6 thoughts on “more on the port deal”

  1. If no links to al Qaeda or the attacks of 9/11 warrants invasion such as the standard set by the invasion of Iraq, then Dubai doesn’t need to be anywhere near our ports.

    The facts are that Dubai has much stronger links to al Qaeda and bin Laden than Iraq ever did. And yet we want to allow a country with greater links to bin Laden than that of Iraq to have control over our ports?

    I’m sorry, but I do disagree that this port deal is a good idea. If Bush were any where near consistent with his “with us or against,” mantra then this debate would not even be taking place.

    I have a feeling that the White House is going to be changing tunes on this story very soon like.

    Sorry for the bluntness of this comment; I think I’ve had too much coffee this morning and it’s Friday and so beautiful outside and I just need to start my weekend already 🙂

  2. I struggled with this for quite a while, which is why it took me so long to write a post on it. I’m not saying I’m overjoyed by the possibility of Dubai Ports World having any level of influence in our ports. It’s not my first choice. I just don’t see any good alternative plan out there. Also, I think there’s a difference between control and operation of the ports.

    My understanding of this is that security at the port will still be the responsibility of the US Coast Guard and that the local port authority will control the ports, not DPW. The same people will be loading and unloading the cargo there as they did before this takeover took place. So, if they are not in charge of loading/unloading, security, or direct control of the ports, I don’t see this deal as being as scary as it is being portrayed by the media and even other well-meaning conservatives.

    If you want to argue that we are not doing enough with port security right now even aside from this UAE deal…I will agree with that. We need to make sure more cargo is checked. I also think that Bush has not handled this story very well, and I am surprised that this is the issue that he’s willing to go to the mat on. That said, I still think he’s right about this…although the fact that Jimmy Carter agrees with this decision scares the you-know-what out of me.

    A couple interesting facts from this time magazine article:

    “Dubai, in fact, was one of the first Middle Eastern countries to join the U.S. Container Security Initiative, which places U.S. customs agents in overseas ports to begin the screening process from a U.S.-bound cargo’s point of departure.”

    and

    “Dubai Ports will not “own” the U.S. facilities, but will inherit the P&O’s contracts to run them, with no changes in the dockside personnel or the U.S. government security operations that currently apply to them.”

    The article went on to say that the risk here is with current security measures at our ports, not the UAE port deal itself. The argument that Charles Krauthammer and others have made about the possibility of DPW/UAE learning about our security procedures, etc, is flawed because it is illegal to disclose such information.

    We are already working with the UAE in overseas ops, and they have a substantial financial interest in ensuring that nothing goes wrong while they are operating those ports. I don’t see why they would risk all that to pass along information to Al Qaeda. As long as we check them out carefully and keep them away from any security-related control, I am ok with the deal.

  3. Lisa,

    Agree with your assessment of the controversy. It appears that one more time the MSM and the Congress leaped to conclusions and spreading a bit of misinformation. These ports have been managed by a foreign company for some time and not much was said until it was released that this British company is selling itself to DP World. The sale invloves management operations of these 6 ports and not control of the 6 ports. But with how the story was broke so many people leaped off the deepend and assumed the worst. I will admit I was one of those that first thought the worst until I started reading more about the deal.

    MJ,

    I can understand your apprehension of the deal, but I don’t agree with your knock on President Bush. It seems the liberals are attempting to slam Bush for all of his Anti Terrorism pushing and they bad mouthed him for it and now they are attempting to slam him for what they call not being tough enough on terrorism because of the port deal. They seem to want it both ways.

  4. Jon,

    I think that the misunderstanding about this is understandable, because I had the same concerns initially that you and many others had. I have to credit Tony Snow’s radio show for setting me straight on this deal. I think many other conservatives who were opposed to this deal now have gotten more information and are changing their minds about it once they have all the facts.

  6. LC,

    I hope that’s the case. I do think that people had legitimate concerns about this. Whether the politicians who opposed the deal had pure motives or not, I think that this is something that did warrant further investigation. Once all the facts are on the table, I think those fears will be allayed. This is not something we should play politics with, and I hope both sides will keep that in mind from now on.

Comments are closed.