The Truth About Dubya and Dubai

While there are plenty of important questions to discuss regarding port security in the United States, all of these issues were present before the Dubai World Ports (DP World) controversy.

People across the political spectrum are focusing on whether an Arab company operating commercial ports is a threat to our security.  This focus is fueling anti-Arab and anti-Arab American sentiment while also obscuring the real issues at hand.

Laila Al-Qatami, spokeswoman for the Arab-American Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC), reports in a phone interview that her inbox is full of emails telling Arabs to "stay away" and "we don't want your money in the U.S."  And, Ms. Al-Qatami notes, "Those are the nice ones."

The Bush Administration has jumped to the defense of DP World not because the company has operated internationally in Germany, Australia, and Hong Kong and is one of the 3 largest port operators in the world; nor because Dubai hosts more U.S. Navy ships than any other country in the region (which it does).  And don't be fooled when the President offers this soundbite. "I want those who are questioning it to… explain why all of a sudden a Middle Eastern company is held to a different standard…."

The fact is, the administration is defending this deal because their guiding principle is one of maximizing corporate profits, as Harold Meyerson notes in the Washington Post yesterday.

Not surprisingly, the Bush administration has significant business ties to DP World.  According to the New York Daily News, David Sanborn, who runs DP World's European and Latin American operations, was named by Bush to direct the U.S. Maritime Administration just last month.

And Treasury Secretary John Snow, who headed the federal review of the deal, was Chairman of CSX which sold its international port operations to DP Word for $1.15 billion just one year before Mr. Snow joined the Bush cabinet.

So what are the real security issues we need to be talking about? As the Center For American Progress reports, how about the fact that in 2002 the Coast Guard estimated that it would cost $5.4 billion over 10 years to make the necessary improvements to the nation's ports, and last year only $175 million was appropriated to the program?

How about the fact that only 6 percent of the 9 million containers arriving in U.S. ports are physically inspected by customs agents?

When the President suddenly attempts to wax eloquent about prejudice against "a Middle Eastern company,"  let's not be fooled about his true motives or lose sight of the real issues.  And let's make certain that we continue to issue a clarion call against destructive anti-Arab and anti-Arab American sentiment that threatens to take our nation even further backwards in our continuing struggle for civil and human rights.

Comments (55)

1. What? You mean the free and unfettered market doesn't pay for homeland security?

   Oh right, the free and unfettered market didn't secure those planes before 9-11

   and the strong on security republicans were asleep that day.

   (and for the previous decade)

   Posted by Will C. at 02/23/2006 @ 10:26am

2. Some pundits have been stating that parts of the US Irak war budget, granted to private companies on a non bid agreement, are being recuperated by Gulf corporate set ups, that wash these funds by acquiring companies that control infrastrustures contracts in the US. It amonts to economic monopolization and it grants future control to those who presently have binding power at the administration.

   Posted by areyouok at 02/23/2006 @ 10:27am

3. Of course you make a good point. The Bush adminstration is first and formost about the pillaging of America.

   I think, however, everyone is missing the real reason so many are so upset. Having an Arab nation run US ports is not about security, it is about outsourcing. Are we so pathetic a country we have to not only outsource blue collar jobs overseas; we also have to outsource domestic management jobs to foreign countries? Isn't there one company or local government that can operate our own ports here? I never knew our own strategic ports of entry were already run by foreign companies/countries/interests. Why can't we run our own ports?

   Posted by redstater at 02/23/2006 @ 10:31am

4. Is the President a crook?

   Posted by oraibi1952 at 02/23/2006 @ 10:33am

5. There is a big difference between Arab-American discrimination, and being cautious about a UAE company taking control over the security of American ports.

   Why not have an American company perform this job, or do we have to outsource everything?

   Posted by Zeddmen at 02/23/2006 @ 10:37am

6. "Laila Al-Qatami, spokeswoman for the Arab-American Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC), reports in a phone interview that her inbox is full of emails telling Arabs to "stay away" and "we don't want your money in the U.S." And, Ms. Al-Qatami notes, "Those are the nice ones."

   We don't want thier money... just their damn oil, when will they learn that?

   And yes, they do need to stay away we already have boarder crossing issues we can't seem to handle.

   Todd

   Posted by Oksportsguy at 02/23/2006 @ 11:02am

7. And for the record, my email to the ADC your savior Mrs. Vanden Heuvel was referring too.

   Todd

   Posted by Oksportsguy at 02/23/2006 @ 11:04am

8. sorry... I missed the words "was one of the emails" in between "ADC" and "your" in the above post.

   Trying to blog, make phone calls, and tranfers some investments at the same time, I'm struggling with my multitasking this a.m.

   Todd

   Posted by Oksportsguy at 02/23/2006 @ 11:06am

9. This may not be just cronyism. Is David Sanborn a relation of Franklin B. Sanborn of the 19th century who was a member of the Secret 6 that promoted and then disavowed any relationship to John Brown. What the heck! Black history month and all. Let's see. If there is a relationship, it's time for a little education. FB Sanborn hacked some stuff out on Brown, after the father of the Civil War was hung, and it was ``delivered'' courtesy of The Nation--oops-- and The Atlantic. SOL--not standards of learning but statute of limitation--is over. Please republish this and compare to the masterwork on St. John by W.E.B. Dubois. Thanks. spf

   Posted by Sander Fred at 02/23/2006 @ 11:09am

10. I am sure this has been said a billion (or 7) times before but what really bothers me about trying to turn this into a race issue is that it wasn't so long ago that the administration pledged to hit terrorists where it hurts - in the bank accounts - and to hold governments accountable for their financial support. We know that the UAE has financial ties to these groups. I think that it should be a case closed kind of discussion.

    Posted by hinmitee at 02/23/2006 @ 11:10am

11. It's beyond important to try and keep the focus on broader issues, but it's almost impossible in today's media climate. It's hard for anyone to see broad, long-term, contextual issues in a world of instant information and 24-hour news cycles. If you stand in front of a glacier, it's impossible to see it moving. But moving it is, and inexorably at that.

    Unfortunately, it's much easier to keep the broader public focused on simple soundbites. This particular uproar has already been (perhaps incorrectly) framed as one revolving around security, and it'll probably stay that way. While it would be shortsighted to dismiss the security issue out of hand, it seems to me that once the furor dies down there's some hope that our representatives focus on, through legislation, the outsourcing of vital infrastructure to foreign interests. That's the only way to keep control from slipping out of our hands, and that's how they seem to be approaching it. For once they seem to have the right idea, even if they're allowing the debate to be framed improperly.

    What's happening in the media right now, though, is that Bush is reaping what he's sown. He's carefully cultivated a culture of fear for the past four years, and it's coming back to bite him right in the behind.

    Posted by breasonable at 02/23/2006 @ 11:12am

12. The bottom line in this is that why is the Bush administration, supposedly "tough on terror", handing over control and security of some of the biggest ports in the U.S. to a private company? What's next, turning over the US military to Blackwater or some other private security company?

    www.lcoliberal.blogspot.com

    Posted by mattssa at 02/23/2006 @ 11:33am

13. The bottom line in this is that why is the Bush administration, supposedly "tough on terror", handing over control and security of some of the biggest ports in the U.S. to a private company? What's next, turning over the US military to Blackwater or some other private security company?

    www.lcoliberal.blogspot.com

    Posted by mattssa at 02/23/2006 @ 11:33am

14. Posted by MATTSSA 02/23/2006 @ 11:33am | ignore this person

    MATTSSA, our ports have been run by private companies for 25-30 years.

    Posted by Mask at 02/23/2006 @ 11:46am

15. Rapid degeneration of this issue into anti-Arab bigotry may be what "kills" it as an issue (along with former Pres. Carter's support of the deal).

    I'm sure no one on the Left wants to get tarred with the brush that they are saying "We can't trust them A-rabs to run OUR ports!", do they?

    But the "fine line distinctions" being drawn between criticizing the medieval UAE government...and Arabs in general, might get blurred rather quickly, especially by those who use the "blood in the water" approach to anything that looks negative towards Bush.

    Posted by Mask at 02/23/2006 @ 11:49am

16. KVH makes a very valid point. This brouhaha muddies the waters. ZEDDMEN expresses my thoughts succinctly. It's all about outsourcing. There may be some security issues here, but there are larger ones being ignored.

    Completely off-topic: See MSNBC for this. "[Hillary Clinton] had the support of 33 percent of potential primary voters in the WNBC/Marist poll to 17 percent for former Vice President Al Gore, 16 percent for John Edwards and 11 percent for John Kerry. No other Democrat broke into double digits."

    Article makes clear that Hillary is very unlikely to win -- in part due to prejudice against a woman running our country.

    Posted by adr at 02/23/2006 @ 11:54am

17. csx is in the process of being sold to the carlyle group. i bet the carlyle group is involved in this deal in more ways than one.

    the uae is where the 911 hijackers got a great deal of their financing. the uae has been very uncooperative about allowing us to trace obl's financing. these issues aren't about racism. they are legitimate concerns about security.

    Posted by loveloki at 02/23/2006 @ 11:55am

18. i agree with zeddmen also. i apologize to you zeddmen, for lumping you in with libzsuks a week or two ago when i disagreed with some point you were making. you are obviously a far cry from that lunatic.

    Posted by loveloki at 02/23/2006 @ 11:58am

19. even the cia says the uae is a drug transshipment point and vulnerable to money laundering.

    http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ae.html

    Posted by loveloki at 02/23/2006 @ 12:02pm

20. Posted by ADR 02/23/2006 @ 11:54am | ignore this person

    Continueing in your off-topic topic....

    The theory going around is, Al Gore is in the midst of a "Nixon 1968" resurrection attempt. Several striking analogies between the two (Veeps, lost in tight or "stolen" elections, loved by base, an opposition Presidency with an unpopular war, etc.)

    Posted by Mask at 02/23/2006 @ 12:03pm

21. I was surprised to learn that private companies have been running our ports for years. Perhaps this has something to do with why security is currently so lax? Port security really doesn't have any obvious pay off from a capitalist point of view, so why make it a priority?

    Posted by nothingruler at 02/23/2006 @ 12:05pm

22. I finally agree with every word KVH wrote. It helps that I and every other progressive, anti-racist, anti-corporate blogger have been making the same exact points for days now... ;) But I'm glad she's getting this POV into more mainstream pubs, because the nonsense in the ostensibly liberal blogs is embarrassing. And racist.

    Posted by leftbehinds at 02/23/2006 @ 12:07pm

23. nothingruler, security is still in the hands of the government. but who knows for how long. and it is not funded. and nobody has figured out how to do it. only 5-6% of cargo is inspected.

    Posted by loveloki at 02/23/2006 @ 12:09pm

24. To MASK, re Gore -- In his mind, maybe.

    We'll see, as election season gears up, who makes the largest impact on House and Senate races. We'll also see who can get press coverage and make soundbites that resonate with voters.

    Re Hillary: It's not only the woman thing; it's her jockeying for the position suggested by polling and not by principle.

    Posted by adr at 02/23/2006 @ 12:10pm

25. Likewise -- surprise that management of ports outsourced until I realized that everything is being outsourced.

    Also, no surprise on lax security -- was an issue (perhaps non-issue based on results) of 2004 election.

    Problem with funding security? My opinion = another deliberate side-effect of lowering taxes/increasing deficits.

    Are people finally realizing that underfunded government leaves them vulnerable? After all, how can the government stop all of those illegal abortions (about to be, courtesy of Alito) if they have no money for enforcement (insert seriously sarcastic visage here).

    Posted by adr at 02/23/2006 @ 12:15pm

26. "And George Bush has no relevance to that debate." -- Posted by ZERO 02/23/2006 @ 12:15am

    I wouldn't go quite that far. He may have little relevance, but he can (as with threat to veto) have some impact. Another example is allocation of funds for port security. Another is availability of funds, which requires raising more revenue (a tax by any other name...). These may be secondary issues from your viewpoint, but they are issues and can be affected by Bush.

    Posted by adr at 02/23/2006 @ 12:20pm

27. The US needs more attacks on its soil if the neocon agenda is going to be advanced, so giving security of some major ports over to a country who surely harbors sympathy for terrorists and growing anti-American sentiments isn't a bad idea.

    I'm wondering where the tories are this morning to back up this idiotic idea, while totally omitting the outsourcing issue. If Clinton had even done one of Timothy McVeigh's relatives the smallest of favors, the neocons would have hung him from a tree. Perhaps the most ridiculous part of this whole story is the supposed ignorance of the US president regarding this port deal until after it had been arranged. Yeah, right. Anyone who believes this is one, a retard, and two, deserving of a boot on their neck for the rest of thier lives.

    How is it that Americans are so fearful of and anethesized to the truth, being without a doubt the people most easily convinced that the sky is green and their blood yellow? Americans are so easily lead to slaughter it amazes me, they are the greatest pupils when it comes to learning to love their oppressors. Do I have to cut and past the 674 times the president has reminded the US public that a cowardly enemy who wants to do great harm to them is constantly lurking in the shadows, even hiding in plain sight every day on the streets of their precious country? How many times you've been told to never forget 9-11? About the need for so much secrecy and unlawful surveillance in order to stay one step ahead of the evildoers and haters of freedom, as the US government thwarts attack after attack? Yet now the people are told they needn't worry about security. What a bunch of bullshit. But hey, maybe you needn't worry, I mean, who the fuck cares about bin Laden these days anyway? You're supposed to fear illegal aliens and welfare mothers more these days.

    Posted by chimichenga at 02/23/2006 @ 12:21pm

28. Posted by CHIMICHENGA 02/23/2006 @ 12:21am

    I like the contrast between security hyperbole yesterday and blase today that you paint.

    YESTERDAY: More security! 9/11! Arab extremists! bin Laden! ....

    TODAY: Don't worry. Security is great. No more 9/11s. Democracy in middle East. Terrorists on the run.

    You're right; it's a record-sized pile of BS!

    Posted by adr at 02/23/2006 @ 12:27pm

29. Who wants to bet that more than a few ports in the US are "protected" by people who are unlawfully living and working there? If terrorists can learn to fly in the US, surely they can figure out a way to utilize the lousy port situation, and getting employed at a port whose security is in the hands of a Muslim nation already implicated in previous attacks on US soil would be a worthwhile endeavor in hopes of performing a species of surf and turf attack after succeeding in the air.

    Posted by chimichenga at 02/23/2006 @ 12:36pm

30. Posted by CHIMICHENGA 02/23/2006 @ 12:21am

    It's funny how the insanity of this thing is clear in Columbia, but that seems to be lost to some of the hamsters that post here. This would be the perfect opportunity for them to demonstrate to us they aren't mindless tools. But instead, when they do speak up, they attack the motivations of the author of the days post, accuse liberals of being racist or they simply vanish into thin air and wait for the next fax from the RNC giving them the talking points they should be yapping about before reappearing to carry out their next mission.

    There must be disarray in Hamsterland. The habitrail matrix is clogged with panicked scampering

    Posted by Will C. at 02/23/2006 @ 12:36pm

31. Port security. Very poor today (I'm only a short distance from the huge Port of Los Angeles). Not going to change SIGNIFICANTLY depending on port manager.

    Outsourcing. A real issue when strategic assets are involved. Also, why not look first to our own companies and keep more money in our economy.

    Bush administration has dropped the ball on both issues. Security: parallel to Afghanistan-bin Laden vs Iraq. Focus on what excites people and what generates money for cronies instead of what works. Outsourcing: Won't even bother to repeat obvious.

    Posted by adr at 02/23/2006 @ 12:37pm

32. Probably do some subcontracting locally. Still siphoning money out of our economy and preventing local firm from doing contract. We don't know how much local subbing, do we?

    Anyway, there must be plenty of money in it for them or they wouldn't be hiring very very expensive DC lobbying firms and lawyers. How about we spread more of that money around inside of our country -- especially when strategic assets are involved?

    Posted by adr at 02/23/2006 @ 12:54pm

33. Will C has it - suddenly the blustering morons like LIBZSUK, LL, CPT and the other chickenhawks are busy playing the skinflute, waiting for their daily dose of spoonfed ammunition from the likes of Limbaugh, Hannity, O'Reilly, ect.

    Seriously, Bush could put an Eskimo in charge of the Argiculture Dept. and he like his mindless followers (vindicated by that professional and congenital liar, Scott Maclellan) would give Quvianuq Sialuk thier undying support and praise, even when he confessed to be unfamilar with seeds and soil. Hey, lets turn over the policing of the US Mexican border to Guatemala.

    Posted by chimichenga at 02/23/2006 @ 12:59pm

34. certainly i am not one to dispute THAT idea ...

    Posted by ZERO 02/23/2006 @ 12:56am

    Let's discount the documented connections Dubai has to terror, drugs and money laudering. Lets' discount the fact that we invaded a country that had manufactured ties to terror and because of economic santions, no ties to drugs or money laundering. Let's discout the fact that we're probably going to spend a trillion of our hard earned cash to finance the 1.5 billion dollar extravaganza in Iraq that Gee Dubya sold us.

    Instead let's talk about this. We can't seem to find an American company or wealthy individual (where are you when we need you Bill Gates) to sell our ports to. What American companies (and rich guys) are buying up are public utilties in Europe and Asia and then leasing those same utilities back to the towns and cities they bought them from as part of a giant tax avoidance scheme.

    Let's talk about how our country is for sale to the highest bidder, but the lazy corporate welfare queens who are always crying poor as they laugh themselves all the way to the bank... aren't buying

    Posted by Will C. at 02/23/2006 @ 1:05pm

35. I'd like to know why this is so important that Bush is essentially going to use whatever power it takes to get this deal done. What would be so wrong with bending to the majority view on this issue? And why do we have to outsource this kind of job anyway?

    Posted by rain man at 02/23/2006 @ 1:16pm

36. Will,

    Much of what you're saying is on target. But the issue of Dubai or anyone else running port security seems unrelated to me. Port security has been lax and will continue to be lax. Profits have been going out of country and will continue to go. I don't expect outsourcing to be any more of an issue with port security than it is when Toyota opens a plant in Alabama.

    Still...

    American Port Security should be both American and secure. What is going to happen? A repeal of tax cuts to pay for federal funding of port security? Good start. But how far will even that go? We can block every inch of the border. We can search every crate on every ship and frisk every member of the crews. What will make us safe?

    Your right: we're up for sale, and we can't guarantee that foreign holdings will eventually return to us like many of the Japanese purchases in the '80s did. I think the best thing we can do to fight this is to end the work of entities like the Carlyle Group which, though purportedly American, works against US interests repeatedly in the name of expanding the marketplace. Treason is not too hard to identify when profiting from work with countries that are not terribly kind to us.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 02/23/2006 @ 1:21pm

37. Damn Zero! Are you an ex-sleeper cell or something? That's a pretty scary and practical battle plan. But I think that the American public is seen as the real evildoers these days, at least in the sense that legislation is being passed and action taken which decrease their freedoms while bombarding them with vague and constant threats, all as the real enemies plot and plan, with unfettered access to info, transportation, weapons, financial means, ect. in an ever-more porous country claiming to be battening down the hatches as we speak.

    Posted by chimichenga at 02/23/2006 @ 1:22pm

38. Seeing how Americans are actually complaining about having something like their ports in foreign hands makes me wonder if these same people can imagine what it feels like to have a foreign country plant military bases in your country, or a foreign MNC bribe, threat and weasel its way into taking control of food production, resource management, public services, ect.

    How do you think Paraguayans, Bolivians and Argentinians feel about the base at Mariscal Estigarribia, which the US claims is inconsequential, even though the airport there is larger than the one in Asunción?

    How about Bolivians having their access to potable water in the hands of Bechtel, which claimed to own even the water which fell from the sky? They demanded the equivalent of 50% of the average yearly salary for service before being run out of town.

    What about the US base at Manta, Ecuador, which even the Catholic Church there has protested?

    Granted, the US isn't bombing these places into accepting these condition, but they are spending millions on getting the right politicians elected in these countries which will facilitate the constitutional changes and contracts needed to do so. And Americans wonder why people around often sympathize with terrorists when they strike a blow against the US at home or abroad.

    Scary thing is, terrorists could also plot attacks on ships or containers leaving our ports, not just coming in. Who is to say that they couldn't easily poison food being shipped out to Europe, Asia. Africa or Latin America? Or maybe set up some fireworks on a boat headed to Israel...

    Posted by chimichenga at 02/23/2006 @ 1:37pm

39. Posted by TJBEHRENS1 02/23/2006 @ 1:21pm

    Since we don't seen to be interested in securing our borders and considering that we already have a free flow of poeple and money across our borders, I've been playing with the idea of offering the states in Mexico the opportunity to join our union. Of course it would have to be an all or nothing thing (I'm not going to be a apart of mexican civil war)and technically the states in Mexico are American states populated by Americans.

    think the wingnuts would buy into that?

    :)

    Posted by Will C. at 02/23/2006 @ 1:40pm

40. Posted by ZERO 02/23/2006 @ 1:08pm

    And that's just one feasible scenario.

    Posted by adr at 02/23/2006 @ 1:40pm

41. ZERO 02/23/2006 @ 1:08pm

    When one reads through a hypothetical scenario like that, one begins to wonder why we don't have an attack every day, being as how they hate our freedom and all.

    But there are reasons why. Logistically, to keep an operation hidden you need to have it well distributed, and you can't make any sudden moves except at the end. So there are lots of opportunites for the authorities and common citizens to sniff out that something might be amiss. You also need to have enough people who are loyal and simultanously able to carry on like a professional spy - not an easy task. And these people all have to live among the enemy for an extended period of time, while still keeping the mindset that they are less than human and deserve to die violently.

    Factors like these are what keeps terrorism in America to a minimum, not the widely advertised war on terror. Note that among these factors are competent police departments and alert and responsible citizens, so I am not saying that realistic efforts at port security are a waste of time.

    However, I am most definitely claiming that big solutions, such as the Department of Homeland Security, are not going to enhance our security. The hue and cry needs to be directed toward getting security-related decisions out of the hands of duplicitous politicians and the kind of secret committes that worked out this Dubai deal, and down on the waterfront where they belong.

    Posted by MyParadigm at 02/23/2006 @ 1:43pm

42. One of the unfortnate issues raised here, in the White House and Congress, and in the press in general is that this is not about "Port Operations" but simply the operations of some port facilities, such as warehouses or equiptment. Not land - only some buildings and equiptment. Todays 2/23 NYTimes has that store on page 22. The cover story is still "Port Operations."

    Posted by Stewart at 02/23/2006 @ 1:47pm

43. Posted by CHIMICHENGA 02/23/2006 @ 1:37pm

    More enlightened liberals have been beating that drum for decades. I recall a book (in the 60's?) called "The Ugly American." Money trumps logic (and humanitarianism). We'd rather that our big companies own these countries than that they really have democracy. This is not a new phenomenon. Bush is pushing it to new heights, perhaps.

    You can pick any of many cases -- even Saddam was initially an American "puppet." I met Nguyen Van Thieu a few years before he died. He was another. Greed soils everything. It is not, Gordon Gekko notwithstanding, good.

    Posted by adr at 02/23/2006 @ 1:49pm

44. MYPARADIGM,

    I don't think the American populace is full of Crime Dogs always sniffing out sinister plots and schemes, rather, it is rife with racist and paranoid people fearing everything from boiling coffee at McDonalds and skateboarders with strange piercings to landscapers who don't speak English and black kids who swagger to rap music. I feel sorry for any Muslim in the states today. Hell, I have friends in the US who are Sihks and wear turbans who were harrassed before 9-11, forget about post-9-11. In the US you're conditioned to fear and suspect your neighbors, not trust and befriend them. Hence the appeal of the virtual world, television and hollow consumer consolation, not to mention rampant drug abuse.

    Posted by chimichenga at 02/23/2006 @ 2:06pm

45. "In the US you're conditioned ..." -- Posted by CHIMICHENGA 02/23/2006 @ 2:06pm

    Ah, but who does the conditioning?

    Posted by adr at 02/23/2006 @ 2:07pm

46. Chimi, I don't disagree with your view of sad state of all too many of us. But in spite of that, somehow I didn't get mowed over with an AK on my way to work this morning. Maybe it's as simple as, the terrorists are as dumb and lazy as we are.

    Posted by MyParadigm at 02/23/2006 @ 2:13pm

47. "...the terrorists are as dumb and lazy as we are." -- Posted by MYPARADIGM 02/23/2006 @ 2:13pm

    I'll buy the dumb, but not the lazy. Lazy people don't do suicide bombing and car bombs and IEDs. They don't go to flight schools to learn to crash planes into buildings.

    CHIMICHENGA's comments on xenophobia are mostly accurate. I suspect that it's a Darwinian thing built into the genes (we're not unique here) and that only education and thought and exposure to other people and cultures can overcome it enough to stop demeaning, enslaving, and killing those unlike us. The terrorists are guilty too.

    Posted by adr at 02/23/2006 @ 2:17pm

48. If the UAE was going to let Al Queda ship in nukes....

    wouldn't it make MORE sense to buy a port in.....Tampico, Mexico?

    No security at all...no risk of a new White House upping the port security...and you could easily load it on a truck labelled "Auto Parts" and drive it across the border with no even the CHANCE of a Geiger Counter being tipped off at the Rio Grande?

    Posted by Mask at 02/23/2006 @ 2:37pm

49. Back on point, which to me is not who may provide services at U.S. ports -- not control the port or run the port or screen cargo at the port, all of which have been used interchangeably but are not what the Dubai company's contract is about.

    The big issue is port security, or the appalling lack thereof. --This Administration has rejected calls for increased cargo screening both at sea ports and airports because businesses argue it will "impede trade." --This Administration has gone against its own agency (the US Coast Guard) in charge of port security by underfunding that agency and refusing to upgrade port infrastructure. --This Administration continues to put its friends in high places to reap the financial rewards that come later or in payment for campaign monies already received.

    I'm a tree-hugging bleeding-heart ACLU card-carrying liberal, and I'm appalled that once again we're talking about everything but the real issues. This is not about outsourcing or an Arab company vs. some other foreign company (here one foreign company is purchasing another foreign company after all) or the other interesting issues that have been raised.

    Katrina raises all the right issues; let's all work to get the debate back to where it belongs -- Bush and his cronies are more interested in making you feel safe than insuring that you are safe!

    Posted by edgery at 02/23/2006 @ 2:41pm

50. "Bush and his cronies are more interested in making you feel safe than insuring that you are safe!" -- Posted by EDGERY 02/23/2006 @ 2:41pm

    This is one hell of a change since the post-9/11 days when all they wanted to do was make us feel unsafe -- remember the "mushroom cloud." Have they finally figured out that they'll be judged on how safe we feel instead of how great they will be at making us safe?

    Or, is this all just a red herring? Will they still play the unsafe card against any Dems?

    Anyway, interesting morph.

    Posted by adr at 02/23/2006 @ 2:52pm

51. The thing is, the tight connection between DP World and the Bush administration should bring into question the issue of security. See Chertoff, Brown, New Orleans etc. How can we be sure this company is competent if they're tight with the boy president for whom life is one big frat party and favors to friends?

    Posted by pcr at 02/23/2006 @ 2:58pm

52. "And Treasury Secretary John Snow, who headed the federal review of the deal, was Chairman of CSX which sold its international port operations to DP Word for $1.15 billion just one year before Mr. Snow joined the Bush cabinet."

    John Snow was sworn in as Treasury secretary in February 2003. CSX World Terminals was sold to DP World in December 2004.

    Posted by swatson830 at 02/23/2006 @ 3:30pm

53. "csx is in the process of being sold to the carlyle group. i bet the carlyle group is involved in this deal in more ways than one."

    That deal was done in February 2003.

    Posted by swatson830 at 02/23/2006 @ 3:38pm

54. No business dealings happened between the Middle East and any U.S. company without involvement of the Carlyle Group and their staff of former presidents, George Bush I,and other former government appointees, Secretary of State James Baker, etc. The same umbrella which allows the Bechtel's, etc. to suck out the wealth of a majority of the world's nations. All of the wealth generated by these entities is the result of government spending in any nation. While raging against the concept of "government", these modern-day privateers use every means possible to acquire these nasty funds, in fact, their very existence depends on government money, not private funds. Without government funding they would all be broke. These "Patriots" would sell any component of the United States to make another nickel. To find the truth, just "FOLLOW THE MONEY!" Don't hold your breath waiting for the national "news" media to reveal these connections.

    Posted by jemorg at 02/23/2006 @ 4:15pm

55. As in everything with this administration....follow the money, follow the croney, keep it secret.

    Posted by loism at 02/23/2006 @ 4:18pm