Worries escalate over sale of U.S. port operations to Arab firm

Status
Not open for further replies.
Question:
Are there other countries that have similar contractual agreements with goverments of questionable security support for their own?
 
Jeff White said:
Now we are selling the physical plant that we would need to sustain ourselves in a war for cheap consumer goods. The port deal is just another example of that mentality. Someday soon we will reach the point where our industrial capacity will no longer sustain a force of any useful size in combat.

I think we reached that point back when I watched a video of Bethlehem Steel shutting down (the place from which most of the steel for many WWII battleships and tanks and aircraft came from), and the furnaces going out one by one, forever.

That was symbolic at that point, I think. We are becoming a service economy, but if the borders closed tomorrow, or if the dollar had the rug yanked out from under it, we can no longer MAKE things ourselves...the manufacturing infrastructure is GONE. Not just for war materiel, but for the daily flow of goods.

Go through your house. Pick up every item and count those that do NOT say "made in China" on the underside. Especially appliances. Did you know that there isn't even any place in the US anymore that manufactures toasters? None. None at all. It might seem like a little thing, but it's symbolic. Look around at all the Made in China stuff. Imagine it all vanishing. All of it. Scared, yet?

And that's a highly dangerous position to be in. It's the equivalent of living in a high-rise and deciding you don't need the stairs anymore, taking them out, and leaving only the elevator. And if the power goes out...

We are beholden to a semi-hostile communist regime for the continued existence of our economy, and every convenience and most of the furnishings and items we have in our lives. And we are turning over our ports, our gateways, to another regime that does not share our long-term goals at all, and may have elements of those who would destroy us.
 
We are beholden to a semi-hostile communist regime for the continued existence of our economy

Yeah, but they're less dangerous than the entirely hostile communist regime in Washington. For one thing, you'd have to look pretty hard to find even one serious communist believer in China; no one there thinks that the government can run things more efficiently than private citizens. In Washington all you have to do is look at Bush's spending record.... he's raised government spending (Including spending on "liberal" causes like the Department of Education) faster than any President since FDR, with the supine cooperation of the "free-enterprise Republican" Congress.

Chinese making better and cheaper toasters aren't going to destroy the Constitution. But mindlessly supporting your Emperor will.
 
Here we go again. Bust Bush!

The mess we are in now is the direct result of actions by congress. The president is the executor of congressional directives. If congress did not like what he is doing, then congress can clip his wings. Ain't happened yet, and it won't happen until congress fears the voter more tha those who carry money bags. Congress is the organization that writes the law. Bush does not think he should get involved in congressional debates. Unfortunately he can't spell V-E-T-O. So between the two groups we have a train careening down the side of a mountain gathering speed all the while the ticket payers ask "***?"

Portgate has alerted the public to the fact (understood in some circles) that the ruling class does not have this country's best interests at heart in decision making. Perhaps, perhaps the taxpaying class just rolled over and opened an eye.
 
I think we reached that point back when I watched a video of Bethlehem Steel shutting down (the place from which most of the steel for many WWII battleships and tanks and aircraft came from), and the furnaces going out one by one, forever.

That was symbolic at that point, I think. We are becoming a service economy, but if the borders closed tomorrow, or if the dollar had the rug yanked out from under it, we can no longer MAKE things ourselves...the manufacturing infrastructure is GONE. Not just for war materiel, but for the daily flow of goods.
-------------------------
A dangerous path we are on indeed.
When the SHTF in WWII and we were faced with a 2 front war it was our ability to out produce the Germans and the Japanese in war materials, the quality of those materials, and the ability to mass produce the vehicle, vessel, or aircraft to deliver the materials that created a war climate that the Axis could not match. AMERICAN production was at least as important as the bravery and spirit of our soldiers who put those war materials to good use.
But we have moved to a service economy, where we service, transport, or market other countries goods.
Think back to when very housewife had to have a new Maytag, every man wanted a new RCA TV, and a new Buick was "King of the Road", all American made. Think of how strong America was then (50's 60's), both internally and around the world.
We need to turn it around somehow and make America more self sufficent and also restore it's capacity/ability to produce the goods that it will need to survive.
:fire: :fire:
 
Manedwolf said:
... It's the equivalent of living in a high-rise and deciding you don't need the stairs anymore, taking them out, and leaving only the elevator. And if the power goes out...
That's a fine analogy.

Where will we find the right administration - one that will end trade with those who use our purchasing to fund their potential aggression... against us; one that will close the borders; end outsourcing and re-build our self-reliant economic base; clear raiders from the corporations and reclaim the assets; sanitize government; update infra-structure; demand educated, focused children and responsible parents; instill a new moral sense and pride in the people; drill the Alaskan wilderness while pushing for new energy sources; respect and reinforce our rights; budget and spend for the needed, not the wanted; all the while defending us from those who would be enemies - and still keep us rather content??

We'd best be finding these folks soon.

-AndyB
 
I'll say it - I like Bush. I know he's got a plan. He might not be telling us what it is - but you can bet he's got one.
 
Art Eatman said:
Er, uh, 'scuse me? London-based P&O doesn't seem to me to be a US company.

FWIW, P&O is an old-time company. Dates back to the sailing ship days. Maybe they're going broke, for all I know, as so many others have. Maybe the Dubai outfit thinks they can make a profit, I don't know.

But it ain't out-sourcing.

Art


It seems to me that the real issue is that the UAE company is actually STATE owned, it does not seem to be some sort of private enterprise (at least not beyond the surface level). The British company, according to the source article, does not appear to be owned by the UK government. If this indeed is the case, a good question to pose would be whether or not we feel comfortable with another country's actual government having ownership of strategic physical assets on our own soil.

A STATE owned company does not have to worry about profits, board members, shareholder, and the like.

A state owned company would have its own strategic needs in mind. I listened to an NPR interview with a UAE diplomat indicating that they are in this as a long term investment in their country, planning for the future, for when oil runs out, etc. (which seems odd considering reports of the ports not making any money) If we accept their reason, this would suggest that the UAE strategic need right now is investment/money. Do we feel comfortable that they won't redefine their strategic needs in the future?

I can understand the importance of free trade with enterprises of other nations. But is seems a bit short sighted to allow private US enterprises to be selling off assets to actual foreign governments proper (even if they were completely friendly and we had no doubts about them). I would think there would be a law about this somewhere?
 
Think of how strong America was then (50's 60's), both internally and around the world.

Well... That had a lot to do with most of the world being bombed out, broke and rebuilding during WW2.

At one time we had strategic programs that kept so much production capability, raw materials and such domestically produced in case of a war. In the case of raw materials, we stockpiled them here in war reserve. As far as I know, we don't do that anymore.

I agree to a point, but are you advocating a federal government program to enforce domestic production of everything we might need?

IMHO, such a program would make the USA weaker...not stronger.
 
Merkin.Muffley said:
I'll say it - I like Bush. I know he's got a plan. He might not be telling us what it is - but you can bet he's got one.

Oddly enough, I had similar feelings for the first 3 or 4 years of his presidency... I made myself believe that he had a plan, or that he knew something important that we didn't. I also believed that Bush was much more intelligent than most people would give him credit for. But slowly, I started realizing that nothing seemed to pan out. Too much "trust me" type stuff. He always seems like he knows something that we don't, but in the end...

I won't hide my personal opinion of Bush. I've had frequent personal and professional experience with people who say "trust me" in one way or other, and it usually doesn't work out how you would expect. So much so, that the outcome is almost completely predictable.

Ehh, even if he did know something really really good that we didn't know, or he had a secret plan that would "make it all better", his "approach" seems way too secretive to be healthy for our republic. IMHO of course.
 
That was symbolic at that point, I think. We are becoming a service economy, but if the borders closed tomorrow, or if the dollar had the rug yanked out from under it, we can no longer MAKE things ourselves...the manufacturing infrastructure is GONE. Not just for war material, but for the daily flow of goods.

But the good thing is we've made some of out population rich.:roll eyes:
 
Where will we find the right administration - one that will end trade with those who use our purchasing to fund their potential aggression... against us; one that will close the borders; end outsourcing and re-build our self-reliant economic base; clear raiders from the corporations and reclaim the assets; sanitize government; update infra-structure; demand educated, focused children and responsible parents; instill a new moral sense and pride in the people; drill the Alaskan wilderness while pushing for new energy sources; respect and reinforce our rights; budget and spend for the needed, not the wanted; all the while defending us from those who would be enemies - and still keep us rather content??

Check out the recent essays of Pat Buchanan.

Bush has a plan. To advance the interests of the Carlyle Group and their vast network of corporate allies worldwide.
 
longeyes said:
Check out the recent essays of Pat Buchanan.

Bush has a plan. To advance the interests of the Carlyle Group and their vast network of corporate allies worldwide.

Any sources for that conspiracy theory? Bush must be pretty smart after all.:evil:
 
That's not a conspiracy theory, that's just observation. W. clearly believes in unfettered global corporatism. I also believe in the Invisible Hand, but I don't want it around my throat of my country. We elected George W. Bush, not the ghost of Prescott Bush.
 
not to worry, Bush has an ally, it's the "Panama Canal" guy

Posted on Tue, Feb. 21, 2006

U.S. SECURITY
Carter backs Bush's stand on seaport-operations deal
Former President Jimmy Carter downplayed criticism of White House support of an Arab-owned company's purchase of a major seaport-operations firm.
BY LESLEY CLARK
[email protected]

WASHINGTON - President Bush is taking a battering from fellow Republicans, even the governors of New York and Maryland, over the administration's support for a decision that gives an Arab company control of some commercial operations at six major seaports -- including Miami-Dade's.

But he got a boost Monday from an unlikely source, frequent critic and former president Jimmy Carter, who downplayed fears that the deal poses a risk.

''The overall threat to the United States and security, I don't think it exists,'' Carter said on CNN's The Situation Room. ``I'm sure the president's done a good job with his subordinates to make sure this is not a threat.''

The show of support from the Democrat, who has not hesitated to criticize Bush, underscores the odd political lines that have emerged since news broke last week that the United States gave the thumbs-up to the $6.8 billion sale of the British firm P&O Ports to a company owned by the United Arab Emirates.

Both Democrats and Republicans have called on the president to scrap the deal. On Monday Republican Govs. George Pataki of New York and Robert Ehrlich of Maryland questioned the decision. And congressional outrage persisted even as the White House signaled it's unlikely to block it.

Political analysts suggested that challenging the president gives Republican lawmakers a chance to deflect Democratic criticism.

''This is a homeland security, national security issue and I think Republicans think they own this issue and they don't want to give Democrats an opening,'' said Stuart Rothenberg, editor of The Rothenberg Political Report, a Washington newsletter.

REPUBLICANS WORRIED

Republicans said they're simply worried no one was paying enough attention to security concerns.

''After Sept. 11 we can't blindly follow the president in a way that seems to create a homeland security concern,'' said Rep. Mark Foley, a Palm Beach County Republican. Foley said he's working on legislation to give Congress the authority to approve or reject all applications made through the Committee on Foreign Investments in the United States, the top-secret group that OK'd the transaction.

Port security officials have dismissed the congressional concerns, but Republicans suggest an administration that is usually politically attuned has sorely misread public reaction.

''I don't know if they were tone deaf, but they certainly didn't have a pulse on what people were thinking in terms of security,'' said Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, a Miami Republican. She and Foley plan news conferences today in Miami. ``We haven't forgotten Sept. 11. I know the president hasn't either, but that has to extend to more than just speeches.''

Traveling with the president, White House spokesman Scott McClellan on Monday repeated the administration's contention that the sale was thoroughly vetted by a ''rigorous review process.'' His comments came after he was asked if Bush was ''comfortable'' with the deal after Sunday morning talk shows featured Republicans criticizing it.

The Port of Miami-Dade is taking a neutral position, stressing that DP World would only be the majority owner in one of three terminals. But Miami-Dade Mayor Carlos Alvarez said Monday the matter ``raises issues.''

At Miami's port, P&O Ports owns 50 percent of the Port of Miami Terminal Operating Co., which handles about half the cargo containers at the port.

Senate hearings are already planned and Sen. Bob Menendez, a New Jersey Democrat, vowed Monday to push legislation to block the sale if President Bush doesn't act by March 2 -- the day the sale is set to close, affecting ports in Baltimore, New York, Philadelphia, New Orleans and New Jersey, as well as Miami.

Visiting Dubai, Undersecretary of State Karen Hughes sought to rebuff suggestions that Congress' criticism is based on anti-Arab sentiment, according to the Associated Press.

''The lawmakers are questioning about security concerns in light of the fact that a couple of the Sept. 11 hijackers did come from the United Arab Emirates,'' Hughes said, adding that the Middle Eastern nation has been ``a strong partner in the war against terror.''

PREJUDICE ALLEGED

The Council on American-Islamic Relations, a Washington group that seeks to promote a positive image of Islam and Muslims, said some of the reaction smacks of prejudice.

''No one seems to be criticizing the company itself, but they're most concerned with the religion and ethnicity of its owners,'' said spokesman Ibrahim Hooper. ``It's what we have to deal with in the post-9/11 era.''

But lawmakers like Ros-Lehtinen, who is aiming to become the next chair of the House International Relations Committee, were unapologetic about their stance.

''They've been a strong ally, but what about tomorrow?'' Ros-Lehtinen said of the United Arab Emirates.

Miami Herald staff writer Steve Harrison contributed to this report from Miami.



© 2006 MiamiHerald.com and wire service sources. All Rights Reserved.
 
ReadyontheRight said:
Non-Story if a Republican were not President.
Exactly... the Cheney story died down so the Dems are running this up the flagpole! And what is the alternative to UAE control of the ports? You guessed it and some Dems are caught with their pants down....Halliburton! Even NY Sen. Chuck Schumer embraces Halliburton over the UAE! Wow...

For more detail on the port deal, MichelleMalkin has the story... though I disagree with her position on this issue, she does get the background detail!
 
some here have it correct!

I trust the innate judgement of the American people, and that is to keep control of the ports in the hands of the USA!

I do not care what former Pres. Jimmy Carter, or Pres. Bush, or any other "person in the know" has analyzed and concluded.

Who is your Congressional Representative, and Senators?
Government of the people, by the people and for the people.

Not from those who would have us as their servants; in spite of their esteem of their wisdom, leadership and inside knowledge over us masses.
 
Check out the recent essays of Pat Buchanan.
Bush has a plan. To advance the interests of the Carlyle Group and their vast network of corporate allies worldwide.
Pat Buchanan? The dude who ran for POTUS with former International Worker's Party member Lenora Fulani? That Buchanan? The man who has made more of a career of the last 12 years bashing the entire Bush family?

Whadda great source for a Carlyle Group conspiracy!
 
'They've been a strong ally, but what about tomorrow?'' Ros-Lehtinen said of the United Arab Emirates.

Right.

Since the Sept. 11 attacks, the FBI has said the money for the strikes was transferred to the hijackers primarily through the UAE's banking system, and much of the operational planning for the attacks took place inside the UAE.

Many of the hijackers traveled to the U.S. through the UAE. Also, the hijacker who steered United Airlines flight into the World Trade Center's south tower, Marwan al-Shehhi, was born in the UAE.

After the attacks, U.S. Treasury Department officials complained about a lack of cooperation by the UAE and other Arab countries trying to track Osama bin Laden's bank accounts.

source http://www.newsradio88.com/pages/7203.php?
 
Whadda great source for a Carlyle Group conspiracy!

Buchanan has good and bad points; I'll wager that his brand of nationalism is about to get new life politically.

I never used the term "conspiracy." The Carlyle Group is W.'s "family," that's all. Let's be real about this. The Carlyle Group is the poster-child for all those mysterious global "investment groups" that are comprised of poobahs with passports who bounce from government to corporate at will. These are the people who pose as "capitalists" while trading on friendships made while in high-echelon jobs. They make a mockery out of real entrepreneurship and everyday labor. Some of us can't live off "finder's fees" and corporate directorships.
 
Carter backs Bush's stand on seaport-operations deal

Tells me all I need to know about this.

I am more concerned about this than I was when Slicky Britches Klintoon was so busy giving our nuclear secrets to China.
 
the Cheney story died down so the Dems are running this up the flagpole!

There's no comparison. CheneyGate is a joke. PortGate is emphatically not. Americans don't like done deals made by secret committees without Congressional oversight--especially when they offer to threaten national security in such a blatant way. They don't like Presidents who jump to defend deals without offering to listen and review.

I suspect PortGate, even if Busy bites the bullet and relents, is going to be the catalytic event that sinks this Administration.
 
Last edited:
longeyes said:
I suspect PortGate, even if Busy bites the bullet and relents, is going to be the catalytic event that sinks this Administration.

Would you be disappointed if it wasn't?:evil:
 
By God longeyes, I hope you're right, but nothing seems to stick to these people.
Biker
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top