Going overboard

Los Angeles Times ^ | February 23, 2006 | Jonah Goldberg

[BigSkyFreeper]

DID YOU HEAR the one about Dick Cheney, a priest and a rabbi walking into an Arab-run port?

No? Too bad, because the brouhaha that has replaced Cheney-mania is a lot less entertaining. This week brought a strange bipartisan convergence over, of all things, the commercial management of U.S. ports.

Bipartisan consensus is often a troubling sign, particularly when it's on an issue few know much about. It was prompted by the Bush administration's decision to defend the bid by Dubai Ports World, based in the United Arab Emirates, to buy the British-owned Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation Co., which currently runs six U.S. ports. The deal was unanimously approved by the administration committee charged with reviewing the national security implications of foreign acquisitions.

In response, Republicans and Democrats alike have gone batty.

[BigSkyFreeper]

Ping

[Darkwolf377]

Thank god, sanity is back after a few days off.

[onyx]

Pong.

[ARCADIA]

Port security is a serious concern, but scapegoating Dubai is a distraction. And if we're going to argue about distractions, we might stick to the entertaining ones.

Scapegoating, that is an interesting term; let me suggest this: the next time that someone calls you a clown for questioning the Dubai deal, ask them if they are willing to face a firing squard if their assurances are later (unfortunately) proven wrong. The number of people stepping forward to blow smoke up our ass is the reciprocal of those in authority who seem willing to take personal responsibility for this thing. The question of security goes much further then the processing of containers at a dock facility; and, at the end of the day there is a very simple question: what is in it for us, and why should the U.S. approve this thing? So far the Presidents fairness doctrine falls far short of explaining why we should assume the risk of truning over our ports to a profoundly muslim owned operation at a time when we are at war with most of Islam.

[Echo Talon]

Besides, the same Dubai company bought CSX's American port business in 2005, and nobody seemed to care then. So, why now?

[Petronski]

Bipartisan consensus is often a troubling sign...

LOLOL . . . So true.

[ARCADIA]

If it had been covered then as extensively as it is now, the reaction would have been the same. This one is getting the press becuase it is a much larger and more visible blip.

[Echo Talon]

Would it be OK if a Muslim company from say, France got this contract? Or do the owners of these companies have to be Christians?

[Echo Talon]

This one is getting the press becuase it is a much larger and more visible blip.

I think this one is getting covered because its 2006 and an election year.

[Lurker]

This one is getting press because the Dems think they can get to the 'right' of President Bush on security. Sadly a bunch of pubbies are helping.

I'd love an American company to be running these ports, but none of them bid for the business.

Besides, these guys have been supplying and repairing Navy ships for almost a decade. If the Chaiman of the Joint Chiefs isn't worried about it, neither am I.

L

[Echo Talon]

That got a chuckle out of me too. :)

[Earthdweller]

"In response, Republicans and Democrats alike have gone batty."

Batman: "Yes Robin, those people are batty. There are always a few spoiled bats in every family."

[beaver fever]

When the latimes sounds reasonable you now you are spending the afternoon at the Mad Hatters Tea party.

This issue is becoming increasingly insane.

The Dubai PO takeover is a simple corporate acquistion.

Nothing but nothing changes on the ground.

[onyx]

It's an election year...lol.
Who knew?

[ARCADIA]

You seem to be missing the point. We are at war with radical Islam. As far as I know there are no passports or identification cards that be presented to us that would distinguish a neutral muslim from a radical muslim. Perhaps somewhere there is a worldwide database that is 100% complete and contains the biometric signatures of every radical islamic on this planet; but, until that is demonstrated, and until we have a process that assures that everyone involved in this deal has been vetted by that process, it is incombent upon us to assume that muslim participation means enemy participation.

[ER Doc]

I'm sure glad we've got the LA Times to tell us how good conservatives should think. Lord knows we can't trust the Republican congressional leadership; they're always trying to undermine the President.

[PrinceOfCups]

...So here are a few, in no particular order: The Dubai firm wouldn't be handling security — the U.S. Coast Guard would continue to do that; unionized American longshoremen would still to do all of the loading and unloading; the ports in question were already foreign-owned, as are countless other ports in the United States; and if the U.S. had rejected the Dubai bid, a Singapore firm would probably have gotten the contract from the Brits instead....

Sums it up in a nutshell.

[Petronski]

When they all agree, prepare to run for the hills with provisions and ammo.