• Menu
  • Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Before Header

  • About Us
  • Lexicon
  • Contact Us
  • Our Store
  • ↑
  • ↓
  • ←
  • →

Balloon Juice

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

Conservatism: there are people the law protects but does not bind and others who the law binds but does not protect.

Celebrate the fucking wins.

You’re just a puppy masquerading as an old coot.

We cannot abandon the truth and remain a free nation.

This blog will pay for itself.

You know it’s bad when the Project 2025 people have to create training videos on “How To Be Normal”.

Boeing: repeatedly making the case for high speed rail.

If senate republicans had any shame, they’d die of it.

Their boy Ron is an empty plastic cup that will never know pudding.

People are weird.

Something needs to be done about our bogus SCOTUS.

The line between political reporting and fan fiction continues to blur.

Seems like a complicated subject, have you tried yelling at it?

If you tweet it in all caps, that makes it true!

the 10% who apparently lack object permanence

We will not go quietly into the night; we will not vanish without a fight.

You are so fucked. Still, I wish you the best of luck.

I’m more christian than these people and i’m an atheist.

We can show the world that autocracy can be defeated.

Within six months Twitter will be fully self-driving.

Republicans in disarray!

I might just take the rest of the day off and do even more nothing than usual.

The rest of the comments were smacking Boebert like she was a piñata.

Tick tock motherfuckers!

Mobile Menu

  • Seattle Meet-up Post
  • 2025 Activism
  • Targeted Political Fundraising
  • Donate with Venmo, Zelle & PayPal
  • Site Feedback
  • War in Ukraine
  • Submit Photos to On the Road
  • Politics
  • On The Road
  • Open Threads
  • Topics
  • COVID-19
  • Authors
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Lexicon
  • Our Store
  • Politics
  • Open Threads
  • 2025 Activism
  • Garden Chats
  • On The Road
  • Targeted Fundraising!
You are here: Home / Foreign Affairs / The Port Deal

The Port Deal

by John Cole|  February 28, 200610:48 am| 115 Comments

This post is in: Foreign Affairs, Politics, General Stupidity

FacebookTweetEmail

I haven’t been paying much attention to the port controversy, because it seems to me that what the UAE will actually be doing is not very ‘controversial.’ I admit that I also reflexively cringe at the notion of a company owned by a foreign country operating our ports, but there is a word for that- xenophobia.

I understand the Coast Guard had some concerns, but I am not sure that their ‘concerns’ will be everything they will be made out to be in the next few days (rest assured, the blogosphere will be hysterical, as will the shrill wings of both parties). The Coast Guard, after all, is supposed to have concerns about border security and the security of our ports. That is their job- to be concerned about those issues so you and I do not have to be concerned with them.

It appears that xenophobia and hysteria still sell, as coalitions that range from Michelle Malkin to Peter King to Chuck Schumer are standing around screaming that we are all going to die if the UAE takes over the daily operations of some ports. If anything, the make-up of the most vocal opposition to the port deal assures me that this really isn’t as bad as it is being made out to be.

Regardless, Bush has taken another hit in the polls (how do you go down from rock bottom?), and there is no doubt that this issue was mishandled by the administration. However, Richard Cohen notes that the entire country is taking a hit overseas:

We are in an odd era of symbolic news events. The Dick Cheney shooting was treated as if it were of cosmic political importance. Some pundits even called on the vice president to resign, while others merely saw everything the Bush administration had gotten wrong — an almost inexhaustible list — as distilled in a single bad shot and the resultant pout. Now it is the port controversy. But if the Cheney story was about everything else — including, of course, the taciturn and slippery Cheney himself — then this port controversy is really about security anxiety and a dislike of things and people Arab. The deal may not be perfect, but it is a long way from a Page One story.

America has many friends in the Arab world. You can go to Saudi Arabia, for instance, and talk “American” at a dinner party — banter about the Washington Redskins or California real estate prices or, of course, politics. The region is home to many people who have gone to school in the United States and admire it greatly. They are not the majority by any means, but they are important and influential — and they are being slowly alienated by knee-jerk insults and brainless policies that reflect panic and prejudice. The true security cost of the Dubai deal has already been inflicted.

Hearts and minds, indeed.

FacebookTweetEmail
Previous Post: « Back To It
Next Post: Tinkerbell Died »

Reader Interactions

115Comments

  1. 1.

    LITBMueller

    February 28, 2006 at 11:02 am

    I totally agree with you, John. Anybody who knows anything about ports, how they are run, what port operators do, what various government agencies are involved in maintaining ports, etc., will tell you that the hyperventilating and pants-pissing over this is just idiotic.

    But, it is ironic, isn’t it, that the Terrorism Hysteria that this Administration worked so hard to stoke and feed ever since 9/11 has come back to bite them right on the ass.

    You reap what you sow…

    But, like any type of hysteria, this whole thing is just completely irrational. I tried to point this out to others by asking: then why aren’t we banning Emirates and Suadi Arabian airlines from operating in the US? They depart airports in the Middle East over which we have no control, planes were used in 9/11, terrorists could be working for these airlines, blah, blah?

    Should we ban imports of foods from the Middle East, for fear of contamination, too?

  2. 2.

    Pb

    February 28, 2006 at 11:02 am

    I admit that I also reflexively cringe at the notion of a company owned by a foreign country operating our ports

    I too!

    but there is a word for that- xenophobia.

    Um, no, xenophobia means fear of the unknown, I don’t think that applies here. It’s not like little green men are going to be operating our ports. I think the word I’d be looking for is ‘loyalty’, that is to say, “No [company] can serve two masters”.

    Let me try to put it more simply for you… during the Cold War, would you have let a client state of Russia operate our ports? Well, in the war on terror, it’s kinda like that.

  3. 3.

    Lines

    February 28, 2006 at 11:04 am

    Never knew it was racist/bigotted to believe that American infrastructure that relates directly to security and safety should be handled by companies that have a direct interest in maintaining the security and safety.

    Even though I can’t stand Michael Savage, I have to agree with him on this. Would we want the Mexican border security to be handled/owned by the Mexican Government?

    And what if we take a long term view of the UAE/Dubai leadership? How long before the leadership turns against America for our Middle East follies? A single change at the top and we could be looking at serious issues.

  4. 4.

    Doctor Gonzo

    February 28, 2006 at 11:06 am

    Had the administration actually had these discussions about port security and safety before the completed deal was foisted upon the public, I don’t think 70% of people would be against it. Maybe there are absolutely no security issues with turning over our ports to a country that recognized the Taliban and boycotts Israel. If this is the case, though, then it is up to the administration to convince the public of this before the deal is sealed, especially considering that the War on Terra is all they’ve hyped for years now.

  5. 5.

    jaime

    February 28, 2006 at 11:06 am

    We don’t want the smoking gun to come in the form of a Mushroom cloud.

  6. 6.

    Pb

    February 28, 2006 at 11:09 am

    LITBMueller,

    Should we ban imports of foods from the Middle East, for fear of contamination, too?

    Are we getting our hummus from Hamas?

  7. 7.

    Ancient Purple

    February 28, 2006 at 11:16 am

    Wouldn’t it be fair to stipulate, however, that a vast part of that xenophobia stems from the current administration and neo-con circles? After 9/11, we were treated to a parade of “blame the (put favorite Arab group here)” and this administration and its neo-con allies waved the flag and stomped their feet and talked about how we were going to stop terrorism over there so it wouldn’t happen over here.

    Even today, there are plenty of soundbites from the likes of Hannity, Limbaugh and O’Reilly talking about “crazy Muslims” and “evil Arabs.”

    Just a few days ago, Mann Colter gets boisterous applause for calling Arabs “ragheads.” (Too bad that Sikh’s also wear turbins and that fact cost one Arizona Sikh his life because some brainless clown thought he was Arab and wanted to strike back after 9/11.)

    Through all of this, this Administration has basked in the glory of the anti-Arab xenophobia in order to keep its ME foreign policy alive and kicking.

    Now, suddenly, everyone is supposed to forget it all, cover ourselves in sackcloth and ashes for being exactly what Bush and Co. wanted, and sing the praises of the UAE?

    To be honest, John, I am not sure if your post is serious or sarcasm.

  8. 8.

    farmgirl

    February 28, 2006 at 11:17 am

    Osama bin Laden is STILL ALIVE TODAY because of some members of the royal family in UAE were with him at the time the CIA had a shot on him … and it was considered to be too diplomatically uncool to wipe them out too. George Tenet testified to congress on this.

    Maybe most people in this country don’t like the deal because they’ve been led to fear all Ay-rabs by the administration. That’s xenophobia, or actually you could look at it as constant fear-mongering finally biting Bush in the ass.

    But John, you should know better. I’ll cut you some slack because you’ve been sick, but for god’s sake. You’re seriously cool with a company managing *21* US port operations reporting to the same government/royal family whose members served as a human shield for Osama?

  9. 9.

    Zifnab

    February 28, 2006 at 11:19 am

    I admit that I also reflexively cringe at the notion of a company owned by a foreign country operating our ports, but there is a word for that- xenophobia.

    I think the eye words here aren’t “Arabs operating our ports” but “a foreign country operating our ports.” I’d feel a bit skittish letting Canada take the reigns on the traffic of five of our biggest East Coast ports, simply because the Canadian government puts Canada first (or at least it should). I have no illusions about which country the UAE puts first when their board goes to the table to talk business.

    As has been pointed out many times, the UAE isn’t exactly 100% behind us on this War on Terror. They’ve got to please their constituents in the Middle East just as much as they have to appease their US clients, and that means the services we receive won’t always be the best.

    Furthermore, is it me or does this deal absolutely STINK of corruption? After billions go missing in Iraq, and billions more go missing post-Katrina, this looks suspiciously like the Bush Administration is cutting a giant check to some of his foreign partners, again, at taxpayer expense. This becomes an ethical concern far sooner than it becomes a safety concern, in my eyes.

  10. 10.

    Edmund Dantes

    February 28, 2006 at 11:20 am

    Interesting little Conudrum here. Can the US allow a company that supports the Boycott of Israel to operate our ports without running afoul of US law on the subject?

    Another Monkey Wrench to the deal

    The parent company of a Dubai-based firm at the center of a political storm in the US over the purchase of American ports participates in the Arab boycott against Israel, The Jerusalem Post has learned.

    The firm, Dubai Ports World, is seeking control over six major US ports, including those in New York, Miami, Philadelphia and Baltimore. It is entirely owned by the Government of Dubai via a holding company called the Ports, Customs and Free Zone Corporation (PCZC), which consists of the Dubai Port Authority, the Dubai Customs Department and the Jebel Ali Free Zone Area.

    “Yes, of course the boycott is still in place and is still enforced,” Muhammad Rashid a-Din, a staff member of the Dubai Customs Department’s Office for the Boycott of Israel, told the Post in a telephone interview.

    “If a product contained even some components that were made in Israel, and you wanted to import it to Dubai, it would be a problem,” he said.

    A-Din noted that while the head office for the anti-Israel boycott sits in Damascus, he and his fellow staff members are paid employees of the Dubai Customs Department, which is a division of the PCZC, the same Dubai government-owned entity that runs Dubai Ports World.

    This should play well.

  11. 11.

    Pb

    February 28, 2006 at 11:23 am

    Ancient Purple,

    I think Bush is just pissed because America is smart enough to notice *actual* al-Qaeda connections, and he isn’t.

  12. 12.

    neil

    February 28, 2006 at 11:24 am

    It’s a shame that the Democrats are flubbing the Dubai matter. (But what else is new?) Really, the problems with a Dubai-owned company running the ports are no different than the problem of any other company — and that’s the problem:

    Joseph King, who headed the customs agency’s anti-terrorism efforts under the Treasury Department and the new Department of Homeland Security, said national security fears are well grounded.

    He said a company the size of Dubai Ports World would be able to get hundreds of visas to relocate managers and other employees to the United States. Using appeals to Muslim solidarity or threats of violence, al-Qaeda operatives could force low-level managers to provide some of those visas to al-Qaeda sympathizers, said King, who for years tracked similar efforts by organized crime to infiltrate ports in New York and New Jersey.

    Exactly. The mob wants the same thing al-Qaida wants — cover jobs, visas without too many questions asked, the opportunity to get the first crack at what comes off the ships. A Dubai-run company is susceptible to being leaned on by al-Qaida, in the same way that, say, a Teamsters shop is susceptible to being leaned on by the mob. Not a guaranteed thing, but certainly a concern.

    It is the height of ludicrousness that so many ‘responsible commentators’ are now telling us that this sort of security _concern_ is off-limits. We throw away the Geneva Concentions, habeus corpus and the 4th Amendment because we’re concerned about security, but this is off-limits? We throw people in jail for donating to the wrong charity, but refuse to entertain the notion that this might be the wrong company? Give me a break. It seems like this may be the thing that makes people realize that Bush doesn’t really give a damn about security, just about business.

  13. 13.

    Sean

    February 28, 2006 at 11:25 am

    Um, no, xenophobia means fear of the unknown, I don’t think that applies here.

    Um no. John got it right. Websters defines xenophobia as fear and hatred of strangers or foreigners or of anything that is strange or foreign

  14. 14.

    RonB

    February 28, 2006 at 11:38 am

    Pb, John is using xenophobia correctly.

    He’s also right that this story is bullshit, because the reality is that America just isn’t into port management anymore, and that is why 80% of our ports are already internationally managed by the likes of the Chinese, Japanese and Singaporean.

    The Democrats have played this one with cynical Rovian aplomb, and I give them credit for turning the tables-finally. This is their first BIG win on Pubbie turf, and kneejerk conservatives have helped them put the knife to their own party’s throat.

  15. 15.

    Pooh

    February 28, 2006 at 11:40 am

    Does Richard Cohen know that you need math to understand polling numbers?

  16. 16.

    Davebo

    February 28, 2006 at 11:43 am

    Ron,

    I’d love to give the democrats credit on this, but actually they just tripped over the issue.

    And after wailing about Arabs and security now would be a good time to just point out the deal is against the law due to the Israel boycott and move on.

  17. 17.

    RonB

    February 28, 2006 at 11:46 am

    It’s a shame that the Democrats are flubbing the Dubai matter.

    Are you kidding? They even beat the Republicans to the legislative floor on a solution. Schumer was way out in front on this and even Hillary got a chance to get in on this sham by introducing a bill that would block foreign management of ports,which is almost as laughable as when Charlie Rangel authored a draft bill and then voted against his own legislation. Sheer opportunism and grandstanding, merely a chance to go on record in public and make waves.

  18. 18.

    InsultComicDog

    February 28, 2006 at 11:49 am

    WaPo:
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/22/AR2006022201609_2.html?referrer=email

    “Joseph King, who headed the customs agency’s anti-terrorism efforts under the Treasury Department and the new Department of Homeland Security, said national security fears are well grounded.

    He said a company the size of Dubai Ports World would be able to get hundreds of visas to relocate managers and other employees to the United States. Using appeals to Muslim solidarity or threats of violence, al-Qaeda operatives could force low-level managers to provide some of those visas to al-Qaeda sympathizers, said King, who for years tracked similar efforts by organized crime to infiltrate ports in New York and New Jersey. Those sympathizers could obtain legitimate driver’s licenses, work permits and mortgages that could then be used by terrorist operatives.

    Dubai Ports World could also offer a simple conduit for wire transfers to terrorist operatives in the Middle East. Large wire transfers from individuals would quickly attract federal scrutiny, but such transfers, buried in the dozens of wire transfers a day from Dubai Ports World’s operations in the United States to the Middle East would go undetected, King said.”

  19. 19.

    RonB

    February 28, 2006 at 11:50 am

    Dave, Dave, you are entirely too skeptical. No one will even notice the Israel angle. Well, too early to tell, but it looks to me like this issue has absolutely kicked Bush’s ass and the Democrats have been at the political fire with a giant sized billow, to the point where it even has its own supporters believing that this deal is any more dangerous than any other international entity managing our ports.

  20. 20.

    neil

    February 28, 2006 at 11:53 am

    Democrats don’t need to fan the flames. The Republicans are doing a good enough job of that, since defending this port deal defies what they’ve spent years trying to convince people were their core principles. What Democrats need is to show people that their principles are better, and it doesn’t appear that they are trying to do that. Then again, maybe that’s just because their principles aren’t better, in which case, let it all burn…

  21. 21.

    Faux News

    February 28, 2006 at 11:57 am

    Are we getting our hummus from Hamas?

    I’m afraid I have to cave in and declare this The Post Of The Day (POTD) for it’s catchy and amusing syntax.

    :-)

  22. 22.

    RonB

    February 28, 2006 at 11:59 am

    Comic Dog, for every expert coming out against I have seen one who doesn’t raise an eyebrow. Even a blog like The Counterterrorism Blog, who posts things like the anniversary of the 93 Trade Center Bombing(“Never Forget”) is utterly unconcerned and sees the UAE as an ally in the tracking of international terrorists.

    Most experts seem to agree that the chances are slim that port security would be undermined solely because of the ownership of the management company are slim. Stephen Flynn, a port security expert and former Coast Guard official, has said ownership is at the bottom of the list of the many concerns about problems in preventing shipping containers from being used to sneak in weapons of mass destruction or key components.

    When I was the Chief of the Terrorist Financing Operations Section (TFOS) at the FBI, we maintained direct dealings with the UAE concerning numerous issues. In particular, the UAE Central Bank provided considerable support and was consistently receptive and responsive to requests for information. As the Dubai Ports World story gained momentum, reports indicated that two 9/11 hijackers came from the UAE and bank accounts supporting 9/11 were maintained in the UAE. It should be noted that the UAE Central Bank provided important information concerning these accounts.

    As others have said, this is just blowback stemming from the administration’s own fearmongering about terrorism.

  23. 23.

    RonB

    February 28, 2006 at 12:03 pm

    What Democrats need is to show people that their principles are better, and it doesn’t appear that they are trying to do that.

    Maybe tomorrow. Today they are going to just feed on Bush.

  24. 24.

    ppGaz

    February 28, 2006 at 12:03 pm

    All this, and not a word about the byzantine connections between Port Dubai and the Baker people in Texas, the web of cronyism involved here? The fact that Baker, the enforcer and most trusted insider in the Bush “empire”, might be representing this company?

    Not a word about this story or the DKos article linking Baker’s law firm to the deal?

    “There’s a smell test that has to be passed in these cases,” she said. “The appearance of a conflict can be just as bad as a real conflict when it comes to the trust people place in government.”

    No kidding! Who knew? These things actually matter?

  25. 25.

    Mr Furious

    February 28, 2006 at 12:04 pm

    While there has been major league demagoguing on this issue, Zifnab and neil both make excellent (and perhaps the most compelling) points. Others…

    1. This deal stinks of cronyism from top to bottom. John Snow is suddenly fully vested in millions of dollars of CSX stock? And the Bush-appointed head of Maritime Affairs just came over from DPW last month?

    2. The visa issue is real, and not imagined xenophobia.

    3. It makes no sense to have a firm that could potentially be inspecting (or controlling) a container at both ends of its journey running our security.

    4. Even if someone could convince me of the security against actual smuggling, the money laundering/financing terrorism aspects are frightening. A large corporation run by a government with plenty of bad ties operates on our shores, but with their books in Dubai? No fucking thanks.

  26. 26.

    Steve

    February 28, 2006 at 12:05 pm

    Are you kidding? They even beat the Republicans to the legislative floor on a solution. Schumer was way out in front on this and even Hillary got a chance to get in on this sham by introducing a bill that would block foreign management of ports,which is almost as laughable as when Charlie Rangel authored a draft bill and then voted against his own legislation. Sheer opportunism and grandstanding, merely a chance to go on record in public and make waves.

    Schumer was way out in front on this because he has been fighting on port security for years. The reason he’s getting attention this time, unlike all the other times, is that this is an issue where the Republicans (who control everything) have made noise as well. When it was just Schumer yelling about how we only inspect 5% of containers, and the Republicans ignoring him, nobody cared.

    The Democrats, who tend to represent the coastal, urban areas, have been pushing for homeland security funding to protect those areas. The Republicans have been treating it as just another form of pork so they can send it home to their constituents. When Mayor Bloomberg bucked the party line at the 2004 convention by saying that homeland security money should be allocated solely on the basis of threat level, you could have heard a pin drop.

    Look, politicians rarely do things that aren’t in their self-interest. If you believe a certain politician or party has no principles and only acts out of self-interest, you can always claim that it’s true. “Bush has a deep-seated, moral belief that abortion is wrong, while Democrats just pander to the pro-abortion movement.” Just saying it doesn’t make it true, however. And I’m not sure why we waste our time trying to figure out which politicians are sincere anyway, it’s a fool’s errand.

  27. 27.

    Harley

    February 28, 2006 at 12:06 pm

    Gotta love Cohen. Anyone who can talk Redskins football or California real estate prices is all right with him.

  28. 28.

    Mr Furious

    February 28, 2006 at 12:07 pm

    Yeah, I forgot about the Baker connection. He works with/for them all the time, and the UAE bailed him out of his real estate woes once upon a time…

    This isn’t just “the appearance”, this freaking reeks.

  29. 29.

    DougJ

    February 28, 2006 at 12:08 pm

    This is all about hysteria and xenophobia. Why should anyone worry about turning our ports over to a country that trafficked in nuclear technology and was the home to two of the 911 highjackers? I mean, the Coast Guard wasn’t worried about it, right?

  30. 30.

    DougJ

    February 28, 2006 at 12:08 pm

    I’d rather right the terrorists over there in our ports than over here in our cities.

  31. 31.

    John Cole

    February 28, 2006 at 12:12 pm

    This is all about hysteria and xenophobia. Why should anyone worry about turning our ports over to a country that trafficked in nuclear technology and was the home to two of the 911 highjackers? I mean, the Coast Guard wasn’t worried about it, right?

    DougJ, you are slipping. Could you at least read the posts.

    And if I hear that home of the hijackers one more time, I am going to scream. The US is the home of Timothy McVeigh. Quick, everyone in Europe- stop buying American!

  32. 32.

    Richard Bottoms

    February 28, 2006 at 12:12 pm

    Where were you back when we liberulls were pointing out that rounding up potentially innocent people and spiriting them away to Guantanamo, perhaps forever, if not outright torturing them to death was a bad thing?

    This is the direct result of the hysteria and hatred ginned up by the right in this country. You reap what you sow.

    The deal is bad because the UAE doesn’t recognize Israel. Further I am sure if you look deep enough you’ll find the usual Republican/Corporate suspects are lining their pockets improperly.

    The deal is bad because this level of scrutiny to port security should be happening at every single port in the United States and should have happened years ago.

    Another bit of fallout from the billions wasted in Iraq.

    Shitheads.

  33. 33.

    Doctor Gonzo

    February 28, 2006 at 12:13 pm

    He’s also right that this story is bullshit, because the reality is that America just isn’t into port management anymore, and that is why 80% of our ports are already internationally managed by the likes of the Chinese, Japanese and Singaporean.

    Do most people know this? I didn’t. Shouldn’t they? Isn’t this a valid topic of discussion in terms of security post-9/11? Why haven’t we had this debate?

    When a few terrorists with box cutters got through airport security, we nationalized airport screeners. So why aren’t we nationalizing port security, especially considering that only 5% of shipping containers are inspected? Don’t you think we should also have a debate about this?

    Concerns about port security are not mere political showboating, at least for some people.

  34. 34.

    ppGaz

    February 28, 2006 at 12:14 pm

    And if I hear that home of the hijackers one more time

    Oh yeah? We started a damned war while your government pimped a widespread “misunderstanding” about the connections between Iraq and 911.

    So maybe it’s okay to shove this little detail down their throats? Ya think?

  35. 35.

    ppGaz

    February 28, 2006 at 12:15 pm

    PS – Welcome back, John :-)

  36. 36.

    Blue Neponset

    February 28, 2006 at 12:15 pm

    It’s a shame that the Democrats are flubbing the Dubai matter.

    How much lower do Bush’s approval rating have to go before the Democrats aren’t flubbing the matter? I think you are setting the flubbing bar awful high if you think the Dems are blowing this.

  37. 37.

    LITBMueller

    February 28, 2006 at 12:16 pm

    That is an excellent article, Ron B, that really gives people who have no clue some information on the current state of the shipping industry.

    To put it in even harsher terms, the calls from certain pols (on both sides of the aisle) to end “foreign control of our ports” is completely unrealistic and just bluster. This country no longer has the sort of stevedoring industry that can operate our many ports. Nor are American businesses interested in doing it.

    It should come as no suprise, really. The change began as we transitioned to being a net importer of goods. So, now, as the industry consolidates, fewer and fewer larger and larger port operators are contolling more and more ports.

    And it should come as no suprise to anyone at all that some of these companies are state-owned. That is phenomina that is not familiar to our free market economy, but is much more common in the rest of the world.

    There are many many state-owned companies that do business in this country and around the globe, from Air Bus to Citgo.

    Really want to get your panties in a bunch about something? Check out how much of our soaring national debt is financed by other countries. They literaly own our asses:

    It might seem like America is being sold off piece by piece, but some say that is not the case. “The vast majority of foreign purchases in the United States are just pieces of paper,” says Douglas Holtz-Eakin, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. “They’re buying up U.S. Treasury securities. They’re not buying actual pieces of America.”

    True, but those pieces of paper matter. Foreign nations own nearly $2 trillion in U.S. bonds, and that translates into leverage. Some analysts imagine a scenario where China, for instance, uses its leverage to cause real problems in the United States. “The possibility exists that they would get upset with us at some pint and sell dollars,” says Clyde Prestowitz. “And if they sold all those dollars right away, the value of the dollar would plummet, interest rates would spike and the U.S. would go into a recession.”

    That scenario, while unlikely, poses just as much of a national security threat as an Arab company handling security at major American ports, says Prestowitz.

  38. 38.

    Lines

    February 28, 2006 at 12:17 pm

    Why don’t we ever hear of the good that comes from turning our infrastructure over to foreign entities for large sums of money?

  39. 39.

    DougJ

    February 28, 2006 at 12:20 pm

    Could you at least read the posts.

    Why should I start now?

  40. 40.

    DougJ

    February 28, 2006 at 12:20 pm

    These same people who don’t want Dubai to run out ports were more than happy to let Saddam run Iraq. Talk about hypocrisy.

  41. 41.

    mrmobi

    February 28, 2006 at 12:28 pm

    John, while I agree with you about the hysteria this deal has caused, we need to understand what kind of country will be in complete control of the company running 21 of our ports.

    This is from a state department report from 2005.

    “The United Arab Emirates (U.A.E.) is a destination country for women trafficked primarily from South, Southeast, and East Asia, the former Soviet Union, Iran and other Middle Eastern countries, and East Africa, for the purpose of sexual exploitation. A far smaller number of men, women, and teenage children were trafficked to the U.A.E. to work as forced laborers. Some South Asian and East African boys were trafficked into the country and forced to work as camel jockeys. Some were sold by their parents to traffickers, and others were brought into the U.A.E. by their parents. A large number of foreign women were lured into the U.A.E. under false pretenses and subsequently forced into sexual servitude, primarily by criminals of their own countries. Personal observations by U.S. Government officials and video and photographic evidence indicated the continued use of trafficked children as camel jockeys. There were instances of child camel jockey victims who were reportedly starved to make them light, abused physically and sexually, denied education and health care, and subjected to harsh living and working conditions. Some boys as young as 6 months old were reportedly kidnapped or sold to traffickers and raised to become camel jockeys. Some were injured seriously during races and training sessions, and one child died after being trampled by the camel he was riding. Some victims trafficked for labor exploitation endured harsh living and working conditions and were subjected to debt bondage, passport withholding, and physical and sexual abuse…Regarding foreign child camel jockeys, the U.A.E. Government estimated there were from 1,200 to 2,700 such children in the U.A.E., while a respected Pakistani human rights NGO active in the U.A.E. estimated 5,000 to 6,000…The Government of the U.A.E. does not fully comply with the minimum standards for the elimination of trafficking and is not making significant efforts to do so. Despite sustained engagement from the U.S. Government, NGOs, and international organizations over the last two years, the U.A.E. Government has failed to take significant action to address its trafficking problems and to protect victims…The government should also take much stronger steps to investigate, prosecute, and convict those responsible for trafficking these children to the U.A.E.” – U.S. State Dept Trafficking in Persons Report, June, 2005

    I’m so happy that Richard Cohen can “talk American” when he’s over there visiting with people who condone sexual and other types of slavery. We’ve found a fine business partner.

    You know what? If America is racist because we oppose this deal, we’ll have to live with that. At least we won’t be partners with slave traders. Sometimes you have to do things that are bad for business, there is just no other choice.

  42. 42.

    RonB

    February 28, 2006 at 12:31 pm

    Why don’t we ever hear of the good that comes from turning our infrastructure over to foreign entities for large sums of money?

    Did I miss something? This is a corporate takeover, a transaction between DPW and P&O, if Im not mistaken. Maybe someone stands to profit from stocks, but in terms of overt payment? I don’t see who.

  43. 43.

    RonB

    February 28, 2006 at 12:34 pm

    And it should come as no suprise to anyone at all that some of these companies are state-owned. That is phenomina that is not familiar to our free market economy, but is much more common in the rest of the world.

    Yes, I found this particular “argument” against this deal kinda laughable too, Mueller, since that’s the dominant economic paradigm in the East.

    And I must say I am amazed listening to some of our liberal posters here sounding like neocons bringing the Israel angle into this.

  44. 44.

    J-Smith

    February 28, 2006 at 12:34 pm

    I saw an article in Financial Times yesterday (or Saturday) that I think captured the situation accurately.

    To most Americans “port operations” sounds like somethiing pretty important – too important to leave to a bunch of wogs. Let’s face it – when a British company was running the ports, no one batted an eyelash. They speak right, write right, and wear the right clothes.

    But DUBAI?! They use a language we don’t read or speak and have not yet adopted the suit and tie. And lots of people have a problem with that.

    “Security” is not the issue, either. DP World will load the ships, and unload the ships. The Coast Guard and US Customs will continue to do security, just as they always have.

  45. 45.

    Andrew

    February 28, 2006 at 12:36 pm

    ppG, there’s nothing byzantine about the crony connections…

    he Dubai firm that won Bush administration backing to run six U.S. ports has at least two ties to the White House.

    One is Treasury Secretary John Snow, whose agency heads the federal panel that signed off on the $6.8 billion sale of an English company to government-owned Dubai Ports World – giving it control of Manhattan’s cruise ship terminal and Newark’s container port.

    Snow was chairman of the CSX rail firm that sold its own international port operations to DP World for $1.15 billion in 2004, the year after Snow left for President Bush’s cabinet.

    The other connection is David Sanborn, who runs DP World’s European and Latin American operations and was tapped by Bush last month to head the U.S. Maritime Administration.

  46. 46.

    Steve

    February 28, 2006 at 12:38 pm

    Did I miss something? This is a corporate takeover, a transaction between DPW and P&O, if Im not mistaken. Maybe someone stands to profit from stocks, but in terms of overt payment? I don’t see who.

    The money comes from globalization, from the ability of Republican-supporting corporations to make big bucks dealing with the Middle East. You’re right that there is no direct profit motive in this deal.

    Of all the things I have seen up to today, the most I can say on this deal is that I really think the scrutiny should have been a lot more serious, which is not to say that it shouldn’t ultimately go through. But today’s revelation that DP World participates in the Arab boycott of Israel is a big deal to me. The boycott is wrong, it is our foreign policy that we don’t do business with companies like that, and it is the law.

  47. 47.

    Lines

    February 28, 2006 at 12:40 pm

    And I must say I am amazed listening to some of our liberal posters here sounding like neocons bringing the Israel angle into this.

    FU, RonB. I’ve been to Israel, have you? I’ve worked countless hours with the Israeli people, so how dare you play that bullshit card that liberals don’t care about Israel. Where the fuck do you get off on that kind of bullshit?

    They are people, global entities with as much right to happiness as anyone else. They have gone through hell, as a people. They have been through things your prescious little white ass can’t even dream of, and the fear and pride they feel every moment of every day will echo throughout time and give them strength.

    Unlike you and your cheetoh stained underwear.

  48. 48.

    Edmund Dantes

    February 28, 2006 at 12:42 pm

    No worries Steve. I am sure it came up in the thorough and rigourous review of this deal which excluded the participation of Rumsfeld and Snow (who are on the board that unanimously cleared this but somehow they knew very little about it), and it was dismissed as a Pre-9/11 mindset law. Just one more law to be ignored.

  49. 49.

    gratefulcub

    February 28, 2006 at 12:47 pm

    This is a disaster for the administration.

    -Their fearmongering is being used against them. They told us that we couldn’t not invade Iraq because they ‘might’ attack us. Well, the UAE ‘might’ let terrorists into our ports. We can’t let the smoking gun be a mushroom cloud

    -“You are either with us, or you are against us.” Unless business interests are involved

    –But the big one is: They don’t want to talk about port security. They haven’t done anything in 4 years to increase port security. Now, the issue is coming up in the context that they are weakening port security.

    I believe the Bush Administration is in the last throes of their insurgency against our democracy. 34% bitches.

  50. 50.

    LITBMueller

    February 28, 2006 at 12:47 pm

    For the record – number of FBI Most Wanted terrorists from each country:

    Saudi Arabia 5
    Egypt 5
    Lebanon 4
    Lybya 1
    Yemen 2
    Moroni, Comoros Islands 1
    Mombasa, Kenya 2
    Gaza Strip 2
    Philippines 3
    Bloomington, Indiana (!) 1

    UAE 0

    Just sayin’….

  51. 51.

    Skip

    February 28, 2006 at 12:52 pm

    Insulting muslims has been the agenda for many from the start. Flemming Rose of cartoon fame is a friend of Daniel Pipes–what else do you need to know?

    The Port issue is more important for demonstrating White House ineptitude than it is to national security.

    Want some fun? Track some other contracts, like the CACI gig at Abu Ghraib, or the AMDOC telecomm contract here in the US. We often turn a blind eye to foreign control.

    Finally, if this mess results in our losing access to the UAE ports over there, God help us.

  52. 52.

    gratefulcub

    February 28, 2006 at 12:52 pm

    UAE 0

    Just sayin’….

    Don’t try to use logic. Just remember the towers. 9/11, Iraq, Terra, Osama/Saddam, Zarquawi, Arabs.

    They used that language for 4 years, now they are shocked that the country is racist and show irrational fear.

  53. 53.

    gratefulcub

    February 28, 2006 at 12:54 pm

    Oh yeah, I forgot about Big Dick, “If you elect John Kerry there will be another 9/11”

    That administration can’t turn over any port operation to ‘Arabs’.

    You plant ice, you harvest wind.

  54. 54.

    Doctor Gonzo

    February 28, 2006 at 12:54 pm

    To most Americans “port operations” sounds like somethiing pretty important – too important to leave to a bunch of wogs…

    “Security” is not the issue, either. DP World will load the ships, and unload the ships. The Coast Guard and US Customs will continue to do security, just as they always have.

    If this is the case, I would say that perhaps the administration should have made this case before the deal was announced as already over. But then I remembered that educating the public is certainly not something this administration is interested in.

  55. 55.

    ppGaz

    February 28, 2006 at 12:56 pm

    They don’t want to talk about port security. They haven’t done anything in 4 years to increase port security.

    Correctamundo.

    And some of us have been talking about port security for long time, not just in the last couple weeks. I think I’m on record here a year ago barking about it. It’s not a new topic and it’s not rocket science. It’s a matter of doing the right things in the right order. It’s a matter of competant government.

    Which, by the way, we don’t have.

  56. 56.

    RonB

    February 28, 2006 at 1:02 pm

    I’ve been to Israel, have you? I’ve worked countless hours with the Israeli people, so how dare you play that bullshit card that liberals don’t care about Israel. Where the fuck do you get off on that kind of bullshit?

    Calm the fuck down, Lines, I never said that liberals don’t care, I’ve just never noticed a whole lot of them making hay on behalf of Israel-many liberals have gone way too far in ascribing certain US policies as not much more than Israeli dictations. Don’t get on me for stating a fact, asshole. I’m as much a Jew fan and admirer of their determination as you are. Take a fucking Ativan.

    They are people, global entities with as much right to happiness as anyone else. They have gone through hell, as a people. They have been through things your prescious little white ass can’t even dream of, and the fear and pride they feel every moment of every day will echo throughout time and give them strength.

    Someone feel a draft in here? Lots of wind today.

  57. 57.

    RonB

    February 28, 2006 at 1:08 pm

    The Israeli boycott, from the looks of it, has mostly fallen apart, even the Saudis have it on their books but don’t/can’t enforce it. I think this is a last ditch effort by…someone…to find reasons not to support this.

  58. 58.

    Perry Como

    February 28, 2006 at 1:14 pm

    Did I miss something? This is a corporate takeover, a transaction between DPW and P&O, if Im not mistaken. Maybe someone stands to profit from stocks

    John Snow and David Sanborn.

  59. 59.

    RonB

    February 28, 2006 at 1:27 pm

    This Kos poster doesn’t see much in the Snow/Sanborn angle. Just throwing it out for debate, I still need to look more at it.

    It’s true that Bush nominated a DPW executive to the position of Maritime Administrator, a top post inside the Department of Transportation. The man he nominated is Dave Sanborn.

    He is an American citizen and has been one all his life. He is the director of DPW’s operations in Europe and Latin America so he clearly has plenty of experience in the field (unlike many other of Bush’s appointees). Sanborn graduated from the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy, was a former exec at a host of other (non-Arab/UAE) shipping companies and served in the Naval Reserve. And his nomination wasn’t “secret” but done in the normal, public way. I haven’t seen a scintilla of evidence that this guy is unfit for the job and in fact seems to be extremely qualified for it.

    Some people point out that the current Treasury Secretary John Snow was once the CEO head of CSX, and now he’s one of the people who approved the P&O sale to DPW. All that is true but the question remains, why was selling CSX’s entire global network somehow fine and dandy yet the sale of P&O’s management of six ports a massive breach of American security?

    It’s a damn good piece that addresses a wide array of arguments against the DPW deal, except the Israeli boycott angle which is a new wrinkle.

  60. 60.

    Armando

    February 28, 2006 at 1:32 pm

    Hearts and minds?

    Are you fucking kidding me?

    You fucking cheered for the Iraq Debacle, the biggest disaster in the history of hearts and minds, and uoi have the fucking gall to write that?

    You pissed me off with that bullshit John.

    Most ridiculous fucking thing you ever wrote.

  61. 61.

    The Other Steve

    February 28, 2006 at 1:38 pm

    And once again… We’re all racists for thinking American Ports should be run by Americans.

    This isn’t about Arabs.

    I don’t want a British company running them either.

    Or Russian, or Chinese, or Spanish, or Italian, or Latvian. If they aren’t Americans, they shouldn’t be in charge.

    This argument is over. Enough’s enough. If you’re only defense is to accuse us of being racists, bigots, or mysogynists, you can go fuck yourself.

  62. 62.

    The Other Steve

    February 28, 2006 at 1:43 pm

    Their fearmongering is being used against them. They told us that we couldn’t not invade Iraq because they ‘might’ attack us. Well, the UAE ‘might’ let terrorists into our ports. We can’t let the smoking gun be a mushroom cloud

    You may be right. Frankly, I don’t think this has anything to do with terrorists. I don’t like outsourcing except for performing specific tasks which can be measured as complete. Every time we’ve turned over maintenance of some area to outside firms at my company we’ve ended up with shitheads who at some point when things are going to hell say “I have no stake in this. I’m going home.”

  63. 63.

    Par R

    February 28, 2006 at 1:43 pm

    What a bunch of racist, no-nothing idiotic twits! While it was said in quite a different context by Kevin, mere scrolling through the comment threads here often leads to a form of “association” with some of the most repugnant, short-fingered vulgarians that one could ever expect to encounter in life. Tight little left-lugnut pockets of foul-smelling gas….seething low-self-esteem headcases who shouldn’t be allowed to scrawl their thoughts on soiled paper bags in dumpsters or subway cars, let alone punch them into a web form box with a submit button nearby. It’s become increasingly difficult to even type the names of some of the malodorous subhuman cretins who inhabit this nuttersphere anymore; it leaves one with an enormous desire to simply want to be done with them. Blecch.

  64. 64.

    Otto Man

    February 28, 2006 at 1:48 pm

    You know, I’m not worried about the hearts and minds of some billionaire son of the emir who was on the rowing team at Harvard and can wax poetic about the Red Sox. He got his feelings hurt? Boo-hoo. Do you think he’s going to sever his economic and political ties to the U.S. over this?

    I’m more worried about the hearts and minds of the poor common people, the ones who join up with the assholes at al Qaeda because the rich fucks in their own country are hoarding all the wealth and not providing for their needs or else because the only contact with the West that they get comes in the form of a MOAB bomb dropped on their children. Those people don’t give a fuck about the Dubai deal.

  65. 65.

    The Other Steve

    February 28, 2006 at 1:52 pm

    You know, I’m not worried about the hearts and minds of some billionaire son of the emir who was on the rowing team at Harvard and can wax poetic about the Red Sox. He got his feelings hurt? Boo-hoo. Do you think he’s going to sever his economic and political ties to the U.S. over this?

    Actually I think the best thing that could happen, would be to give the rich emirs a big ‘Fuck You’. Maybe then they’d take the time to figure out how to fix their own fucking country, instead of trying to make a dime off of mine.

  66. 66.

    Pooh

    February 28, 2006 at 1:58 pm

    What a bunch of racist, no-nothing idiotic twits!

    Pots, kettles and Par R.

  67. 67.

    Slide

    February 28, 2006 at 2:03 pm

    I totally agree with you, John. Anybody who knows anything about ports, how they are run, what port operators do, what various government agencies are involved in maintaining ports, etc., will tell you that the hyperventilating and pants-pissing over this is just idiotic

    In a word, bullshit. Or is that two words? I’ve been in law enforcement and security for my whole adult life, nearly 30 years now, and anyone that says that there is not a security concern with who runs the terminals in our ports is just being absurd. Yes, yes, I know the Coast Guard and Customs are responsible for security but do you realize that they have to work very closely with the terminal operators on just a logistics and practical matter? The terminal operators will have complete and total knowledge of the security procedures, plans, strengths and weaknesses. That is very very valuable information to a terrorist. And to have those plans, that knowledge, sitting in some office in Dubai, accessable by dozens and dozens of low and mid level UAE employees is not my idea of security.

    Lets face it, there are a significant portion of the UAE (like EVERY Muslim country) that support bin Laden and his jihad against America. What would it take for that home grown element to corrupt some official, to blackmail some official, to threaten some official to get hold of that very valuable information that could put our security at risk.

    Yes, UAE may very well be a great friend of the USA NOW, but they weren’t just a few years ago. Members of the roay family were out hunting with bin Laden for God’s sake. This was when it was KNOWN that bin Laden was a terrorist and had declared war on the USA. Do we know which members of the royal family were there? Are they in control of the country? What are their politics? What makes anyone so sure that they are no longer sympathetic to al Qaeda? Do we really want to take this chance unnecessarily? What did Condi say, “We don’t want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud”.

  68. 68.

    Bob In Pacifica

    February 28, 2006 at 2:09 pm

    Ah, the great ports of the world! There was the Marseilles of the French Connection, when the Guerinis helped out the CIA by beating up and killing the Commie dockworkers to make France free for capitalism and America free for some good ol’ heroin.

    And then there was the city of intrigue, Beruit, and the Bekkaa Valley where all the little heroin labs blossomed during the Iran-contra era, making sure that the heroin was pure and heading in one direction (Europe and America) while the arms were going in the other direction (Iran). Thank you, Monzer al Kassar for your great work in both directions.

    And where is Hasenfuss when you need him? Well, he was needed to fly arms down to the contras in Latin America and cocaine back to the US. And when Torres became unreliable in Panama, Noriega was brought on board. And when he was unreliable, well, just go out and get another tin-horn dictator or two. Gotta keep that Panama Canal American, eh?

    But the port of Dubai, the UAE etc., not only are they notorious for lax recordkeeping, but they are home for an arms dealer known as “The Merchant Of Death.” The van that was loaded with explosives and vaporized Hariri in Lebanon had been stolen in Japan and passed through the Port of Dubai, but, golly gee, no one can seem to find any records for it. Sure would be interesting who was shipping it, eh? Nah, let’s just blame in on Syria. Drugs flow through Dubai (hmmm, do I sniff all those Aghan poppies blooming?), and there’s a whole industry of child prostitution going through the port. It must be like Disneyland for Neil Bush.

    In short, the kind of people that the Bushies love to do business with.

    +++

    The UAE are also in violation of U.S. law, I believe, in their boycott of trade with Israel, although I don’t know if that actually affects awarding the business to their company.

  69. 69.

    Faux News

    February 28, 2006 at 2:16 pm

    Why don’t we ever hear of the good that comes from turning our infrastructure over to foreign entities for large sums of money?

    Son, you a promising future here on BJ! :-)

    DougJ, methinks you have an apprentice here.

  70. 70.

    LITBMueller

    February 28, 2006 at 2:31 pm

    Slide, when you are done soiling yourself, have a look at what Stehphen Flynn who, I’m guessing, has a hell of a lot more experience in port security than you do, says:

    But to call the United Arab Emirates a country “tied to 9/11″ by virtue of the fact that one of the hijackers was born there and others transited through it is akin to attaching the same label to Britain (where shoe-bomber Richard Reid was born) or Germany (where a number of the 9/11 conspirators were based for a time). Dubai’s port has a reputation for being one of the best run in the Middle East, says Stephen Flynn, a maritime security expert at the Council on Foreign Relations. And Dubai Ports World, which is a relatively new venture launched by the government of Dubai in 1999, has a number of Americans well known in the shipping industry in its senior leadership. It operates port facilities from Australia through China, Korea and Malaysia to India, Germany and Venezuela…”It’s not exactly a shadow organization for al-Qaeda,” says Flynn. Dubai, in fact, was one of the first Middle Eastern countries to join the U.S. Container Security Initiative, which places U.S. customs agents in overseas ports to begin the screening process from a U.S.-bound cargo’s point of departure.

    Dubai Ports World has been taken by surprise over the furor, and is reportedly sending its Chief Operating Officer, the widely respected American shipping executive Edward “Ted” H. Bilkey, to Washington for talks.

    Funny. I don’t remember the Aussies or the Brits having a shit fit over DP World….

    In the talk-show furor over the transfer of P&O to Dubai Ports World, there has been little reference to the mechanics of port management in the U.S. Over 80 percent of the terminals in the Port of Los Angeles, for example — the biggest in the U.S. — are run by foreign-owned companies. U.S. ports are owned by state authorities, and the workers who actually offload the ships that dock there are the same unionized Americans who belong to the International Longshoremen’s Association, regardless of which company hires them. Dubai Ports will not “own” the U.S. facilities, but will inherit the P&O’s contracts to run them, with no changes in the dockside personnel or the U.S. government security operations that currently apply to them.

    So, this is what you are left arguing: Al Qaeda may somehow convince the CLEARLY capitalistic people who work at the 3rd largest port operator in the world to hand over details of US port operations, although that would CLEARLY be against their own self interes (we’re talking about billions of dollars that would be lost as almost the whole world kicks DP World out of their ports for aiding terrorists).

    Doesn’t make a lot of sense, does it? But, hey, by your logic, we should also be living in fear of an Al Qaeda supporter intentionally crashing his Emirates flight bound for JFK into the Empire State Building.

    But what about the guys actually on the docks? Should we be worried that these American, union workers will help Al Qaeda? I think not.

    And, even if we were to accept your fear of terrorists getting their hands on information from foreigners operating our ports, why is that MORE likely to happen to a UAE company which has Americans as corporate officers than, say, a Chinese company, which probably doesn’t?

    But, let’s have Flynn finish this out:

    “It shouldn’t matter whether the company is from Des Moines or Dubai, do you have confidence that they are essentially doing things that safeguard our security interest?” says Flynn. And the main weakness he sees in security arrangements at ports throughout the U.S. is that they’re largely the responsibility of private companies who are expected to police themselves.

    Dubai Ports World’s acquisition of P&O is unlikely to affect the security situation at the six U.S. ports in question. As Flynn points out, the relevant question is not who owns the port, but what security arrangements are in place to prevent it being used as a point of entry for hostile elements. And right now on that front, U.S. ports across the board could use some work.

    Shouldn’t that be the point?

  71. 71.

    J-Smith

    February 28, 2006 at 2:32 pm

    American Ports should be run by Americans. … If they aren’t Americans, they shouldn’t be in charge.

    It’s a bit late to turn the clock back to 1970, OtherSteve. Americans haven’t been in the port-operations business for quite some time now. As it turned out, others can do that sort of thing better and cheaper.

    I’ve been seeing the beginnings of some protectionist rumblings in the underbrush recently, and this ports bit is just another item.

  72. 72.

    ppGaz

    February 28, 2006 at 2:47 pm

    Witness the hapless Bush apologista now resorting to weekly rounds of “No controlling legal authority” defenses for the ceaseless parade of fuckups and embarassments that they manage to get themselves into.

    Very unbecoming. Shouldn’t you guys be handling customer complaints at a dry cleaners, or something?

  73. 73.

    Mr Furious

    February 28, 2006 at 2:54 pm

    Did I miss something? This is a corporate takeover, a transaction between DPW and P&O, if Im not mistaken. Maybe someone stands to profit from stocks, but in terms of overt payment? I don’t see who.

    Snow definitely has a dog in that hunt:

    According to Mr. Snow’s most recent financial disclosure form (available here) Mr. Snow “received CSX-related income of $72.2 million last year, with $33.2 million of that in a special retirement pension.”

    He also received this from CSX

    CSX OMNIBUS INCENTIVE PLAN
    Notice of Non-Qualified Stock Option Grant
    John W. Snow
    Grant Date: July 16, 2001
    Options Granted: 800,000
    Option Price: $38.775
    Expiration Date: July 16, 2011

    CSX Corporation (“CSX”) has granted to you non-qualified stock options
    (“Options”) to purchase CSX common stock. Your grant has been made pursuant to CSX’s Omnibus Incentive Plan (the “Plan”), which, together with the terms contained in this Notice, sets forth terms and conditions of your grant and is incorporated herein by reference. A copy of the Plan is available on the CSX intranet (http://csxnet) under “Incentive Plans.” You should review the terms of this Notice and the Plan carefully. The capitalized terms used in this Notice are defined in the Plan, except where it is indicated that such terms have the meaning given in the Employment and Consulting Agreement dated as of July 11, 2001 between you and CSX (the “Service Agreement”). Unless you notify the CSX
    Corporate Secretary in writing that you do not accept the Option, you will be deemed to have agreed to the terms of this Notice and the terms of the Plan. CSX reserves the right to terminate, change or amend the Plan at any time. Receipt of this grant does not obligate CSX to make any additional grants to you.

    Vesting and Exercisability:
    The Options may be exercised only when vested. Subject to the terms of the Plan and the provisions below, all of the Options will become vested on the date of 2004 Annual Meeting (as defined in the Service Agreement) and will expire on July 16, 2011.

    In addition, the Options will become fully vested immediately upon a Change in Control.

    Any termination of your employment, other than a termination by CSX for Cause, will be treated as a Retirement (including without limitation a termination because of your death or Disability), with the results that (i) the Options will continue to vest as set forth above (if they have not previously vested) and (ii) you (or your estate) will have until the expiration date to exercise any vested Options.

    Any termination of your employment, other than a termination by CSX for Cause, will be treated as a Retirement (including without limitation a termination because of your death or Disability), with the results that (i) the Options will continue to vest as set forth above (if they have not previously vested) and (ii) you (or your estate) will have until the expiration date to exercise any vested Options.

  74. 74.

    Lines

    February 28, 2006 at 3:01 pm

    As it turned out, others can do that sort of thing better and cheaper.

    Prove it. Prove that foreign entities with no sense of ownership or American preservation can competently perform duties that can make America a safer place?

    Or is this why only 5% of incoming shipments are inspected?

  75. 75.

    LITBMueller

    February 28, 2006 at 3:34 pm

    Lines, you make it sound like DP World is taking over the Marines, not a marine terminal!

    Check out this article in the NY Times, and be sure to take a look at the chart showing the world’s largest operators – the one SU company handle about 1/7th of the volume of the largest company, from Hong Kong. As to “why,” the article explains:

    The acquisition price also reflects the advantage that a number of the fastest-growing companies enjoy — their governments’ deep pockets. DP World paid about 20 percent more than analysts thought the company was worth. Publicly traded companies that were potential bidders were scared off long before DP World’s final offer.

    Some foreign operators also have been more profitable because they are vertically integrated: they operate terminals at the export site, manage the shipping lines that transport the cargo and then operate terminals that unload the cargo at the other end, often in the United States. Such soup-to-nuts management allows these operators to cut costs, increase efficiencies on high volumes and achieve higher margins.

    Moreover, the international shipping business has evolved in recent years to include many more containers with consumer goods, in addition to old-fashioned bulk commodities, and that has helped lift profit margins to 30 percent, from the single digits. These smartly managed foreign operators now manage about 80 percent of port terminals in the United States. That figure is 90 percent in Britain, a country that used to be the world’s biggest shipping power.

    Though two American companies now rank eighth and ninth among the world’s top 10 operators, it would not be easy for other American companies to get into the business. The retreat began decades ago amid rising labor costs and slow growth, while foreign companies spotted opportunities.

    “For a long time in the United States, no one wanted stevedoring on their business card because it was not a glamorous job,” said Prabir Bagchi, a specialist on supply-chain management at George Washington University. “Control of many of those low-paying jobs went east, and now look who’s cheapest and best at providing customer service.”

    The biggest players in the global port and terminal management industry are a mixed group. Some are state-owned, some are publicly traded, some have shipping operations, and many are still run by wealthy families or their founders.

    The opportunities for well-run foreign terminal operators to grow in the United States are clear. American ports are considered somewhat backward by shipping experts outside of the country.For example, most major ports overseas operate 24 hours a day, seven days a week. But in the United States, ports were shut down at night until very recently. And transmitting shipping orders electronically to some American ports does not necessarily save time because the orders need to be rekeyed into the ports’ computer systems, a concession to unions trying to preserve jobs.

    Foreign terminal operators, on the other hand, have benefited by running several lower-cost port operations around the world in places such as Hong Kong, Singapore and Dubai, all of which have become huge export and transshipment centers for international trade. Ports in the United States operate largely as local ports, receiving ships with goods meant for nearby consumption.

    “It’s like we’re used to flying out of a small airport while they’ve been using O’Hare or J.F.K.,” said Bob Watters, vice president of SSA Marine, a family-owned company in Seattle that is the largest terminal operator in the United States and that has been a force behind developing a large transshipment port in Panama.

    It’s the same old story, really. We see it all the time with outsourcing of tech jobs to India – foreign companies can do it cheaper and more efficiently.

  76. 76.

    mrmobi

    February 28, 2006 at 3:37 pm

    Lines: The reason only 5% of incoming shipments are inspected is that (primarily) Republican lawmakers have consistently voted against increasing the funding for port security.

  77. 77.

    Jill

    February 28, 2006 at 3:59 pm

    Until another 9/11 which originates through one of our ports, this administration will do nothing.

  78. 78.

    Slide

    February 28, 2006 at 4:20 pm

    This is who LITBMueller wants to put in charge of the terminals in our ports:

    WASHINGTON — President George W. Bush calls the nation behind the port-security controversy a trusted ally, but the Sept. 11 commission offers another take – saying the CIA believed top United Arab Emirates officials had cozy relations with Osama bin Laden before 9/11.

    The United States even believed it had a lead on bin Laden two years before the attacks but passed up on an air strike to kill him.

    [Blocked Ads] The reason: fears of taking out UAE princes or other senior officials believed to be hosting bin Laden at a remote hunting camp in Afghanistan, the commission’s report said.

    and then he talks about the shoe bomber being from the UK so its the same thing. The same thing? The same fucking thing? When Queen Elizabeth hosts bin Laden on a hound hunt in Manchester then you can say its the same thing but until then I don’t know where the loyalities of the UAE “princes” lay. Now if you KNOW for sure that they completely turned over a new leaf after 911 goodie for you. I’m not so sure. I’m not so naive. I’m not so blinded by “commerce”. I’m not so sure it would be “against their interestes” to allign themselves with the islamic fundamentalists. I dont’ want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud. Remember ? This is post 911. We can’t take chances remember? We have to be proavtive, remember?

    I dont’ care how many people want to say I am racist or anti-arab, I don’t want a country, who’s Royal Family was “cozy” with bin Laden just a few years ago in charge of MY COUNTRY’S PORTS.

  79. 79.

    Eural

    February 28, 2006 at 4:23 pm

    This makes my head hurt:

    We had to invade Iraq after 9/11 because of the threat it posed to us…although it had nothing to do with 9/11

    But

    We shouldn’t worry about the DP deal since the UAE is not a threat…although the UAE has had numerous connections to Bin Laden, Al Qeada and 9/11…

  80. 80.

    Slide

    February 28, 2006 at 4:29 pm

    Now if only a UAE intelligence agent DIDN’T meet with Mohamed Atta in Prague we might have something here… so what that two of the hijackers were from UAE? so what that one of them was being paid by the UAE army? so what that the royal family “hosted” bin Laden on a hunt in Afghanistan? Who cares that the UAE funneled money to terrorists? Who cares that the UAE doesn’t allow products shipped from Israel to use their ports? Who cares that the UAE was only one of three countries that recognized the Taliban…? its meaningless…. we’re just being anti-Arab.

  81. 81.

    t. jasper parnell

    February 28, 2006 at 4:37 pm

    A Poll:

    I oppose the UAE obtaining control over port logistics because:

    President Bush proposed it and I
    A) hate him
    B) think he and his administration are incompetent
    C) hate Arabs
    D) hate all foreigners
    E) actually don’t care; I was distracted by sport
    F) think that the situation is complicated and needs more thought.
    The recent kerfluffle about ports and leasing has

    A) opened my eyes to the reality of globalization
    B) forced me to admit to being a racist
    C) shown me that both Dems and Reps could be right similtaneously.
    D) made me ask: the which with the who now?
    E) made me wish for March Madness

    Xenophobia means
    A) Hatred of all things foreign
    B) Hatred of Xenophon and all other ancient historians
    C) Hatred of sexually ambiguous ancient female semi-super heroes with dangerous circle thingies and scarey warbles.

  82. 82.

    LITBMueller

    February 28, 2006 at 4:42 pm

    Don’t quote that mushroom cloud crap to me, Lines. It was crap when Condi said it about Iraq, and it is crap when you are repeating it in terms of this company.

    THIS is who is in charge of DP World:

    Mohammed Sharaf – Chief Executive Officer
    Edward H. Bilkey – Chief Operating Officer (retiring)
    Anil Wats – Chief Operating Officer
    George Dalton – General Counsel
    Joost Kruijning – Senior Vice President Operations
    Matt Leech – Head of Business Development
    Michael Moore – Senior Vice President Commercial
    Vijay Sharma – Chief Financial Officer
    Yuvraj Narayan – Senior Vice President,Corporate Strategy

    Now, as far as I know, none of these guys are on a terrorist watch list or the FBI’s most wanted list. And I doubt any of these guys have been meeting Bin Laden for lattes at Starbucks. In fact, looks like about 4 of them are Americans, about two are Indians, and one of them is from maybe Denmark.

    Bilkey is a pretty interesting guy, too. According to his bio:

    Ted has over thirty years of diverse experience in the transportation industry. He has served as the President of Norton Lilly & Co., a premier shipping agency in the United States. Mr. Bilkey was instrumental in the development of China Ocean Shipping Company’s services to the United States after the opening of China in the 1980s. He also served as Vice President of Maher Terminals in the Port of New York, one of the major US Terminal Operators.

    In the late 80s to mid 90s, Mr. Bilkey served as the Executive Director of Dubai Ports Authority and Jebel Ali Free Zone Authority and was involved in establishing the foundation for its rapid growth both domestically and internationally.

    Mr. Bilkey is a graduate of Yale University and has Masters Degrees from the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, run by Harvard, MIT and Tuffs Universities. He served in the US Navy after completing his graduate studies and has been in the shipping/terminal industry throughout his business career.

    Now, if these guys are the security concern that the bed wetters are going crazy about, should we arrest this Navy veteran as a traitor? I mean, he’s been hanging for years with a company owned by a regime that hangs out with Bin Laden! Off with his head!

    But, Lines, you are definitely not blinded by commerce. Just by fear. Fortunately, there are also real experts out there like Stephen Flynn, and more rational nations liek Australia and the UK, who recognize that the shipping industry has moved beyond the paranoia and parochialism that the Bush administration has worked so hard to stoke and nurture…and is now coming home to roost.

  83. 83.

    Slide

    February 28, 2006 at 4:44 pm

    the right wing’s new word for the day, Xenophobia. We’re all so proud of you learning a new word and all.

  84. 84.

    Eural

    February 28, 2006 at 4:51 pm

    Here’s another question on the port deal:

    Based on the actual performance record of the Bush administration dealing with terrorist threats and the Middle East (from election of 2000 to present) – why would you support any policy position they take on this issue? The record, in fact, is very clear – whatever Bush says, do the opposite!

  85. 85.

    Slide

    February 28, 2006 at 4:54 pm

    its Slide not lines first off Einstein. Second, you forgot to mention that Dubai Ports World is government owned and controlled. Head guy is a Shiek. You seem to know this Shiek wasn’t one of the Royal family that “hosted” bin Laden. And how do you know this? Has an investigation been conducted. Is this Shiek related to the royal family members that were “cozy” with bin Laden. Dont’ you even want to know? Or should we just “trust” this adminstration… like we trusted them on WMD.. on the “cakewalk” of Iraq.. on wiretapping… on Katrina.. yeah.. Trust them my ass.

    The owner of Dubai Ports World is a little-known entity called simply The Corporate Office, or TCO, a government holding company whose portfolio includes some of Dubai’s most profitable assets. TCO is overseen by Dubai’s leader, Sheik Mohammed Bin Rashid Al Maktoum, hailed locally as the architect of Dubai’s physical transformation. Outside Dubai, Sheik Mohammed is best known for establishing the prominent Godolphin horse racing stable and his sponsorship of the Dubai World Cup, the world’s richest horse race, with a $6 million purse

  86. 86.

    Slide

    February 28, 2006 at 4:57 pm

    yes.. just want I want… a Shiek to be running the port of Baltimore… and I nominate Kim Jung II to run our airports.

  87. 87.

    Faux News

    February 28, 2006 at 4:58 pm

    I’m more worried about the hearts and minds of the poor common people, the ones who join up with the assholes at al Qaeda because the rich fucks in their own country are hoarding all the wealth and not providing for their needs or else because the only contact with the West that they get comes in the form of a MOAB bomb dropped on their children. Those people don’t give a fuck about the Dubai deal.

    Good point, but Karen Hughes will fix that little problem. Hearts and minds and all that other stuff.

  88. 88.

    RonB

    February 28, 2006 at 4:59 pm

    Prove that foreign entities with no sense of ownership or American preservation can competently perform duties that can make America a safer place?

    I betcha Lines was one of those guys who would call republicans who were afraid of terrorism ‘pussies’.

  89. 89.

    RonB

    February 28, 2006 at 5:18 pm

    We made up in the other thread(or at least I responded in kind) so I apologize for the above dig. But I’ve seen a lot of left leaners right here call people who are concerned about this and that about terror little fraidycats and fear-mongers. I don’t know if you were one of them but I saw it alot. Here. At Balloon Juice. Alot.

    Are you truly comfortable echoing this type of reaction to things that just came to light recently?

    IMHO, we should not be looking under every bed for the spectre of terror, and for a little while there I thought that was where progressive thought was headed.

  90. 90.

    Lines

    February 28, 2006 at 5:19 pm

    Afraid of terrorism? I don’t see a reason to be afraid of a method of war. Thats like saying I’m afraid of bombing. You remember the Red scares? The air raid sirens that were warmed up for Raygun? How can I take terrorism any more seriously when its been used as a tool to manipulate a voting block, while the facts around our safety (or lack of) disagree with most everything the people in charge are claiming?

    And I call all Republican’s that cheerlead and clap for an illegal invasion “pussies” because thats what they are. Chickenhawk yellowdog elephants. Hiding behind your keyboard while the sons of the poor are sent, making it too hard for your side to sign up, because they’ve taken up all the slots.

    Now when I try to fly around the continent, or forbit the globe, I have to lose 3 hours of my time to sit in a fucking terminal because fearmongers have overshot the target in aviation security while weapons of mass-destruction can be shipped into our ports with little chance at discovery.

    Republicans got us here. They ignored Clinton’s requests for more armed forces and intelligence into ME terrorism, then lied about it later. They started a Crusade with Islam, yet lie about it continuously, claiming they are bringing “democracy” to the unwashed masses. They continue to blame Clinton for our woes 6 years later, yet have done nothing to reduce them.

    So yes, you Republicans are pussies, liars and failures.

  91. 91.

    Mac Buckets

    February 28, 2006 at 5:27 pm

    But I’ve seen a lot of left leaners right here call people who are concerned about this and that about terror little fraidycats and fear-mongers. I don’t know if you were one of them but I saw it alot. Here. At Balloon Juice. Alot.

    That whole “Republicans are fearmongering scaredycats” thing was last month’s Talking Point, before Schumer and Hillary decided Arabs are trying to infiltrate (!) billion-dollar port-management companies(!) in order to (somehow) bring mushroom clouds(!) to US ports(!).

    Hey, the advantage of being hopelessly out of power is that you don’t have to be consistent in your whining.

  92. 92.

    Pooh

    February 28, 2006 at 5:34 pm

    Stay Classy, Mac Buckets

  93. 93.

    RonB

    February 28, 2006 at 5:37 pm

    Afraid of terrorism? I don’t see a reason to be afraid of a method of war.

    So what are you afraid of, then? Why do you feel that this deal will make us less safe? Is that your principal argument? Perhaps I have been hasty in assuming that is your concern, but you have kept your cards close to your chest during this thread.

  94. 94.

    Lines

    February 28, 2006 at 5:39 pm

    Look Mac, security has nothing to do with terrorism, it has nothing to do with Al Queda. Its just a good idea. Unfortunately, Republicans are running around trying plug specific holes in the dyke while ignoring the fact that the water is rising and about to go right around the sides of it.

    So instead of trying to focus on minutia, why not work together on identifying areas of weakness and strengths? Look at the entire infrastructure, instead of contracting out our security?

    Or is that too deep for your little mind?

  95. 95.

    Lines

    February 28, 2006 at 5:48 pm

    RonB, I want America to have a strong infrastructure that can keep us better prepared for any eventuality, whether it be standard terrorism or economic terrorism. With so much of our debt held by competitive nations, we stand to lose by contracting too much of our infrastructure to companies that can be put up for sale at a moments notice. More fearful is that economic conditions can change rapidly in the ME, creating a topless company that will crumble easily, leaving a gap in our infrastructure. Those most at risk from that happening are the poor, who live hand to mouth and have no reserves to fall back on.

    I could go on, but I think I got my main point out.

  96. 96.

    LITBMueller

    February 28, 2006 at 5:59 pm

    Sorry, Slide. Wrong name.

    Ah, yes, Sheik Mohammed Bin Rashid Al Maktoum.

    hailed locally as the architect of Dubai’s physical transformation. Outside Dubai, Sheik Mohammed is best known for establishing the prominent Godolphin horse racing stable and his sponsorship of the Dubai World Cup, the world’s richest horse race, with a $6 million purse

    Sounds like a terrorist sympathizer with me! Actually, Bin Laden would fucking hate this guy, since he is obviously a materialistic kind of guy.

    Did you know he has his own website? He has his own poety posted on it. According to Wikipedia, he studied at Cambridge.

    And, from his speech opening a meeting of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, which was held in Dubai:

    Honorable Conference Members,

    The widening of the knowledge gap is denying most developing countries the opportunity for true participation in the new global economy, thereby exposing them to many risks beginning with the economy and extending to include overall stability and security. When we speak of a one world, one global economy, one international media city, we should also remember that security in the world is also indivisible. This in itself is an additional incentive for industrialised countries to assist in facilitating and accelerating entry of developing countries to the digital economy. We intend to make this the subject of our main focus during this year’s Davos Economic Forum.

    Yep, sounds like a guy that would love to sell us all out to Al Qaeda!

    Oh, and the Sheikh was named Destination & Convention Bureau Travel Personality of the Year in 2005 for several reasons, including his Dubai Internet City initiative:

    By September 2000, more than a hundred IT companies had been granted licenses to operate in Dubai Internet City, including industry giants Microsoft, Oracle and Compaq. Another 350 firms were awaiting approval. The total investment planned by those already holding licenses was estimated at around $700 million.

    What?!?!? Microsoft, Oracle and Compaq are traitors?!?!?!?

    Sure, its easy to cast aspersions on somebody, or tell me to go prove a negative, but its also easy to use Google to find out a little about a guy before insinuating that he goes to keggers with Bin Laden.

  97. 97.

    RonB

    February 28, 2006 at 6:11 pm

    we stand to lose by contracting too much of our infrastructure to companies that can be put up for sale at a moments notice.

    Which is a plenty fair argument, I regret that free market forces have made us cede our infrastructure to comparative advantages in other countries as well. What can be done to stem this tide when 80% of our ports already lie in foreign hands? It would seem to me that this story is too little too late and also has a patina of prejudice up and down it because we didn’t perk the hell up until some A-rabs wanted to manage our ports. It really looks bad from an international relations standpoint when we can allow ports to be managed by the east Asians and the Europeans but hey hey, we gotta draw the line right here, this has gone on far too long!

    More fearful is that economic conditions can change rapidly in the ME, creating a topless company that will crumble easily, leaving a gap in our infrastructure.

    Interesting. However, nothing much changes at the top of the income ladder in the Middle East, those sheikhs just keep getting richer and richer and usually keep the rabble plenty far away from the estate.

    But your concerns are interesting and I will look for them to be developed here and elsewhere, for no one I know of has sounded the bell on the economic consequences.

  98. 98.

    The Other Steve

    February 28, 2006 at 6:21 pm

    It’s a bit late to turn the clock back to 1970, OtherSteve. Americans haven’t been in the port-operations business for quite some time now. As it turned out, others can do that sort of thing better and cheaper.

    I’ve been seeing the beginnings of some protectionist rumblings in the underbrush recently, and this ports bit is just another item.

    Another moonbat who has no clue what protectionism is.

    I find it dubious that a foreign company can manage an location located in the United States cheaper. You gotta have men on the ground here, that means hiring US labor. That’s the thing with service work… most of it can’t be outsourced. This isn’t a call center or a programming job.

    Any logistical stuff which doesn’t involve men on the ground can be computerized, and there’s no way you can claim that a UAE company can automate an operation better than we can.

    No take your protectionist, racism claims and shove them squarely up your ass.

  99. 99.

    The Other Steve

    February 28, 2006 at 6:24 pm

    It would seem to me that this story is too little too late and also has a patina of prejudice up and down it because we didn’t perk the hell up until some A-rabs wanted to manage our ports. It really looks bad from an international relations standpoint when we can allow ports to be managed by the east Asians and the Europeans but hey hey, we gotta draw the line right here, this has gone on far too long!

    From the people who claim every A-Rab looking fella in the airport should be searched, comes…

    YOU ARE ALL RACISTS!

    Yes, the rightwing of America has become as revolting as the old Left.

  100. 100.

    RonB

    February 28, 2006 at 6:43 pm

    Steve, you must have me confused with a Republican, pal. Sorry I don’t fit into your little box.

  101. 101.

    RonB

    February 28, 2006 at 6:47 pm

    And let’s be clear, so that you have no misconceptions:

    Bush is a complete idiot on this one as usual. He had no idea it was happening and has no idea what to do with it now that its a scandal but since it makes him look as stupid as he is he’s going to push back with his mighty Prez power of veto.

    Now, would you like to continue talking about this with your misdirection aside, or would you like to take a few more guesses as to how to frame me and avoid the argument?

  102. 102.

    Perry Como

    February 28, 2006 at 6:52 pm

    Xenophobe is the new racist.

  103. 103.

    ppGaz

    February 28, 2006 at 7:23 pm

    the advantage of being hopelessly out of power

    Today’s offering of MacB, whose entire schtick is to excuse the shortcomings of the most inept and dishonest bunch of crapheads that ever sat in our halls of government, and then try to trashtalk their opposition. What could the rationale be? Does the guy actually like and respect the neocon worldview? Does he still think we are winning in Iraq? Is he going to tell us to hang in there for “peace with honor?” Is he getting ready to spend the summer pimping the coming Iran war? The suspense is just killing us.

    Wonderful. Providing cover for our host, who at least has the stones and the honesty to describe the crapheads accurately, but still isn’t sure that he’ll say that he’ll vote against them.

  104. 104.

    Steve

    February 28, 2006 at 8:56 pm

    You guys don’t get the code. “Xenophobia,” in the Republican dictionary, does not refer to fear of foreigners. It refers to fear of foreign corporations.

  105. 105.

    The Disenfranchised Voter

    March 1, 2006 at 1:34 am

    One of you most bullshit posts ever John.

    Congratulations on that.

  106. 106.

    The Other Steve

    March 1, 2006 at 2:50 am

    Now, would you like to continue talking about this with your misdirection aside, or would you like to take a few more guesses as to how to frame me and avoid the argument?

    What misdirection? That the only arguments people have FOR this port deal is that anybody against it is a racist?

    Like I said before, I don’t want foreign companies in charge of my ports. That’s not just my attitude, it’s the attitude of the vast majority of Americans I have spoke with. We’re just absolutely baffled that this ever took place.

    You know sure, maybe there are a few racists, who are banging the drum just cause it’s some A-Rabs… but you are making yourself look assinine, as well as completely destroying your own credibility by trying to lump all opposition in under that simplistific umbrella.

    So do you want to try again, and frame you supposed support for this in a way that doesn’t call me names?

    I didn’t like it when the left accused everyone of racism when they didn’t get their way, you think I’m going to like it now that it’s coming from the right?

  107. 107.

    Otto Man

    March 1, 2006 at 8:11 am

    What misdirection? That the only arguments people have FOR this port deal is that anybody against it is a racist?

    Very well said.

  108. 108.

    RonB

    March 1, 2006 at 10:58 am

    OtherSteve, you have refused to acknowledge from both myself and Mueller that we aren’t much into the port management biz anymore and that 80% of our ports are already managed by foreigners-so you tell me why this deal doesn’t look racist.

    I’ll say it again. Most of our ports are already managed by foreigners. Yet you have a problem with this deal, right now. Why is this one different?

  109. 109.

    RonB

    March 1, 2006 at 11:01 am

    Correction- “why the refusal of this deal doesn’t look racist”

    For the love of god, don’t get all hung up on the word racist either…

  110. 110.

    Blue Shark

    March 1, 2006 at 4:54 pm

    …It is simple really to understand Bush’s deaf ear regarding the ports deal when one considers that he needs the UAE as a base of operations to launch “pre-emptive” strikes against Iran.

    …Bust out the duct tape and sheet plastic.

  111. 111.

    skip

    March 1, 2006 at 7:06 pm

    As the media touts those fearsome Arab armies now massing at our borders, we are faced with the propect of a foreign power managing some of our ports. My God, I am going to sleep with my light on!

    Meanwhile Abramoff’s pal Rep. Bob Ney recently gave the US Capitol telecom re-wire contract to a foreign company, choosing them over a many-time US vendor. Guess which foreign nation? Hint: Its a country that has a long record of spying on us. With our own money.

    Gee, do you think they put in a back-door access?

  112. 112.

    The Disenfranchised Voter

    March 3, 2006 at 2:40 am

    Saying that opponents of the port deal are racist or xenophobic is akin to saying that opponents of Harriet Miers Supreme Court nomination were sexist.

    The Dubai port deal is about a foreign governmemt controlling our ports. Not one single foreign government should control any of our ports. Period.

  113. 113.

    Jon H

    March 3, 2006 at 12:46 pm

    “Hearts and minds, indeed.”

    Everyone else already loathes us. When the Bush administration (and the GOP) care nothing about offending the rest of the world, why the hell should we care about the feelings of a handful of pampered wealthy jet-setting Arabs?

    Especially when killing a business deal is rather less significant than most of the other things we’ve done to incur the world’s dislike.

    Dubai will get over it. There’s no shortage of things they can do with their money. Maybe they could spend it to procure new resident Michael Jackson an endless supply of little boys.

  114. 114.

    Jon H

    March 3, 2006 at 12:48 pm

    So would any pro-deal people change their minds if it was instead a company owned by the Pakistani government?

    “I’d like you to meet the new head of our US port operations, A. Q. Khan.”

Comments are closed.

Trackbacks

  1. Balloon Juice says:
    November 27, 2007 at 10:17 am

    […] Nothing really catches my attention today. This Abu Dhabi/Citigroup transaction is interesting, especially when considering the reaction to the Dubai Port Deal. […]

Primary Sidebar

Image by MomSense (5/21.25)

Recent Comments

  • suzanne on Wednesday Afternoon Open Thread (May 21, 2025 @ 4:17pm)
  • Subsole on Late Night Open Thread: #TSLA Troubles (May 21, 2025 @ 4:15pm)
  • Martin on Parsing the Pandemic Pause (May 21, 2025 @ 4:15pm)
  • MartyIL on Novavax Update: If You Hate the Current Age Restriction… (May 21, 2025 @ 4:14pm)
  • sab on Wednesday Afternoon Open Thread (May 21, 2025 @ 4:12pm)

PA Supreme Court At Risk

Donate

Balloon Juice Posts

View by Topic
View by Author
View by Month & Year
View by Past Author

Featuring

Medium Cool
Artists in Our Midst
Authors in Our Midst
War in Ukraine
Donate to Razom for Ukraine

🎈Keep Balloon Juice Ad Free

Become a Balloon Juice Patreon
Donate with Venmo, Zelle or PayPal

Meetups

Upcoming Ohio Meetup May 17
5/11 Post about the May 17 Ohio Meetup

Calling All Jackals

Site Feedback
Nominate a Rotating Tag
Submit Photos to On the Road
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Links)
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Posts)
Fix Nyms with Apostrophes

Hands Off! – Denver, San Diego & Austin

Social Media

Balloon Juice
WaterGirl
TaMara
John Cole
DougJ (aka NYT Pitchbot)
Betty Cracker
Tom Levenson
David Anderson
Major Major Major Major
DougJ NYT Pitchbot
mistermix

Keeping Track

Legal Challenges (Lawfare)
Republicans Fleeing Town Halls (TPM)
21 Letters (to Borrow or Steal)
Search Donations from a Brand

PA Supreme Court At Risk

Donate

Site Footer

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

  • Facebook
  • RSS
  • Twitter
  • YouTube
  • Comment Policy
  • Our Authors
  • Blogroll
  • Our Artists
  • Privacy Policy

Copyright © 2025 Dev Balloon Juice · All Rights Reserved · Powered by BizBudding Inc

Share this ArticleLike this article? Email it to a friend!

Email sent!