Friday, Mark discussed the Bush Administration’s handling of this UAE Port deal.
MarkLevinFan to Bush: WE DON’T NEED TO GIVE THE UAE CONTROL OVER OUR PORTS TO PROVE WE LIKE THEM!!! IF THIS IS WHAT THE UAE DEMANDS, TELL THEM TO STICK IT!!!
The UAE is not Great Britain!
[Mark Levin Fan is proudly powered by WordPress.]
.jpg)
Ya know, if we allowed the UAE to have this deal, we might not be opening our doors to terrorists…but why the hell take the chance?
John, I can’t think of a single valid reason why we should!
Um…I’m still thinking…uh…well…nothing…
I PERSONALLY, DON’T LIKE THIS DEAL..I SAY NO FOREIGN COMPANY SHOULD EVER OWN OR HAVE THIS KIND OF CONTROL IN ANY OF OUR BORDERING PORTS OR LAND ACCESS. HOWEVER, IF WE LOOK AT THE MAP OF THE MIDDLE EAST… IT’S VERY INGENIOUS OF THE BUSH ADMIN…THINK ABOUT IT… WE HAVE TRUSTED OUR MILITARY IN THE UAE SEAPORT, RIGHT NOW…. WE NEED THIS CONTINUED ACCESS TO IRAN AND IRAQ, AND AFAGANASTAN (sp). CHECK OUT HANNITY.COM THERE IS A MAP. WE HAVE IRAN SURROUNDED WITH THE CONTINUED PRESENCE IN THE UAE. BUSH IS SHOWING GOOD FAITH WITH THE UAE. I TRUST HIS JUDGEMENT AFTER LOOKING AT THE MAP. THIS IS A MUST AND TRUST ISSUE, UNFORTUNATELY…
I was actually against the UAE port deal before and Jimmy Carter being for it made me even more nervous. Yet now that so many many have come out for it (as Dennis Ross said he is on Fox TV today) I AM STILL AGAINST IT. We owe the UAE nothing. The reason why Saddam Hussein just did not keep rolling south in 1991 is because we sent a half-millon troops and kicked Saddam’s butt back to Baghdad.
Q: Who does al Qaeda hate only slightly less than Israel and the United States? A: All the royal families in charge of every country on the Arabian penisula, plus those in charge of countries like Eygpt and Algeria.
If the UAE and Dubai want to do something useful with all the oil money they make, they can finish installing the chemical and radiological detection devices at all the foreign ports they already manage. They have yet to fully comply with the Container Security Initiative they agreed to in 2004.
Instead of letting more foreign countries “manage” ports here, we ought to ensure what is being sent into the our ports is safe at the point of origin. Congress ought to require that all goods are pre-screened in the near future. We should have the ability to monitor that 100% of all goods being shipped to the US. Those who fail to comply should lose their right to ship goods to the US.
Carter agreed because he didn’t want the Panama Canal sale to be the only blunder. You know misery loves company. No one has come up with a legitimate reason why this is a good deal other than we dont’ want to send mixed signals. The way I look at it, if it goes through, THAT sends mixed signals. I thought we were going after those who harbor and those who finance terror.
Yes, I’m very disappointed with our president these days!
When Rep. Peter King was on Mark’s show, he said that not one single American company put in a bid for this.
I wonder why that is. Too many rules and regs.?
Whatever the reason is, we need to fix it.
The reason the American companies didn’t bid was probably twofold. Too many regulations and dealing with the unions. Plus this is only happening because the UAE took over the British company that already had a contract.
MLF my friend, I’ll take GW BUSH over any current contender anyday even though I disagree with him on this. He’s got more on his plate than all the second-guessers put together. Like it or not, let’s see where this goes.
Tim, I agree! Let’s see where this ports deal goes. But, I hope it goes right down the hopper!Â
This entire thread evidences some ignorance as to the mechanics of this “deal”. P&O, a British corporation bid and was awarded the contracts to operate some terminals at many US ports. They were hired by the relevant local port authorities to manage these terminals. This job consists mostly of loading and unloading container ships, employing the personnel to operate the machines that do this, and collecting and remitting to the local port authorities the fees for these services. This is very similar to DHL, a foreign owned air freight shipping company, renting a hangar at a US airport for the purpose of sending and receiving their air freight shipments through that airport.
Last year, Dubai Ports offered to buy P&O; and P&O accepted this offer. As such, Dubai Ports succeeds to P&O’s contracts to operate these seaport terminal facilities. Because Dubai Ports is a foreign corporation, meaning that it exists under the laws of the UAE, the US has an executive agency that must approve or disapprove the deal. This is a similar process to the EU’s rejection of the Honeywell-GE merger and its current review of Microsoft.
The approval does not mean that Dubai Ports “runs” or “controls” any US port. It would manage the operations at certain terminals in the various ports. Other terminals would be managed by other companies. All of these companies pay rent to the port authority, local or State governmental agency.
Port security would continue to be in the hands of Customs, the Coast Guard and the Department of Homeland Security. Much of this security occurs at the point of origin of the shipment or the travel. Whether or not this security is adequate presents a separate question from whether or not the operation of certain port terminals by employees of Dubai Ports presents a clear threat to our national security. The real unanswered question is how Dubai Ports could somehow circumvent exisitng US security measures and any improvements made in the future.
For me, the unanswered question centers upon the fact that Dubai Ports is owned by the UAE government. Thus, that government would receive monetary benefit from succeeding to P&O’s contracts by virtue of buying P&O. Therefore, taking the time to assess rationally, not emotionally, this issue makes great sense. As a country, do we want the UAE government to profit from our commerce? This is not a question of security. It is a political question tied to the cooperation or lack of cooperation since 9-11 by the UAE government.
For these reasons, I think that some of the preceding opinions and some of Mark’s opinions on this issue may be based upon incorrect assumptions.
As to foreign management of US ports, it’s already there and very prevalent. Kuwait manages a terminal in NYC. And a Chinese company manages operations at the Panama Canal.
Anyway, that’s why I disagree with Mark and some of your prior comments on this issue. We need to consider this issue with more than just a gut reaction based upon emotion.
publius1, nobody is ignorant here, smart guy! What you described has been talked about endlessly by the supporters of this deal. The mechanics of this “deal†are irrelevant.
However, who is assessing emotionally here? With your “rational” assessing, where is the reason why this deal is a good idea? You just spammed my blog with talking points!
Give me one good reason this is a GOOD deal for our country! Just one! I’m waiting!
Like just about everyone else, when this story first broke, I was 100% against it on a very viceral level. I’ve been following it very closely, and the more I learn about it, the more I’m beginning to think it is not the nightmare we all thought it was. In any case, it was not our fault for reacting the way we did, considering the manner in which the “facts” were initially presented to us.
I would still prefer that American companies owned all of these contracts, but it’s just a fact that most U.S. port terminals are operated by foreign companies because most shipping companies are foreign-owned. Americans, for the most part, are out of the shipping business. I read that more than 80 percent of the terminals in the port of Los Angeles, the largest U.S. port, are operated by foreign companies.
Maybe we’ll all feel better about this after the 45 day review?
Trinity, thank you for your comments. Did you read the comment I just made right above yours? Now, I’ll ask you the same question. Give me one good reason why we must have this ports deal! In fact, give me the BEST reason, please. I have heard every argument for and against this deal and I have yet to hear a good reason for the deal.
Yes, I read it after I posted. Perhaps this article from Newsmax might give you some sort of an answer to your question, MLF.
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/2/25/154631.shtml
It just seems as though we do not have all that many choices. Some of these other companies don’t seem much different from DP World. Also, not all of the shipping companies want to deal with our unions.
Another thing. Many of DP World’s senior officers are actually Americans, including Edward H. Bilkey, the Chief Operating Officer. He was sent to Washington to give assurances that there is nothing to fear over DP World’s recent acquisition of the P. & O. contract.
Also, David Sanborn, a former DP World executive, was recently nominated by the Bush administration to be the U.S. Maritime Administrator.
And isn’t Bob Dole a lobbyist for DP World? Not that any of this means anything, necessarily, but as long as we can be reasonably sure that this purchase doesn’t mean a higher security risk for our ports, I’m not as adverse to the idea as I was at first.
Despite the fact that I disagree with this president on our borders issue, I think I am willing to trust his judgement on this matter. I have to believe that he is in a much better position than I am to understand exactly how much of an ally we have in the UAE.
I’m just asking for one good reason for the deal, not six paragraphs and a web site.Â
Sorry. No smiley face from you. You must be mad at me.
What about the fact that Dubai Ports World is very good at what they do? And they most likely will modernize the entire shipping industry? One of the reasons the unions are pressuring the Dems to fight this deal is because they are against using bar codes to track shipments, and DP World most likely will initiate the use of bar codes.
No smiley? Look again! LOL!Â
I feel so much better now.
But what did you think of my post?
If today was pre-9/11, I would think DP World was wonderful. But, it’s not.
I know. And I’m afraid we will never be the same again. I know I won’t be.
MarkLevinFan – do you prefer pithy one-liners or discussion accompanied by explanation? Hyperbole like “controlling the ports” does not hold water when confronted with the facts of the existing P&O contracts that will be assumed by Dubai Ports if the purchase is closed.
Your attempt to shift the burden of proof here is unwarranted precisely because of the facts about the ports – not the deal. The deal merely changes the owner of the existing management contracts. The same people will continue to load and unload containers at some of the terminals at as many as 21 different US seaports. Instead of being employees of P&O, they will be employees of Dubai Ports.
It is your burden to prove that these same people, most of whom, if not all of whom, are US citizens will suddenly become implements of terrorists merely because the owner of their company changes from P&O to Dubai Ports. Do you have evidence that Dubai Ports intends to replace all existing P&O employees with Arab terrorist stooges?
But, this may be too long of a post for your blog.
MLF, I know you respect Rush’s opinion. He thinks, as publius1 just said, it will not make one bit of difference. It’s just that if the deal goes through, it will be DP World writing the checks instead of P&O. And they’ll be making the profits, too. That should be the only difference between then and now.
The ports of Corpus Christi and Beaumont in Texas are also part of the deal. That’s where 40% (if I remember correctly) of our military supplies for Iraq and Afghanistan will be shipped from.
Publius1, can you possibly post a comment without trying to smear? Instead, why don’t you try to answer my question? What is one reason this deal is GOOD for our country. If you smear me again, you will be banned. I think I have given you plenty of chances to be civil in your comments.
Trinity, I do respect Rush, but he has not answered my question, either. Is it a bad question?
Folks, I am mindful that people want to support the president. I want to support the president! Mark Levin has said he wants to support the president.
BUT, I can’t support this on trust. I must have some evidence that this is actually good for our country and our country’s national security. So far, I’m not convinced!
“This is not a question of security. It is a political question tied to the cooperation or lack of cooperation since 9-11 by the UAE government.”
publius1,that is the whole issue in a nutshell.
UAE’s lack of cooperation post 9/11.
Perhaps they should cooperate fully in their banking practices instead of laundering Bin ladins money for him.
The EAU will gain financially from the deal, as well they should, but where and to whom does their money go? Will we once again feed the dog that bites us with this port deal?
One thing is certain. They wont be keeping records here so we can’t check up on them, that is not our friend.
If it were my decision, I wouldn’t give EAU the time of the day.
We should also take a closer look at how China gets it’s spy’s in here..California would be a good starting point
Thank you CS!
publius1
Instead of letting more foreign countries “manage†ports here, we ought to ensure what is being sent into the our ports is safe at the point of origin. Congress ought to require that all goods are pre-screened in the near future. We should have the ability to monitor that 100% of all goods being shipped to the US. Those who fail to comply should lose their right to ship goods to the US.
I am not a protectionist against free trade. I am for protecting our national security. The Container Security Initiative is a great idea yet if we fail to demand compliance all it is is political rhetoric. Carter and Clinton tried defending our nation with rhetoric. This President acted yet this and future presidents cannot go back to the failed ways. ‘Never again’ has meaning and future weapons will only make the threat potentially more lethal,
In my original post, I said that the “thread” evidenced “some ignorance” of the mechanics of the deal. I considered it a fair comment on the contents of this thread rather than an ad hominem attack on any particular poster(s). Why? Because neither P&O nor Dubai Ports will “control” any US seaport. They will operate certain facilities at those ports.
MarkLevinFan then responded by accusing me of spamming his blog with talking points. He complained that my first post was too long. Also, he demanded that I produce one good reason why the corporate deal should be approved.
The deal was approved by CFIUS because it found no evidence that having Dubai Ports own the former P&O terminal management contracts will increase the security risk at those ports.
I replied to MLFan by needling him about the length of posts. Also, I argued that the burden of proof should be on those claiming an increase in the security risk. So far, I have read no evidence.
CS correctly points out the other part of my first post about the UAE ownership of Dubai Ports. In doing so, he raises the correct issue about US approval of this deal. And, in doing so, he shows that my original post did not come out in complete support of the CFIUS approval. Apparently, the words “some ignorance” distracted some from that point.
The UAE does not recognize Israel and, before 9-11, its banks allegedly laundered al Qaida money. Those negatives need to be balanced against the positives before permitting that government to benefit directly from US commerce.
If the foregoing gets me banned here, so be it.
In 1999, the US permitted P&O to purchase ITO. That purchase gave P&O the contracts to administer certain operations in many US ports because ITO, a US company, had owned these contracts. Here is the link to the original press release announcing this purchase.
http://www.prnewswire.co.uk/cgi/news/release?id=28507
Here is the link to the P&O Ports website that describes their operation and the locations of their container and stevedoring operations. This will help you understand what Dubai Ports is purchasing. The link in my prior post will help you understand how P&O came to acquire ownership of these agreements to manage certain operations at the US ports and Vancouver as well as stevedore operations at many other ports.
http://portal.pohub.com/portal/page?_pageid=71,207406&_dad=pogprtl&_schema=POGPRTL
Finally, here is a link to the locations of P&O’s general stevedoring operations in North America. This differs from the larger container operations that P&O provides at NYC/NJ, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Miami, New Orleans and Vancouver.
http://portal.pohub.com/portal/page?_pageid=36,1,36_31159:36_34061&_dad=pogprtl&_schema=POGPRTL
From reading this entire post I now believe more than before that this whole ports deal may have been contrived at the DNC. Just look at how everyone has their back hairs up, if we’re fighting amongst ourselves we’re not fighting the Crats. There could be a clintonista in the west wing who helped push this through knowing that this kind of thing would happen. Remember, Maddeline Not So Bright and other Clintonooids are lobbying congress for this deal right now. I can’t help but think that one or more of those Jackasses might have the brains to pull off that kind of sting. There’s a real enemy out there folks, and it’s not us.
publius1, thank you for rehashing this thread. That was very persuasive on your part. In that boring rehash of this thread you said this:
However, you got it wrong! (Is anyone surprised?) I asked for one reason why this deal was good for our country. Is your answer because CFIUS found no evidence that having Dubai Ports own the former P&O terminal management contracts will increase the security risk at those ports? Is that why this deal is good for our country?
It’s a good deal for our country because, as far as we know, Dubai Ports is the only company willing and able to supply those ports with the services necessary for commerce at a price that fairly compensates the various port authorities for their terminals while fairly employing and compensating those US citizens who now work for P&O.
You know, Saxmachine makes a good point. Willy gets 300G to speak there and sets up scholarships to the AU at Dubai. “Not so Bright” among others are lobbying for this deal. With all of this it makes shril and the rest of her cohorts look like they’re strong on defense. How much money is being pumped their way?
This is interesting information. Saxmachine might have hit it on the head. http://news.ft.com/cms/s/60414c4c-a95e-11da-a64b-0000779e2340.html
Publius1, you finally gave me an answer. So you’re saying this deal is good for our country because DP World is the only company that will pay us well? Hmmm? I hadn’t thought of that. Yes, if they pay us well, we should let them run our ports! Good idea! Award the contract to the highest bidder, despite any other concerns, right?
Using that reasoning anything can be justified because someone pays for it. I know why not let the Bin laden family take up the lease they have lots of cash and let the concerns be damned. Sounds ridiculous I know but that logic works on the I’ll pay big for it theory .