Next Installment: Why is the Media Lying about DP World and the Ports?

[LostInSpace]

Well looky here:

Newsmax: Hillary Clinton Rips Bill's Panama Ports Deal

[John Prezioso]

Jag - Well, it's a good thing I don't need your approval for my self esteem. You can believe what you wish; it affects me not at all. If it makes you feel better by claiming that you are the only one smart enough to understand all the details of this case, where there's really nothing all that complicated, well, be my guest.

So carry on with you're silly posturing, by all means. The funniest part is that the guy who wanted to nuke Mecca several months back is now calling me racist. Priceless.

[Guest]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Prez:

Jag - Well, it's a good thing I don't need your approval for my self esteem. You can believe what you wish; it affects me not at all. If it makes you feel better by claiming that you are the only one smart enough to understand all the details of this case, where there's really nothing all that complicated, well, be my guest.

So carry on with you're silly posturing, by all means. The funniest part is that the guy who wanted to nuke Mecca several months back is now calling me racist. Priceless.

---

I'm sorry that you don't get it, but that's your problem, not mine.

When the facts come to light, as they will, this whole thing will blow over, as it should have done in the first place.

This is nothing but private business transaction, and national security is not at all in danger.

The facts bear that out.

The owner may well be Muslim, but the people that are going to be working those terminals are American. The owners of the company have very little to do with the day to day operations of the terminals.

I know this, because I have studied it.

You on the other hand have eaten the media line, and to say that I am disapointed, would be an understatement.

[John Prezioso]

You keep saying that I've eaten the media line, which proves that you've read nothing that I said. You are unable to grasp the fact that someone can know the same facts as you and come to a different conclusion. Very sad.

You keep saying that you've studied this. What is there to study? The facts you posted are common knowledge easily found to anyone who does a little googling. You're not special because you don't buy everything the media says. Polls show that most Americans don't.

There are things I found out while googling that I'm sure you came across that you've chosen to downplay, or ignore completely. Fine.

So you accuse me of buying into media lies, and I accuse you of only selectively posting the facts that suit you. I've grown tired over the pointless bickering with you, since, in typical Jag fashion, after about 2 or 3 posts, you continue to post the same thing. This discussion is over for my part. Feel free to post how I've disappointed you and blah, blah, blah- that's great. I don't exist to gain your approval.

[ 02-28-2006, 07:32 AM: Message edited by: Prez ]

[Guest $iLk]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Prez:

This is all SilK's fault: he reported on the deal waaayyy before the media even picked up on the story. Bravo! It looks like we have another Matt Drudge right here at 3000AD!

---

Yeah I was on top of this the day before it hit Drudge's page. I didn't need to be 'programmed' by the MSM.

Fact: The company will be managing 'terminals' in the port instead of the ports themselves.

In either case - the workers of this company will be involved in the security process even when not providing it. They will know what checks need to be made, they will know what clearances are needed, and they will be 100% aware fo the holes and flaws in the security system.

And Jag - just because the Chinese are a bigger thread in their port dealings is besides the point. I don't believe any foreign entity should be dealing in our ports in any capacity.

Too much potential for a world of hurt should they become an enemy or have an enemy infiltrate their company.

They don't have to manage the security to know exactly what is happening and what the security procedures are and how to exploit them.

The very fact that Bush threatened his very first Veto over this, then said he didn't know about it, then continued waffling just leads me to suspect that he is not being straight-forward with the American people.

As you said Jag - it's all business.

I wonder which of Bush's pals are having their palms greased by Benjamins right now?

[Guest]

The people that work there right now, are the ones that will work there then.

The security procedures, give me a break, I know the fricking security procedures, and I don't even work at a port.

It is far easier to get those procedures then any of you think or imagine, and to put a infiltrator within a company is one of the silliest things I have read yet?

Why? What would be the point, ANY person that works at the port has to go through a full clearance, and anyone that would be working for DP would go through the procedure.

Your paranoia, I suppose is commendable, but in this instance, it is going WAY over the top.

All a terrorist org would have to do is get a truck driver that would get a job hauling in and out of the port, to figure out the security procedures, their background checks are surface checks to say the least, it would be FAR harder to infiltrate a company like DP, and would be pretty much for nothing, because those security procedures won't do squat for them.

It's getting in and out of the port that is important, not loading and unloading ships.

This whole thing is political, nothing more, and will, if it goes through, undermine the war on terror by insulting one of our best allies in that war, undermine the Iraq war, because we stage through the UAE, and will undermine the administration.

There is NO security problem here, it is political, and you and your emotions are what is going to allow that to occur.

As I said, it is sad, to say the least....

[LostInSpace]

I just came across this blog. It's pretty good. I was just going to bring some of these issues up myself, but this gentleman has done it very nicely for me. Where were these same Democrats when Mr. Clinton was selling us to the chinese not just in ports but other issues as well if you all remember. Only now are they posturing on their holier than thou attitude? Acting all shocked and dumbfounded. What a performance and what actors they are.

UAE and American Ports: a Modest Proposal

quote:

---

On the Plus Side

But there are political perils on the anti-deal side, too... notably that America has allowed foreign companies, including those based in countries with unfriendly populations or even enemy governments (such as Red China), to operate other American ports, just as Dubai Ports wants to do:

The White House appeared stunned by the uprising, over a transaction that they considered routine ÔÇö especially since China's biggest state-owned shipper runs major ports in the United States, as do a host of other foreign companies. Mr. Bush's aides defended their decision, saying the company, Dubai Ports World, which is owned by the United Arab Emirates, would have no control over security issues....

But [the] firestorm of opposition to the deal drew a similarly intense expression of befuddlement by shipping industry and port experts.

The shipping business, they said, went global more than a decade ago and across the United States, foreign-based companies already control more than 30 percent of the port terminals.

That inventory includes APL Limited, which is controlled by the government of Singapore, and which operates terminals in Los Angeles, Oakland, Seattle, and Dutch Harbor, Alaska. Globally, 24 of the top 25 ship terminal operators are foreign-based, meaning most of the containers sent to the United States leave terminals around the world that are operated by foreign government or foreign-based companies.

"This kind of reaction is totally illogical," said Philip Damas, research director at Drewry Shipping Consultants of London. "The location of the headquarters of a company in the age of globalism is irrelevant."

Singapore, of course, is also a country with a large and radicalized Moslem population that is infiltrated -- inundated is the better word -- by international terrorist organizations like al-Qaeda and their affilliate, Jemaah Islamiah; yet no one is up in arms about APL operating American ports. What is the difference?

The danger to the shrillest voices opposing this deal (especially the Democrats) is that they never objected when other dicey foreign countries operated the ports... but when an Arab country, even a friendly one that has been a huge help to us in the war, wants to do the same thing, the Democrats become hysterical. It smacks of racism -- the idea that it doesn't matter what an Arab thinks or even how hard he has fought on our side in the war against jihadism... his ethnicity alone makes him suspect. After flinging such charges at Republicans for so many decades, Democrats are very edgy about such accusations sticking to them.

There are other, more tangible arguments in favor of the deal, mostly that the UAE has agreed to dramatically increase their already very high level of cooperation with the United States and our Western allies in the war effort. According to AP:

To assuage concerns, the administration disclosed some assurances it had negotiated with Dubai Ports. It required mandatory participation in U.S. security programs to stop smuggling and detect illegal shipments of nuclear materials; roughly 33 other port companies participate in these voluntarily. The Coast Guard also said Tuesday it was nearly finished inspecting Dubai Ports' facilities in the United States.

A senior Homeland Security official, Stewart Baker, said this was the first-ever sale involving U.S. port operations to a state-owned government. "In that sense this is a new layer of controls," he said. Baker added that U.S. intelligence agencies were consulted "very early on to actually look at vulnerabilities and threats...."

A senior executive from Dubai Ports World pledged the company would agree to whatever security precautions the U.S. government demanded to salvage the deal. Chief operating officer Edward "Ted" H. Bilkey promised Dubai Ports "will fully cooperate in putting into place whatever is necessary to protect the terminals...."

Bush, who has never vetoed a bill as president, said on the White House South Lawn: "This is a company that has played by the rules, has been cooperative with the United States, from a country that's an ally on the war on terror, and it would send a terrible signal to friends and allies not to let this transaction go through."

---

[Guest $iLk]

I'm fully willing to admit that maybe this company won't be a problem running these terminals.

Where is the harm in having some verification?

Why was there a hearing to discuss possible dangers if there was no concern that existed?

Is it that unreasonable to have Congressional oversight - especially post-9/11 considering that the ports have been a huge concern as far as being near the top of potential terror targets in the United States?

Especially considering that even the United States Coast Guard had problems with this deal initially.

Iran has a perfect record dealing with nuclear energy so far... care to let them manage anything dealing with our own nuclear power?

[Guest]

First off, yes, it is unreasonable.

This was an executive branch decision, Congress has no responsibility with it.

This has been nothing but a political maneuver by a few congresscritters and the media to undermine the Bush administration.

This is a merger between private companies, and has nothing to do with security at the ports.

[Guest $iLk]

When private companies merge - it is a national security issue when these companies deal in certain things... namely like when China was trying to purchase Exxon Mobil last year.

The 'lies' about this do bother me. I hate when certain Congress people use it for political advantage.

That being said - it shouldn't devolve into a political issue. As an American - I am very uneasy about allowing a foreign country to operate in areas of national security concern.

I'd be extremely happy to remove all foreign-operated countries from ports and airlines.

I think what you are seeing here is people losing faith in Bush to handle national security. His complete lack of resolve in handling the ports, in handling the borders, and in handling foreign visas is appalling. This issue is just causing this to boil over.

I've been ranting like a lunatic about Bush's actions since long before this deal. More people are starting to realize that Bush is anything but a Conservative, and that Neo-Conservatism is anything but responsible.

[LostInSpace]

Wow just wow! This just in:

KeySpan Being Sold To British Utility Co.

quote:

---

AP) LONDON KeySpan is being sold. National Grid has agreed to a $7.3 billion dollar takeover of the largest natural gas distribution company in the northeastern United States.

KeySpan serves 900,000 utility customers in Massachusetts and New Hampshire.

National Grid said it was paying $7.3 billion cash and also taking on debts estimated at $4.5 billion. KeySpan shareholders will receive $42.00 in cash for each share held.

---

Where's the anti-foreign ownership rhetoric now? A foreign fime taking over an important east coast energy supply company. Isn't our energy infrastructure as important as the ports to put into the hands of foreigners?

[Guest $iLk]

quote:

---

Originally posted by LostInSpace:

Wow just wow! This just in:

KeySpan Being Sold To British Utility Co.

quote:

---

AP) LONDON KeySpan is being sold. National Grid has agreed to a $7.3 billion dollar takeover of the largest natural gas distribution company in the northeastern United States.

KeySpan serves 900,000 utility customers in Massachusetts and New Hampshire.

National Grid said it was paying $7.3 billion cash and also taking on debts estimated at $4.5 billion. KeySpan shareholders will receive $42.00 in cash for each share held.

---

Where's the anti-foreign ownership rhetoric now? A foreign fime taking over an important east coast energy supply company. Isn't our energy infrastructure as important as the ports to put into the hands of foreigners?

---

While I dislike this development - it is much different to have Britain running things than it is to have a country who funnelled half the money for the 9/11 attacks not even 5 years ago.

[LostInSpace]

Looks like Mrs. Clinton has been blind sided.

CNN: In a letter to Sen. Hillary Clinton, obtained exclusively by CNN, Israel's Zim Integrated Shipping Services CEO, Idon Ofer, called DP World a strong business partner, despite the United Arab Emirates' boycott of Israel.

"During our long association with DP World, we have not experienced a single security issue in these ports or in any of the terminals operated by DP World," Ofer said in a letter written February 22. "We are proud to be associated with DP World and look forward to working with them into the future."

Clinton, a Democrat from New York, is a leading opponent of the proposed deal, and has joined other senators in introducing legislation to ban companies owned by foreign governments from controlling U.S. port operations.

-------------------------------------------------------

Compliments of CNN. Read the letter here.

[Guest $iLk]

Yeah the Democrats are just playing critic right now because of the political advantage. I recognize and understand that without being afraid to join in for the right reasons.

[LostInSpace]

You know what I find amazing. This entire port story has simply dried up on any NYC news outlets. Not even one word about this letter and you know how they are like picking up stories from other news outlets. The only thing I saw was a few days ago on UP9, which is based in New Jersey, about our own security. I actually cringed at the report. Sure, show the entire world the gaps in our port security. Well, New York's anyway. As for the bamdwagoning politicians and news media about the port, not a single word since this letter. Even CNN seems to have dropped this story. It's as if it didn't exist. They just can't admit that they hyped up the wrong story. But they did succeed in their goal, helping to drop Bush's apporval rating while this supposed fiasco unfolded.

[Kevin Trotter]

That is what they seem do do best. Otherwise I am enjoying this little exchange!

[LostInSpace]

Sure, now that the deal has been killed, they say this:

CNN/Fortune: What will the Dubai debacle cost us?

quote:

---

Now that DP World has given up, the action will likely move behind closed doors, far away from the media attention that made the controversy such a hot topic, especially on the cable gab-fests (including those on CNN, the parent of CNNMoney.com).

Companies like Boeing are likely to work their contacts in the region, and try to patch things up. And former Bush administration economist and American Enterprise Institute Fellow Phillip Swagel says the Gulf states should send emissaries to meet with outspoken port deal opponents like New York Senators Chuck Schumer and Hillary Clinton and explain to them the economic power of the Gulf region.

Not a bad idea but whether Schumer, Clinton and other politicians understand the economic consequences of their public statements, rather than the political benefits, is another matter.

---

[Aperson]

Of course you hear the other side more now. Before the deal was looking like it might go through so they were happy and the people opposing it were not. Now that its the opposite. And unhappy people are always more vocal than happy people.

[John Prezioso]

Agreed, Lost In Space. While I remain of the opinion that the deal was a bad one, I'm disgusted how Hillary, Schumer and the media play both sides of this issue.

The UAE probably is upset, and I guess they have the right, being offered the deal and then having it yanked, but it never should have been offered in the first place.

Anyway, the bash-Bush crowd seem to have accomplished their mission - W's approval ratings have started entering Nixon territory.

[Guest]

The deal was not yanked, it was given up because of all the idiocy surrounding it.

They would have been managing terminals that loaded and unloaded ships, and NOTHING would have changed.

I am TOTALLY disgusted with the Media, the politicians that opposed it, and the American people who were stupid enough to fall for the media lies about this whole thing.

This was nothing more then a change in ownership between 2 private companies, and had NOTHING to do with port security or anything else.

It was a financial transaction, that the executive branch OK'd, because it was OK.

There is NO reason that a UAE owned company shouldn't manage some shipping terminals, just as Chinese companies manage some of our shipping terminals.

This whole thing was blown WAY out of proportion, and tells me how many sheeple actually live in this country, and it frightens me, and angers me.

[Guest]

BTW, the ONLY reason that we don't have more US terminal operators, is because Congress, D#$m their black souls to H%$#, regulated them out of business, to a point where only foreign corporations could manage them, because they don't have to abide by all the domestic regulations.

Cute. huh?