The only reason she is even in Congress is because Rudy got sick and had to withdraw his name. She was down something crazy in the polls when that happened, about 20-30 points iirc. And that's in New York, the state where she is probably viewed more favorably than anywhere in the country.

On the national stage, she would be a disaster. There are states where she wouldn't get 25 percent of the popular vote. But because of the nomination process, and the blinders the Democratic elite are wearing, there's a decent chance she could get nominated. That would be one of the worst ideas in politics, and a lot of people who need to lose their jobs would have a lot of egg on their face.

I'm not the biggest Hillary fan but...

FOX News/Opinion Dynamics Poll. Feb. 7-8, 2006. N=900 registered voters nationwide. MoE ± 3. LV = likely voters

.
"I'm going to read the names of several individuals or groups. Please tell me whether you have a generally favorable or unfavorable opinion of each one. If you've never heard of someone, please just say so. Hillary Clinton."

Favorable Unfavorable Never Heard of/Unsure
% % %
2/7-8/06 49 44 8

Right now, Bush wouldn't mind those numbers.

Looking at the entirety of that survey, her numbers are stronger than they were in 04, but still pretty weak. If she runs as the exact opposite of Bush it might not be an historic ass-kicking. If she runs the way Kerry ran, she might not win a single state.

one thing is for sure....Playing the Hillery card would be the Big gamble. Throwing all of the cards on the table in one play.

Why argue if you are so rooted in political ideals (not just this topic, but health care; and not just you, people like Bubba, Flasch)?

i just vomited in my mouth that I got compared to Bubba. A little bit, right in the back of my throat.


oh, yeah, cuz this is a democracy still, and this board is like my family so why not?

I'm not a huge Hillary fan, and I would think that it's a bad idea to nominate a moderate who is seen as a liberal, compared to the other way around. And I challendge the assertion, but any state that Hillary wouldn't get 25% of the vote is one that the Dems wouldn't win anyway. I'm also not sure why you say that she is most popular in NY.

If someone has a persuasive argument for something, I am willing to re-evaluate where I stand. But a persuasive argument /= saying France's unemployment is because of nationalized healthcare.

Back to the port deal.

Here is the text of a letter sent to Bush by Rep. Sue Myrick(R)

No, nationalized health care is part of it. It's the extremely high tax rate.

The Bush Doctrine:
I think that is the cognitive dissonance that is creating a lot of the conservative backlash to this and forcing them away from the knee-jerk acceptance of whatever Bush proposes.

Regarding the Rumsfeld bit here. I don't think Rumsfeld was legally required to review anything. A committee that he is part of, was to review the deal, and apparently did so. Nothing is said about requiring the Sec. Def. to be directly involved in the process. Honestly I do think that it is normal for something like this to be cleared by several governmental agencies without appearing on the radar of either the Sec. of Def. or the President.

The required forty five day investigation period would seem to be in order though. I'm not sure why there would be any opposition for that process.

i think with the atmosphere were in today, admittedly the admin. exclaims the war on terror all the time and rightfully so, this shouldve been on Rumsfeld's radar and if it wasnt then someone below him made a mistake by not informing him. The same for the Pres. Id be willing to bet that behind closed doors theyre now saying the same thing.

It amuses me that Bush uses Arab sentiments as a rationale for this. He has used terrorism and national security as a bludgeon for 4 years and with his disregard for international law, international treaties, international allies, and even domestic law, his foreign policy can be distilled down to, "Fuck you", and now we have to allow the UAE to control our ports or we might offend someone.

Nicely put, I couldn't agree with you more...

Islamofacism?

Maybe they can make the boats run on time.

I wonder how long will it take before people realize electing this man was a mistake? Do people love their grand kids? Don't you all want them to have a nice future?

Bush and I finally agree on something:
So true, so true.

it is kinda wierd that all the time its, "Security on the forefront, security is on the front burner, etc." but Then Chertoff comes out and sayd we have to balance security with global trade, and the admin is putting out sound bites about security not being a concern in this affair, etc. Im not saying that security isnt a concern, cuz I dont beliebe any pres. would want us to be attacked, but it is kinda a new type of speak....it confuses me.

I don't understand it, either. Some subtlety is eluding me.

its being delayed so that it can receive a closer look which is probably best for everyone, at this point.

Honestly I hope they come up with a way to investigate this so the congressman all have good access to data and information regarding the transaction.

I would love to see a list of every congressman's current position right now. And after 45 days, I want to see if/how the list changes based on their assessments of the investigation and why. I'd like each congressman to right a report in their own words what effect the new investigative process has on them versus their old stance.

Let's make these guys earn their paychecks and report back to the American people their findings.

i dont foresee any information coming out that would make me think that any foreign country should run anything on our borders AND any that have flown under the radar in the past and have done so should have those contracts reneged and American companies should be given those responsibilities. Those companies or in this case that country, would be handling the loading and offloading of containers and that, to me, is enough reason right there.

Here is why I think the government should be doing it and not even an American company: corporations and governments have different priorities. Sure we like to think that corporations will put country first, but that is not always the case. Corporations exist to make a profit (and that's a good thing) not to put the best interests of the country first. That is why we need environmental laws, that is why Halliburton is involved in a ton of overcharging scandals. Left to their own devices, corporations have a tendency to cut corners to increase the bottom line, especially if that is something that flies below the radar, something like port security.

But a company owned by people that used to pal around with Osama? I think that is way too much.

Here is the problem, even if they aren't "in charge of" security, they still have access to it. And like I said before, I'm sure the UAE is good people, but it only takes one person to screw us.

This is going to be a fascinating thing to watch to see who backs down first, the President or the GOP congressmen. This thing only has 17% approval, and it is the congressmen who are coming up for election in a couple months, so my guess is it would have to be the President. We'll see!

When I first read the title, I thought it said "POL - Our sports under UAE control? Now that would be scary!

First time i could get online today....

That loud noise you heard was the explosion at the White House. The Coast Guard, the one's in CHARGE of the security raised GRAVE concerns over this deal, and still the White House didnt apply the THEN mandatory 45 day review. Big Problems ahead for this Administration and anyone attached to it. Many people have defended this deal stating that the Coast Guard handles security so to quote Bush, "Dont worry about your security." but when the Coast Guard then raises the concern, id say the White House is absolutely full of shit on this one. This administration's priorities, now that theyre truly out in the open, are flawed ESPECIALLY when compared to what we sold the public when they went to the polls.

Reading over the Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002, it's clear that the port owners have a good deal to do with security. Saying that the Coast Guard is in charge of security at the ports is like saying that the FBI is in charge of security at banks. Sure, the FBI goes after bank robbers, but the day-to-day security at a bank is handled privately by the bank. Besides, it's just common sense: at a port, do you see Coast Guard guys everywhere on the docks? No, you see a lot of security personnel.

Though, as Jon Stewart said on Larry King tonight, I don't see how they could do a worse job than the only 5% of containers that are presently inspected. Unless you really do think that DPW has become a leading contractor for running ports around the world so that it could get into the US to perform terrorist acts (in which case, get the tinfoil off your head).

I'm getting ready to have Flasch and Giggles fitted for Tin Foil Caps. Not really. I understand your guys' opinion, I just think the degree of your concern is unjustified.

I think this whole thing is being seriously blown out of proportion just because of the origin/nationality of the corporation involved. I believe this kind of thing is fairly commonplace, and that realistically this deal won't place this country in any greater danger than it was a month ago.

Seriously if you think this is such a big deal, what the hell is wrong with performing a thorough search on the 25 year old Arab Male flying alone, rather than my 75 year old mother travelling with a grand-child? In my mind the type of profiling I'm describing makes more sense.

That said. I don't know why the White House has such a bee in their bonnett regarding this deal. Are they reacting to the fact that their opponents are capitalizing on the story because they know it will have traction with the masses? Are they trying to cover their ass, because the matter wasn't thoroughly looked into? Are they upset that critics of the deal are essentially saying that the Admin didn't even do their due dilligence, and figure that by threatening a veto they are simply showing that they are standing behind the branches of the administration involved in the deal's approval? Are they helping some cronie fund his retirement by slipping the deal through?

When I examine their potential motives none of the sinister options seem to really hold water. I think they are backing up the branches of the administration that approved the deal. I don't know why they were opposed to the mandatory additional 45 day investigative period, but I honestly don't think that anything will turn up that will quash this deal. Unless, of couse, it is public opinion. But then again what the hell does the public know, there are lots of states whose populations have overwhelmingly voted to write discriminatory language right into their constitutions.

I can't speak for everyone, but if you read my opinion you would know that I am not in favor of any corporation operating the ports, and definitely not in favor of any foriegn corporation, so this point doesn't have any effect on the validity of my argument.

Hi, I'm the real answer. I was posted a couple of pages ago, only 7 posts into the thread, tho you seem to have missed me.

SI

my concerns were voiced by the Coast Guard, although the secret commission says those concerns were vetted....BUT unfortunately Susan Collins (R) doesnt think so, as of today. Glen, our concerns are for Homeland Security, shouldnt the 9/11 pres. be too?

I heard McCain on the radio this morning say the deal was not for a PORT but for a TERMINAL. I confess I don't understand what the difference is.

Just to restate two of the biggest problems:


I have yet to hear a good explanation of why Snow & Rumsfeld, who are supposed to sit on this committee, didn't know about the deal until the Press told them about it.


We know that 9/11 operatives & money flowed through Dubai's banking system. We know that nuclear materials from Pakistan flowed through U.A.E. on their way to Iran, Libya & North Korea.

Now, the Coast Guard has raised these points, but the Bush Administration is telling us that these issues were "addressed". How, exactly?

They got their tax cut, and a couple of ringers on the Supreme Court who will overturn Roe v. Wade. I think they don't care about anything else.

See: None of the sinister motives seem to hold any water.

My feeling is that we really don't know how security might even be compromised. It just seems obvious on face value, but I'm not sure there is any substance beneath that concern. I honestly think this kind of thing is commonplace. This particular deal just happens to hit on a few hot button topics like ports, post 9-11 security, and the involvement of an Arab company/nation.

I'm not on the bandwagon saying this deal should have been run through without review. My position is essentially neutral towards it. If I see something beyond the fact that this is an Arab company that shows there is a security risk, then I'll stand in line with you guys in opposition. It's just that right now I haven't seen anything that didn't stem directly from the fear that the company in question is Arab.


As for Bigglesworth's sentiment that the Government should be doing this...I really think that private enterprise has shown they can fulfill this function in an exemplary manner. If we let the Government take over, getting an imported product would be like getting supplies into New Orleans the day after Katrina.

Glen, would you allow nuclear power station and nuclear warhead security to be outsourced to a foreign company? If not, what is the difference? You say that private enterprise has shown they can fulfill this function in an exemplary manner, yet port security got F's nearly across the board in the recent 9/11 Commission report. If getting F's are "exemplary", what grade would you consider bad enough to say that maybe things coule be improved?

It's a weak argument to use an incompetent organization as the model for all types of the same organization. This is like me saying, "If we let the Government take over, getting an imported product would be like buying stock in Enron right before the crash." If there is one thing that conservatives think the government does well, it is security.

There is an inherent security risk just in the fact that only 4% of cargo is checked to begin with. So on that fact alone you should be standing shoulder to shoulder with me. This is a move in the wrong direction, we should swing the pendulum regarding port security in the other direction.

Actually I have no trouble with privately owned Nuclear Power Stations. Aren't they all privately owned now as it is? Nuclear Warheads...well those are weapons, and therefore under the responsibility of the Dept of Defense(I'd guess), so what you describe would be pretty much as absurd event.

I'm not talking about private enterprise having an exemplary performance at providing security. That isnt' their job. These companies manage operations loading and unloading ships in an orderly and efficient manner. If you think they aren't doing that impressively well, then I think you aren't paying much attention.

The example of Katrina is relevant. Government manages through beaureaucracy, and I don't think that model works when applied to mechanisms that need to run lean and efficiently. Private enterprise has done a good job to this point. I don't see any reason to change that now.

Glen:

I had more to write here but now that POL threads are in the crosshairs Im scared. I need to post in some non-pol threads to get my ratio down.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060227/ap_on_go_ot/ports_security
They do start the article with but they also add So I'm not sure what the problem is, or why the AP leads the report in the most inflammatory way possible.I'll agree that port security is not very good, but other than baseless profiling against Arabs, how is this a move in the wrong direction? And don't give me the "2 9/11 hijackers came from there and money moved through Dubai's financial center" as proof the UAE supports terrorism. That would be almost as ludicrous as me saying that because Richard Reid was from Britain and some money went through London's financial centers to al-Qaeda that P&O should not have been given control. Especially when the only alternative was a company from Singapore buying the ports in question. Even more so when you consider that Saudi Arabia already controls port operations in more than one port in the US.

I still don't understand the difference between 'port' and 'terminal.'

bishop

however at the boards today the 2nd in command at homeland security, who signed off on the deal, hadnt even heard about the letter until yesterday and therefore could not have had their issues addressed prior to their vote!! IT simply doesnt make sense and it is spinning out of control.

PLUS on the same day that this was approved a former head of the UAE company was appointed to the post that would oversee whom, his former company....coincidence perhaps but you cant have the police investigate the police or you get skewed results.

Sure I think they/we need to do better. I agree with you there.

That said

Other than the fact that this company is from Dubai, is there one single reason that you think they will handle security any differently than the company that is doing it now? Or even one single reason that makes it evident that they are a bigger security risk than the present foreign company? I'm looking for an answer that doesn't boil down to "We can't trust the Arabs"

A port is a large complex with several terminals loading and unloading ships. A port is akin more to a geographic location, and the terminals specific destinations located near one another.


This message brought to you straight from my ass.

Glen: Let me try.

1) The UAE royal family has had extensive contact with Bin Laden.

2) The UAE banking system was used to launder money for the 9/11 attacks.

3) The UAE ports have been used as a central point to distribute nuclear info/material from AQ Khan to Iran, Libya, and N. Korea.

4) According to the CIA we actually cancelled an attack on Bin Laden because he was with too many members of the UAE royal family at the time.

5) The Coast Guard expressed concerns about the UAE running the ports specifically saying it would be easy to hide money transfers and get travel visas without the proper checks.

6) Much like other totaliatarian states, one revolution could put our ports under the control of extremists.

7) When a foriegn government controls our ports it makes it very hard for us to negotiate honestly and evenly.

8) We made secret deals with the UAE regarding port control so that they are more shielded from U.S. legal action against them.

Is that a meaningful distinction with regards to security?

No, he said a reason OTHER than the fact they are from the UAE.

Dammit, I am feeling ill inside as I write this. ;)

Yeah, what he said!!!

Something feels so wrong when I'm on the side of JPhillips, MrBigglesworth and Flasch186 in a political thread. I think I need to go lie down for a bit.

I didn't even know the POL threads were "in the crosshairs". My position on that is the same as always. If you get rid of them then you get rid of some of the traffic. You get rid of the traffic, and this place dies.

I really couldn't say.

So we can't trust the Arabs then?

I had this discussion with one of my friends today, he would fairly well agree that he is a liberal, he is at very least at serious odds with the Republican party. In his own words. "If we're going to condemn this on its face value, then we might as well just start calling arabs Sand Niggers, and move on."

Yup. Its united the free-traders against the protectionists and the "chicken-little" crowd. Bush has gained major points with me for his principled stance on this .

Glen: If you aren't going to pay attention to what is posted, why ask?

As I said earlier I think this deal can get done, but it quite obviously requires extra oversight and extra regulations. This is a country whose leaders palled around with Bin Laden. To say that any scrutiny of this deal is racism is ridiculous. The UAE has earned its reputation.

What bothers me so much is that instead of approving the deal with extra oversight it seems that we approved it with minimal oversight. I still haven't heard who actually approved the deal, but Bush, Rumsfeld and Chertoff have all said they didn't know about it. The mandatory 45 day review was initially skipped. The deal includes provisions that allow the UAE to shield documents from U.S. courts.

A lot of the hysteria about this deal is unwarranted, but Bush is just reaping what he has sown.

the storing docs overseas scares me.

I agree. My political postings on this board tend to skew left, but I find the criticism from the left embarrasingly disingenous--I really do think that the Democrats are making a calculated play on American xenophobia to bash the administration on an issue that frankly just isn't a big deal. They know better, but politics is politics I suppose.

I think a lot of the people who automatically bash the UAE are completely ignorant of what Dubai has become: it's not some collection of tents and camels in the sand, but an example of gleaming modernity. In the 70s, the leadership of Dubai wisely chose to diverify its economy to emphasize trade, financial services, and tourism knowing that the oil would eventually run out, and the city is well on it's way to becoming the Singapore of the Middle East.

Once a state becomes an economic powerhouse dependent on global trade, they tend to do all in their power to not antagonize its trading partners with unsavory behavior. I don't think the Dubai will be any different.

As for what I think of the US government running port operations:

http://www.slate.com/id/2136783/?nav=navoa

Sounds like an economic disaster waiting to happen. Working from scratch, it could take years for the federal government to acquire the personnel and knowledge base to operate the ports effectively. Since American companies have left the port operation business for greener pastures years ago, the feds , for quite some time, will have to rely on foreign know-how anyway...

From the Jerusalem Post


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.

Moreover, the Post found that the website for Dubai's Jebel Ali Free Zone Area, which is also part of the PCZC, advises importers that they will need to comply with the terms of the boycott.

In a section entitled "Frequently Asked Questions", the site lists six documents that are required in order to clear an item through the Dubai Customs Department. One of them, called a "Certificate of Origin," "is used by customs to confirm the country of origin and needs to be seen by the office which ensures any trade boycotts are enforced," according to the website.

A-Din of the Israel boycott office confirmed that his office examines certificates of origin as a means of verifying whether a product originated in the Jewish state.

On at least three separate occasions last year, the Post has learned, companies were fined by the US government's Office of Anti-boycott Compliance, an arm of the Commerce Department, on charges connected to boycott-related requests they had received from the Government of Dubai.

US law bars firms from complying with such requests or cooperating with attempts by Arab governments to boycott Israel.

In one instance, according to a Commerce Department press release, a New York-based exporter agreed to pay a fine for having "failed to report in a timely manner its receipts of requests from Dubai" to provide certification that its products had not been made in Israel.

The proposed handover of US ports to DP World has provoked a political storm in Washington, where Republicans and Democrats alike have expressed hostility to the plan, citing national security concerns.

In an attempt to stave off opposition, DP World agreed over the weekend to a highly unusual 45-day second federal investigation of potential security risks.

Your argument is: 'It'll take a while, so why try?' Indeed, why research stem cells? It will only take a long time and results won't be seen for years.

Let's put this into perspective. The main concern of the deal is security, of which ports have earned an F grade. The federal government has determined that it is worth $400 billion and counting to invade and occupy Iraq, a move which if completely successful would have given a nominal security benefit, yet had a tiny probability for success. The yearly defense budget is half a trillion dollars. How much would it cost to operate the ports with some inefficiency yet better security?

i think the above article just kind of wraps it up for us all. Israel = US ally, Israel is not recognized by UAE [slap in the face], UAE boycotts Israeli goods, we cannot hand over ports to UAE....

...Like Lou Dobbs said, will handing them over hurt us tomorrow? probably not, but how about 4 years from now, if there is a blow up in the M.E.? that would be a problem.

I think that is the best argument against this.

My argument isn't "It'll take awhile, so why try?" My argument is that the goals of efficiency and security are inherently in opposition to each other: optimal efficiency requires that you sacrifice security and vice versa. I have my doubts as to whether a single entity can navigate both without succumbing to paralyzing infighting.

Security is important, but I think that it is better served by being addressed by adequately mandating a concrete role for the relevant Homeland Security agencies and funding these mandates adequately. Leave port operations to private operators who know what they're doing on a logistical basis. I would rather see two entities: one specializing in operational logistics (the private company) and one specializing in security (homeland security, presumably), than a single entitity that is good at neither.

Yes, but.... ;)

The knowledge of details of operational logistics is in itself a security risk. I think the idea that this knowledge will be freely available to a company with headquarters in a country with a dubious record on terrorism & nuclear trafficing bears some scrutiny, myself.

Plus, no one's addressed the issues raised by Joseph King, the former head of Customs for DHC that I posted earlier.

thurraw investigation Id say, at least according to administration standards [/sarcasm]


Lawmaker: Port deal never probed for terror ties
Coast Guard official says ports 'far more secure now'

Wednesday, March 1, 2006; Posted: 5:35 p.m. EST (22:35 GMT)

story.chertoff.ap.jpg
Michael Chertoff speaks to Coast Guard Adm. Thomas Gilmour (center) and department CFO Andrew Maner before testifying Wednesday.
Public Administration
Regent University is offering a M.A. in government and a certificate of graduate...
www.regent.edu
Public Administration Degrees Online
Earn a masters degree in public administration online from Keller graduate...
www.kellermasters.com
Public Administration Degrees Online
Enroll in a public administration program from CTU. Get the degree you need for...
www.ctuonlinedegrees.com
More Useful Links
• Online Book Stores
• Notebook Computers
• Sporting Goods

WATCH
Browse/Search
Coast Guard concerns over ports deal (3:08)
Coast Guard report fuels row over port deal (2:09)
RELATED
• FindLaw: Coast Guard memoexternal link
• TIME.com: How Bush will payexternal link
• Interactive: Gateways to America
• Interactive: Port operations
• Interactive: DP World
YOUR E-MAIL ALERTS
United Arab Emirates
Ports
or Create Your Own
Manage Alerts | What Is This?

(CNN) -- A review of a United Arab Emirates-owned company's plan to take over operations at key U.S. ports never looked into whether the company had ties to al Qaeda or other terrorists, a key Republican lawmaker told CNN on Wednesday.

Rep. Peter King of New York, chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, said officials from the Homeland Security and Treasury departments told him weeks ago that their 30-day review of the deal did not look into the question of links between DP World and al Qaeda.

"I can't emphasize this enough," King, who has been a vocal critic of the deal, told CNN. "There is no investigation into terrorism whatsoever on this contract."

King's comments appear to contradict testimony by administration officials before Congress this week that a through review of any terrorism ties had occurred during the initial review of the deal.

After King and other lawmakers raised concerns about the deal, the company agreed to a 45-day review by the investigation. King said the administration should use the time to investigate the firm rather than trying to convince lawmakers that the deal should be approved.

"They should be educating themselves," King said.
Port security defended

Also Wednesday, the U.S. Coast Guard's vice commandant defended the state of U.S. port security after facing tough questioning from lawmakers on Capitol Hill, but acknowledged that more work remains to be done.

"I don't think there's any question that our ports are far more secure now than they were prior to 9/11," Vice Adm. Terry M. Cross told a congressional subcommittee.

His testimony came a day after Department of Homeland Security deputy secretary Michael P. Jackson told a Senate committee he was unaware of a Coast Guard memo that warned of "intelligence gaps" in its review of a proposed merger that would put a company owned by and based in the United Arab Emirates in charge of several U.S. cargo terminals.

The Coast Guard, which is part of Homeland Security, said the document has been taken out of context since its disclosure.

The document's existence was revealed Monday by Sen. Susan Collins, chairwoman of the Senate Homeland Security Committee. (Read the Coast Guard memoexternal link)
Chertoff promises changes

Collins, a Maine Republican, asked Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff on Wednesday what measures he would take to improve communication within his department after the Coast Guard memo went unnoticed.

Chertoff said his department was taking measures to "flatten the organization" in an effort to streamline communication between department heads.

Chertoff addressed the committee Wednesday in a wide-ranging hearing on his department's proposed budget.

A wave of concern has swept Capitol Hill over news of the deal to allow Dubai-based DP World to assume management of cargo terminals at five U.S. ports on the Atlantic and Gulf coasts, and a passenger terminal in New York. (Interactive: Who is minding the ports)

Critics note that two of the suicide hijackers involved in the attacks of September 11, 2001, came from the United Arab Emirates and that money for the plot was funneled through banks in Dubai, the banking hub of the Persian Gulf.

Supporters note that the UAE is an ally and home to major U.S. military bases, and that port security would be handled by the Coast Guard and other law enforcement agencies after the merger, just as it is now.

The $6.8 billion merger is set to close Thursday in Britain, home of current port operator P&O, but DP World agreed not to assume control of P&O's port operations until a 45-day security review takes place.

In his testimony, Cross expressed confidence in domestic port security, noting that ships now must give 96 hours' notice before entering a U.S. port, up from 24 hours before September 11. Cross said the additional time allows port security officers to vet a ship's crew, passenger list, cargo manifest and vessel history before it arrives.

But Democratic Rep. Corrine Brown of Florida faulted the Bush administration for not doing enough. She said $4.4 billion has been spent on aviation security, "but only $36 million in all surface transportation."

She noted that the Coast Guard is one of an amalgam of agencies involved in providing port security.

"In Jacksonville, we hire the sheriff's department," she said.

Cross concurred that other agencies are involved in port security, but said, "I think we are the leaders for port security."

He said that, since July 2004, the Coast Guard has identified more than 700 violations of the Maritime Security Act of 2002, of which 44 were considered major. Moreover, he said, his agency is empowered to do something about violations.

"When we see a major violation, that oftentimes results in a stoppage of cargo operations; sometimes we close facilities until they have met the requirements of the act."

Overseas, Coast Guard inspections of 44 ports found seven that failed and, as a result, ships that have passed through those ports get additional scrutiny once they arrive in a U.S. port, he said.

And, he noted, the captains of U.S. ports are all Coast Guard officers, and can refuse ships entry or order them held in port.

Still, holes remain, he acknowledged, noting that port workers are not subject to background checks and have no special identification cards beyond "a picture ID from a state or federal agency."

Fixing those flaws are among the agency's priorities, he said.

Rep. Bob Filner, a California Democrat, was not impressed.

"You leave me a lot of insecurity about our security," he said.

Brown concurred.

"I know, as a lay person, that the system is flawed. I'm sure that the terrorists know it too. ... The talk is wonderful, but I need to know: Where is the beef?"

The subcommittee is planning to continue its questioning next week.
Overseas inspections preferred

Chertoff told the Senate Homeland Security Committee that his department would prefer that cargo be inspected at overseas ports, before it arrives in the United States.

He said all shipments to the United States are screened, but only 5 to 6 percent of cargo is inspected.

Cargo is inspected, he said, if the screening flags it as suspicious, based on information including the ship's manifest, the shipper and the destination.

Chertoff said he plans to travel to Hong Kong at the end of March to evaluate a port inspection prototype that could speed the inspection process.

Also Wednesday, a federal judge refused a request by the state of New Jersey to investigate the ports deal, according to The Associated Press. The judge also refused to order the release of the documents relating to the deal, saying they were confidential and that the state failed "to show an immediate need for those documents," the AP said.

Because your answers boiled down to the one reason I said not to use. I said You listed a bunch of reasons why we can't trust a company from the UAE.

Saudi Arabia = Ally

Saudi Arabia participates in the boycott of Israeli products.

It gets complicated doesn't it.

Glen: All of which are quite specific. If contacts with Bin Laden and nuclear smuggling and funding 9/11 terrorists are off limits why bother to pose the question?

Remember Glen, this isn't "a compnay from the UEA" its a company owned and operated by the royal family and nation of the UAE. The same company owners re the owns that cavorted with Bin Laden.

Or to put it differently, I'll pose a question to you.

"Who had closer ties with Bin Laden, Saddam Hussein or the royal family of the UAE and owners of DPW?"

oh, im not a fan of that either...its consistent. start listing stuff SA is involved in and Im a fan of pulling back off that too.

Missed was the point that Saudi companies are running port/terminal operations at other US ports. I have ZERO issue with that, and neither did anyone else before the critics of the administration picked up on the UAE deal, and decided to see just how much traction the story had.

Again. I'm not saying this deal would have been good for the country. I'm at a loss as to why the admin would be so strongly behind..so much so to threaten a veto. I'm glad the 45 day investigation will take place. I don't think there will be any material problems that will stop this deal from going through. If it doesn't go through it will be strictly because of public opinion, and anti-arab sentiment.

I get it that the company in question is partially owned and controlled by the UAE. I follow.

As for the Bin Laden bit. I'd wager that it would be pretty difficult to find a ME country whose royal family hasn't cavorted to one degree or another with the likes of Bin Laden. A member of the Saudi royal family essentially blamed the US for the attack on the World Trade Center. I still see no reason to exclude them from the free markets of the US.

we didnt know, there is no way that the american public can know everything. We simply find out when its exposed, or it comes out and then have to make a opinion on it, even if its essentially after the fact. I mean the number of "things" that exist in our country is probably in the billions.....cant know them all.

This one stinks, ESPECIALLY considering the tenuous nature in the ME AND the UAE's stance on our allies AND their porous running of their own ports....


This is leaving out the fact that the admin. didnt follow the law when considering this deal in the first place. The law says ANY security concerns from anyone involved and it gets the 45 day review. Coast guard concerns = 45 day review but for some reason this was on the fast track.

Somewhere I read a post asking why we aren't demanding anything of the UAE for approval of the port deal and I think its a good question. I could support this if it was tied to our stated intention of spreading democracy in the ME. Maybe we ask for an end to the Isreal boycott or some token elections or something. If we really want to spread democracy in the ME we need to use opportunities like this to put up or shut up.

So, now that the UAE ports deal is dead, I wonder how much "security" is really going to be addressed by this outcome. There is no American company specializing in port operations that can handle operations of this scale. I have heard that an American financial services/investment banking firm is the most likely buyer at this point. Thus, even if there is an American buyer, it does seem that they will not have the relevant expertise and will have to outsource port operations management anyway.

And DP World, as it should be, is expected to hold out and will sell only for fair value--so it looks like a transition could take some time.

a private foreigh entity im ok with...a forign govermental entity im not.

a report came out today, a govt report, talking about how awful our port secuirty is...so perhaps this will give the congress some legs to fix it.

Of course nothing of port security was going to come from it. Now that an Arab company (albeit with a CEO being a white guy from New Jersey), and if you think this hubbub wouldn't have happened if this was a private Arab company you are smoking something, was defeated in ownership of some ports, this will all take a back seat and nothing will be done on it. I'm sure of it. The political issue is over. A bunch of Congressmen showed how "pro security" they were and its over. Arabs don't have control of the ports... but the Chinese do. And Saudi Arabia... err.. well, they have LOTS of Oil!

Something will only happen to port security if there's a commitment made to beef up the inspections in the ports. Given that there's barely enough manpower to inspect about 5% of shipping as it is, and given that the government has critical spending tied up elsewhere, I wouldn't get your hopes up.

The Chinese Army controls some of our port operations. And the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. The only other company bidding on P&O is run by the government of Singapore.

Xenophobia at its finest, and most detrimental.

im consistent...,many of our allies today were enemies in our past and in the future some of our allies today will be enemies of our future....no foreign goverment should run things that in the future could be used against us. xenophobia NO protection and security YES....I thought the right were the thinkers of security and the left wasnt...we now see the truth!! LOL

What this whole espisode shows me, once again, is how absurdly dumbed-down all matters of foreign affairs need to be before the American public and its so-called leaders get interested. If the facts of the matter have to be sacrificed in order to bundle it up into a convenient little sound byte, so be it. We like our foreign affairs in very small bites in this country.

"Sell our ports to the Arabs = bad." Case closed.

For all the people (and elected representatives) who have suddenly caught religion on port security in the last couple of weeks... where the hell have you been the last five years (and longer)?

The republicans havnt been listening. Perhaps now they will since for the past 5 years they have been in power.

You missed the "longer" part. Both Democrats and Republicans have been outsourcing the port protection. It's only a big deal now because it's an Arab company that was trying to do it.

Also, it wasn't the Republicans listening, but the Administration itself. Big difference there. If you have been paying attention, both parties are up in arms over the whole ordeal.

xen·o·pho·bi·a (zn-fb-, zn-)
n.

An irrational fear and contempt of strangers or foreign peoples.

And I thought the "left" was against racial profiling and in favor of constructively working with our allies. But I guess this helps prove that principles are less useful for understanding politics than picking sides and being hypocritical when it suits the issue at hand is.

you keep pointing to it as if it is a racial thing. For ME it is not, that should put your rhetoric to bed. Any foreign government running one of our key iinfrastructure items is a bad idea. PERIOD. It is absolutely rational to draw the conclusion that we havnt had our last conflict in our lifetime and to have foreign entities involved in our infrastructure, especially those that EVEN our Coast Guard voiced concerns about is a bad idea. Your idea of racism, in this case, with me, is a red herring...please stop as it is offensive.

as for your other quote, i simply think you dont believe whatI say is what I mean, so your debate tactics are like a merry go round. If you wont listen to what I say, even about my own thoguhts, than why are you wasting your time spinning your tires.

I'd say that most of america, a overwhelming majority, right and left, think that this thought about protecting our entrance points to our country IS rational....to say the least.

This admin has been the protection admin....at every turn they pound security in our faces, they make sure we're all aware of what the enemy wants to do....considering that viewpoint, certainly one should question the rhetoric about our security coming from the top, when their actions throw caution to the wind, they dont follow the rules and regulations in their haste to sell our stuff overseas, and then cry when the American public shows some signs of waking up. Rational sir, this is.

Thanks, I needed to laugh. :D

You are specifically saing you are against any deal with foreigners in this situation. I'm not calling you a racist by pointing that out, and I don't believe it is going overboard to call that attitude xenophobic.

If you want to talk about logical fallacies in your arguments, the Coast Guard had their concerns addressed, so bringing that up is merely scaremongering. I also don't know if you are being hypocritical on this issue, but there are a a lot of foreign government-owned companies that have been running ports for years now, so I'm kinda curious why the sudden outrage and protectionist sentiment.

And I'd say that most of America doesn't have an understanding of what exactly this deal entails (that it isn't security) how ports are operated, who controls them already (the Chinese Gov't, KSA, other multinationals) the nature of the UAE (about as friendly a ME government as there is right now) the structure of the company (many of those in charge are Americans, Europeans or other non-UAE nationals) or the practicality of implementing the protectionist language congress is proposing.

The American public does not show any more signs of waking up because they are still ignorant and only react to soundbites. And don't be delusionaly about those in Congress from both parties wanting to take "serious" action. It was a golden opportunity to make serious political points to the folks back home but in the end, it will be very little difference now than it was 10 years ago or will be 10 years from now. The optimism for simple rationality is cute; whereas in reality, self-serving complexity is how things are run.

Yup. And Bishop is right - this is xenophobia, as well as a stupid strategic decision. Anytime idiots like Michelle Malkin and the Micheal Moore types are in agreement, your best bet is to take the opposite view.

Foreign Governments not foreigners. You need to be more specific. I couldnt care less if its a private entity that has clean ties to no terrorism, but foreign governments have no buisness running ours, or our infrastructure.

call me naiive but if you keep that train of thought things will never change. I still have hope that at some point politicians will begin to stand up and do what is right.

Excuse me, but foreign governments are run by foreigners; hence, the use the use of the word foreign.

So EVERYONE else is wrong and Bishop and 3% of America is right. Well, Im all for the undersog and swimming upstream but I also can make decisions on my own. For the fear that someday we could be at war with a foreign government it simply doesnt make sense to have foreign govt's run very important stuff for us. If it snowballs and many other things begin to be controlled by American entities good! Status Quo is not good enough and of course we only find out about things when theyre exposed, please dont start the Arles-type argument....we cant know ALL.

Where the fuck do you get your numbers? I mean seriously. :confused:

right I just want you to be more clear so you dont insinuate racism...which is the cute way of marginalizing those who are against this selling off of strategic things.

sorry, I didnt view that sarcastic statement as being needed to be grounded in fact.....

in fact its 21% of americans are in favor of allowing UAE to control the ports according to a CBS poll I searched for on the net.

hey you (edit to say - your side of the argument) threw this out there:



1. its not irrational
2. its not contempt
3. its not foreign peoples, BUT foreign governments