« Good Riddance, Lawrence Summers | Main | Boring Stuff Brought Summers' End »
February 22, 2006
Import of Ports
By Ezra
Sorry, but I just love this. It's so prototypically Nation. John Nichols, over at their new blog The Notion, writes:
The problem with the Bush administration's support for a move by a United Arab Emirates-based firm to take over operation of six major American ports -- as well as the shipment of military equipment through two additional ports -- is not that the corporation in question is Arab owned.
The problem is that Dubai Ports World is a corporation.
The problem with the port sale is capitalism, not geopolitics. And now, if The New Republic would just explain the many ways in which this is bad for the Jews, we could all go home happy.
Joking aside, Nichols is right, at least theoretically. But the Bush administration hasn't proven itself a competent steward of anything, and they get particularly low marks on homeland security, so it's not clear that corporate control could possibly be less efficient and effective than the tender loving care of, say, Andrew Card's high school bandmate's brother.
As for the geopolitics, I've less a policy opinion than a sort of political astonishment at the sheer gall. That the 9/11 President is threatening to use his very first veto to ensure an opaque Arab dictatorship controls our country's most vulnerable access points really says it all. It's sort of a trite response, but can you imagine the hellfire and brimstone if Clinton had tried this?
February 22, 2006 | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c572d53ef00d834ab9d9e69e2
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Import of Ports:
Comments
I wish I was Jewish so I could make fun of the New Republic for their wackiness. :-P
Posted by: Drew Miller | Feb 22, 2006 7:12:05 PM
The Coast Guard and Customs will control security. The UAE will just be in charge of a section of the container terminals.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/02/22/opinion/meyer/main1335531.shtml
It's mindblowing how much misinformation is being thrown around regarding this issue.
Posted by: Jeff | Feb 22, 2006 8:08:32 PM
Jeff could be right, this may not that big deal, but hopefully we can get better security for our ports because of the outcry. Also, Republicans are scattering like cockroaches and that's always fun to watch.
Posted by: Marv Toler | Feb 22, 2006 9:03:02 PM
The Coast Guard and Customs will control security. The UAE will just be in charge of a section of the container terminals.
I fail to see how this makes a difference. A state-run corporation of Dubai is going to operate cargo terminals at 6 US ports. Dubai was used as a base for the terrorists involved in 9/11. The royal family of Dubai screwed up a prime opportunity for us to finally get Osama because they were hanging out with him at the time.
We don't need to hand actual security over to this company in order for a nation with known ties to terrorists - esp. Osama - to gain potentially dangerous access to our ports.
Let's put this in some perspective. Let's say we're going to invade, oh I don't know, Iran. Iran is going to draw up the invasion plans and we're going to use Iranian equipment, but that's ok because it's going to be US soldiers who actually perform the invasion.
Give me a break.
Posted by: Stephen | Feb 22, 2006 11:48:10 PM
hadn't republicans privatized evacuating new orleans, back when there was a new orleans? and isn't halliburton's loss of BILLIONS of dollars in iraq republicans' genius plan to save money by privatizing the military?
yeah. privatizing the ports should go really well.
Posted by: jami | Feb 23, 2006 12:51:22 AM
Well, regardless of the actual results of Dubai having a corporate root embedded in our belly (which I can't see a reason to allow), the real wonder of this is:
The Amazing Bu$hCo Tin Ear (that is disconnected from the Bu$shCo brain - which may not bother them because they don't listen to anybody, it seems).
As the facts that are coming out become more damaging, this seems just another example of incompetance in governance. Why would they even consider taking this risk, both in security terms and political terms?
Unless there is a international pro quid quo hidden here (rumors of US Fifth Fleet needing a place to stay, or whatever), or a complicated corporate payoff involving lobbyists and Bush interests, this looks like amateur hour again in the executive branch.
Posted by: JimPortandOR | Feb 23, 2006 3:01:38 AM
Why would they even consider taking this risk, both in security terms and political terms?
I suggest you take the time to read the CBS article that Jeff so graciously provided for you before you embarrass yourself any further.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/02/22/opinion/meyer/main1335531.shtml
Posted by: Fred Jones | Feb 23, 2006 8:56:49 AM
OK, Fred. I read the article. Let me sum it up for the rest here.
It starts with a strawman that we are all screaming because bush turned national security over to Osama, and then goes to what he calls the four myths.
Myth #1: An Arab company is trying to buy six American ports. I think we all understand that they are only trying to buy control of the ports, not the entire port.
Myth #2: The U.S. is turning over security at crucial ports to an Arab company. I love this one. He reassures us that the extremely competent folks at Homeland Security will protect us.
Myth #3: American ports should be American. Here, he points out that two wrongs always make a right, and since the Chinese control our ports, everybody should.
Myth #4: The United Arab Emirates has "very serious" al Qaeda connections. This one is the funniest of all. He uses the fact that bush was an incompetent boob who got Iraq wrong to prove that the folks who are against this issue are probably wrong too.
There is nothing in this article that argues against what I see as Ezra's point, that dubya is an incompetent boob who is more interested in rewarding sycophants than our national security, and a political inept putting out contradictory and hypocritical policies.
Posted by: William Bollinger | Feb 23, 2006 9:57:23 AM
There is also nothing in the article that puts to rest any fears about security.
It's just so great that we invaded a country with no connections to Osama and we're paying a country with connections to Osama to direct operations at 6 of our ports.
The article doesn't address this issue. Would anyone else care to try?
Posted by: Stephen | Feb 23, 2006 10:12:57 AM
The lesson, in all of this, is that you can fool all of the people all of the time into lumping all muslims and middle easterners in with the 9/11 terrorists. The problem, of course, is that the president can't stop these people from being fooled when it becomes convenient for him to do so.
Sow the wind, reap the whirlwind, after all.
I'm lesson worried about this port deal than I was before, but the truth is that the government sale of port operations to a UAE-government-owned simply doesn't sound like a good idea, no matter how you phrase it. Bush isn't the CEO, making a decree that everyone has to follow. He's a political leader who needs buy-in for his decisions from the rest of the political establishment, and it should be no surprise that people find this decision distasteful. What gets me is how angry and petulant he is about being questioned about the matter.
Posted by: Constantine | Feb 23, 2006 10:50:35 AM
The funniest thing I've seen on this is the PortCenter graphic last night on The Daily Show.
Posted by: Adrock | Feb 23, 2006 11:34:25 AM
The lesson, in all of this, is that you can fool all of the people all of the time into lumping all muslims and middle easterners in with the 9/11 terrorists.
Constantine,
Since DPW is owned by the government of Dubai (read: Dubai royal family), which is known to have close ties to Osama and the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11, I'm not sure how your statement applies in this case. Perhaps if this was an Egyptian company, or Kuwaiti or something like that. But the central problem, IMO, is that these particular Middle Easterners are connected with known terrorists. I've no doubt that many who are up in arms about this deal are so because of a knee-jerk reaction based upon prejudicial feelings about Arabs. However, there are many of us who oppose this back-room deal - that coincidentally benefits members of Bush's cabinet - because of the plain facts of it. I would hope that in this situation people would be more concerned with the actual security issues facing us here than with proving their "I'm not prejudiced" cred.
Posted by: Stephen | Feb 23, 2006 11:52:03 AM
Stephen, I still think that the deal should have been more thoroughly vetted for both security reasons and conflict-of-interest reasons, I'm simply less worried about it than I was before, now that I know the specifics, but I'm not trying to play Kevin Drum here. However, it goes without saying that Bush is reaping an uproar borne in part of the climate of fear that he himself created.
Posted by: Constantine | Feb 23, 2006 12:01:40 PM
However, it goes without saying that Bush is reaping an uproar borne in part of the climate of fear that he himself created.
Quite so. I felt that you were painting with a rather broad brush regarding those who are uproarious, that's all.
Posted by: Stephen | Feb 23, 2006 12:08:45 PM
As for the geopolitics, I've less a policy opinion than a sort of political astonishment at the sheer gall. That the 9/11 President is threatening to use his very first veto to ensure an opaque Arab dictatorship controls our country's most vulnerable access points really says it all. It's sort of a trite response, but can you imagine the hellfire and brimstone if Clinton had tried this?
I'm sorry, but were you asleep when the wingnuts were screaming that an American company being allowed to sell computers to China was Clinton betraying the country?
What you really need is for someone like Paul Krugman to go on television with charts and diagrams and say:
"Listen up, you stupid motherfuckers, if we keep importing more of their goods and we export less of our goods, then of course the Heathen Chinee are going to buy our companies. That's a fact of life."
Posted by: Phoenician in a time of Romans | Feb 23, 2006 4:14:19 PM
Or Heathen Dubaii in this case...
Posted by: Phoenician in a time of Romans | Feb 23, 2006 4:15:09 PM
"the Bush administration hasn't proven itself a competent steward of anything..."
The Bush madministration reminds me of the foolish servant in the Bible who buries the talents, except that Bush would have turned the ground-breaking into a photo op.
Ed
Posted by: Ed Drone | Feb 23, 2006 5:02:50 PM
仓储笼
仓储笼
折叠式仓储笼
仓库笼
南京仓储笼
上海仓储笼
北京仓储笼
广州仓储笼
杭州仓储笼
仓储笼
仓储笼
仓库笼
仓库笼
折叠式仓储笼
折叠式仓储笼
折叠仓储笼
折叠仓储笼
仓储笼
仓库笼
折叠式仓储笼
折叠仓储笼
仓储笼
仓储笼
仓储笼
仓库笼
折叠式仓储笼
仓储笼
仓库笼
折叠式仓储笼
蝴蝶笼
储物笼
南京仓储笼
上海仓储笼
北京仓储笼
广州仓储笼
仓储笼
仓库笼
折叠式仓储笼
蝴蝶笼
储物笼
南京仓储笼
上海仓储笼
北京仓储笼
广州仓储笼
仓储笼
仓库笼
折叠式仓储笼
储物笼
上海仓储笼
南京仓储笼
北京仓储笼
广州仓储笼
仓储笼
仓库笼
折叠式仓储笼
蝴蝶笼
储物笼
南京仓储笼
上海仓储笼
北京仓储笼
广州仓储笼
仓储笼
仓库笼
折叠式仓储笼
蝴蝶笼
储物笼
南京仓储笼
上海仓储笼
北京仓储笼
广州仓储笼
仓储笼
仓库笼
折叠式仓储笼
蝴蝶笼
南京仓储笼
上海仓储笼
北京仓储笼
广州仓储笼
Posted by: judy | Oct 1, 2007 4:32:36 AM
仓储笼
仓储笼
折叠式仓储笼
仓库笼
南京仓储笼
上海仓储笼
北京仓储笼
广州仓储笼
杭州仓储笼
仓储笼
仓储笼
仓库笼
仓库笼
折叠式仓储笼
折叠式仓储笼
折叠仓储笼
折叠仓储笼
仓储笼
仓库笼
折叠式仓储笼
折叠仓储笼
仓储笼
仓储笼
仓储笼
仓库笼
折叠式仓储笼
仓储笼
仓库笼
折叠式仓储笼
蝴蝶笼
储物笼
南京仓储笼
上海仓储笼
北京仓储笼
广州仓储笼
仓储笼
仓库笼
折叠式仓储笼
蝴蝶笼
储物笼
南京仓储笼
上海仓储笼
北京仓储笼
广州仓储笼
仓储笼
仓库笼
折叠式仓储笼
储物笼
上海仓储笼
南京仓储笼
北京仓储笼
广州仓储笼
仓储笼
仓库笼
折叠式仓储笼
蝴蝶笼
储物笼
南京仓储笼
上海仓储笼
北京仓储笼
广州仓储笼
仓储笼
仓库笼
折叠式仓储笼
蝴蝶笼
储物笼
南京仓储笼
上海仓储笼
北京仓储笼
广州仓储笼
仓储笼
仓库笼
折叠式仓储笼
蝴蝶笼
南京仓储笼
上海仓储笼
北京仓储笼
广州仓储笼
Posted by: judy | Oct 1, 2007 4:33:44 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.