Article

2006-03-02 Home Front: Politix

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by .com 2006-03-02 03:51|| || Front Page|| [11137 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 This is unbelieveable. Next thing we will hear is Carter will be proposing to mediate the deal and Gore will do a high priced speaking tour spouting our bigotted terrorist intent. The EX Pres needs to back out of politics and stay comepletely out of policy. This is bad for America.

Posted by 49 Pan">49 Pan 2006-03-02 04:08|| 2006-03-02 04:08|| Front Page Top

#2 Hey,
Before 9-11, most of the Americans polled said that their religion was more important than the nation. We all live here worrying about our own butt never thinking of the others. Politicians in India will sell India if any one wants to buy the headache. I never imagined US politicians will do the same. Unfortunately, too many out there want to buy US. God bless us.

Posted by Annon 2006-03-02 04:43|| 2006-03-02 04:43|| Front Page Top

#3 It's all about Hollywood. People performing the role begin to believe the role was created for them...both xprez and xpulpit imagine they are as big as the message the public asks them to deliver.

Its hard to leave that level of advocacy behind as they have become defined by the role they left.

Posted by Skidmark 2006-03-02 05:03|| 2006-03-02 05:03|| Front Page Top

#4 Your up way too early there skid to be thinking clearly.

Posted by 49 Pan">49 Pan 2006-03-02 05:08|| 2006-03-02 05:08|| Front Page Top

#5 "Well, here's how I see it. You oppose this ports deal and make yourself look like you're all tough and security conscious. It'll make the Bushies look bad - I played golf with the old man today and didn't do too bad, but I played him even better -- he let slip Sonny doesn't even know about the deal so they'll be completely blind-sided by opposition and slow on the up-take. Oughta score big points with the sheeple before anyone figures it out - lol - they really eat that security shit up and love the conspiracy crap about Bush and anyone with oil to boot. Meanwhile, I'll advise 'em on it and grease my way into collecting a bunch more 6-figure speaking fees. It'll be a breeze... Gawd, this Ex-Pres gig is slicker 'n snot and twice the fun. Hell, purdy soon we'll both be milking 'em."

"It's a slam dunk. No one will find out."

Posted by .com 2006-03-02 05:35|| 2006-03-02 05:35|| Front Page Top

#6 Not same, but related.
US panel objects to Israeli software takeover
The same Bush administration review panel that approved a ports deal involving the United Arab Emirates has notified a leading Israeli software company that it faces a rare, full-blown investigation over its plans to buy a smaller rival.

Posted by gromgoru 2006-03-02 11:48|| 2006-03-02 11:48|| Front Page Top

#7 Talking about cartoons, now he proposes a delay that helps the Bushies. Ya know I almost think Bill doesnt WANT Hillary to win in '08.

I can think of several possible motivations for that.

Posted by liberalhawk 2006-03-02 12:11|| 2006-03-02 12:11|| Front Page Top

#8 This just in: The US Congress will face a 45 day investigation into why Hershey's can't buy sugar from US allies on the open market.

Posted by wxjames 2006-03-02 12:15|| 2006-03-02 12:15|| Front Page Top

#9 I guess I just feel that we should own and manage our own ports. I know I'm speaking with less knowledge than most here, but this is my gut feeling.
I feel so uninformed to learn after the fact that the British owned our ports. I don't feel that was right either.
To allow ANY other countries to own and manage businesses shouldn't be allowed with the involvement of any kind when it comes to security, or border issues.
Money should never be our driving force to decisions made on this level.

Posted by Jan 2006-03-02 12:58|| 2006-03-02 12:58|| Front Page Top

#10 Thats just it. You're misinformed.

These guys run the companies that load and unload the ships. Thats it. And because of laws and politics, they have to use Longshoremen's union labor, and fall under lots of state and local administrative oversight as well. Its not like this is a blank check giving them free reign on what comes and goes.

Security of the ports is handled by the Coastguard, DHS, and FBI, as well as state and local authorities (Like the NY Port Authority Police in NY).

A Singapore Government Owned Company had been running the ports in the pacific coast of the US for about a decade.

There is little if any security concern. If you knew Dubai adn how closesly it is already intertwined with US military and security operations, you'd be astonished.

You're not getting all the facts, you're eating up the spin. From paleo-cons like Buchanan and Bush bashers, as well as grand-standing politicians of all stripes, this is just cheap publicity with little to no substance.

Posted by OldSpook 2006-03-02 13:24|| 2006-03-02 13:24|| Front Page Top

#11 Its not like this is a blank check giving them free reign on what comes and goes. Security of the ports is handled by the Coastguard, DHS, and FBI, as well as state and local authorities (Like the NY Port Authority Police in NY).

Except that most of the inspections are done on paper only, relying mostly on the cooperation of the company itself. The only added protection is that it is in the company's economic interest to cooperate and make sure that nothing is shipped that shouldn't be shipped. That's okay, if you trust UAE as much as the Brits and Singaporeans.

Posted by Rafael 2006-03-02 13:39|| 2006-03-02 13:39|| Front Page Top

#12 thanks oldspook, that's why i like this site. I'm trying to get better informed here. I still feel uncomfortable about it though. With the comment by Rafael reminding us of how inspections are done mostly on paper. I for one have seen this at my own work place. With many things going undetected.

Posted by Jan 2006-03-02 13:58|| 2006-03-02 13:58|| Front Page Top

#13 Nope, Rafael. You miss a key part of the picture.

After 9/11 we started inspecting cargoes at many key ports overseas. Those inspected containers are then sealed in ways that make it obvious if they have been opened.

Those containers do not need to be re-inspected here, beyond checking the seals.

Nonetheless, the feds have deployed a variety of sensor-based scanners and sniffers at many of our ports - and are deploying more as fast as they can be built and installed. Even manually 'uninspected' containers have a good chance of being checked this way.

I understand the concern about safety. But this brouhaha has become a hysterical fit totally unanchored in any real facts.

Is the system at our ports totally impenetrable?

No - and neither are our borders, our airports, our trucks or our cities.

Is a lot being done?

Yes - and more each day.

Can't we make things foolproof safe?

Maybe - if we all live in hermetically sealed huts with our own nuclear power plants, food and water sources ... and if these are totally foolproof and never breakdown and ...

Cost - benefit, folks. You guard against the big things, then have defenses in depth commesurable with the threat.

And please - the UAE will not "own" the ports. That's a nonsense charge, a deliberate blurring of the facts to create a panicked response.

Posted by lotp 2006-03-02 13:59|| 2006-03-02 13:59|| Front Page Top

#14 Damn it, man, I'm a prostitute, not an ex-prez.

Posted by Captain America 2006-03-02 14:16|| 2006-03-02 14:16|| Front Page Top

#15 After 9/11 we started inspecting cargoes at many key ports overseas. Those inspected containers are then sealed in ways that make it obvious if they have been opened.

Forgive me, but I have my doubts. I think for the most part those overseas inspections are done on paper, with the cooperation of the shipping company.

There's no panic on my part, just an uncomfortable feeling of distrust when it comes to Chinese, Arab, or Russian concerns getting their hands on anything that has economic significance. If you have that much trust in them, then okay, I guess.

Posted by Rafael 2006-03-02 15:12|| 2006-03-02 15:12|| Front Page Top

#16 thanks lotp. Don't we have to share alot of security information with them?
It's hard for me to feel so vulnerable with outside threats. It helps reading here more factual information. Even knowing the MSM is off base so often, it's hard not to listen sometimes to all of it.

Posted by Jan 2006-03-02 15:48|| 2006-03-02 15:48|| Front Page Top

#17 I think for the most part those overseas inspections are done on paper, with the cooperation of the shipping company.

I'm not sure if ALL of the inspections are done by our own agents, but I'm pretty sure most of them are.

Jan, we share limited security info with all sorts of people. But the important stuff is kept secret for us. And yeah, if we had only the MSM to go by, we'd all be learning which direction Mecca is for our 5 x daily tribute.

Posted by lotp 2006-03-02 16:09|| 2006-03-02 16:09|| Front Page Top

#18 I think Dubai has the Monica role in this relationship.

Bill has been paid $600k+ for speaking at conferences in Dubai and who knows how much more for various misc events.

Posted by mhw 2006-03-02 16:46|| 2006-03-02 16:46|| Front Page Top

#19 The overseas inspections are donne by US Customs and Coast guard personnel. And FBI at major ports like Port of Dubai where there is a lot of trans-shipment using containers. Check around, this stuff is on the web.

This is just more election-year demagoguery in an attempt to smear Bush and split Republicans.

Even after the sale to Dubai Ports World, the British company that currently operates the six American ports will continue to hire the employees (U.S. dockworkers) and conduct operations. Moreover, the port operator is only responsible for loading and unloading the ships, not security. The United States Coast Guard is charged with ensuring that incoming vessels do not present a threat. The United States Customs and Border Protection determines which containers are to be inspected and conducts the inspections. The corporate board sitting in Dubai has zero effect on U.S. security efforts.

You want to know why Congress is making a big deal of this? Because it hides the fact that they have been underfunding and screwing up the security we really need.

The greater security threat to the United States exists in foreign ports where the cargo containers are packed and loaded. If an explosive or, worse, a nuclear or radiological weapon, makes it into a cargo container headed for a U.S. port, we are in trouble, because even the best efforts of our government security agencies are unlikely to identify it. For more than four years we have been urging foreign port operators, such as Dubai Ports World, and their host governments to cooperate with us to strengthen security at their ports, at some cost to them, for our benefit. Congressional action to block the Dubai deal is likely to undercut that cooperation and therefore reduce, not enhance, our security.

If Congress wants to enhance domestic security, it should take a close look at our underfunded port security programs. We give expedited inspection privileges to thousands of shippers around the world through our Customs Trade Partnership Against Terrorism, but many of them have not been audited to determine if they meet security standards. We allow containers to come into U.S. ports without proper security seals that would protect against tampering while in transit. The innovative Container Security Initiative is only funded sufficiently to support a half dozen or so U.S. inspectors at each key foreign ports (And the Port of Dubai is one of those). We currently do not have enough equipment that can effectively identify nuclear or radiological material inside a cargo container without shutting down commerce because of excessive false alarms.

There are many constructive actions that can be taken to improve our port security. Blocking the Dubai port deal is not one of them.

Anyone falling for this is falling for the demagoguery of the Democrats and PaleoconCon Isolationists like Pat Buchannan and closet Bush-hater columnists like George Will (who has written outright falsehoods lately).

Posted by OldSpook 2006-03-02 17:22|| 2006-03-02 17:22|| Front Page Top

#20 Well OldSpook, you have me convinced. This is another one of those times when my opinion has changed, based on people's comments here. Thank you :-)

Posted by Rafael 2006-03-02 17:30|| 2006-03-02 17:30|| Front Page Top

#21 You want to know why Congress is making a big deal of this?

Because the media showed them it was a way to get traction against Bush and appear to be more hawkish on terrorism, which they aren't.

The donks need to take a deep breath on this because they are heading down an isolationist road that will make Burton Wheeler seem like a one world government wacko.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2006-03-02 17:31|| 2006-03-02 17:31|| Front Page Top

#22 By the way if the Dubai company gets the job, part of the boilerplate legal terms will be that they obey the laws of the US and this includes not participating in the Israeli product boycott.

In a sense, this is a reason to support the transfer rather than oppose it.

Posted by mhw 2006-03-02 17:40|| 2006-03-02 17:40|| Front Page Top

#23 thanks oldspook for clarifying these points. You helped me to see this issue for what it is, and I thank you for that. It's damn hard wading through the trash on the news these days. It angers me that the MSM is given so much latitude in their reporting, and very scary to know that citizens base their decisions on issues from many of these false reports. I listen to talk radio alot on my way into work and that's just as bad sometimes.
Jan

Posted by Jan 2006-03-02 18:48|| 2006-03-02 18:48|| Front Page Top

23:55 Rafael
23:54 KBK
23:51 Rafael
23:50 twobyfour
23:48 Pappy
23:39 Rafael
23:30 trailing wife
23:29 twobyfour
23:29 JosephMendiola
23:28 Inspector Clueso
23:25 twobyfour
23:15 Skidmark
23:10 3dc
22:52 Frank G
22:45 Barbara Skolaut
22:42 ed
22:23 49 Pan
22:13 trailing wife
22:08 Dreadnought
22:07 xbalanke
22:05 DMFD
22:02 RD
21:45 Pappy
21:40 Captain America