They are our "friends" and "allies" NOW, but what about TOMORROW?

I have noticed that some reporters are saying "own" rather than "manage", and I agree that they should get their facts straight. But then again I have been steadily losing respect for the press over the years and it is now hedging on contempt.

I am also vehemently opposed to this Mr. P. and I have never considered myself "ignorant". If so there are a whole lot of very intelligent "ignorant" people who feel as I do.

Ms. Bowers, can you articulate just why you are "vehemently opposed" to this since the facts are that the UAE will not own the ports, have any control whatsoever over the security at the ports, have no change in personnel who work at the ports, have no change in the way the ports are staffed or operated, and have no operational control over any aspect of the ports?
The only thing that will change is the letterhead on the stationery.
Why do you oppose this?

Brenda ignorance of the facts is not personal ignorance unless one deciedes not to become aquainted with the facts. So just because you are opposed does not make you ignorant. To be opposed with no facts as to why you are opposed outside of what you have heard in the media is ,let us say, just not real clear thinking. I did my homework and paid little attention to the fearmongering of the media and some politicians who would misuse their mothers good name to get re-elected or to further their agendas. This goes for both sides of the asile.
Just because the Brits are our friends today does not guarentee that they will be tomorrow. We all remember how fast France , Germany and others turn their backs. So laying that at the door step of the UAE does not appear to be in order. One day the sunshine, the next day the rain. NO one can guarentee anything when it comes to alingnment of countries good will.
Could the same be said for China who also manages our ports? Could the same be said of the Singapore company that manages our ports? Or any of the other countries for that matter who manange our ports.
No Brenda, regardless of what is read, Dubai Ports Inc will not control our ports security, or any aspect of them with the exception of manageing how the flow of loading and unloading of container ships is handled. The unloading will continue to be done by our Dockworkers/Teamsters who also control who works in those jobs.
Unfortuantely too many fearmongers have gotten all the attention. The company Dubai Ports is aware of this and is more than willing to give everyone an opportunity to look at them even though they actually do not have to do so. They could file suit and win for breach of contract because when they bought the British Company they bought the contract and it is enforceable. Instead we have a a bunch of money hungry lawyers in this country going to try to make a load of money off this by filing suit to stop the purchase. Guess who will pay? The teamsters union has seen fit to waste their money for some reason, political is a good bet. In 45 days or less the whole thing will be just another load of manure dumped into the spreader and spread around liberally and then forgotten.

I have been reading ever scrap of information that I can find on this issue as well as on the UAE as it is a new area of concern for me and I haven’t any background in how our ports are run I admit. But however much you all contend that the security of the ports will still be in the hands of our Coast Guard and police even they admit that they rely heavily on the Port Facility Operators for security. Further, I will quote an article in United Press International via The Washington post, “The Marine Transportation Security Act of 2002 requires vessels and port facilities to conduct vulnerability assessments and develop security plans including passenger, vehicle and baggage screening procedures; security patrols; establishing restricted areas; personnel identification procedures; access control measures; and/or installation of surveillance equipment.
Under the same law, port facility operators may have access to Coast Guard security incident response plans -- that is, they would know how the Coast Guard plans to counter and respond to terrorist attacks” This law makes it clear to me that terrorist would have no difficulty using our ports of entry. For the very informative article see: http://www.upi.com/SecurityTerrorism/view.php?StoryID=20060223-051657-4981r

Brenda, 2 weeks ago could you even find the UAE on a map? Do you know if it's landlocked or on a body of water? If landlocked, do you know the bordering countries? If on a body of water, what is the name of that body of water? Do you know their form of government? Who is the nation's leader and what is his title and position? Do you know the GDP of the UAE? Can you name the Emirates which comprise that country? Who does manual labor in the UAE? Have you ever been to the UAE?
Japan attacked us 65 years ago; we have normal relations with them now. Same with Germany. So will they EVER do that again? We don't know.
The UAE is not a terrorist country, they're a valued ally in the War on Terror.
What you exhibit is a typical (and sad) knee-jerk reaction to Democrat after Democrat disagreeing with an administration decision (Imagine that!) without knowing a damn thing about it.
I submit there would be no more (or less) danger from this country managing the ports than there is now with another foreign country (Great Britain) doing it. Remember, Great Britain has no lack of Muslim terrorists. Nor does Germany. Or many other of our allies.
This is a tempest in a teapot, merely another straw-grasping effort by the Democrats to attack the current administration in advance of elections. The last ones failed (terrorist surveillance, Cheney's hunting accident, Bush's National Guard records) and this one will, too.
Funny that these same Democrats who claim to be soooo concerned about our nation's security decry the Patriot Act and listening to phone calls of terrorists plotting their attacks in our own country. I don't for a minute believe there's one iota of concern on the part of the Dems, just another fabricated skirmish in their attempt to take back control of our government and our pocketbooks.
Even Bill Clinton's scholarship program sends our country's best and brightest to the UAE, run by Clinton's best buddies the governing leaders.
http://www.aud.edu/scholarships/ClintonScholarship-new.pdf

Jaycee,

You forgot to mention about the "knee-jerk" Republicans who are also aghast at this decision. The adverse reaction to this decision has bi-partisan political support. After all it was Rep King (Republican chair of the House Homeland Sec comm.) whose been at the forefront in opposition to this administration's stance on this matter.

Is the UAE a valued ally in this matter of eradicating terrorism? If so then please tell me how many Saudis, Kuwaitis, or UAE armed forces are helping us to eradicate terrorism in Afghanistan, of which unlike Iraq, we all have agreed has been a haven for terrorists?

Your characterization that only the Democrats are up in arms about this port security issue is without merit.

I never said that ONLY Democrats were posturing on this issue.
The value of the Saudis, Kuwaitis, and UAE governments is in things other than supplying troops. Boots on the ground is not the only support being given by Middle East countries. I won't go into detail, but intel and other operations are in full swing in all of those countries. This is perhaps even more important than troops.

Under the same law, port facility operators may have access to Coast Guard...

The word MAY is the key word here and it doesn't happen. They see A plan which is available to everyone from the Longshoremen's Union janitor to the security guard on the time clock.

After skimming 180 pages of this Act and the umteen pages of hearing's briefing I found this to cover most of what the Post was attempting to say. I found for the most part that they failed to mention a few things. The hearing briefing's actually are easier to read and tell a bit of the detail of what is in the act and why.

The Act creates a national maritime security system and requires Federal agencies, ports, and vessel owners to take numerous steps to upgrade security. The Act requires the Coast Guard to conduct vulnerability assessments of U.S. ports. The MTSA requires the Coast Guard to develop national and regional area maritime transportation security plans and requires that seaports, waterfront terminals, and certain types of vessels develop and submit security and incident response plans to the Coast Guard for approval. The MTSA also requires the Coast Guard to conduct antiterrorism assessments of certain foreign ports. Under this law, certain vessels operating in U.S. navigable waters are required to be equipped with and operate an Automatic Identification System (AIS). Finally, the Act authorizes a federal grant program to help defray the cost of security upgrades at U.S. seaports

In December of 2002, the IMO adopted amendments to the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS) and an International Ship and Port Facility Security (ISPS) Code that are designed to parallel domestic requirements for U.S. facilities and vessels required under the MTSA. The ISPS Code requires ships on international voyages and the port facilities that serve them to conduct a security assessment, develop a security plan, designate security officers, perform training and drills, and take appropriate preventive measures against security incidents. (This is the section that the Post was refering too. Please note the sentence starting with The ISPS Code. It seems the Post did what a lot of other media is doing in that they took one section and made it appear that it belonged in reference to the issue at hand. It doesn't.)

(This regulation covers the containers which DPO will manage the incoming traffic on ).The rules require certain sectors of the maritime industry to take significant measures to increase the security of vessels, shore-side facilities, and offshore facilities under U.S. jurisdiction. The regulations also require the carriage of automatic identification systems on board certain vessels on specified navigable waters of the United States..

The Coast Guard’s final rules establish an alternative security program that allows industry to submit, for Coast Guard approval, alternative security programs that provide an equal level of security as required in the regulations. ( This is the plans which DPO is has access too. NOT THE CG PLAN.)