Look. I didn't know anything about it when we approved it. Feel safe?

Great Debates
1

Ok. This is in regards to the whole UAE-port fiasco that’s currently popping up in newspapers everywhere. Here’s an example of one such article.

I’m curious to hear y’all’s thoughts on this, most importantly the rationale of “whoops! I didn’t know about that till after it was done in my name.” I mean, where do you even begin? It’s just really sad. I’m sorry. This isn’t the most ferocious debate-starter, I know, but—anyone? Does ANYONE feel better after that explanation?

See, it’s not that the UAE is in charge of said ports. Think the British were before hand. Of course, a few more terrorists come from the UAE, but…

This is what got me: IGNORANCE is actually the rebuttal. I mean, you are leading the nation, right? Right? And don’t say “he’s the president, he’s busy.” Yeah. You can pull that on domestic issues, where he really seems out of depth, but not internationally.

Ok, you can say that. Only if you really want to.

2

UAE-port fiasco, security-wise: probably OK. I’m not without some concerns (will the civil rights of all people be respected as per American tradition & law? is someone in our government verifying how good a job these folks do?), but I’m pretty amenable to internationalist authority where principles and process count more than nationality.

BUT.

UAE-fiasco, political-acumen-wise. WHAT THE FUCK WERE THEY THINKING? OK, immediately after the events of 9/11, George W Bush set a very good tone, one that was the antithesis of “Dem Ay-rab Mooslimz did this, get 'em all”. But subsequent politics, especially the invasion of Iraq, depended very highly on a public lack of discernment of fine differences. AND this is the party that is for some time now thoroughly distrustful of the United Nations and of international political-military authority in general. No, by God and by Golly, the United States must remain sovereign. No furriners gonna tell us what to do, or what not to do.

I can’t imagine this is playing all that well in the so-called Red States. I doubt they’d approve of a UK company doing our port security (although that would probably fly better than if it were France), but an Islamic Arabic nation from the Middle East?

And then, yeah, first he says “This is a perfectly legitimate means of securing our ports and if anyone in Congress insists on getting in my way with a law restricting who we contract with, I’ll veto it!”, then turns around and says “Oh, and actually I just heard about this myself, about the same time that you did, other folks in my administration put this through and didn’t tell me about it”.

Yeah, that’s gonna play real well. I detest the current administration most passionately, so there’s a hell of a lot of schadenfreude going on here, but man, they are really laying down chapter after chapter of The Gang that Couldn’t <ahem> Shoot Straight lately, aren’t they?

3

No. Bush did not say it was OK because he didn’t know about it. He said it was OK, and he admited he didn’t know about it. But these decisons do not require presidential approval, so what’s the big deal other than a political blunder? There’s an entire beaurocracy set up to take care of these things, which are essentially business decisions.

Wann change the procudure? Fine. But there is nothing untoward about what happened, just your misinterpretting of what Bush actually said.

4

In the midst of all the outrage, indignation, and bipartisan vows to overturn the deal, I’d like to hear exactly what the problem is. The articles I’ve read thus far have opponenets referring to it as a security risk, without explaining why. The implicit assumption is that having a company headquartered in a Muslim country (or at least an Arab country) running some of our port operations is a bad thing. Why should it be? I’ve seen zero evidence that Dubai Ports or the U.A.E. government is linked to terrorists, or to any intermediaries that works for terrorists. (The same certainly can’t be said for Saudi Arabia.)

If people want to operate under the assumption that any business deal with the Arab world is a security threat, it’s a little bit late for that. We’ve been buying a certain liquid from several Arab countries for the last few decades, and we’re not likely to stop anytime soon. Dependence on foreign oil would appear to be a bigger security threat than anything that Dubai Ports can do.

And yes, Dubya should have been more clear and consistent in answering these questions, rather than giving one half-assed answer and then contradicting it with a different half-assed answer. But that’s wishful thinking. Everyone has come to expect this ridiculous fumbling from the Bush Administration.

5

After checking the info, I can see the administration has a point, in the head that is.

It may be a good deal, but as it is typical for this administration the way it got to this decision is what is killing the deal:

[Bolding mine]

Now Bush and other important members of the administration are claiming that they did know about the deal.

Bush mentioned that everyone that was somebody already checked the deal, I guess this confirms it: Bush is a nobody.

6

I mean:

7

Well, that’s an interesting new piece of info, and it could in fact be incriminating. But… let’s take a look at that actual legislation and see if it is really applicable in this case. I haven’t seen it, but will spend some time tomorrow looking for it. Don’t automatically assume that the news article got all the details right. And, we can’t automatically assume that if this went to the prez as part of the 45 day review process, that anything would be different.

Note that Wikipedia says the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States “reviews acquisitions of U.S. companies or operations by foreign entities”. Since the operation in question was already owned by a foreign entity, there was no change in status. Now, I’m not saying this is difinitely a reason that the 45 day period might not apply, but let’s make sure we fully understand all the details before talking about points being inserted in anyone’s heads. If we jump to conclusions, those points might end up sticking out of our heads.

8

Well you’ve badly mischaracterized what Bush was saying. There’s no “whoops” involved. “Whoops” would mean, “Oh, yeah, this is a bad idea. I didn’t know about it.” He’s said he wasn’t aware of the deal until after it was inked, and has also said he supports it vigorously and will do whatever it takes to get the deal completed. That’s a lot different than a “whoops.”

The U.S. Federal Government is a monsterous organization, the President couldn’t possibly be involved with every business deal the government conducts, it’s asinine to make that assumption.

I’ll admit at first thought, I wasn’t too sure about this port deal. But then I read more about it, and it really isn’t uncommon for foreign companies to own American ports.

And from what I understand about how port facilities work, the government is still going to be doing their regular security procedures, and the port facilities in question are already operating right now as they will be when the takeover is approved. I don’t understand that any major personnel changes are going to happen. So the complaints seem unjustified, and possibly unfair. If we’re going to make any progress in the middle east I don’t think it’d help if we said, “You know, we want to get on better terms with you guys, but no way can you Arabs own one of our ports.” It’d be one thing if we had a “no foreign ownership of ports” standing policy, but that isn’t the case, a British company owned these ports previously and several other ports in the United States are owned by foreign-based companies.

What is worrying is how lax port security is in general. If people want to sneak something in through a U.S. port they sure as hell don’t need to have Arab ownership of the port to get it done, considering the vast majority of cargo is never thoroughly checked according to several news reports that have come out in recent days.

9

This deal certainly looks bad, but I’m not convinced that it IS bad, and I’m concerned that Congress is appealing to a sense of paranoia.

I’m also not sure what to make of this newest AP story. It seems odd that the administration would make a “secret” deal with this company - including allowing them to ignore some normal procedures while making other requirements - without the President being involved.

10

I didn’t mean to imply, as John Mace put it, that Bush said was OK because Bush didn’t know about it, or, as Martin Hyde put it, that Bush’s statement about not knowing about it earlier meant he was backpedaling away from approving of it.

What I meant was that he first came across in solid support of something many Americans (for not necessarily good reasons, but in keeping with the rather un-nuanced thinking this administration has thrived on) are very leery of, and then shortly after that said he’d only just heard about it. So for many Americans, that’s going to read as “Oh, I see you’re giving this matter all the attention and contemplation you think it deserves before telling us we’re silly to be worried?” :dubious:

11

Politics is just weird, sometimes.

All of a sudden various parties with a political axe to grind are squawking about the cavalier way the Administration has compromised our security by not intervening in the paper transfer of port management assets from one foreign company to another. I do wish these parties had been a little more vocal when this same administration was tub-thumping for the invasion of Iraq, which (IMO) has done far more damage to US security interests than any 100 such business transactions is ever likely to do.

12

Oh, in case it’s not clear I’m referring to the general tone of criticism reported in the media, not to the comments in this thread. I’ve got no problem with criticism for what seems like a rather typical fecklessness in the administration’s dealing with this issue, but it seems like if there was ever such a thing as a tempest in a teapot, this is it.

13

I’m not assuming he gives the say so on every government deal. That would be asinine. What I am saying is that the reaction is asinine, on the administration’s part. I don’t enjoy when the boss just basically admits he doesn’t know about deals made in his name. You’re the big man? Take some goddamn responsibility. I’m not even criticizing the deal itself, just that the response is childish & ridiculous. No, this isn’t a heinous scandal, it’s just something that pisses me off. I’ve had bosses like that, guys who just feign obliviousness or who are, in fact, actually oblivious to the goings on below them and working for them or believing in their abilities is damn near impossible.

14

Agree fully. I tried to explain myself above—hopefully I succeeded. It’s more of a personally infuriating thing than an “I fear for our safety” sort of thing.

15

My comments were directed at the OP, not at your post. Sorry if that was confusing.

16

I’m curious too. From some of the right wing sites of I’ve visited, there does seem to be some frothing at the mouth over this, and conseratives pissed at Bush(as opposed to everything else he’s done, which they are usally fine with).

It tends to confirm my belief that among a certain portion of the right wing, there’s the belief only thing that’s worse then a liberal is a muslim/arab.

17

That’s a variation on the Scooter Libby defense; namely: “I’m way too busy to remember what secrets I authorized the leaking of.”

18

The way I see it, the real problem here is twofold.

The first is something I already mentioned in a different thread: It’s yet another example of the push/pull of power between the executive and legislative branches. Congress is less irritated by the fact of a foreign entity, even an Arab entity, taking control of port operations than it is by the fact that the administration, yet again, neglected to keep them in the loop. The Bush team has gotten far too used to simply ignoring the folks on the Hill, they say, and this is, at its root, an attempt to jerk a bit on the administration’s leash. The rhetoric about foreign governments is, I believe, largely incidental.

However, the secondary element goes to what Marley says, and that’s the naked opportunism of the uproar, insofar as Congress is basically taking advantage of widespread xenophobia without explicitly buying into it. The people are nervous and twitchy, because the Bush team has spent several years cultivating public fear. “Anthrax! Iraq! Mushroom cloud!” and on and on, using terrorism as a bludgeon to get their way on a variety of issues.

And now Bush, this morning, actually comes out and says “people don’t need to worry about security”? Is he actually surprised that he’s reaping what he’s sown? He and his people have gone to great lengths to establish swarthy boogeymen behind every corner, and they’ve built up their electoral success bringing in politicos who trade in exactly this sort of emotional imagery — and they’re befuddled when they can’t get any traction on telling people that this particular boogeyman doesn’t exist? They’re shocked when their TWAT allies, who were elected or re-elected almost entirely on the basis of national security, won’t get off message?

I personally have no problem with the deal itself; a multinational corporation is a multinational corporation, and the Dubai firm’s executives are a motley band of expats from around the globe. If anything, as far as the business arrangement goes, it’s much more interesting that the port-management industry has been largely abandoned by American competitors following a downturn a few years ago, so now pretty much all the major firms in this market are foreign-owned. There are also legitimate questions about Secretary Snow’s financial involvement.

But on an admittedly baser level, I can’t resist giggling in delight to see the Bush cadre’s strategy for accumulating power and quashing dissent blowing up so dramatically in their face.

19

I personally wish more attention would be focused on the financial benefits that Administration officials stand to reap from this deal. But if this deal brings more attention to the long-neglected issue of port security, I won’t complain about that, either.

I don’t think it’s a Middle Eastern country in general as much as it’s the UAE in particular.

You do remember that two of the 9/11 hijackers came from the UAE, don’t you? And that the UAE had ties to the Taliban, and has served as a transshipment point for nuclear armaments to North Korea, Libya, and Iran?