Who links to me?
No need for a long post on this one. Lots of other people have already gone into lots of detail on this. This article in today’s Washington post titled Bush Threatens Veto Against Bid To Stop Port Deal is one example. The deal no matter how innocuous it may seem just doesn’t make sense.
After years of experts telling us that are ports are vulnerable the Bush admin decides to turn over operational services at several US ports to a company that has been acquired by the United Arab Emirates government. The UAE is no doubt an ally in the war against Islamofascism however there are many Al Qaeda sympathizers in the UAE’s government, banking system and general population.
It just seems an unnecessary risk to me to allow this to happen. It also doesn’t make sense politically. It gives ammunition to GWB’s opponents.
The Irony of course is that some Dems are now clamoring to allow Halliburton (the only American company capable of doing so) to run these ports.
Btw I think this post qualifies as criticism of the Bush administration. This ends any argument of my Liberal credentials. If you have any issue with that talk to Glenn Greenwald.
Linking Posts
“however there are many Al Qaeda sympathizers in the UAE’s government, banking system and general population.”
This is also true of Israel, Turkey, France, Great Britain, Germany, the Netherlands, Denmark, Spain, etc. But I don’t see you calling for a ban on their companies doing business in the US, Ugly.
Is it perhaps that you have something against… omg… muzzies in general?
Comment by Tiberius Gracchus � February 22, 2006 @ 1:05 pm
I think the big story is more of the unseemly cronyism, and conflict of interests involved.
I don’t have the info right on hand but Snowe and another player David Sanborn have ties to the company…Sanborn was an executive for the company…now he is part of the decision to sell to the company.
But this is par for the course in the Bush administration…no oversight because people from the various industries are appointed to watch over the particular industries.
A former mine owner is appointed to watch over mines and we wind up with relaxed mine regulations and deaths.
A former Executive is appointed to watch over ports and he agrees to sell port control to HIS former EMPLOYER.
~Foo Fighter~
Comment by ~Foo Fighter~ � February 23, 2006 @ 7:10 am
if you had worded it or argued it a little better I would say good point TG. I am not for banning the UAE from doing business in the US. It just doesn’t seem to make sense to allow them to run operations in our ports.
which takes us into foo’s very poor point imo. First of all Foo the US is not selling the ports or the operations of the ports to DPW. It is allowing DPW to keep the business of British company Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation (P & O). P&O currently already operates these american ports. DPW has already bought P&O and has already been approved to run several other ports around the world that P&O used to run. So the cronyism charge is bogus.
Back to TG’s poor attempt at making a point. I don’t think it is ok to allow any foreign company (particularly one owned by a foreign government such as DPW)to run our ports. The bad news is 30% of our ports are already controlled by foreign companies including state owned operators like China.
So the larger issue is is it a good idea to allow any foreign company particularly companies owned by foreign governments to run our ports of entry?
The other bad news is there is no single company in the US capable of doing so.
btw the one company that could run these ports is……Haliburton.
Comment by The Ugly American � February 23, 2006 @ 7:40 am
I know they aren’t selling the ports…
People with TIES to a company should not be part of the decision making process as a GOVERNEMENT appointee. But it IS par for the course.
A second salient point is that the Administration doesn’t feel that it should be questioned regarding oversight. If anything this Administration has demonstrated that it needs a LOT of oversight.
I just want someone to actually look into the deal and if it flies it flies…fine.
But I don’t like that the deal (in Bush’s mind) is supposed to fly just because Bush and some appointees with possible conflicts of interest said so.
Understand?
~Foo Fighter~
Comment by ~Foo Fighter~ � February 23, 2006 @ 8:17 am
Yes I understand that you want a different standard to apply to this administration than has applied to all others previously.
This is how every other port deal we have has been reviewed and approved. Do you understand that?
I have no problem with a person working for a company and then later making some type of regulatory decisions about that company as long as they are not the sole decision maker and as long as that person can be trusted to be ethical in their decision making process.
Having experts in a particular industry making decisions about that industry is a good thing.
This happens in every industry in every association every day (something I know something about not just in government ). Some people are ethical and some are not.
That is the important factor imo.
Comment by The Ugly American � February 23, 2006 @ 9:29 am
OK, so it’s not just muzzies you have a problem with. Fair enough. I wouldn’t want the French running the ports, either.
I wonder what kind of shitstorm would have happened had the contract gone to Haliburton? Prolly less than the current fubar…
Comment by Tiberius Gracchus � February 23, 2006 @ 9:41 am
There. I said it.
My first direct political commentary on DSOTW
LOL
Comment by Tiberius Gracchus � February 23, 2006 @ 10:43 am
Obviously it’s not a normal transaction as it was heading for approval without the required expanded review due a sale to a foreign entity.
As for oversight of industries by industry insiders…it only works if congress is watching these guys…and they aren’t.
Don’t be nieve regarding the current state of affairs in Washington…it isn’t an outrageous idea that this Sanborn guy left DPW just to facilitate this sale in his appointee role. Like many of these revolving door outrages compensation is deferred until the industry guy leaves their post and returns to the industry.
~Foo Fighter~
Comment by ~Foo Fighter~ � February 23, 2006 @ 11:52 am
Yes I understand that you want a different standard to apply to this administration than has applied to all others previously.
So much for Bush’s claim of having a post 9/11 mentality!!!
Comment by question authority � February 23, 2006 @ 12:20 pm
actually Chuck Schumer asked for Haliburton to run the port just the other night on one of the talk shows.
Comment by The Ugly American � February 23, 2006 @ 1:15 pm
Lesser of two evils= Cheny-burton
Comment by question authority � February 23, 2006 @ 1:53 pm
The bottom line is there is no other reason then money for this transaction. Americans, no matter what the administration says, aren’t incompetent. In a time when people want good paying jobs there is no reason to let the UAE do this. Conservatives are trying to defend this decision, but the reality is there is no defense. I have to mention that the timing is more then beautiful. After taking control of the Supreme Court they are now showing their true colors. They believe they can do anything and can’t be stopped. On another point,why is it that we can hire American mercenaries in Iraq, but even these guys aren’t “comptetent” enough to defend our own country?
Comment by moral aptitude � February 23, 2006 @ 3:20 pm
you do understand that Americans will still be doing the work right?
You do understand this company is run by Americans, Brits and Ausies right?
You do understand they run ports in dozens of countries around the world right?
I am against this deal but not for the insane conspiracy theory reasons you believe in your fantasy world.
Comment by The Ugly American � February 23, 2006 @ 5:00 pm
So tell us again, why you are against the deal? Sounds like your for it now…
Having some vague uneasy feeling about it is hardly reason enough to be against it I should think.
/shrug
I’m against the idiocy of the Administration’s handling of the matter.
Comment by Tiberius Gracchus � February 23, 2006 @ 5:08 pm
[…] Yon Milblogging Mudville Gazette Same Ole' Different Day Smash The Fourth Rail Recent Posts The Real Deal on The Port Deal LA Times Finally Takes Reiner to Task What Is Really Going On In Iraq? / Weekend Open TrackbackSurrenders! ACLU Renews Hatred For America Syndicate The Site Site Information The Real Deal on The Port Deal Filed by The Ugly American on February 25th, 2006 at 08:42 under War OnTerror […]
Pingback by The Real Ugly American.com » Blog Archive » The Real Deal on The Port Deal � February 25, 2006 @ 8:42 am
I am not for it, but after hearing a lot more facts I am keeping an open mind.
Comment by The Ugly American � February 25, 2006 @ 8:18 pm