Here are the boycott rules that may complicate the UAE running our ports. Usually referred to in the case of the Arab states long-standing boycott of Israel, but applies to any boycott.
Oh, well said.
There are few (and I do mean very few) things I find even remotely palatable about the Bush administration. On this one, Bush has got it right.
May as well jump on the bandwagon. This non-issue has been driving me up the wall since everyone started screeching about it. Good to see the board mostly unified on something political.
Now if ya’ll will excuse me, the apocalypse just knocked at the door and I need to tell it that I gave at the office.
Interesting discussion on PBS’s News Hour today. It’s unclear that a US company can step up to the plate. Of the 10 top port terminal management companies in the world, only one is US based, and it’s much smaller than DPW. Irronically enough, another possibility for taking over these ports is Halliburton. So, maybe this was all a big conspiracy to let Halliburton buy these port terminal operations at fire sale prices. 
I’d settle for a top ten.
And add me to the growing list of Bush-bashing people who think he’s right to support the deal and who are disgusted by the barely-concealed xenophobia that’s motivating the opposition, but who also are amused by how the fearmongers are reaping their own whirlwind.
Or as I like to call it, blogfuscation.
I have posited in my own thread that the issue is not with the representatives. It is with the constituents. That the Democrats On High (DOH) are too stupid to know when to stay out of an ass-kicking tells me that they have no game and never watch “The Apprentice.”
The real issue is the rubes, the rubes, the rubes. As it has always been, the main reason why elections are priced so fucking high is because of the cost to educate the consumer. Face it, we’re not all that bright; the company has “Arab” in its country’s name and the deal was doomed from the get-go.
It’s amazing how US-centric the news on this is. Actually, it isn’t amazing, it’s the way things always are.
You’d think that this whole DPW buy-out of P&O was only about US ports. The US part of this deal represents about 10% of P&O’s terminal operations business.
Does anyone know what percent of our port terminals are run by US companies right now? I’ve heard people say only 20%, but I’ve never seen anything definitive.
Well, I’ll have to say it too. Bush was r…
Bush was wrigggg…
Bush was right. I just threw up a little in my mouth.
I voted for the two people making some of the dumbest statements on this issue, and against the guy making sense.
He hasn’t disappointed me either, but he lacks the capacity GWB has of truly astonishing me by going far beneath my already low expectations.
But I’ll still note in passing that he said this:
Exactly what alternate universe have you been living in, Mr. Straight Talk? The Kiss-Up Universe?
So, how often anymore does he call bullshit on anything to do with Bush? Not like there’s a shortage of opportunities.
I mean, I’m really likin’ this one. McCain gets to be Mr. Straight Talk, while at the same time sucking up to GWB. Kinda like on his torture bill, which apparently contained a clause excluding Gitmo from judicial review. (And has he been angry about that, like someone pulled that over on him? All I’ve heard are crickets chirping.) Don’t talk to me about McCain.
But apparently it’s pretty standard.
According to WaPo business columnist Allen Sloan, who proposed the same thing just a few days ago:
In my opinion, Bush should have obeyed the law. The administration should have followed standard procedures.
The manditory 45 day review should have been respected. The Bush admin should have been able to produce somebody who would state publically their reasons for approving the deal and the security concerns that they vetted.
Standard practice would have involved requirements for Dubai Ports to keep their records in the US. Standard practice was ignored. Why?
That said, I was hoping that the deal would go through after a lot more vetting and an uncertain amount of tweaking. I am disappointed, but not surprised, that our politicos have taken the populist route.
As an aside, I’ve been impressed with DPW’s management: as far as I can tell, they’ve made a decent effort at staying ahead of the curve. First they made the request that the Bush admin obey the law (45 day rule). Now they are making another face-saving concession, which may very well be unworkable but might keep the wider deal alive while the public’s attention drifts elsewhere.
You found $10? A couple of months ago I found a $20 bill. On the sidewalk.
I thought that never happened.
But I see that New Iskander topped me.
It’s not quite definitive, but here’s a blurb:
American ports are money losers. They are years behind the state of the art, largely because the longshoremen’s unions won’t let them modernize (because efficiencies mean fewer longshoremen). That’s why all the American companies sold out their port interests years ago, and why DPW and a few other mega-internationals are running them now – the efficiencies that a larger port operator can offer to the shipping companies can make up for the loss of efficiencies inherent in US port operations.
Hey, there are clear security issues with the ports. The boondoggle that is “Homeland Security” could do with steering a bunch of money in that direction. However, none of those issues will be exacerbated by having DPW run operations instead of P&O (or Halliburton).
I think you’re misreading the law. I posted about it here, in the GD thread. Basically, it’s CFIUS that decides if the mandatory 45-day investigation kicks in. They said it didn’t, by voting unanimously to approve it.
I certainly missed the part where a single argument of mine was debunked.
There were two things I did in that thread. The first was that I expressed doubts that the Bush Administration had actually done its homework on the ports issue, since doing their policy homework ain’t their strong suit. Eventually that turned into a claim that they in fact hadn’t. The second was to venture an opinion on whether we should go through with the deal itself on the security merits, based on what was known.
On the first point - whether the Bushies actually did enough checking to see whether there was a security threat - I had a cite to the effect that they didn’t. What did you have? Zilch. An “interagency review” whose locus of responsibility was everywhere and nowhere, with still no evidence that even one of those agencies actually did a genuine review. Unless you’ve come up with something since that thread petered out.
On the question of whether the deal should or shouldn’t go through, based on security concerns, I had cites for that too. Admittedly, here there were cites on both sides, but I can’t recall any of your cites ever addressing the specifics of one of mine. But I was quite aware that I hadn’t refuted you there, either, which was why I expressed my conclusions as opinion, in a post titled, “My position on the ports deal”.
I certainly hope you haven’t debunked my opinion, because I know for a fact it really is my opinion based on the available facts.
So exactly what did you ‘debunk’, John? Some peripheral crap about that Digby quote? I don’t think you even managed that, but that was a side issue that had nothing to do with the main thrust of the thread, so it really doesn’t matter. If you want to say you debunked it, then you did. But so what, y’know?
I am guardedly happy about this.
For once, Bush didn’t get his way. He always seems to get his way and Congress doesn’t lift a finger to stop him. It’s good to see Congress finally say “NO!” after Bush stamps his feet and throws a tantrum.
However, I have a sneaking suspicion that this operation will get turned over to Halliburton now that Dubai has pulled out.
That’s a stunning claim. I’ll quote your quote (thanks, btw)
Emphasis added.
So the Bush admin’s position is that this merger could not possibly affect national security in any way shape or form? This sounds legal in a narrow sense, but highly dubious policy-wise. Even defenders of the deal such as Richard Falkenrath say that terminal ownership is a low priority, not that it has no bearing national security at all.
Again, the issue is whether the merger deserves a freaking 45 day review.
Look, I admit that I’m backpedaling a little regarding legalities. And it appears that outside experts are far more concerned about other homeland security issues, regarding ship search, chemical and nuclear power plants. But I think that the text of the law only underlines the Bush admin’s lack of due diligence in this case. In the end, cutting corners didn’t favor anybody.
Another right-winger to also announce that he is in complete agreement with Dio.
Sheesh, does 9/11 mean that we have to look over the shoulder of every Muslim person from now on?