He's thinking that the best thing to do when you've got a 40% approval rating (and 53% dissaproval) is to stand strong. On a deal whose inside-dealing shadiness broke yesterday. And which is bringing Hillary, Schumer, and Bill Frist on the same side against him. And which blatently threatens U.S. security for cronyist profits, 'cuz hell, none of those states voted for him anyway. (That last point might be a little iffy, but it is cronyist.)
In short, he's thinking that one legacy is as good as another, and he's pretty far downfield on the Legacy of Scandal already, so he might as well go for the touchdown.
It need not be a conspiracy to be simple cronyism. I don't know the details of the "shadiness" to which Bookie referred (link please?), but I am guessing that the Dubai firm contains friends, or friends of friends. Thus, as poor leaders throughout history have done (and this is not excusing it), he conflated personal interest with national interest and then managed to convince himself that the former really was (in this case) the same as the latter. A conspiracy would be his knowingly aiding a foreign power or terrorist group to smuggle weapons or dangerous materials into the country while hiding it. This is out in the open, if still completely misguided. And in a rare show of spine, the legislative branch is attempting to check and balance him. There's a thought!
Here's the story: http://www.nydailynews.com/02-21-2006/news/local/story/393280p-333478c.html Though now Bush is claiming that he didn't know about the deal until after the administration had already approved it, which confuses me. Is Bush trying to save himself by acting the puppet of his own staff?
All allegations of insider dealing aside, what does everyone think about the deal itself? Is it a real security threat? Is the legislature justified in its outrage and proposed deal-blocking law? Is Bush justified in threatening veto? I had an interesting conversation at lunch with an unfortunately combative Bush supporting co-worker, but he (and other co-workers) did make a convincing case that there was little reason to think that the security of the ports (and isn't security the job of the coast gaurd anyway?) would really be hamppered by Dubai ownership. I suppose that one argument might be that the Dubai company is state owned, whereas the former British company was not and that state's have interests the extend beyond the purely commercial. But, much as I hate to agree with my co-worker, I'm not convinced that this sale is a big deal for national security. After all, and ABC reporter was able to smuggle radioactive material into the country long before this deal was on the table, so we've got bigger fish to fry with respect to homeland security.
I remain unconvinced this will further jeopardize the inexcusable current state of security of our ports. As Socratic alluded to, security is primarily the responsibility of the Coast Guard (as well as the US Customs Service). And according to The Washington Post, "if its takeover of P&O goes through, [Dubai Ports World] would have to comply with the same security procedures in its U.S. facilities that other operators do." (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/21/AR2006022101924.html ) In fact, the employees most involved with the containers, the American longshoremen, will continue doing as the do.
Frankly, I think Senator Schumer and most of those joining him in their concern would have quite a bit more credibility on this issue if they had been making noise about this earlier rather than when it was politically convenient. Sadly, no one really listened much to Howard Dean's comments on the issue during the primary (other than Socratic, I see). Instead, this is a good moment for quite a few politicians to outflank the administration from the right on an issue - homeland security - the public cares a great deal about but has never really thought about.
But since we do a bit more thinking than most, I would hope, let's ask a question: should we restrict the running of our ports to only American companies or the US government? In theory, that's probably the safest option. Although, I'd question how effectively we could accomplish it, the government's track record on security and connecting the dots as questionable at best. And I'd like to know more about Dubai's record on port security myself (although they do do quite a bit of business in Antwerp, a far busier port than any of the US6, and evidently Dubia's harbor is one of three man-made objects visible from space).
However, from what I can gather, I'm not seeing anything really from security experts concerned over this deal passing (http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L22325839.htm ). On matters of science, I'd defer to scientists and for now, I'd like to hear from security analysts and experts, as opposed to the pandering of politicians and the knee-jerk reactions of the public.
But what is clear is that some good will likely come from this as maybe now we can finally have a discussion about the lackluster state of security of our ports.
As for the original question, I sincerely doubt he was thinking much of it or anything at all.
Shame on you Prometheus. As someone whose room is littered with web programming books, you should know how to use hyperlink tags... This is why I told you that learning about HTTP from the chipmunks was a bad idea!
Arboreal web rodents aside, I was unaware of both the Committee on Foreign Investment and the 1993 law amending its duties. If this law is as Sullivan described it, then the administration did break the law and should be held to account. Perhaps they feared that a review process would draw attention to the deal and create just the sort of (largely unjustified) uproar that has occurred anyway. Or perhaps, as many have suggested, they simply wanted to fast track a sweetheart deal for a friend. Either way, no one is above the law. Still, I agree with Alex (who's anonymity I see fit to destroy) that the top ownership of the port operations is far from the most pressing security issue.
This article in the New York Times (free registration + firstborn required) pretty much says most of what most of us have been saying in this thread. It does not, however, mention the Committee on Foreign Investement.
For what it's worth, Cato... I love seeing you all pissed off on this page. It's just so incongruous with you in person.
Also for what it's worth, I'm not happy about DHS running the security either. I'd say they're half the problem. But at least with a domestic company running, you know, every major Gulf Coast and Agtlantic port, I'd feel that there was less of a chance of security failure. As we've seen too m any times, DHS oversight is useless. I don't know enough to comment about the coast guard, but I doubt they're searching every ship that comes in. And even with good faith shown by the DPP, it'd be far easier for a less holy national of theirs to finagle his way into our ports with packages of his choosing. The region ios unstable, and the notion scares me. It would scare me if it were Canada running the U.S. ports, simply becuase our ports our not just a National Security opening, but a National Interest hub. Again, we're not talking about a company the way that we normally think about them. We're talking about a government. Here's a question. Why doesn't Bush broker a deal to have the U.S. Government purchase the ports? Probably - aside from the expense, and Government should never spend a dime anywhere unless that dime can kill something - because it would look like they were being federalized, which I guess is true. So why then, would we conceivably raise a huff about the U.S. federalizing the ports, but think it's racist or knee-jerk to worry about the UAE federalizing them?
I suppose we view it as knee-jerk because "the takeover of the Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation Company of Britain came down to a battle between two foreign, state-backed companies," and there was no media noise or criticism when everyone thought "PSA, the world's second-largest port operator...part of the Singapore government's investment arm" was going to win the bid (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/24/business/24terminal.html). Yet oddly media and Congressional criticism only began when the Arabs of Dubai won.
I also think it's also fair to argue the reaction as knee-jerk when all this crowing about increased security risks flies in the face of the significantly calmer reactions from security experts and analysts. To quote Friedman from this week: "the security argument is bogus and, I would add, borderline racist. Many U.S. ports are run today by foreign companies, but the U.S. Coast Guard still controls all aspects of port security, entry and exits; the U.S. Customs Service is still in charge of inspecting the containers; and U.S. longshoremen still handle the cargos" ( http://select.nytimes.com/2006/02/24/opinion/24friedman.html?n=Top%2fOpinion%2fEditorials%20and%20Op%2dEd%2fOp%2dEd%2fColumnists). No one well-versed in the field has come forward to claim that this will injure national security. And while I can understand the public's surprise to learn that American companies largely moved out of the port business years ago I sincerely doubt so many lawmakers are ignorant of the fact.
As for the American running of ports, it seems as if that's an area in which we stopped being all that competitive quite some time ago, as "American ports are considered somewhat backward by shipping experts outside of the country...most major ports overseas operate 24 hours a day, seven days a week. But in the United States, ports were shut down at night until very recently. And transmitting shipping orders electronically to some American ports does not necessarily save time because the orders need to be rekeyed into the ports' computer systems, a concession to unions trying to preserve jobs" ( http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/24/business/24terminal.html?pagewanted=print). So it seems that American running of the ports wouldn't be that easy - US firms aren't up to the task nearly as well as DP World and other firms are today.
But, yes, let's stop and discuss this. It's about time the public and most of congress actually takes an interest in the subject. Sure, we can all say that Congress usually doesn't do its job these days but the public, while desiring improvement in homeland security, hasn't exactly been holding their elected officials to task. And anything that leads to a wider debate and increases the general public's knowledge of an issue beyond reality TV is a good thing. But let us not let ignorant hysteria and Schumer-like spotlight-grabbing overly distract us and our elected officials from the other issues of the day, including an investigation of wire-tapping, the declared emergency in the Philippines, and the situation in Nigeria, to name but a few.
However, when it comes to the administration, though, I'm not sure if we should be surprised by their arrogance in any category. Hubris is certainly among their sins and while they are, I certainly believe, right on this issue, they have forgotten and ignored their responsibility to the public and as elected officials to prove that they are right. Of course, had they placed a greater emphasis on winning over hearts and minds, they would've sooner realized that Iraq was not going to welcome them with flowers and open arms and that their citizens and ours would need to be convinced of our intentions.
Um... I mentioned federalisation because I thought it understood that it would be a poor idea. But why, then, is letting UAE federalize it better than a good idea when US federalization is bad?
11 Comments:
He's thinking that the best thing to do when you've got a 40% approval rating (and 53% dissaproval) is to stand strong. On a deal whose inside-dealing shadiness broke yesterday. And which is bringing Hillary, Schumer, and Bill Frist on the same side against him. And which blatently threatens U.S. security for cronyist profits, 'cuz hell, none of those states voted for him anyway. (That last point might be a little iffy, but it is cronyist.)
In short, he's thinking that one legacy is as good as another, and he's pretty far downfield on the Legacy of Scandal already, so he might as well go for the touchdown.
It need not be a conspiracy to be simple cronyism. I don't know the details of the "shadiness" to which Bookie referred (link please?), but I am guessing that the Dubai firm contains friends, or friends of friends. Thus, as poor leaders throughout history have done (and this is not excusing it), he conflated personal interest with national interest and then managed to convince himself that the former really was (in this case) the same as the latter. A conspiracy would be his knowingly aiding a foreign power or terrorist group to smuggle weapons or dangerous materials into the country while hiding it. This is out in the open, if still completely misguided. And in a rare show of spine, the legislative branch is attempting to check and balance him. There's a thought!
Here's the story:
http://www.nydailynews.com/02-21-2006/news/local/story/393280p-333478c.html
Though now Bush is claiming that he didn't know about the deal until after the administration had already approved it, which confuses me. Is Bush trying to save himself by acting the puppet of his own staff?
And this is a test. 3...2...1... This is only a test.
All allegations of insider dealing aside, what does everyone think about the deal itself? Is it a real security threat? Is the legislature justified in its outrage and proposed deal-blocking law? Is Bush justified in threatening veto? I had an interesting conversation at lunch with an unfortunately combative Bush supporting co-worker, but he (and other co-workers) did make a convincing case that there was little reason to think that the security of the ports (and isn't security the job of the coast gaurd anyway?) would really be hamppered by Dubai ownership. I suppose that one argument might be that the Dubai company is state owned, whereas the former British company was not and that state's have interests the extend beyond the purely commercial. But, much as I hate to agree with my co-worker, I'm not convinced that this sale is a big deal for national security. After all, and ABC reporter was able to smuggle radioactive material into the country long before this deal was on the table, so we've got bigger fish to fry with respect to homeland security.
I remain unconvinced this will further jeopardize the inexcusable current state of security of our ports. As Socratic alluded to, security is primarily the responsibility of the Coast Guard (as well as the US Customs Service). And according to The Washington Post, "if its takeover of P&O goes through, [Dubai Ports World] would have to comply with the same security procedures in its U.S. facilities that other operators do." (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/21/AR2006022101924.html ) In fact, the employees most involved with the containers, the American longshoremen, will continue doing as the do.
Frankly, I think Senator Schumer and most of those joining him in their concern would have quite a bit more credibility on this issue if they had been making noise about this earlier rather than when it was politically convenient. Sadly, no one really listened much to Howard Dean's comments on the issue during the primary (other than Socratic, I see). Instead, this is a good moment for quite a few politicians to outflank the administration from the right on an issue - homeland security - the public cares a great deal about but has never really thought about.
But since we do a bit more thinking than most, I would hope, let's ask a question: should we restrict the running of our ports to only American companies or the US government? In theory, that's probably the safest option. Although, I'd question how effectively we could accomplish it, the government's track record on security and connecting the dots as questionable at best. And I'd like to know more about Dubai's record on port security myself (although they do do quite a bit of business in Antwerp, a far busier port than any of the US6, and evidently Dubia's harbor is one of three man-made objects visible from space).
However, from what I can gather, I'm not seeing anything really from security experts concerned over this deal passing (http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L22325839.htm ). On matters of science, I'd defer to scientists and for now, I'd like to hear from security analysts and experts, as opposed to the pandering of politicians and the knee-jerk reactions of the public.
But what is clear is that some good will likely come from this as maybe now we can finally have a discussion about the lackluster state of security of our ports.
As for the original question, I sincerely doubt he was thinking much of it or anything at all.
Shame on you Prometheus. As someone whose room is littered with web programming books, you should know how to use hyperlink tags... This is why I told you that learning about HTTP from the chipmunks was a bad idea!
Arboreal web rodents aside, I was unaware of both the Committee on Foreign Investment and the 1993 law amending its duties. If this law is as Sullivan described it, then the administration did break the law and should be held to account. Perhaps they feared that a review process would draw attention to the deal and create just the sort of (largely unjustified) uproar that has occurred anyway. Or perhaps, as many have suggested, they simply wanted to fast track a sweetheart deal for a friend. Either way, no one is above the law.
Still, I agree with Alex (who's anonymity I see fit to destroy) that the top ownership of the port operations is far from the most pressing security issue.
This article in the New York Times (free registration + firstborn required) pretty much says most of what most of us have been saying in this thread. It does not, however, mention the Committee on Foreign Investement.
For what it's worth, Cato... I love seeing you all pissed off on this page. It's just so incongruous with you in person.
Also for what it's worth, I'm not happy about DHS running the security either. I'd say they're half the problem. But at least with a domestic company running, you know, every major Gulf Coast and Agtlantic port, I'd feel that there was less of a chance of security failure. As we've seen too m any times, DHS oversight is useless. I don't know enough to comment about the coast guard, but I doubt they're searching every ship that comes in. And even with good faith shown by the DPP, it'd be far easier for a less holy national of theirs to finagle his way into our ports with packages of his choosing. The region ios unstable, and the notion scares me. It would scare me if it were Canada running the U.S. ports, simply becuase our ports our not just a National Security opening, but a National Interest hub. Again, we're not talking about a company the way that we normally think about them. We're talking about a government.
Here's a question. Why doesn't Bush broker a deal to have the U.S. Government purchase the ports? Probably - aside from the expense, and Government should never spend a dime anywhere unless that dime can kill something - because it would look like they were being federalized, which I guess is true. So why then, would we conceivably raise a huff about the U.S. federalizing the ports, but think it's racist or knee-jerk to worry about the UAE federalizing them?
I suppose we view it as knee-jerk because "the takeover of the Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation Company of Britain came down to a battle between two foreign, state-backed companies," and there was no media noise or criticism when everyone thought "PSA, the world's second-largest port operator...part of the Singapore government's investment arm" was going to win the bid (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/24/business/24terminal.html). Yet oddly media and Congressional criticism only began when the Arabs of Dubai won.
I also think it's also fair to argue the reaction as knee-jerk when all this crowing about increased security risks flies in the face of the significantly calmer reactions from security experts and analysts. To quote Friedman from this week: "the security argument is bogus and, I would add, borderline racist. Many U.S. ports are run today by foreign companies, but the U.S. Coast Guard still controls all aspects of port security, entry and exits; the U.S. Customs Service is still in charge of inspecting the containers; and U.S. longshoremen still handle the cargos" ( http://select.nytimes.com/2006/02/24/opinion/24friedman.html?n=Top%2fOpinion%2fEditorials%20and%20Op%2dEd%2fOp%2dEd%2fColumnists). No one well-versed in the field has come forward to claim that this will injure national security. And while I can understand the public's surprise to learn that American companies largely moved out of the port business years ago I sincerely doubt so many lawmakers are ignorant of the fact.
As for the American running of ports, it seems as if that's an area in which we stopped being all that competitive quite some time ago, as "American ports are considered somewhat backward by shipping experts outside of the country...most major ports overseas operate 24 hours a day, seven days a week. But in the United States, ports were shut down at night until very recently. And transmitting shipping orders electronically to some American ports does not necessarily save time because the orders need to be rekeyed into the ports' computer systems, a concession to unions trying to preserve jobs" ( http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/24/business/24terminal.html?pagewanted=print). So it seems that American running of the ports wouldn't be that easy - US firms aren't up to the task nearly as well as DP World and other firms are today.
But, yes, let's stop and discuss this. It's about time the public and most of congress actually takes an interest in the subject. Sure, we can all say that Congress usually doesn't do its job these days but the public, while desiring improvement in homeland security, hasn't exactly been holding their elected officials to task. And anything that leads to a wider debate and increases the general public's knowledge of an issue beyond reality TV is a good thing. But let us not let ignorant hysteria and Schumer-like spotlight-grabbing overly distract us and our elected officials from the other issues of the day, including an investigation of wire-tapping, the declared emergency in the Philippines, and the situation in Nigeria, to name but a few.
However, when it comes to the administration, though, I'm not sure if we should be surprised by their arrogance in any category. Hubris is certainly among their sins and while they are, I certainly believe, right on this issue, they have forgotten and ignored their responsibility to the public and as elected officials to prove that they are right. Of course, had they placed a greater emphasis on winning over hearts and minds, they would've sooner realized that Iraq was not going to welcome them with flowers and open arms and that their citizens and ours would need to be convinced of our intentions.
Um... I mentioned federalisation because I thought it understood that it would be a poor idea. But why, then, is letting UAE federalize it better than a good idea when US federalization is bad?
Post a Comment
<< Home