United Arab Emirates firm to operate six major U.S. ports


PDA






longeyes
February 13, 2006, 10:31 PM
*United Arab Emirates firm to operate six major U.S. ports *

SPECIAL TO WORLD TRIBUNE.COM

Monday, February 13, 2006

WASHINGTON The Bush administration has approved a deal in which a United Arab Emirates company would operate six major ports in the United States.

A U.S. government panel has determined that the UAE firm, DP World, would not endanger national security.

DP World, based in Dubai, has offered $6.8 billion for the purchase of a British firm that operates the ports of Baltimore, Miami, New York, New Jersey, New Orleans and Philadelphia.

DP World intends to acquire the London-based Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation [P&O] Co. The sale was expected to be approved on Monday.

"The P&O directors have withdrawn their recommendation of the offer by PSA, which was announced on Jan. 26, 2006, and unanimously recommend that P&O Stockholders vote in favor of the revised proposals at the meetings, which are now scheduled to take place on Feb. 13," DP World said in a statement.

The company said the U.S. Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States "thoroughly reviewed the potential transaction and concluded they had no objection." The committee includes representatives from the departments of Treasury, Defense, Justice, Commerce, State and Homeland Security.

The United Arab Emirates has been described as a leading military ally of the United States. In 2005, the UAE acquired the first 10 of 80 F-16E/F Block 60 multi-role fighters in a $6.4 billion purchase.

But officials said the UAE has not fully responded to repeated appeals from the Treasury Department to halt money-laundering activities exploited by Al Qaida and aligned groups. They said that for years Dubai served as a base for Al Qaida operatives, including those who destroyed the World Trade Center and a Pentagon wing in 2001.

"America's busiest ports are vital to our economy and to the international economy, and that is why they remain top terrorist targets," Sen. Charles Schumer, a New York Democrat, said. "Just as we would not outsource military operations or law enforcement duties, we should be very careful before we outsource such sensitive homeland security duties."

NATIONAL SECURITY IS GUN- AND RKBA-RELATED.

If you enjoyed reading about "United Arab Emirates firm to operate six major U.S. ports" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
grampster
February 13, 2006, 10:47 PM
Why don't we raise taxes and use the money to build a Wahabbist Mosque next to the Capitol and ask Osama if he'd like to be Immam?

Standing Wolf
February 13, 2006, 10:59 PM
On the proverbial "bright side," we're not going to have to worry about the barbarians at the gates any more.

telomerase
February 13, 2006, 11:26 PM
Dubai is one of the freest places in the world.

And Dubai is less connected to the Bin Ladens than Bush is. I don't believe that there's such a thing as "port security"; it's easier just to send electronic money and build weapons here anyway. But I'm sure that a Dubai company is more likely to try to keep free trade going than a lot of factions in the US.

longeyes
February 13, 2006, 11:49 PM
Riiiiiight.

Nothing to see here, move on, nothing to see here.

"Free trade" and national security are uneasy bedfellows.

LAK
February 14, 2006, 06:20 AM
Organized crime in action.
----------------------------------------

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

1911 guy
February 14, 2006, 10:53 AM
Several times. Not as repressive as some countries, but also not as relaxed (westernized) as maybe Bahrain. Last time I was there (1997) it was still the third rate sand pit it was the first time I was there. Suddenly, they're building resort complexes and getting very involved in international trade. Absolutely no way anything could go wrong here.:uhoh:

WT
February 14, 2006, 11:19 AM
Let me get this straight.

We've OUTSOURCED the protection of ammunition ships and tankers in New York Harbor to the Arabs.

Okay, I understand.

Biker
February 14, 2006, 11:29 AM
Actually, little that happens in the good ol' U.S. of A. surprises me nowadays.
Biker

StopTheGrays
February 14, 2006, 11:39 AM
Could be worse, at least it is not being outsourced to the Chinese.

Art Eatman
February 14, 2006, 11:50 AM
If you buy controlling interest in a corporation in order to make money, are you going to be concerned with the local employees at any one facility? or is your interest in profit?

Local unions will still be controlling the makeup of the local workforce in US ports.

Art

RealGun
February 14, 2006, 12:31 PM
NATIONAL SECURITY IS GUN- AND RKBA-RELATED.

Says you, maybe. Downstream stereotyping and general nastiness re Arabs is not.

If gun owners, particularly of the CCW variety, are generally a defensive if not testy lot when it comes to government and the law, it doesn't mean their predisposition to complain and criticize is on topic.

Waitone
February 14, 2006, 05:20 PM
Why am I not surprised?

longeyes
February 14, 2006, 07:25 PM
Says you, maybe. Downstream stereotyping and general nastiness re Arabs is not.

If gun owners, particularly of the CCW variety, are generally a defensive if not testy lot when it comes to government and the law, it doesn't mean their predisposition to complain and criticize is on topic.

Not sure I get your point.

My view is that this plan is, given the time and circumstances, at best impolitic, at worst a monumental act of self-betrayal.

I don't watch much tv--is anyone in the "mainstream" covering this? I read it on the Internet and then heard Michael Savage fulminating about it.

feedthehogs
February 14, 2006, 08:32 PM
Bring back the mob................

longeyes
February 14, 2006, 11:47 PM
Port of entry

Frank Gaffney
February 13, 2006


How would you feel if, in the aftermath of 9/11, the U.S. government had decided to contract out airport security to the United Arab Emirates (UAE), the country where most of the operational planning and financing of the attacks occurred? My guess is you, like most Americans, would think it a lunatic idea, one that could clear the way for still more terror in this country. You probably would want to know who on earth approved such a plan and be determined to prevent it from happening.

Of course, no such thing occurred after September 11, 2001. In fact, the job of keeping our planes and the flying public secure was deemed to be so important that the government itself took it over from private contractors seen as insufficiently rigorous in executing that responsibility.

Now, however, four-and-a-half years later, a secretive government committee has decided to turn over the management of six of the Nation's most important ports in New York, New Jersey, Philadelphia, Miami, Baltimore and New Orleans to Dubai Ports World following the UAE company's purchase of London-based Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co., which previously had the contract.

This is not the first time this interagency panel called the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) has made an astounding call about the transfer of control of strategically sensitive U.S. assets to questionable purchasers. In fact, as of last summer, CFIUS had, since its creation in 1988, formally rejected only one of 1,530 transactions submitted for its review.

Such a record is hardly surprising given that the committee is chaired by the Treasury Department, whose institutional responsibilities include promoting foreign investment in the United States. Treasury has rarely seen a foreign purchase of American assets that it did not like. And this bias on the part of the chairman of CFIUS has consistently skewed the results of the panel's deliberations in favor of approving deals, even those opposed by other, more national security-minded departments.

Thanks to the secrecy with which CFIUS operates, it is not clear at this writing whether any such objection was heard with respect to the idea of contracting out management of six of our country's most important ports to a UAE company. There would certainly appear to be a number of grounds for rejecting this initiative, however:

* America's seaports have long been recognized by homeland security experts as among our most vulnerable targets. Huge quantities of cargo move through them every day, much of it of uncertain character and provenance, nearly all of it inadequately monitored. Matters can only be made worse by port managers who might conspire to bring in dangerous containers, or simply look the other way when they arrive.

* Entrusting information about key U.S. ports including, presumably, government-approved plans for securing them, to say nothing of the responsibility for controlling physical access to these facilities, to a country known to have been penetrated by terrorists is not just irresponsible. It is recklessly so.

* At the risk of being politically incorrect, the proposed new management will also complicate the job of assuring that the personnel working in these ports pose no threat to their operations or to the rest of us. To the extent that we must remain particularly vigilant about young male Arab nationals as potential terrorists, it makes no sense to provide legitimate grounds for such individuals to be in and around some of this country's most important strategic assets.

* Of particular concern must be the implications for energy security as a very large proportion of the Nation's oil imports come through the Atlantic and Gulf State ports that the UAE company hopes to take over. For example, Philadelphia alone handles some 85% of the oil coming into the East Coast; New Orleans is responsible for one-seventh of all of our imported energy.

Given such considerations, the question occurs: How could even a stacked deck like the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States find it possible to approve the Dubai Ports World's transaction?

Could it have been influenced by the fact that a former senior official of the UAE company, David Sanborn, was recently named the new administrator of the Transportation Department's Maritime Administration? Until recently, Sanborn was DP World's director of operations for Europe and Latin America.

Or is it because the U.S. government views and is determined to portray the United Arab Emirates as a vital ally in this war for the Free World? A similar determination has long caused Washington to treat Saudi Arabia as a valued friend, even as the Saudis continue playing a double game whereby they work simultaneously to repress terrorism at home and abet it abroad.

Whatever the explanation, the Nation can simply no longer afford to have the disposition of strategic assets including those that have a military or homeland security dimension determined by a Treasury-dominated panel whose deliberations and decisions are made in secret without congressional oversight.

Congress should see to it that the United Arab Emirates is not entrusted with the operation of any American ports, and that the Treasury Department is stripped of the lead role in evaluating such dubious foreign investments in the United States.

Frank J. Gaffney, Jr., is President of the Center for Security Policy and a columnist for the Washington Times.

Copyright 2006 by Frank Gaffney
http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/gaffney/060213

PinnedAndRecessed
February 15, 2006, 12:10 AM
If you buy controlling interest in a corporation in order to make money, are you going to be concerned with the local employees at any one facility? or is your interest in profit?

Local unions will still be controlling the makeup of the local workforce in US ports.

Art

That's my understanding. Is it not the case that they are purchasing a British company that operates "within" the ports? Port security is still controlled by the Coast Guard and local police agencies.

HerrWolfe
February 15, 2006, 12:40 AM
Oh, and the clincher is that the operations will be under their law, so the US Constitution will not apply! Oh, wait, I'm having a nightmare. Did someone say that UAE will protect our ports?
Guess the next step is to change laws on foreign born not being President.

Headless Thompson Gunner
February 15, 2006, 12:58 AM
Twenty years ago the sky was falling because everyone "knew" the Japanese would own this country by the turn of the century. These days the sky is falling because "all" of the "good" jobs are going to India and/or China.

Now I'm supposed to believe the sky is falling because one foreign company was bought out by another, or because those evil A-rabs will be running the daily admin chores at a few shipping ports. :confused:

Sorry, I don't buy into the Chicken Little thing here. There are far more worthwhile things to lose sleep over.

If anything, the fact that foreign companies are anxious to invest in American infrastructure is a very good omen for us. The time to worry is when they start selling off their American investments, not vice versa. It's unfortunate that middle eastern foreigners have more faith in the future of the United States than many Americans (especially the leftists) seem to have. :(

longeyes
February 15, 2006, 02:55 AM
Sometimes the sky IS falling. Ask the Pompeians.

This is an Administration that is having a love affair with The Invisible Hand. There's a word for that, but I won't use it for fear of offending Art's Grandma. There are things a nation doesn't cede control of it if it has any common sense and self-respect...or primary allegiance to its own people. Why does it seem as if our leadership--and I don't mean just the GOP--is on a planet of its own?

Cosmoline
February 15, 2006, 03:10 AM
On the proverbial "bright side," we're not going to have to worry about the barbarians at the gates any more.

The barbarians OWN the gates. In the mean time, the Chicoms have all but completed their moves to control the Panama Canal.

longeyes
February 15, 2006, 02:27 PM
The barbarians own the gates, the gatekeepers, make the gates, and have stolen the gates' technology and design plans.

And judging from the response to this thread from the THR faithful so far, no one's too concerned.

Biker
February 15, 2006, 02:41 PM
To be perfectly honest, longeyes, I'm very concerned. However, I've come to the conclusion that we are indeed powerless to do anything about this slow motion trainwreck. Sure, I fax, write, vote, all that good stuff, but it all has the impact of a butterfly fart in a hurricane. The Pols just don't care. They have the power, along with big corps, and the power will not be relinquished.
I believe that my country is lost. I'll keep swingin' as long as I breath, but it's a losing battle.
Biker

longeyes
February 15, 2006, 03:01 PM
Biker, we're almost always on the same page. I understand. I share your frustration. Slow-motion trainwreck indeed. So much Out There is ganging up on us, it seems. Can we stop it? With the right leadership we could; there are still enough Americans with their wits about them and some spine to turn things around. At least I like to think there are. But I admit that I fear that too many of our fellow countrymen are more concerned about whether Tom and Katie break up than whether we are handing over control of our ports based on cronyism or commerical expediency. You at least live up in Idaho so you'll no doubt be able to hang on longer if and when the stuff does hit the fan.

Waitone
February 15, 2006, 03:58 PM
Clinton tried to sell Long Beach to the communist Chinese and only a revolt by Joe and Martha Sixpack stopped it.

The same cast of characters tried the same thing here. It too can be stopped. I've contacted two of three congressional vermin complaining.

I'd like to know about the statutory authority of the group making the decision. I'd also like to know about congressional oversight. Both issues I've brought up with Senator Graham and Rep. Wilson.

longeyes
February 15, 2006, 09:10 PM
I heard Frank Gaffney talking about this today on Hugh Hewitt's radio show. Gaffney thinks it can be stopped. Various pols are getting wind of it and not liking what they're hearing. This is one of those things that gets to the viscera. People are not going to go for it. Let's hope this isn't another one of those things Bush hangs on to like a dog down to his last bone.

Waitone
February 16, 2006, 12:49 AM
I heard about it last night. I said to Myself, "Self, this just don't pass the smell test!"

Heard Limbaugh comment today saying, "It just doesn't smell right."

I want to know more about the group that heard the petition. Who is on it, what is its charter, what is its statutory authority, what is the nature of congressional oversight if any, relationship to the chief executive, what are the vested interest watching over and participating in the decision.

I furthermore want to know more about the UAE's executive who ran operations around the world and then ends up in the department of transportation overseeing this nonsense. Just off hand it smells of a conflict of interest. Who is the dood, where does he come from, what is his political and educational pedigree, who is his sponsor, and what is his job history. I ap very interested in seeing what kind of international blissninny groups with which he is affiliated. This particular episode reeks of corporatism and political cronyism and I want the picture.

seeker_two
February 16, 2006, 11:45 AM
Now, however, four-and-a-half years later, a secretive government committee has decided to turn over the management of six of the Nation's most important ports — in New York, New Jersey, Philadelphia, Miami, Baltimore and New Orleans — to Dubai Ports World following the UAE company's purchase of London-based Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co., which previously had the contract.


So, here I am sitting in a state between the Mexican border (where Muslim-type OTM's have been observed crossing into the U.S. illegally) and the port of New Orleans (which will soon be run by a nation sympathetic to Muslim-type terrorists)....

Why do I feel so nervous?.... :uhoh:

longeyes
February 17, 2006, 12:04 AM
White House Defends Port Sale to Arab Company

NewsMax.com Wires
Friday, Feb. 17, 2006

WASHINGTON -- The Bush administration on Thursday rebuffed criticism about potential security risks of a $6.8 billion sale that gives a company in the United Arab Emirates control over significant operations at six major American ports.

Lawmakers asked the White House to reconsider its earlier approval of the deal.

The sale to state-owned Dubai Ports World was "rigorously reviewed" by a U.S. committee that considers security threats when foreign companies seek to buy or invest in American industry, National Security Council spokesman Frederick Jones said.

The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, run by the Treasury Department, reviewed an assessment from U.S. intelligence agencies. The committee's 12 members agreed unanimously the sale did not present any problems, the department said.

"We wanted to look at this one quite closely because it relates to ports," Stewart Baker, an assistant secretary in the Homeland Security Department, told The Associated Press. "It is important to focus on this partner as opposed to just what part of the world they come from. We came to the conclusion that the transaction should not be halted."

The unusual defense of the secretive committee, which reviews hundreds of such deals each year, came in response to criticism about the purchase of London-based Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co.

The world's fourth-largest ports company runs commercial operations at shipping terminals in New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia.

Four senators and three House members asked the administration Thursday to reconsider its approval. The lawmakers contended the UAE is not consistent in its support of U.S. terrorism-fighting efforts.

"The potential threat to our country is not imagined, it is real," Rep. Mark Foley, R-Fla., said in a House speech.

The Homeland Security Department said it was legally impossible under the committee's rules to reconsider its approval without evidence DP World gave false information or withheld vital details from U.S. officials. The 30-day window for the committee to voice objections has ended.

DP World said it had received all regulatory approvals.

"We intend to maintain and, where appropriate, enhance current security arrangements," the company said in a statement. "It is very much business as usual for the P&O terminals" in the United States.

In Dubai, the UAE's foreign minister described his country as an important U.S. ally but declined to respond directly to the concerns expressed in Washington.

"We have worked very closely with the United States on a number of issues relating to the combat of terrorism, prior to and post Sept. 11," Sheik Abdullah Bin Zayed al-Nahyan told The Associated Press.

U.S. lawmakers said the UAE was an important transfer point for shipments of smuggled nuclear components sent to Iran, North Korea and Libya by a Pakistani scientist, Abdul Qadeer Khan. They also said the UAE was one of only three countries to recognize the now-toppled Taliban as Afghanistan's legitimate government.

The State Department describes the UAE as a vital partner in the fight against terrorism. Dubai's own ports have participated since last year in U.S. efforts to detect illegal shipments of nuclear materials.

Rep. Vito Fossella, R-N.Y., urged congressional hearings on the deal.

"At a time when America is leading the world in the war on terrorism and spending billions of dollars to secure our homeland, we cannot cede control of strategic assets to foreign nations with spotty records on terrorism," Fossella said.

Critics also have cited the UAE's history as an operational and financial base for the hijackers who carried out the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

"Outsourcing the operations of our largest ports to a country with a dubious record on terrorism is a homeland security and commerce accident waiting to happen," said Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y. "The administration needs to take another look at this deal."

Separately, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey said Thursday it will conduct its own review of the deal and urged the government to defend its decision.

In a letter to the Treasury Department, Port Authority chairman Anthony Coscia said the independent review by his agency was necessary "to protect its interests."

The lawmakers pressing the White House to reconsider included Sens. Schumer, Tom Coburn, R-Okla., Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., and Chris Dodd, D-Conn., and Reps. Foley, Fossella and Chris Shays, R-Conn.

2006 Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

>

Biker
February 17, 2006, 12:08 AM
Where is Frodo? The Ring must be destroyed.

Biker

gunsmith
February 17, 2006, 01:25 AM
...It's insane to have another country in charge of your Ports...Dubai or Denmark or UAE or UK :uhoh:
Hades has frozen over, even Schumer is against this...I can't believe I agree with Schumer:scrutiny:
wait a minute...if Schumer is against it maybe there is something good about it...strange...very strange...

longeyes
February 17, 2006, 01:39 AM
It's insane to have another country in charge of your Ports

Indeed. But...

The U.S. has become a satellite of another meta-nation, one run by the plutocrats and kleptocrats who bounce from Davos to the Cayman Islands.

It's insane--in a free Republic--to have vital decisions made by "secret committees" that sidestep Congressional oversight.

It's insane that we would have to listen to Bush's Dept. of Homeboy Security tell us that this is, in effect, a done deal that cannot be reversed. Say what? Talk about bloody effrontery.

LAK
February 17, 2006, 04:13 AM
Indeed. But...

The U.S. has become a satellite of another meta-nation, one run by the plutocrats and kleptocrats who bounce from Davos to the Cayman Islands.

It's insane--in a free Republic--to have vital decisions made by "secret committes" that sidestep Congressional oversight.

It's insane that we would have to listen to Bush's Dept. of Homeboy Security tell us that this is, in effect, a done deal that cannot be reversed. Say what? Talk about bloody effrontery.
Yep.

It is interesting to note that the DHS claim it would be "illegal" for them to intervene because of the "committee rules". Using the terms "legally impossible" and "committee rules" here is flat dishonest and misleading. Congress makes our laws, which are legally binding - not a "committee" within the Treasury Department.

Wake up people; your country is being stolen from you right before your very eyes. Openly. In your face.
--------------------------------------------------

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

Optical Serenity
February 17, 2006, 04:35 AM
Must of the trade industry in this country is owned by foreign powers, Japan, Korea, Saudi Arabia, etc. But yeah, it does seem crazy! :scrutiny:

longeyes
February 18, 2006, 02:28 PM
If Bush wanted to throw Hillary a juicy bone he's succeeded. She's fronting a bill to stop the port deal. Bush seems to have no problem selling "democracy" to the Middle East while being completely comfortable with secret committee policy making right here in the ol' USA. Trust me, W.'s telling us. Well, I trust him about as much as I trust Dick Cheney's gun handling.

Sindawe
February 18, 2006, 02:46 PM
U.S. Company Plans $265M Spaceport in UAE

ASSOCIATED PRESS

U.S. Company Plans $265M Spaceport in UAE LOS ANGELES (AP) -

A day after Space Adventures announced it was in a venture to develop rocket ships for suborbital flights, the company said Friday it plans to build a $265 million spaceport in the United Arab Emirates.

The commercial spaceport would be based in Ras Al-Khaimah near the southern end of the Persian Gulf, and the UAE government has made an initial investment of $30 million, the Arlington, Va.-based company said in a statement.

The spaceport announcement comes on the heels of Space Adventures' new partnership with an investment firm founded by major sponsors of the Ansari X Prize to develop rocket ships for suborbital flights.

The agreement between Space Adventures and the Texas-based venture capital firm Prodea would help finance suborbital vehicles being designed and built by the Russian aerospace firm Myasishchev Design Bureau.

Space Adventures is best known for sending the first three space tourists to the orbiting international space station for a reported $20 million a person.

Space Adventures' jump into the infant suborbital flight industry comes at a time when several companies already are designing spaceships to take paying passengers on short trips up into space and then back to Earth without circling the globe.

Last December, British tycoon Richard Branson announced development of a $225 million spaceport in southern New Mexico, which will be the headquarters of Branson's Virgin Galactic space tourism company.

Virgin Galactic is contracting with Burt Rutan's Scaled Composites to develop a suborbital spaceship based on SpaceShipOne technology.

Flying out of Mojave, Calif., SpaceShipOne made history on June 21, 2004, as the first privately financed manned rocket to reach space, then made two more flights later that year to win the $10 million Ansari X Prize.

Source: http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/tech/2006/feb/17/021700109.html Hmmmm... Their firms run our sea ports, our firms run their Spaceport.

Manedwolf
February 18, 2006, 02:48 PM
Dubai is one of the freest places in the world.

...If you're an oil-soaked rich Islamist, yes.

That's one of those nations where the rich are VERY rich, and the poor and those of other faiths are...dirt. Not to be seen or heard.

Manedwolf
February 18, 2006, 02:51 PM
Says you, maybe. Downstream stereotyping and general nastiness re Arabs is not.

If gun owners, particularly of the CCW variety, are generally a defensive if not testy lot when it comes to government and the law, it doesn't mean their predisposition to complain and criticize is on topic.

Personally, it seems to me that you've only been opposed to threads where it's impossible to ignore that the current Those in Charge have done something against the interests of national security. This thread, and the last one you'd complained about topicality on was on the fact that nothing is being done to secure the southern border.

As if you might not want to hear that they're less than deities...

Reality is that which, when you do not believe in it, does not go away.

Otherguy Overby
February 18, 2006, 04:31 PM
Like recent elections where we have to choose between what hopefully is the lessor of two evils we are now faced with a similar situation except we may not get to choose.

Choice 1: Turn running our ports over to an offshore business that MAY not have our best interests at heart. At least it's a business.

Choice 2: Turn running our ports over to our federal governemnt which is at best totally incompetent and has a leftist bureaucratic agenda. Also, it seems quite obvious to me that our very own government does NOT have our best interests at heart. :banghead:

Waitone
February 18, 2006, 06:25 PM
Choice 2: Turn running our ports over to our federal governemnt which is at best totally incompetent and has a leftist bureaucratic agenda. Also, it seems quite obvious to me that our very own government does NOT have our best interests at heart. And that sir (presumed) is what has been publically revealed to Joe and Martha Sixpack. Heretofor, arguments for globalization have been couched in various free market buzzwords. The true issues are hidden behind obtuse explanations, free market buzzwords, corporate spin, and government bureaucratic butt-covering. Here in plain view for Joe and Martha to see, and most importantly understand, is a window into the hidden world.

A group in secret, citing unknown government authority, claiming the authority of law makes a decision which is on its face illogical, irrational, and contrary to middleclass America common sense. Joe and Martha also see their chief executive reflexively defend those who make the decision in secret. They feel the president pat them on the head and say, "Don't worry yourself with complicated issues. Just trust me and my people." Joe and Martha immediately check their wallets and want to know why it is we spend hundreds of billions of dollars a year on HomeBoy Security (love the term) then turn around and grant control of our ports to the very people who financed the 911 hits. It makes no sense and, more importantly, it smells particularly when you add in the little factoid that an exec of the UAE company ends up in the US bureaucracy that rides shotgun over the ports. Joe and Martha can now rightly and freely tee off on their congressman because they understand the issue clearly, unlike globalization. The end result is congress get melted phones and a come to Jesus moment.

This decision by Bush will be reverse in the next few weeks. In a presidency obviously devoted to all things boner, this particluar boner is top drawer. Hopefully we'll go years without a similar performance but I doubt it. To borrow a phrase from another boner, Bush is about to get bitchslapped again.

Cosmoline
March 7, 2006, 08:38 PM
http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b52/Gussick/DubaiPost.jpg

If you enjoyed reading about "United Arab Emirates firm to operate six major U.S. ports" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!