Posted on 02/22/2006 1:18:57 AM PST by bd476
WASHINGTON, Feb. 22, 2006
A nefarious multinational corporation secretly controlled by a hostile Arab government has engineered a covert takeover of six major U.S. ports. America is at risk of losing control of its borders and compromising national security in an entirely preventable way.
Horselips.
Never have I seen a bogus story explode so fast and so far. I thought I was a connoisseur of demagoguery and cheap shots, but the Dubai Ports World saga proves me a piker. With a stunning kinship of cravenness, politicians of all flavors risk trampling each other as they rush to the cameras and microphones to condemn the handover of massive U.S. strategic assets to an Islamic, Arab terrorist-loving enemy.
The only problem -- and I admit it's only a teeny-weeny problem -- is that 90 percent of that story is false.
The United Arab Emirates is not an Axis of Evil kind of place, it will not own U.S. ports, it will not control security at U.S. ports and there is nothing new about foreigners owning U.S. ports. Odds are higher that you'll be wounded interfering with a congressman providing soundbites than by something smuggled into a port terminal leased by Dubai Ports World.
But please: let's not let the facts get in the way of a good story. And what's wrong with a little Arab-bashing anyway?
I am no expert on ports, transportation or shipping. But it takes very little reading and research to cut through the gas on this one.
Myth #1: That an Arab company is trying to buy six American ports.
No, the company is buying up a British company that leases terminals in American ports; the ports are U.S.-owned. To lease a terminal at a U.S. port means running some business operations there -- contracting with shipping lines, loading and unloading cargo and hiring local labor. Dubai Ports World is not buying the ports.
Several companies will lease terminals at a single port. In New Orleans, for example, the company Dubai Ports World is trying to buy (P&O Ports) is just one of eight companies that lease and operate terminals.
P&O Ports does business in 18 other countries. None of them are in righteous lathers about the sale of the business to a company owned by the United Arab Emirates. Dubai Ports World already operates port facilities all over the world, including such security-slacker states as China, Australia, Korea and Germany.
Myth #2: The U.S. is turning over security at crucial ports to an Arab company.
No, security at U.S. ports is controlled by U.S. federal agencies led by the Coast Guard and the U.S. Customs and Border Control Agency, which are part of the Homeland Security department. Local jurisdictions also provide police and security personnel.
Complaints about security at ports should be directed to the federal government.
Myth #3: American ports should be American.
Well, it's too late, baby. According to James Jay Carafano of the Heritage Foundation (a place really known for its Arab-loving, soft-on-terror approach), "Foreign companies already own most of the maritime infrastructure that sustains American trade…"
At the port of Los Angeles, 80 per cent of the terminals are operated by foreign companies. Chinese companies operate more than half the terminals. So why is this suddenly a threat? After all, political outcry managed to scupper the deal a few months ago in which a Chinese company was going to take over the Unocal oil company.
Go to any port in the country and you'll be lucky to see a single giant vessel with U.S.A. on its stern. Foreign-owned airplanes fly into American airports every hour. Many U.S. companies have foreign entities among their largest shareholders.
My colleague Charlie Wolfson reports that State Department sources say Dubai Ports World already handles port calls for U.S. Navy ships from the 5th fleet for their regular port calls in the United Arab Emirates -- a pretty high measure of trustworthiness.
Myth #4: the United Arab Emirates has "very serious" al Qaeda connections.
That's what Republican Rep. Peter King says. It's also what the administration said of pre-war Iraq, but that doesn't mean it's true. I suppose you could say each and every Arab and Islamic country has al Qaeda issues, but even on that yardstick the UAE is a pretty good player and by most accounts, getting better.
Politicians have been quick to point out that two of the 9/11 hijackers were from UAE. And we're turning over our ports to them? Well, by that logic, we shouldn't let Lufthansa land in our airports or have military bases in Germany, because that country housed a bunch of the 9/11 hijackers as they were plotting.
Yes, Dubai has plenty of blood in its hands, especially as a source or courier for terror funds. But it is not a rogue state. It has been among the closer and more cooperative Arab allies for the past two years (another conspiracy theory: the U.S. is paying them off).
Some combination of these facts led the Dubai Ports deal to be approved by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States. Certainly the security of American ports is an important issue. Certainly who controls the finances of companies that lease terminals at ports is far down the to-do list of how to improve security at ports.
That has everything to do with adequate funding and proper management at the relevant agencies. Management is the responsibility of the executive branch, while funding and oversight is the job of Congress. There is scant evidence that Congress or the administration have excelled in their duties.
That's why it's so tempting for politicians of both parties to indulge in xenophobic Arab-bashing on this matter of minimal national security importance. One Republican said that regardless of the facts, the administration was politically "tone deaf" on this one. Appearance is more important than reality.
Often bipartisanship is a sign of pragmatic consensus or noble common cause. In this case it is merely a scene of a politician occupational hazard: cover-your-arse-itis.
Dick Meyer, a veteran political and investigative producer for CBS News, is the Editorial Director of CBSNews.com, based in Washington.
That's right, it's not.
Voter#537 wrote: "OK
You convinced me. Along with O'Riley last night."
That's good news. Thanks for the feedback, Voter#537!
I think they were helping the "voiceless" Democrats... find their voices.
Nonetheless, what is it about foreign investment portfolios which bother the Dems so much?
Alia wrote: "'The United Arab Emirates is not an Axis of Evil kind of place,'That's right, it's not."
It's good to hear your thoughts, Alia.
Thanks Clemenza.
Brian Kilmeade reports that there was no opposition to the Port plan until Chuckie Schumer came on their show last week and commented on the sale of the ports.
This all happen in November.
Chuckie really hit pay dirt on this one. It would be interesting to track the time line on this one.
Oh and this phrase may sound familiar but, "HE PLAYED ON OUR FEAR."
Isn't it amazing?
Here's what gets me about all this tempest in a teapot: The invested monies are good for those working at the ports and boosts GDP -- maybe this is what has got the Dems all worked up. Plus, for crying out loud, if the Emirate gets word of something funny coming into the ports (and they just might), like heck they WOULDN'T do something about it. They've got an investment to protect.
It really is amazing! All this scandalous stuff and we never knew China was running our ports! LOL
No ideas, crazy people.
That's very interesting, MWare, but not very surprising. That's exactly how it's done.
Your final sentence bears repeating:
MWare wrote: "...Oh and this phrase may sound familiar but,
'HE PLAYED ON OUR FEAR.' "
No matter how logical it all is, it's stupid for Bush to do this.
You gotta pick your battles, and this is not the kind of issue that he should drawing a line in the sand over. There is no upside and only downside.
Bush didn't do anything. DPWorld offered the shareholders of the current lease holder(P&O) and the P&O shareholders accepted the offer and DPWorld is taking over their company.
Me too. O'Reilly was spot on.
Great post, bd476.
Truthsearcher wrote: "No matter how logical it all is, it's stupid for Bush to do this."
Truthsearcher, I hear what you're saying and I think I understand where you're coming from. It sounds like you believe that President Bush has made a terrible decision which reflects a change in course for him.
At what point in time do you believe President Bush lost his intelligence or his ability to reason?
Truthsearcher wrote:"...You gotta pick your battles, and this is not the kind of issue that he should drawing a line in the sand over. There is no upside and only downside..."
That is a pretty popular opinion right now. What have you read or heard recently which has convinced you of this?
Thanks Onyx.
I'm sure Qatar has some terror ties too. But we need them for Centcom.
Thank you for your feedback, Lancey.
Lancey Howard wrote: "...it is one of the best articles on the ports issue that I have seen - - mainly because the writer has done a little research and is informed. Congratulations to Dick Meyer for having the integrity to avoid the lazy, knee-jerk reaction."
Agree completely.
That sums it up, and makes a lot of sense, Alia. Thanks for the input.
bd476, thankyou. Do you think the Dems will next, on house floor, raise the slogan "No Blood for Ports"? Or will they leave that to La Sheehan?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.