Comments on: Dubai Ports Deal to Get Security Review

By: MattG

MattG — Tue, 28 Feb 2006 05:07:46 +0000

Capitalism? I grew up in the cold war and none of this socialism/communism crap is sitting well with me. Im clearly in the minority; but it is so scary we have become so accepting of socialistic principals. I don't like state owned entities controlling any part of America. I visit this site often ... and kind of get a feeling your trying to bury the story.

By: Derrick

Derrick — Tue, 28 Feb 2006 01:45:06 +0000

I don't think that its all so surprising. Part of the cover that the Bush Administration has used is that as long as we are taking the strongest position towards national security, almost no matter what they do will look better than their opponents.

This is one of the first clear cases, where almost all of their opponents outflank them to the right. They know from their electoral wins over the last 4 years, that this is a losing proposition. And one that if not played just right will leave the Republican Party losing their one clear advantage on national security.

By: G A Phillips

G A Phillips — Mon, 27 Feb 2006 16:46:56 +0000

I am with Dave, lets review all of them, its Only fair. But why let congress do it, why dude why? Did you know that a rhino and a donkey are in the same species family, Dang' I think you monkey-worshipers are finally on to something.

By: Herb

Herb — Mon, 27 Feb 2006 15:55:20 +0000

I can't think of one thing that Congress has got involved in that ended up good for anything or anyone in the entire country. Congress has a long standing history of screwing up everything it touches and yet they still insist they should be the "last word" on everything. This deal is probably good for everyone concerned, but when Congress gets through messing it up, everyone involved will end up having some very bad feeling about each other. After it happens, Who will accept and take responsibility for the bungeled deal. Not Congress, you can be sure.

By: legion

legion — Mon, 27 Feb 2006 15:43:08 +0000

Another annoying point about all this is the knee-jerk reaction in certain circles of calling 'racism' for caring more about the UAE running the ports than a UK company. That's crap. If I say all blondes are untrustworthy & should be locked up, I'm a bigot. If I say that blond is untrustworthy & should be locked up because the bitch broke in my house and stole my stereo, it's just common sense. Likewise, I don't hae a problem with a Middle Eastern country doing what a UK company currently does, but considering the cozy relationship the UAE & its royal family have with bin Laden, expecting thes administration to perform an actual security review, instead of a simple hand-wave, is pretty damn reasonable.

By: Steve

Steve — Mon, 27 Feb 2006 15:25:22 +0000

It's only within the purview of the administration because Congress delegated this reponsibility to the President. In other words, this is not a case of Congress usurping an executive power. It's a highly unusual "take back", but not a constitutional dispute.

The NSA flap is an example of the more traditional dispute between the executive and legislative branches.

My suspicion is that both sides need some cover to give ground. The President was foolish to make his veto threat. And the heated rhetoric coming out of Congress sounds childish, bigotted and alarmist. It's a shame, because they have a good case (I don't agree, but they have good arugments and their reasoning is sound) and they can make it without all the hysteria.

I think this higher level of scrutiny is going to lead to some changes that will save face for both sides.

1. Increased security measures. Maybe in the form of more reporting and reviews.

2. The creation of a wholly owned US subisidiary that is more "American" than not. Still owned and controlled by DPW but with less foreign control. DPW becoming more like an investor than an operating owner.*

3. Everyone on both sides will declare victory.

* Michael Ledeen has already suggested this and it just makes too much sense.

By: legion

legion — Mon, 27 Feb 2006 14:54:04 +0000

This may technically be a "highly unusual second review", but it's becoming increasingly obvious that the first review was pure whitewash - nobody in the administration (at least nobody in any decision-making capacity) took it seriously.

As to why they caved in, I think even the main wheels of the GOP/Bush spin machine realized how grotesquely incompetent this looks... They can push Congress around a lot, but there's significantly less they can do to state governors threatening to sue to stop the process...

By: Unpartisan.com Political News and Blog Aggregator

Unpartisan.com Political News and Blog Aggregator — Mon, 27 Feb 2006 14:44:29 +0000

Administration accepts port-deal review offer...

The Bush administration said Sunday it will accept an offer by a United Arab Emirates-based company ...

By: Eneils Bailey

Eneils Bailey — Mon, 27 Feb 2006 13:17:24 +0000

"Ooo, I'm just sittin' on the dock of the bay Wastin' time" (Thanks to Otis.) "This is a smart political move on part of both DP World and the Bush administration to quell the controversy." And Bush needs to resolve the security issue quickly if he wants to gain support.

By: Dave Schuler

Dave Schuler — Mon, 27 Feb 2006 13:06:55 +0000

An extended security review of the deal is certainly a good thing. Perhaps a similar review of COSCO, the Chinese shipping company, and other port terminal operators in the United States may be undertaken as well.