What's the big deal with the ports?

[Guest]

Barking Moonbat

Yes, yours truly wrote it.....

quote:

---

By Jaguar

The media is screaming, the bloggers are screaming, the congresscritters are screaming. What the heck are they all freaking out about? Well, from what I have seen, the media is claiming that 6 US ports will be taken over and run by a company called DP World, which is owned by the UAE government, or actually, by a holding company that is owned by the UAE.

Congresscritters are running around and yelling about outsourcing our port security. The media is screaming the same thing. Now the bloggers are doing it as well. Our security will be outsourced, our security will be compromised, the UAE hasnÔÇÖt been cooperative in the war on terror, etc, etc, ad nauseum.

YouÔÇÖd think that we were selling them the ports and everything in them. Like it was going to be New UAE in the US, or some such garbage. What exactly does it all mean? And what is actually going on here?

First off, letÔÇÖs get this straight; the Port Authorities of each city own the ports. The security is run by the Port Authority, Homeland security and the coast guard.

This will not change, in any way shape or form.

What does that mean? The same security that is in place now, will be in place when DP World manages the terminals in the ports. As a matter of fact, the security will actually be better at the 6 ports. Why? Because homeland security asked DP World to help the ports invest in better security equipment as part of the approval process.

The UAE has been investing in R&D of the technology side of port security for a while. The UAE was the first country to sign on with Homeland security so that ALL containers leaving their ports for the US are inspected before they leave for the US. So, DP World is in an excellent position to be involved in the security upgrades for the ports. But, again, they have no responsibility nor authority in the way security is run at those ports.

What does DP world do? They manage the terminals in the port, NOT the port itself. There is HUGE difference here, and it needs to be made CLEAR. LetÔÇÖs first look at the company that was originally managing the day-to-day port operations, Peninsular and Oriental Steam Operations, or P&O for short. They have been managing the day-to-day operations of the 6 ports, New York, New Jersey, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Miami and New Orleans for the last 10 years or so.

From this website.

P&O Ports is the P&O Group Company responsible for port development and investment, terminal operating and stevedoring activities. Originating with the creation of an Australia-wide stevedoring and terminal operating entity, its first international activity was the 1986 joint venture privatization and management of the Port Kelang container terminal in Malaysia. This project was one of the first privatizations of public port assets undertaken worldwide. Its great success resulted in it becoming an international model for privatization of public facilities.

P&O PortsÔÇÖ success and experience in privatization was also the foundation for further international investment by P&O, resulting in it being a world leader in port development and operation today. P&O Ports is an international company managing 21 container terminals and has operations in over 85 ports in 19 countries around the world.

DP World decided that they would be interested in buying the full worldwide operations of P&O, and got into a bidding war with a number of companies last August. Last November, the Committee of Foreign investment OKÔÇÖd the deal after going over the usual 30 day review period for such dealings.

They found no concerns that would be harmful to the security of the ports or the United States. Why, you may ask? Because the companies that manage the port operations, do not manage the security at the ports, and never have. DP World has also cooperated with the office of Homeland security in other international ports that they manage in order to secure and ensure the safety of containers being shipped to the United States.

OK, so what have we got so far?

First, they will not be doing any security for the ports that they will be managing. None. All security is in the hands of the local Port Authority, Homeland Security, and the Coast Guard.

The Port Authority, who owns the ports (and is usually a government agency, and elected by the citizens of that city) contract out the daily terminal operations of the port, to companies that do that type of management. P&O was an excellent company to have done that, and now DP World has purchased ALL of P&OÔÇÖs worldwide assets and management divisions, which happens to include the 6 US ports named above.

Second, DP World is indeed owned by the UAE. The UAE has been one of our greatest allies in the Middle East, and around the world, on our continuing war on terror. Of all the Middle Eastern countries they are the smallest security risk and the most trustworthy as evidenced by their cooperation with our continued war on terrorism and signing onto our Homeland Security arrangements at their own ports.

Third, this buyout was approved by the Foreign investment Committee after much research and of course discussions with the company itself. The media has hyped it to a point where it has taken on a life of itÔÇÖs own, and people are freaking out over pretty much nothing.

WhatÔÇÖs the actual bottom line here?

DP World will be in charge of the day-to-day operations of the terminals in the 6 ports of those cities, just as P&O was. The American longshoreman will still load and unload all the ships. The American managers will still be in charge of the day-to-day operations, and security will be handled by the same people that have always handled it. (The Port Authority of each city, Homeland Security, and the Coast Guard.)

What will be different? The payee on the paychecks to those American Longshoreman and those American managers will say DP World instead of P&O.

The profits from those operations will be going to the UAE, instead of the UK.

The ports will be getting some much needed modernization of their security equipment.

Thats it, thats the bottom line

So whatÔÇÖs the fuss? What has caused this entire furor over a change in management?

Well, letÔÇÖs take a peek at a couple of things shall we?

LetÔÇÖs start with a timeline.

August 2005: DP World gets into a bidding war for the purchase of P&O. A final buyout price of about 6.8 billion dollars is agreed upon as of January 26th 2006.

November 2005: The committee on foreign investment gives the nod to the buyout and for DP world to take over the daily operations at the 6 US ports.

January 2006: Dave Sanborn is nominated to serve as the maritime administrator. He has been an executive of DP world since 2005.

February 15th 2006: Continental Stevedoring and Terminals Inc., a partner with P&O in the US, filed a suit to block the purchase. MiamiÔÇÖs mayor also sent a letter of protest to President Bush.

And today, all the media outlets are having conniption fits and the bloggers are screaming ÔÇ£off with BushÔÇÖs headÔÇØ over this one. OK, so what does this little timeline tell us? This was a done deal 3 months ago, back in November. Media reactionÔÇöYAWNER, nonstory.

January, Dave Sanborn is nominated. Media reactionÔÇöYAWNER, nonstory. Today? Conniption fit city. What happened? Hmm, Continental filed a suit to block the sale and MiamiÔÇÖs mayor wrote a letter of protest to the president. Hmm, sounds particularly suspicious to me, and another case of the media playing fast and loose with the facts in order to create a fracas and discredit the Bush administration.

And everyone has fallen for it hook, line and sinker. This thing has been done for over 3 months, the nomination was done last month, and now the media is just reporting it, only after a letter of protest from a mayor and a company filed suit?

BTW, 99% of the shareholders agreed to the sale of P&O to DP World. Another case of the crying liberals trying to get a judge to overturn something after the people voted for it. Sorry, I digress.

Tomorrow, they will be saying that Dave Sanborn getting the Maritime administrator position was some sort of payback to DP World for cooperating with Homeland Security. Just watch, itÔÇÖs going to happen. Here is Dave Sanborns ResumeÔÇÖ, just in case you were wondering how he might qualify for this position.

Mr. Sanborn, a graduate of The United States Merchant Maritime Academy, joined DP World in 2005. He previously held senior roles with shipping lines CMA-CGM (Americas), APL Ltd and Sea-Land and has been based, besides the US, in Brazil, Europe, Hong Kong and Dubai during his career. He has also served in the US Naval Reserve.

Looks pretty darned qualified to me. The media has given this story the legs it needs by playing fast and loose with the facts. They will do the same here. Just watch them. The media has manipulated this thing from the get go, and everyone is falling right in step to their tune. I find it sad, disturbing and very frustrating.

Bin Laden canÔÇÖt wait to tell everyone how the US hates and distrusts Arabs and that the US is indeed the enemy. The overreaction and lies about this sale and the management of these ports will tell the world exactly that.

The media has played everyone for fools by not telling the WHOLE story or, for that matter, the real story.

For some reason the media has decided that a mayoral letter of protest and a suit to block the sale in US courts is enough to run with the story. (But, they havenÔÇÖt said a thing about that part, have they?)

Anyone want to tell me why that is?

Onwards

What story finally just died? Cheney, shooting some poor Republican lawyer, while on a hunting trip. Now the 78 year old lawyer is out of the hospital and all is forgiven. Whoops, the story had legs, and then had them cut out from under them.

Now, along comes this story. The media, trying it again.

The timing looks really strange to me. If any of you understand how the media manipulates the American people, it should look mighty strange to you as well. This whole story is a nonstory. It is nothing but a lot of caterwauling and BS from the usual suspects and the usual media outlets. President Bush is doing the right thing.

This is an executive branch responsibility. The deal is done. The arrangements have been made. Congress sticking itÔÇÖs fingers into this pie will do nothing more then play into the prejudices that Bin Laden is trying so hard to convince other Arabs that we have.

This deal should be allowed to go through. It will NOT endanger our national security in any way shape or form. It will help with our war on terror. Besides the fact, DP World does an excellent job of running port terminals, as their assets and continued contracts on the worldwide market should prove to you.

---

[LostInSpace]

Yeah, saw a report last night, forget which tv station, they spoke with the dock workers and they said they don't know what all the fuss is about 30% of all the ports are foreign run. We get shippments all day long from all over the world and only a fraction of them actually get physically inspected. If the terrorist are going to export things through our ports, they are not going to use arab run firms to do so. Since they know those shipments inparticular are going to get colonoscopies.

Also, that Cheney story was a good distraction so the media didn't have to report about that speech Al Gore made during the same period. Nice smoke screen guys.

[John Prezioso]

Well it's not that ports are being outsourced; it's to whom the ports would be outsourced to. I've been behind Bush on a lot, maybe even most things, but on this, he's flat out wrong.

Newsflash: These people hate us anyway! What good would trying to appease them through bogus port deals do? Nothing. Call me prejudice; I don't care. NOTHING in this country should be in any shape or form in the hands of the UAE. I don't care if it's janitorial work in the bathrooms of the ports.

[Guest $iLk]

So I'm supposed to believe that the UAE is spending $7 Billion and nothing whatsoever will change at the ports?

The fact that special exemptions were allowed by the Bush administration so that the papers and documents of this company can be secreted overseas away from American courts is interesting. This is an exemption that I believe has never been allowed for any other company - why now?

ÔÇö In 2004, Qari Saifullah Akhtar, a Pakistani suspected of training thousands of Al Qaeda fighters, was arrested in the UAE and turned over to officials in his homeland.

ÔÇö In 2002, Emirati authorities arrested and turned over to the United States Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, the suspected mastermind of the 2000 bombing of the USS Cole, which killed 17 U.S. sailors. UAE officials said he had planned to attack economic targets in the Emirates and inflict high casualties. He was sentenced to death in absentia by a Yemeni court. Al-Nashiri was also suspected of helping direct the 1998 bombings of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania.

ÔÇö The father of Pakistan's nuclear program, Abdul Qadeer Khan, has acknowledged heading a clandestine group that, with the help of a Dubai company, supplied Pakistani nuclear technology to Iran, Libya and North Korea. The head of U.N.'s nuclear watchdog agency, Mohamed ElBaradei, has said the UAE was among more than 20 countries with a role in the nuclear black market.

ÔÇö A 2004 report from the U.S. commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks found 11 Saudi hijackers had traveled to the United States via the airport in Dubai.

ÔÇö Usama bin Laden's alleged financial manager, Mustafa Ahmed al-Hisawi, received a Dubai bank transfer of $15,000 two days before the Sept. 11 attacks and then left the UAE for Pakistan, where he was arrested in 2003.

ÔÇö Marwan Al-Shehhi, a UAE citizen and one of the Sept. 11 hijackers, received $100,000 via the UAE. Another Sept. 11 hijacker, Fayez Banihammad, also was from the Emirates.

ÔÇö About half the $250,000 spent on the Sept. 11 attacks was wired to Al Qaeda terrorists in the United States from Dubai banks, authorities said. Al Qaeda money in Dubai banks also has been linked to the embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania.

To top all this off - Bush is threatening to use his very first Veto to block Congress' attempt to look into this.

Nevermind the overspending and all the other things he could have vetoed. He's trying to protect the UAE with his power.

"The more people learn about the transaction that has been scrutinized and improved by my government, the more they'll be comforted that our ports will be secure,"

- George W. Bush

His government?

"If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier - just so long I'm the dictator."

- George W. Bush

Oh yeah...

[Guest]

Oh puhlease, you both need to research a bit more, just as I did.

You're tossding off like a couple of emotional liberals, just as everyone else is.

You both need to get a grip on reality here...

[Aperson]

Since the security control isn't in the hands of the UAE, I really don't see what the problem is. That and any terrorist that would want to sneak stuff through the poorly guarded ports would have to be idiots to choose one that an Arabian company owns.

quote:

---

To top all this off - Bush is threatening to use his very first Veto to block Congress' attempt to look into this.

---

That's a bit suspicious.

How much do you think he was paid?

[Soback]

Security and other issues aside.

US is bleeding money like it was hit in a jagular. First we have a huge trade imbalance. Money is bled by imports. Which in turn bleeds jobs from our own country, which in turn takes a bite out of economy and increases our defecit hour by hour. Then we started outsourcing jobs. Now we are outsourcing ports managment. This only increases the ammount of wealth and money that leaves US.

We have become a country supported strictly by credit. We have NOTHING to back up our loans with, and NOTHING to show for all those loans but cheap trinkets from china and customer support from India. Like I have said, outsourcing our ports only increases the ammount of wealth, jobs and money that we are bleeding out each day, and solidifies the eventual collapse of this country.

After Bush has squandered my taxes on Katrina aid, most of which went into the corrupt pits of beurocracy, he has zero trustworthines left when he spouts out such trash from his mouth, saying outsourcing our ports is a good idea. Even a half retarded wellfare recepient knows it's a bad idea to let someone else pick up his check for him, when he outsources that, then I will trust Bush.

PS. Democrats and liberals are sweet talking socialist slave drivers of this country, the Rupublicans have become the same, only on the more conservative side. They are just as corrupt, just as socialistic, and just as much ready as Clinton was to sell out this countrys future for another year of "prosperity" on credit. It's YOU the people who will be picking up the pieces when it all falls on your heads. Getting all these beurocrats, career politicians, and their groupies out of office is the only way of securing this countrys future and yours.

[John Prezioso]

First of all, I don't like being called a liberal any more than you do, Jag, so I'd appreciate it if you kept that in mind.

I have researched the issue as much as I care to. It's an ill-advised attempt at appeasement for the UAE, who ostensibly are our allies, but, like the Saudis, like us only as far as the monetary benefits of the relation with the U.S. will allow. They still despise us, they're just willing to set that aside for money reasons.

If management of the ports gave no power to the UAE over them whatsoever, and nothing at all is going to change about them, then why do the deal at all?

No, it's all wrong. Bush is wrong. Anything as important as US shipping ports being in the hands of a muslim foreign power in any shape or form is wrong on any level, as it's just inviting disaster. That's my opinion.

quote:

---

they spoke with the dock workers and they said they don't know what all the fuss is about 30% of all the ports are foreign run.

---

As I said, it's not anything against foreign powers running the ports. It's MUSLIM foreign powers running the ports.

[Guest $iLk]

So Jag:

Why was Bush supposedly not aware of this deal until after it had been decided?

Why was Homeland Security director Chertoff not aware of this deal until after it had been decided? Source

Why the sweetheart deal that allows them to keep their business records off of U.S. soil so we cannot have oversight of them through our laws?

Not even 7 years ago Dubai was being investigated for funding Osama Bin Laden.

[Guest]

Prez, that's just straight up racist, and nothing else I can say.

Bush wasn't aware, because this was a private corporate merger, Bush didn't need to know, is Bush supposed to know how much TP the military buys every year?

Homeland security chiefs don't need to knoaw either, that is why they have subordinates.

This is a private merger, not a national security issue...

And that "sweetheart" deal also goes to a number of other overseas corporations, it is NOT as different as the media is claiming.

Man, the media is playing you like a fine tuned instrument.

I'd find it funny, if it weren't so sad...

[Guest $iLk]

Just because this country has turned into status based on how much you can grease the hands of CEOs and politicians doesn't make it right.

On principle we should not allow this company to have access to our ports - if for no other reason than their stance on Israel and ties to terrorism.

Americans should take back their country. China has access to U.S. missile and frigate technology because of deals like the one you are defending Jag - but because it was Clinton who was in charge then it's a different thing to you.

This 'just business' attitude is the reason Germany's military received much support from Ford Motor Company during the 1930s.

[John Prezioso]

Racist? It's racist because I feel that we shouldn't turn over vital port control to countries comprised of entities that hate us and have supported terrorism?

Definitely the dumbest thing I've heard all day.

You seem really good at slinging mud, Jag, but not so good at backing up your argument. I don't pay any attention to the media; hell, I don't even watch any news, so the assumption on your part that I am "being played like a fine- tuned instrument" is misinformed, to say the least.

Oh, and do yourself a favor and look up the defintion of racism, and post what you have learned.

EDIT: Here let me help you.

Racist: Discrimination or prejudice based on race.

Now, not that you'd care, but I'll remind you that I said "Muslim foreign powers". I don't trust them, not because they are Muslim, but because of their actions. The UAE is an ally the way Yemen was considered an ally when one of our ships was attacked in a Yemeni port, killing 17 of my shipmates. Want to tell me how many of the 9/11 hijackers were from the UAE? Do you even know?

If this was Bill Clinton doing this, you'd be all over him like a fly on dung.

[ 02-24-2006, 04:58 PM: Message edited by: Prez ]

[Grizzle]

The whole thing has left me quite speechless.

Regardless of whether or not the threat is real or perceived...it's not prudent, wise, or in any way sensible.

I'm simply dumbfounded, but then again, I always questioned the wisdom of this administration and this just proves they haven't even been listening to their own rhetoric for the past 4 years.

[John Prezioso]

Hey Grizzle, good to see you're back.

While I don't buy into the whole 'sinister' side of the conspiracy theory aspect of this, I just think this is Bush making a really bad decision.

On certain levels, I can see why he'd want to allow a Muslim entity such a high profile position - it makes a powerful statement that we don't in fact have anything against Muslim nations and that we are not the vile demons that a large majority of Muslims believe us to be. But the facts are simply that, rightly ot wrongly, hatred of the U.S. is so deeply ingrained into the average Muslim person that there is no amount of appeasement will suffice to change that. It's part of their very culture to despise us. Forget the miltiant Muslims, (of which there are many) go read the writings of even the most peaceful of Muslim sheiks and preachers. The U.S. is the "great Satan"; and any evil that befalls her is deserved.

How do you change anyone's mind who thinks like this?

More to the point, is it a worthwhile risk to make an attempt of this nature on a 'business' venture that gives a large entity with documented ties to terrorist activity as recent as 2001 such unprecedented access to such a vital U.S. enterprise?

This deal is utterly wrong on 2 levels:

First, it sends the wrong message. So a Muslim government that SAYS all the right things but does not back up its words with appropriate actions should be rewarded simply for supposedly changing its tune, even though it supported and aided the Taliban before and during the perpetration of the worst terrorist action ever taken on U.S. soil? This is a stance of WEAKNESS, and as my hero Ronald Reagan (Ronaldus Magnus) brilliantly said, it is WEAKNESS that leads our enemies to make bad decisions based on mistaken judgements, thus making us vulnerable to attack.

Second, the turn over over management of terminals to a Muslim entity with ties to terrorism is a foot in the door, no matter how seemingly insignificant the foot might initially seem. How many of us really saw the danger that terrorists might infiltrate our society and train in our own flight schools to be able to carry out such an efficient operation prior to 9/11? The point is, things that cannot conceive of today may very well come about because of such an ill-advised undertaking.

Any way you slice it, this is a risk. A risk that would yield no appreciable benefit to compare with the magnitude of the danger involved.

[Guest]

Let's get this straight, shall we?

It is NOT THE PORTS!! Like the media is trying to make you believe, it is the TERMINALS!!!

out of the 184 terminals in the New York Port Authority, DP world will be managing exactly 2.

2 out of 184 TERMINALS... Not the WHOLE fricking port, 2 FRICKING terminals!!!

The media is LYING TO YOU, and you are eating it up.

They make it sound like DP will be running EVERYTHING, and that is so far from the truth that it is insane.

They will run a TOTAL, and I mean TOTAL of 30% of the terminals WITHIN THOSE PORTS!!!

That's it, that's ALL, almost 50% of those fricking terminals are run by the fricking CHINESE!!!

You guys need to do some research instead of jumping to all kinds of nonsensical conclusions.

Did you know that EVERY container that leaves the UAE for the US is INSPECTED by our homeland security department? 100%, why? Because the UEA agreed to allow us TOTAL access to their ports.

Who runs those ports? DP World runs those ports!!!

Those ports in the UEA are the most secure, according to our Dept of Defense, then ANY port in the WHOLE FRICKING WORLD!!!

Who runs those ports? DP world RUNS THOSE PORTS!!!

You guys need to get a MAJOR grip on reality.

The Democrats and YOU, along with others have Slapped our MOST important and RELIABLE ally on the war on terror, right across the face with this nonsense.

It's stupid, and you guys are being stupid!!

RESEARCH it, instead of jumping to unfounded nonsensical conclusion!!!

[Soback]

We can't run our own ports? How about less outsourcing and more made in US for US.

[Aperson]

Maybe because the way the US is developing its not going in that direction. Like most developed countries its becoming more service-orientated. These do however generally require more academic ability than industrial or agricultural jobs.

[John Prezioso]

And we are supposed to suddenly trust the UAE, after they supported and funded the Taliban, and by extension Al Quaeda, and by further extension, Osama Bin Laden? Because they allow their containers to be inspected?

What happens when this warm, fuzzy, and cuddly UAE government that adores us so much goes through a regime change like in Iran and Palestine? You know, where the government becomes run by militant USA and Israel haters who would stop at nothing to destroy us? Oh, well, it's only 2 terminals in NY. And 6 in Baltimore. And 4 in Los Angeles. And...

Does thinking you're the last sane man in America make you crazy? 'Cause then I just may be nuts after all...