[datek23]

Looks like Bush did this on purpose. All the heat was on him about Iraq and Cheney shooting incident, now all the heat is off them and this comes up. How fitting. Looks like a movie of wag the dog, misdirect people and people will focus on something else.

Do you feel comfortable about an arab country controlling sea ports. Bush says they are great allies and can be trusted. Wasn't Saudis are great allies and can be trusted with all our hearts. Wasn't all of Sept 11 bombers Saudi?

They will hire shady employees and trust me that is easy way to get a dirty bomb in. Shame of Bush with all this garbage.

[SBR_John]

I try to be open minded but I say no frigging way! That goes for airports too!

[datek23]

Originally Posted by SBR_John

I try to be open minded but I say no frigging way! That goes for airports too!

I agree John I have no idea seems like they are trying to take heat off them about Iraq and Cheneys shooting, doesn't that seem like it?

[onlòóker]

I do not like it at all, and wondering what Bush is thinking and if he actually thinks the US public thinks its safe and are alright about it.

[Betman]

He will hire a russian company to maintain the US nuclear arsenal.

[Illusion]

Originally Posted by SBR_John

I try to be open minded but I say no frigging way! That goes for airports too!

This is like handing a gas can and lighter to a pyro. This is a very bad decision.

[isetcap]

Unless you want to give the perception that you are racist toward Arabs because they are predominantly Muslim, there is no reason at all that can be given for not allowing a company from Dubai to accept the contract. In fact, Dubai is one of the world's most market friendly environments on the planet. They are the model for the type of state the US would like to have throughout the Middle East. Since when has it been OK for the US to implement an exclusionary policy strictly based on race or religion? I thought our Constitution prescribed us to be a different kind of nation whether good or bad.

[BuddyBear]

nice post Isetcap...the criticism of this deal has nothing to do with the actual deal it has everything to do with the fact that the company is headed by Arabs and nothing else...i challenge anyone on here (i.e. SBR John, Illusion, etc...) to give me one legitmate reason why this company should not be allowed to win this bid...most of you guys hold very latent racist attitudes toward Arabs and just won't admit it. You guys act like all Arabs are like the 9/11 ones...well they aren't.... they are a tiny minority. Most people here in this country have absolutely no idea that Arabs in this country are better educated and better off financially than the average American born and raised here.

I personally think this deal is a real great way to reward a country that has been helpful to us on the War on Terror, a way to boost our self-image and standing with the world esepcially in the Middle East, a way to reach out in helping Arabs who work for this company.....

This is how you win the war on Terror not by occupying a country like Iraq and committing illegal acts of torture and then talk about which country you are going to invade next

[BuddyBear]

Here are the facts: Since 1999, P&O Steam Navigation Company by Dubai's DP World has successfully operated ports in six US cities-New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami, and Philadelphia. The acquisition by DP World would not affect the ports' compliance with US security standards, which would remain the responsibility of Customs and Border Protection (CBP) (an agency of the Department of Homeland Security) and the US Coast Guard. In addition, there would be no adverse effect on American workers employed at the ports. To learn more about the Department of Homeland Security's port security programs, click here.



The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), which includes officials from 12 federal agencies such as Treasury, Defense, Justice, Commerce, State, and Homeland Security completed a thirty day review of the acquisition and concluded that DP World's management of the ports would not obstruct the ability of CBP officers to protect our shores.

In fact, the United Arab Emirates has a record of partnership with the United States on the issue of port security and the war on terror. The Emirates committed troops to our efforts in Afghanistan and was the first Arab country to join the US government's Container Security Initiative—a program which places CBP officers at UAE ports to identify and pre-screen cargo headed for the US. When the Gulf nation signed the deal in December 2004, former CBP Commissioner Richard Bonner said, "Dubai Customs recognizes the absolute importance of protecting cargo against the terrorist threat. I applaud their bold action of assuming a leadership role in the Middle East." Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Peter Pace describes US-UAE military relations as "superb" saying, "In everything that we have asked and work with them on, they have proven to be very, very solid partners."

"Of course my community supports any measure that makes our country more secure, including an honest debate about port security," said AAI President James Zogby. "However, this campaign is nothing more than a self-serving use of anti-Arab sentiment callously playing off of post-9/11 fear and insecurity. The rhetorical excesses on the part of those politicians who are most outspoken on this issue has been shameful, irresponsible, and uninformed. Port security will remain the sole responsibility of the US government, but it's an election year, national security remains a legitimate concern, and the UAE is an Arab country, and for some politicians, this represents an opportunity ripe for exploitation.



"The anti-Arab impetus behind these protests is impossible to ignore, certainly doesn't make us safer, and trumps any positive message our public diplomacy efforts seek to portray. The concern we have is that if an ally of the United States like the UAE can be smeared in this manner, simply because it's an Arab country, then our relations with the broader Arab world may be irreparably damaged. It is not just wrong, it is unconscionable for the UAE to be described using language such as a "rogue" government with "ties to Islamic Fascism." Because the challenges we face are global in nature, our national security is served by building strong alliances, not alienating ourselves unwisely."



Government Officials Have Been Weighing In On the Issue

President George W. Bush: "I can understand why some in Congress have raised questions about whether or not our country will be less secure as a result of this transaction. But they need to know that our government has looked at this issue, and looked at it carefully."



"If there was any chance that this transaction would jeopardize the security of the United States, it would not go forward."



"This is a company that has played by the rules, has been cooperative with the United States, from a country that's an ally on the war on terror, and it would send a terrible signal to friends and allies not to let this transaction go through."



"I want those who are questioning it to step up and explain why all of a sudden a Middle Eastern company is held to a different standard than a Great British company. I am trying to conduct foreign policy now by saying to the people of the world, 'We'll treat you fairly.'"



President Jimmy Carter: "My presumption is, and my belief is, that the president and his secretary of state and the Defense Department and others have adequately cleared the Dubai government organization to manage these ports. I don't think there's any particular threat to our security."

Former Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge: "The fact of the matter is, you're going to find in many, many ports … are owned and operated by foreign companies or foreign contractors. It's a matter of the global maritime industry. It happens around the world. The bottom line at the end of the day is who's ultimately responsible for security. A lot of people have confidence in the Coast Guard and they should. I admit that to the average citizen, the optics don’t appear very good, but frankly there's a huge difference between what they perceive and what really is.

"The conclusion that you draw from some of these public statements is that no one in this administration cares enough about security or port security, they like to be very cavalier about this transaction. That couldn't be the furthest thing from the truth. We all know better than that."



Former CBP Commissioner Robert Bonner: "The threat of terrorism is real and, it's a global threat. Dubai Customs recognizes the absolute importance of protecting cargo against the terrorist threat. I applaud their bold action of assuming a leadership role in the Middle East." [December 2004 upon UAE's entry into CBP's Container Security Initiative]



US Ambassador to the United Arab Emirates Michele Sison: "I congratulate the Dubai Ports, Customs and Free Zone Corporation on this historic event. They are now partnering with the United States and are a leader in protecting the global trading system." [December 2004 upon UAE's entry into CBP's Container Security Initiative]



DHS Assistant Secretary for Policy Stewart Baker: "We have a relationship with this company because they have been a participant in some of our cargo and port security measures. Remember, our interest in port security extends well beyond the United States. If we discover weapons of mass destruction inside a US port, we've already lost. So we do lots of screening abroad, and our general experience with this company has been positive."

Washington Post editorial, February 22: "At stake -- in theory -- is the question of whether we should "outsource major port security to a foreign-based company," in the words of Mr. Graham. But those words, like that of almost all of the others, sound, well, tone-deaf to us. For one, the deal cannot "outsource major port security," because management companies that run ports do not control security. The U.S. Coast Guard controls the physical security of our ports. The U.S. Customs Service controls container security. That doesn't change, no matter who runs the business operations. Nor is it clear why Mr. Graham or anybody else should be worried about "foreign-based" companies managing U.S. ports, since P&O is a British company. And Britain, as events of the last year have illustrated, is no less likely to harbor radical Islamic terrorists than Dubai…

"…Even more disturbing is the apparent difficulty of members of Congress in distinguishing among Arab countries. We'd like to remind them, as they've apparently forgotten, that the United Arab Emirates is a U.S. ally that has cooperated extensively with U.S. security operations in the war on terrorism, that supplied troops to the U.S.-led coalition during the 1991 Persian Gulf War, and that sends humanitarian aid to Iraq. U.S. troops move freely in and out of Dubai on their way to Iraq now.

Finally, we're wondering if perhaps American politicians are having trouble understanding some of the most basic goals of contemporary U.S. foreign policy. A goal of "democracy promotion" in the Middle East, after all, is to encourage Arab countries to become economically and politically integrated with the rest of the world. What better way to do so than by encouraging Arab companies to invest in the United States? Clearly, Congress doesn't understand that basic principle, since its members prefer instead to spread prejudice and misinformation."

[isetcap]

BB, Thank you for this poignant article and your voice of reason in this maelstrom of fear.

[Winston Smith]

Good stuff, isetcap and BuddyBear.


It seems to me that there is strong opposition to this move. But, then I ask myself, "What do people know about it?" Of course, if you go up to a man on the street in Alabama and ask if he think Arabs should be in charge of the ports, you can prove that nobody thinks this is a good move all day long.

Regardless of which side you're on in the right-left, liberal-conservative mass media battle (which is painfully monotonous and asinine, IMO), the fact remains that neither presents the full picture of any story. We are presented with a general idea, and then a series of blabbering imbiciles are paraded in front of us and we're supposed to make a decision.

Does anyone know the history behind this company? Only the 3 people that took it upon themselves to look it up. Does anyone know anything besides the fact that its an Arab company? Not if they only get their news from mass media.

I challenge anyone to walk into an airport and tell me they feel safer with the TSA (run by nice, quaint, white America, mind you) behind the metal detectors. I don't. It's incompetence, not social background, that's the danger here. But nobody's thought it through on those grounds. The extent of the talk shows and the extent of public sentiment is Arab=terrorist.

[tacomax]

Originally Posted by Winston Smith

Does anyone know the history behind this company?

Probably not. One mention of the word "Arab" by the scare-mongerers is enough to strike a false fear in the heart of Americans.

The Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company (aka P&O) was a British shipping company which dated back to the early 1800's. In February 2006, their stock was purchased by Dubai Ports World. Unless, in the past couple of weeks, Dubai Ports World has sacked all the old employees and replaced them with angry Arabs with a copy of the Qur'an in one hand and "al Qaeda for Dummies" in the other then I really don't think there's going to be much difference in American ports.

Originally Posted by Winston Smith

I challenge anyone to walk into an airport and tell me they feel safer with the TSA (run by nice, quaint, white America, mind you) behind the metal detectors. I don't. It's incompetence, not social background, that's the danger here. But nobody's thought it through on those grounds. The extent of the talk shows and the extent of public sentiment is Arab=terrorist.

Hey, don't tell people that Saudi Arabian Airlines fly into American airports every single day. There's gonna be fighting in the streets if that one ever gets out.

[isetcap]

Originally Posted by Winston Smith

...The extent of the talk shows and the extent of public sentiment is Arab=terrorist.

Correct, and that is supposed to be unAmerican. This administration often gives lip service to its significant Muslim population by saying it's not Muslims they're fighting, it's terrorists. Finally this might be a positive instance where they are backing up their words with actions, and I sincerely hope they don't start governing by polls when they haven't done so since they were put in place.

[isetcap]

Originally Posted by tacomax

Hey, don't tell people that Saudi Arabian Airlines fly into American airports every single day. There's gonna be fighting in the streets if that one ever gets out.

Hey, don't tell people that the Muslim population in America is well in excess of 5 million people. Maybe we can institute a policy such as this:

Following the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in December 1941, the United States was gripped by war hysteria. This was especially strong along the Pacific coast of the U.S., where residents feared more Japanese attacks on their cities, homes, and businesses. Leaders in California, Oregon, and Washington, demanded that the residents of Japanese ancestry be removed from their homes along the coast and relocated in isolated inland areas. As a result of this pressure, on February 19, 1942, President Roosevelt signed Executive Order 9066, which resulted in the forcible internment of 120,000 people of Japanese ancestry. More than two-thirds of those interned under the Executive Order were citizens of the United States, and none had ever shown any disloyalty. The War Relocation Authority was created to administer the assembly centers, relocation centers, and internment camps, and relocation of Japanese-Americans began in April 1942. Internment camps were scattered all over the interior West, in isolated desert areas of Arizona, California, Utah, Idaho, Colorado, and Wyoming, where Japanese-Americans were forced to carry on their lives under harsh conditions.

Oh yeah, those were the good old days.

[Betman]

I don't believe in the racist attitude theory.

Arabs have over a hundred billion dollars invested in the US. If there were a racist attitude toward them, that amount would never be allowed to go beyond zero dollar.

The security of a port is a sensitive matter and I don't think it should go to a company originating from a country that was tied to the 9/11 attacks in two ways :

1) Some of the 9/11 terrorists were from the UAE

2) The terrorists were funded by banks located in.....Dubai.

Let us not also forget that the company in question is UAE government owned. Last time I checked, corruption ran very high in the arab world where 300 billion dollars a year vanish in thin air and land in private bank accounts all over the world.

Could a terrorist pay a bribe and corrupt an official to smuggle a weapon of mass destruction on board of the container and detonate it upon arrival ? You bet.