contradicts the description of the CFIUS on its own web site
hmmmm…
White House Fact Sheet on oxymoron…
- a governmental press release, hence doubly exempt from fair…:*
PBS’s News Hour w/ Jim Leher has a good segment on this issue today. They interview 2 experts on Container Ports, who put this in context much better than the mindless politicians we’ve been hearing from in most of the news stories. I highly recommend anyone interested in this topic to tune into that show sometime today.
Bottom line, both guys weren’t much concerned with operational ownership, but do indeed point out what we should be talking about instead-- improvements the US needs to make in container inspections on our side.
In Shodanworld, to automatically, reflexively, unthinkingly defend anything and everything that Bush does qualifies as “patriotism.” :rolleyes:
It’s just another application of IOKIARDI.
I still prefer “IOKIYAR.” 
I think on this particular subject you’re both right :D.
Daniel
Hell, I’ve been talking about that every time I turn around. Anytime I need to explain why I don’t believe this Administration’s serious about actually combatting terrorism (as opposed to using it as a political weapon against cowed Dems), it’s on the list I reel off.
I’m glad we’ve finally got a teachable moment on this one and all, but I’d rather use it as a teachable moment for making this crowd of bozos do their homework. Maybe then they’d be a bit more scared to appoint more Heckuva Job Brownies to assorted positions, including the Fed, which is a really, really bad place for one.
If it comes down to a conversation about port security, I’m all for that; Bush’s line about how we don’t need to worry about security probably (please dear God let’s hope) wasn’t meant the way it sounded, but sometimes that’s what it seems like. Or, at least, it seems as if he’s looking for snakes in the refrigerator instead of in the crawl space: he may care about security, but he has no idea how to go about creating it.
Thing is, our security has nothing to do with whether this holding company has some interest in our ports. It has everything to do with the security policies we implement.
Daniel
This guy sure doesn’t seem qualified. How many Democrats voted against him? The article I read said “none”.
Sure, this is a reason to slam the Dems, I agree–but the Dems are in a difficult situation here. They’re a minority party, they’re desperately trying to recover from an image as obstructionists, they’re trying to find a message to which they can cohere, they’re facing an incredibly cronyist administration. Is some dumbass whom the administration appoints for corrupt reasons really the battle you expect them to choose?
Maybe they should, but I can understand why they wouldn’t. The Administration are the real culprits here; I don’t think this is really a good time to play the “The Dems did it too” card.
Daniel
gitfiddle quoted the following LA times column:
Here, which said, “Besides, the same Dubai company bought CSX’s American port business in 2005, and nobody seemed to care then. So, why now?”
That was a patently misleading claim.
Here’s the press release from Dubai Ports World:
http://www.dpa.co.ae/news/news_24.html
"CSX World Terminals is a leading international container terminal developer and operator with operations in Asia , Europe , Australia and Latin America . "
No mention of “North America”. There was no uproar because the CSX wasn’t selling any US port operations, or so it appears.
I don’t blame gitfiddle for this error. I blame the author of the piece, Jonah Goldberg and his LA Times editors. A correction is in order, I think.
(I worked out the above with google. Clarifications welcome).
Yes, Bush is the key culprit here. But the Dems had no problem voting against Alito, so what was the problem here? This is completely under the radar, so I don’t buy the excuse of not wanting to be seen as obstructionist. Not in light of the Alito vote.
With all due respect, Supreme Court justice votes are high-profile; most other Presidential appointees fall under the rubrik of “Vote yes in the abscence of corruption, cronyism, sheer incompetence and the like”. I doubt whether there are many pressure groups tracking Fed appointees.
Here’s a Bloomberg article.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=71000001&sid=aOtbRiHZ0zqQ&refer=fed_watch
Warsh sure is a stinker: he doesn’t even have regulatory experience. Is he intended to be a mole? I don’t know what the Dems were thinking. Here’s the roster:
http://banking.senate.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=Information.Membership Membership includes Senators Hagel [R], Elizabeth Dole [R], Charles “Mouth” Schumer of NY [D], John Sununu [R], and Chris Dodd [D] of Connecticut.
Oh yeah, the OP:
Here’s a quote about McCain: McCain, who is considering a run for the presidency in 2008, didn’t join the chorus of critics. ``I think we ought to trust the president, at least to the degree that we should have hearings and oversight and examine this issue, before we make a judgment,’’ he said on CNN.
That’s my hope. Have hearings, some of them closed-door if necessary. Find out who signed off on the deal and why. Then, if appropriate, replace the sorts of safeguards that typically are applies in such deals, such as requiring the firm to keep records in the US. Personnel agreements (i.e. citizenship restrictions for key supervisors in the US) would also be appropriate. Personally, I suspect that Dubai Ports World will play ball.
Yeah, I’m pretty pissed at the Dems too, on this one. Believe me, Sarbanes’ office is going to get an earful from me today. He’s one of my Senators, and he’s on that committee, so he joined in the rubber stamp.
While the nomination of such an empty suit for such an important position is certainly the worse offense, it still doesn’t get the Dems off the hook for not opposing. You’d think they would have learned their lesson from having waved Heckuva Job Brownie himself through his committee hearing in about 40 very tame minutes. They haven’t. I’m disgusted, and pissed.
How can they run against the GOP for appointing people like this, if they won’t at least make their opposition known? Why should Joe Voter believe the Dems are going to run the government any better, if this is the sort of evidence the Dems give?
It really does drive me up the freakin’ wall. When I say the Dems need to be an opposition party, and it doesn’t mean moving to the left, this is exactly the sort of thing I mean.
The fact that they voted against Alito is my point: the invested a tremendous amount of energy into the effort to oppose Alito, even making calls from their ski resorts to do so. Seriously, pretty big effort. That’s a battle they picked.
This one isn’t. Perhaps they should’ve–but there’s just so many battles for them to choose from.
Daniel
Two problems I have with this way of looking at it:
- 2006: the Bush Administration, regardless of what particular scandals may be afflicting it at a given moment, is going to keep on doing stuff like this. If the Dems can only fight back on one or two things each calendar quarter, they’re going to get their asses nailed to the wall. Nevermind, they already are. The battles are there, whether they like it or not. If they set ‘concede’ as their default position, which is what they’ve done, the Bush Administration will start off by getting 95% of what it wants.
If you believe the Bush Administration is largely taking us down the wrong road, which is what the Dems believe, that means the Dems aren’t even much of a speed bump on that road.
- 1994: part of what fueled that year’s GOP win was Gingrich & Co. taking on the Dems on practically everything while the Dems were still in the majority. It didn’t seem to be a problem for them then; why’s it a problem for the Dems now?
as well you should be, given that Jomementum Lieberman (happy 64th today, Joe–may your next birthday be a private citizen’s birthday, and may your first child be a male child" was the cop waving the traffic through at the time–ie, even whenthey get their hand in control of something the dems still can only jerk off.
Help Ned Lamont http://nedlamont.com/,
lieberman’s worst nightmare–a real dem primary opponient.
Fair enough criticisms; I think I agree with both of them. I just want to make sure that we’re clear that tu quoque doesn’t work here, given the different situations of the Dems and the Pubs; I also want to make sure we’re clear on what the Dem reaction seems to be, even if it’s only so that we can roundly mock it.
Daniel
The whole maritime industry 9including ships, ports, cargo containers0 is riddled with holes: take the ports; in ports where the longshoremen’s Union is in control, by paying the right people, you could get access to any part of a port. Or the cruise ship industry: The Coast guard has admitted that they have NO way to screen cruise ships. Suppose OBL decides to take out a few thousand Americans; he just sends in a few terrorist suicide bombers disguised as tourists-they can get on at any criibean port. The ship (carrying 2000 people) blows up in mid-ocean…and nobody has a clue who did it.
As for cargo containers; we can (at best) inspect maybe 5%-there are something like 12 million of them unloaded every day.
So whether the UAE or a British company runs the ports, the whole thing is an accident waiting to happen.
No, I don’t. And I suspect you would not be able to find any prominent, non-banned conservatives (which I presume you mean by the Usual Suspects) on these boards who have uncritically supported everything Bush has ever done.
Regards,
Shodan
I sent George Dalton, the General Counsel of DPW, a note expressing my displeasure at the recent uproar (I’m just wierd that way), and this is part of his response.
I am convinced that if American citizens consider the actual facts we are sending out they will understand that DP World is a reputable and legitimate company. In fact, yesterday in London we were awarded the terminal operator of the year by Lloyd’s List which is a very respected industry publication. Dubai is a valued ally of the United States. At our port facility in Dubai, we have been serving the US Navy for over 30 years and both the Navy and US Customs have 24/7 representatives present in our port there. We did this voluntarily to enhance securtity and are proud of our security record in these turbulent times.*
Yeah, I know he works for DPW so his opinion is biased, but I find the bit about the Navy and US Customs representatives fairly reassuring.