And the walls came a tumblin' down.

And the walls came a tumblin' down

And the people who actually run the security at the ports won't really be affected.

Not that they're all that efficient, but this is kind of a lead balloon.

I don't like it.

Just not that worried about it.

Plus, if this turns into a screw up -- we might actually get the people who make it hard for us to have sensible security in our ports to make it possible.

Haha great headline! I hadn't thought of the uniter/divider thing. Seems he's finally done it by proposing such a breach of homeland security.

Next on his list of uniting all, returning ownership of the US to England.

I find myself in the awkward position of defending the President on this one. From what I've read, and there's a lot of crap going around on this one so it's not everything, these ports will be managed by Dubai Ports but security is still handled by the CPB and the Maritime Administration. In short we are not turning over security to a foreign state-owned company but letting them handle shipping scheduling for these six ports. So what?

What is happening now is a number of politicians (and others) are protesting this because it is politically expedient in an election year, yet the message that goes out to the world is "we don't trust a single one of you Aye-rabs". These are supposed to be our allies in fighting terrorism, are they not?

However the administration was quite stupid to trot Gonzalez out there to tell us he couldn't tell us anything about the "secret" approval process. God forbid they actually tell us something. But something Bush said today:

"It sends a terrible signal to friends around the world that it's OK for a company from one country to manage the port, but not a country that plays by the rules and has got a good track record from another part of the world,"

and I agree. Hey, middle east! We'd like you to trust us to bring our military in there, occupy your neighbors, and tell you how to govern, but if you want to handle some shipping over here under our rules and subject to our law enforcement and border protection scrutiny, forget it! We don't want your kind round here!

Today, former President Jimmy Carter proved, definitively, that this proposed port deal is a terrible idea: Carter endorsed the proposed deal.

I find myself agreeing, in principle, with MANTIS!!!

SOMEBODY SHOOT ME!!!!!!

Today, former President Jimmy Carter proved, definitively, that this proposed port deal is a terrible idea: Carter endorsed the proposed deal.

Its a shame its come down to this where we have to choose between insulting one of the more co-operative Middle East nations and Security.

This should have come to light sooner where it could have been stopped without creating such a diplomatic conundrum.

Wizbang subscription notification is sending blank emails. Don't know if you all realized this.

This violation of common sense should't have reached first base.

Lets vote to have Haliburton take the job.......

This violation of common sense should't have reached first base.

Lets vote to have Haliburton take the job.......

FOR THE LAST TIME,,, DEMOCRATS ARE AGAINST THIS PORT DEAL FOR COMPLETELY DIFFERENT REASONS THAN THE PUBBIES. THE REPUBLICANS WHO WANT TO QUASH THIS WANT TO DO SO BECAUSE THE GOP IS A RACIST PARTY THRU AND THRU... NOTHING TO DO WITH SECURITY. WE DEMOCRATS HAVE MUCH MORE NOBLE MOTIVES FOR OPPOSING THIS RISKY SCHEME. YES, THERE'S THE NATIONAL SECURITY ISSUE - BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY THE UAE IS NOT A SAFE PLACE FOR LGBTs. WHY SHOULD THEY BE REWARDED WITH THIS LUCRATIVE US GOVERNMENT CONTRACT??? IT SENDS THE WRONG MESSAGE TO MIDDLE EASTERN NATIONS. THE MESSAGE THAT IT IS OKEY DOKEY TO CRIMINALIZE LOVE!!! WE PROGRESSIVES URGE RESIDENT BUSH TO TURN OVER ALL US PORT OVERSIGHT TO A MORE MAINSTREAM ENTITY LIKE THE UNITED NATIONS.

KUCINICH`08

I know nothing about running ports, nothing about unloading or loading, nothing about port security. I do know Dubya and I trust him. Don't get you shorts in a twist over something we know little about.

I'd like to welcome the Left wing of the Democrat party to the recognition that there IS an enemy out there. It's been more than 4 years since that enemy brought the war to our shores, but better late than never.

How many times in the last 5 years has Bush really dug in his heels on something? This is very anomalous behavior for him - and I'm wondering if there isn't something pretty damn serious behind it.

Like Wyguy, I'm puzzled but inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt here. Being President means you have a whole flood of information at your fingertips, and I'm thinking that there's something pretty damn important that he knows that's sparking this - and that he can't tell us for whatever reason. (Not that the media would be inclined to report it without a hell of a lot of spin first...)

Wish I knew what it was - but I'm thinking the reason's pretty high up there in importance.

J.

I don't see oposition as an anti-Arab stance. The UAE was a base for several 9/11 terrorists and has been an important conduit for delivery of nuclear components to North Korea and Iran.

We attacked and invaded Iraq over dubious ties to Al Qaeda, but we're going to turn over control of our ports to the UAE?

Ask yourself this: How would you feel if Bush signed a deal turning over management of major airports to them?

You can trust him if you want to, but I'd just as soon he have a psych eval!

Let's see:
1. President Bush is not very popular right now.
2. The 2006 elections are coming.
3. The Democrats will try to pin GOP legislators as mindless automatons of Bush:
"If you're against Bush, why vote for X?"
4. Bush makes several bonehead suggestions that the GOP shoots down.
5. The GOP stands on principle (in this case, security) over party loyalty.

Rove is a genius.

By the way, the Harriet Myers nomination was probably a ploy to getting the person he really wanted on the Supreme Court. This could be a bait-and-switch, too.

Hmmm.

Here's a clue for everyone.

Please identify the last great issue that united both Republicans and Democrats. Now identify if it turned out to be a complete piece of crap.

Campaign finance reform anyone?

You'd think Republicans would learn, that when Democrats become happy, that it's a warning sign that they're doing something really stupid.

Ya, a stupid descision on W's part.

What the hell was he thinking when he made the choice and now with his statement about vetoing a bill banning the port management.

Has he totally lost his mind or gone completely tonedeaf politically?

Hmmmm.

Ask yourself this: How would you feel if Bush signed a deal turning over management of major airports to them?

I wouldn't give a rat's ass because we're not talking about turning over the frigging *security* of those facilities. All a management company does is scheduling. Nothing more, nothing less.

Do you really give a damn when and where a ship gets it's sewage system flushed? That's what a port management company does. A port management company doesn't do security, that's the role of Department of Homeland Security. A port management company doesn't do cargo inspections, that's for DHS and customs. A port management company doesn't do ship inspections, that the role of the Coast Guard.

What an idiotic issue.

What I find very curious is that the same group of people who spouted so much nonsense about Trent Lott also did the same for Tom Delay, what was that about innocent until convicted, and now about this crap.

Color me unimpressed by the pundits of the Right.

it is the height of ignorance to compare the Meirs flap to this. Meirs was wholly unqualified to sit on the court, where Dubai Ports has been involved in port managment for decades, and has been servicing the 5th fleet for some time.

The knee-jerk reaction by so many to this deal boggles the mind. And this newfound sense of "security" at our ports is vastly overshadowed by the gaping whole that is our southern border. Alas, there is hardly any discussion by any Senator about that major problem, let alone 1/1000th of the media coverage.

While everyone seems poised to jump on this issue without doing an inkling of research into the deal, there is hope that cooler heads will prevail. I'm no big Bush supporter, but this assault on this deal reeks of xenophobia. We had no problem when the Brits managed the ports operations, but now we all of the sudden can't trust anyone from the ME? This form of guilt by association is the hallmark of bigotry, prejudice, and ignorance

Bush laments yesterday "One of my concerns, however, is mixed messages. And the message is, it's okay for a British company, but a Middle Eastern company -- maybe we ought not to deal the same way" Sounds reasonable but since his State of the Union address Bush has been warning us of our dependence on Middle Eastern oil, which he has wants to make a thing of the past" even though the US imports only 11% of its foreign oil from the Middle East..more from Mexico and Canada..He never talks about American dependence on Canadian or North Sea oil ..Raising constantly the 'Middle East spectre' and blurring the distinctions of nations in that region, he is now hoisted by his own rhetorical petard..I'd say

Actually, ed, I deleted "except security" because I thought that was a given, since the Port Authorities and Coast Guard will continue handling security.

But, if you think sewage is all port management handles, you're dumber than W. Hiring, scheduling, log-keeping, placement of ships, etc. It isn't all about what's in the ships. Now tell me you'll give them management of the airports!

As for motive, I don't see Bush as self-less enough to sabotage his own reputation (such as it is) in order to make the Congressional Republicans look good...to show that they're willing to stand up to, and publicly disagree with the President on something so important. I just don't see it.

I'm adding to my post above to clarify my position.

Will the Port Debacle wake up Congress to our biggest security flaw?

That being our virutaly unguarded Southern Border?

I've heard some really bizarre comparisons of the Dubai Ports World deal with the Harriet Miers nomination. It is the height of ignorance to compare the Meirs flap to this. Meirs was wholly unqualified to sit on the court, where Dubai Ports has been involved in port management for some time. Who do you think runs the ports that the 5th Fleet routinely pulls into?
The knee-jerk reaction by so many to this deal boggles the mind. And this newfound sense of "security" at our ports is vastly overshadowed by the gaping hole that is our southern border. So while our open borders Congress hems and haws over a port deal, it ignores the single largest security flaw that the nation faces. Alas, there is hardly any discussion by any Senator about that major problem, let alone anything close to 1/1000th of the media coverage. Hell there have been more stories on the Cheney shooting than the massive amounts of incursions by the Mexican military supported coyotes and drug runners to the south or the Arabs posing as Mexicans who are crossing the border.

While everyone seems poised to jump on this issue without doing an inkling of research into the deal, there is hope that cooler heads will prevail. The biggest mistake I continue to hear is that Dubai Ports World will take over Security for the ports, and this is fully incorrect. Coast Guard and Customs have absolute control of the ports security, as well as the Port Master who is more or less the liaison between the Port Management Company and the governmental agencies who oversee all US ports.

I'm no big Bush supporter, but this assault on this deal reeks of xenophobia. We had no problem when the Brits managed the ports operations, but now we all of the sudden can't trust anyone from the Middle East? This form of guilt by association is the hallmark of bigotry, prejudice, and ignorance.

Now if someone wants to raise valid concerns about the deal, do so and drop the emotional response. Words like "common sense" seem appropriate when looking at a deal of this magnitude, yet that same "common sense' is wholly absent when it comes to our border policies.

There are in my view legitimate concerns to be raised over this port deal. UAE has been a valuable ally in the War on Terror to their own detriment, but their banking ties to Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups should send up very large red flags. Still this isn't a nail in the coffin of this deal. The turnover of many US ports to this group is troubling in the fact that it will give them layout, and logistical details of our port systems that would not normally be made public to an outside company, and this is troubling as well.

I for one welcome a review of the deal, and I would like to see more security experts, not Congressmen, Media Pundits, and the rest of the MSM hackery's opinions on this deal. I do not for an instant trust Congress when it comes out so quickly on a deal like this, because its obvious that no one there has had the time to review the deal or its implications. So step back, look it over, analyze and report, but don't jump to conclusions immediately.

Hmmm.

But, if you think sewage is all port management handles, you're dumber than W. Hiring, scheduling, log-keeping, placement of ships, etc. It isn't all about what's in the ships. Now tell me you'll give them management of the airports!

Don't be an dumbass.

I used the example of sewage to show what was one of the tasks that a port management company does. I've written plenty on this subject in any number of comments so little more reading on your part would have shown this.

The simple fact is that there's nothing that a port management company does that should raise a red flag on this.

JLawson
"This is very anomalous behavior for him - and I'm wondering if there isn't something pretty damn serious behind it."

I think you nailed it with that statement. I instinctively feel that this is bad idea - giving "control" of our major ports to a Middle Eastern country while we are actively fighting a war in the Middle East.
But when I think beyond my gut reaction, it doesn't worry me so much as it perplexes me - I wonder also if there isn't a very real, very serious reason why this is not only a good idea, but a necessary one.

I think ultimately, the answer to any question about the war on terror is "Iran". It's where the last 5 years has been leading us.
Look at a map of the Middle East. Now picture where we have our troops located.
We have troops on Iran's Eastern border and the Western border.
Turkey is, I think, a wild card. And is Turkmenistan - neutral? I guess we'll see.
Saudi Arabia - debatably in the throes of their own slow-moving democratic revolution.
While Turkey and Saudi may not like us - you know they don't like the idea of the whack job in Iran with nukes.

But look at the UAE - nice big stretch of coastline in the Persian Gulf facing Iran. Sounds like they could be a very important, strategic ally. It could be not completing this deal could FUBAR that plan and put a big kink in any plans.

I'm no foreign policy/military strategy scholar - so I'd love to hear someone else's opinion on this.

I instinctively feel that this is bad idea - giving "control" of our major ports to a Middle Eastern country while we are actively fighting a war in the Middle East.

Oh, good. Instincts. Let's just go with those instead of thinking. You may be surprised to know that the UAE, which is a different country than Iraq by the way, is our ally in this war we are actively fighting in the ME. They offer support such as docking privileges for the Navy in the Persian Gulf.

As for your idea that this deal is being put through in order to have a staging point for a war with Iran, it's ridiculous. First of all, as I said before, the UAE is already an ally in our fight on terrorism and provides support and docking privileges. Second, if we want to attack Iran we can do so from Iraq! It's right next door!

I think ultimately, the answer to any question about the war on terror is "Iran".

I can think of many questions where that is not the answer.

It's where the last 5 years has been leading us.

Do you mean after another 10 years of fighting in Iraq? Because we're a little busy with that right now.

Look at a map of the Middle East. Now picture where we have our troops located.

Because you seem to believe we must surround Iran from every possible angle in order to...what?

Turkey is, I think, a wild card.

Shows how much you know about Turkey. Not only are they a democracy, a member of NATO, and an ally in the war on terror (and in Iraq), they will probably be part of the EU in a few years. How are they a "wild card"?

Saudi Arabia - debatably in the throes of their own slow-moving democratic revolution.

Yeah, and so is China. Give it another 50 years or so. By the way if an authoritarian government allows citizens to vote for candidates selected by that government in powerless local positions, this does not qualify as a "revolution".

But look at the UAE - nice big stretch of coastline in the Persian Gulf facing Iran. Sounds like they could be a very important, strategic ally.

They already are!

I'm no foreign policy/military strategy scholar

Well, at least you admit it. You're on the internet though. Maybe you should, I don't know, use it and learn something?

I must admit I have mixed feelings about this. However, for those who lean toward supporting the deal because they trust Bush, you should be aware that he didn't know anything about the deal until it was signed. He's just defending something his administration did. I'm not sure you should put a whole lot of trust in this particular decision.

Also, according to the NY Times, this law:

http://www.treasury.gov/offices/international-affairs/exon-florio/

requires a mandatory 45 day investigation for a deal like this when "the acquiring company is controlled by or acting on behalf of a foreign government..."

I suspect this deal is far from done, and the administration is going to have egg on its face. The UAE may be perfectly capable of running the ports, and there may be no security issues, but if ever there was a deal where you would circumvent the necessary vetting process, this ain't it.

Wow Mantis - that was entirely rude and uncalled for - nice to know you don't know how to think before you write.
Just so you know, you ass, I'm not against the deal. Which is why I said "when I think beyond my gut reaction" - jackass - I am capable of thinking beyond my instincts. I believe that any company - US or not - should be able to bid on these projects. If this deal, which has been in the works since last year - has been vetted and approved by the right people then I am fine with it. I am also fine with people posing questions about it - something you seem to take issue with. I agreed with your post earlier, so you're being a dickhead to someone who already agrees with you.

As for Turkey - apparently you missed the whole point when they screwed us in the run up to the Iraq war. As I said, wild card. Democracy or not.

Saudi Arabia, as I pointed out, has been experiencing a cry out in their country for democracy. The people are starting to demand it, even if their leaders aren't. That is a step forward. As I said, slow paced and new, but none-the-less a reality that is much farther along than China.

Also, I am aware that UAE is already an ally. Which is why I pointed it out.

And yes, it is just a wee bit strategically important to have your enemy boxed in on a couple sides. That might be some clue as to the importance of having our troops already staged in the Middle East to east and west of Iran. That, frankly, should be a no-brainer, but I guess not for you.

Every damn move we have made since 9/11 has had strategic reasoning - Iraq and Afghanistan are not stand alone wars. They are battles in the larger war. And yes, I'll bet your sorry ass that a lot of the strategic planning in Iraq and Afghanistan had a little something to do with a future conflict with Iran. I'm sorry for you if you can't see that.

As for your comment about using the internet to learn something, I actually did do research before posting. Which is why I'm so easily able to dismiss your addlebrained comments. Seems you could learn to do a little thinking before posting.

Bush I think has made a possible "fatal" error in his judgement of this deal. This could cost the GOP at the voting booth this year.I just don't believe the average American is gonna except this at all.

What I take issue with is people who seem to get all excited at the prospect of invading more countries, especially when they are unfamiliar with the area they are talking about, as you clearly are.

This something not being discussed in these comments or on most news shows, but reveals a lot about the deal.

http://www.pww.org/article/view/2616/1/130/
http://today.reuters.com/investing/financeArticle.aspx?type=bondsNews&storyID=2006-02-16T214038Z_01_N16375949_RTRIDST_0_SECURITY-USA-DUBAI.XML

To sum it up, John Snow receives money from DP World. Oh and John Snow, as Sec of Treasury, was the head of the committee that approved this deal. You all know there had to be some cronyism involved with the Bushies.

Sean : Do you bother to read the links that you post on here ? If you had bothered to do so, you would have noted that neither one of the linked articles shows that Sec. Snow receives money from DP World. In fact, all they show is that the company he used to be Chairman of sold its port assets to DP World A YEAR AF