Of course. But DPW is one of the bigger ones, and we would have had much more leverage if they had operations in the US. These guys were willing to bend over backwards to make the deal work. The may still cooperate, but we lost a lot of leverage. I’m not saying that should make or break the deal, but it’s yet one more dimensions to this issue.
It’s certainly possible to exagerate the effect this will have, but I don’t think it’s unreasonable to say that many people react to $$ issues more readily than they do to a prison scandal. And Dubai is all about business-- it’s not some backwater place teeming with fundamentalist angst. They are critical to our military presense in the M.E., and it doesn’t make sense to just kick them around like a red-headed stepchild. I’m less concerned about how “Arabs” will react to this than how it will affect our future relations with Dubai. The M.E. isn’t exaclty overflowing with Arab countries that have moderate regimes trying to be good partners with the West.
Perhaps a public relations firm would advise them to change their name to the UGE (United Gulf Emirates).
No analogy is perfect. My main point is to emphasize that “incoming inspection”, while necessary to some extent, is not the end of the road in making sure our ports are secure. It’s the most primitive form of quality control, not the be all and end all that some politicians seem to be assuming.
Well, it is great fun to watch, sort of like a disaster flick.
But hold on. It’s not reasonable to expect majorities to be news specialists: after all, they have their life to live. Nor is it especially constructive.
Here’s the point: disengaged voters who get their news from the TV box are the reality. We should devise an electoral system that takes it into account. One that vastly deweights “primaries”.
Specifically, I’m suggesting that GW Bush and Jimmy Carter for that matter really lacked the appropriate experience for the job. Remember that “experience” denotes not only “potential skill”, but is also a useful filter for intransigent incompetence.
I would furthermore suggest that those who tapped W’s shoulder (former secretary of state George Schultz among them) did a disservice to the country. Many of them should have known better or made it their business to know better.
Sigh. I truly believe that the W Bush admin is an anomoly, and that most Republican administrations would have published a thorough (and thoroughly critiqued) security review years ago. That’s the way things should work.
Easy access to port facilities. Security seals rarely checked to see if they’re broken or missing. Crummy documentation. And on. And on.
Look, I expected to be learning about such things in 2002, 2003 and even 2004. What’s sad is that this sort of thing comes out only after this eyerolling news story, in a local newspaper out of Tacoma, WA.
And I’m guessing that neither of us know even the basics of chemical plant or nuke security adequacy.
Anyway. Does anyone know who’s going to be running the operations now? The security has always been the same, and will be the same no matter who’s running the logistics.
DPW is running them now. They bought the leases this week. I think they committed to sell them within in 30 days, but if they can’t get a decent price I wouldn’t be surprised if they “give themselves” an extension.
One has to wonder what the leases are worth now, since I doubt any foreign company is going to bid for them, and foreign companies represent the lions share of this industry.
Another litany of port vulnerabilities in the AP article Study Warns of Lapses at U.S. Ports. The previously undisclosed $75 million study by Homeland Security detailed the following:[ul]
[li]A warehouse in Maine that was considered even less secure than overseas ports such as Turkey, Pakistan or Brazil,[/li][li]no records of even cursory inspections by a Guatemala coffee exporter (to Starbucks!),[/li][li]Brazilian truckdrivers parking cargo in slums,[/li][li]uncooperative countries not participating in study: it’s the US’s problem,[/li][li]Problems with protective fences and gates, surveillance cameras and emergency plans in NJ,[/li][li]Tacoma gets accolades.[/li][/ul] Thinking it over, I’m somewhat more concerned with the testimony cited in my previous post.
I’m really getting curious on “The Big Picture” of this whole thing. And I hope those that declare the DPW deal to be dangerous can help answer it. How many years did P&O operate the ports? What company operated them before they took over? How long have American ports been run by foreign countries?
And why, in Og’s name, hasn’t port security been in American control? Why was P&O allowed to control port security for so long without a peep from Schumer and Clinton??!?
Why is this now an issue? Why didn’t we have an uproar 2 years ago? Where was the outrage then that foreign countries controlled our ports?
Oh, sure, you can say this deal and any other deal never relinquished security to a foreign country, but that doesn’t matter.
We have something to bitch about. And that’s what makes people happy.
But the questions still linger.
Nice try. This dustup is not due to insanity by Democrats, though they are seizing a political opportunity (I’m shocked, SHOCKED!!) to drive a wedge between the GOP and the President. If the Republican base was not so terrified of Arabs, and holding their Republican representatives’ feet to the fire to kill the deal, this wouldn’t even make page one. This is not the fault of Schumer and Clinton, it is the lack of political will of Frist and Hastert, Blunt and Boehner, et al, ad nauseum, to stand up to the irrational fears of their constituency. To try to paint this as a failure by the Democrats is to ignore the the fact that your party is the cause of all this.
That said, the big picture is that Bush Rove Cheney figured that homeland defense was an exercise in futility: it just wasn’t practical. So they focussed on waving big sticks abroad in the hope that the bad guys would cower. (Catch phrase: they focussed on “state supported terrorism”.) Never mind that Al Queda is more like an NGO - Non Governmental Organization. Never mind that, to put it bluntly, the US military is too weak to swat every middle income country that bares its teeth absent strong and respected allies OR a draft.
So homeland security became another Washington boondoggle: funds were allocated based on population, rather than realistic vulnerability. The hard work of executing a bottom-up review of our ports, chemical plants, nuke plants – in short our infrastructure – was left undone until a less blinkered administration came to power.
The bottom line, IMO: Bush is correct on the merits of the issue, but blew it because he’s gotten complacent about the notion that he is the Guardian Of National Security[tm] and the Democrats are [cue melodramatic villain theme] Spineless Appeasers.
