Can You Believe This

[lizbud]

LH, Who was talking about Federal Law? All committes, and panels
created serve at the pleasure of the President.

Anothere important difference in this deal is that the British company
that is being bought out by the UAE company. The British company was
a publicly traded company & the Arab company is owned by the state.

[Lady's Human]

Liz,

The reason I mentioned federal law is that the approval panel is set up by public law, and has been reviewing these transactions since 1988. It is under the treasury department, however it is not a creation of an executive order.

Frankly, I wouldn't agree with any overseas entity running US ports, whether it be Great Britain or the UAE. There is just too much vulnerability when security procedures are openly available to a foreign entity, such as what gets searched, why the containers are being searched, etc.. It's an open fact that only around 5% of containers are searched, but we don't need to broacast how that 5% is selected, and port managers would be privy to that information.

[lizbud]

Liz,


Frankly, I wouldn't agree with any overseas entity running US ports, whether it be Great Britain or the UAE. There is just too much vulnerability when security procedures are openly available to a foreign entity, such as what gets searched, why the containers are being searched, etc.. It's an open fact that only around 5% of containers are searched, but we don't need to broacast how that 5% is selected, and port managers would be privy to that information.

I agree. There are some public figures who have tried to raise the subject
of the lax security at American ports, but nobody seems to want to listen.

[lizbud]

A very good article.


Now is not the time to be stubborn

Ruben Navarrette Jr
Washington Post Writers Group
Published February 24, 2006


SAN DIEGO -- The imbroglio over allowing a firm owned by the United Arab Emirates to control six U.S. ports--in Miami, Philadelphia, Baltimore, New Orleans, Newark and New York--has brought to light one of President Bush's shortcomings.

Although he holds the most important job in the world--the one that brings with it the most accountability--Bush hates having to explain himself to the American people, members of his own political party, Congress, the federal judiciary, you name it.

That's a problem.

To be a good president, you have to know how to take criticism and admit mistakes and not simply hunker down and threaten to crush dissent.

It helps to have what George H.W. Bush dismissively called "the vision thing," but you also need the persuasion thing. You need to know how to win people over to your side and put together a compelling and thoughtful argument that goes beyond: "We're going to do this because I said so."

This isn't Bush's strong suit. As I've written before, steadfastness and conviction are virtues, but being a leader means being able to persuade your constituents. Bush doesn't seem to have the willingness, or even perhaps the skill, to make a persuasive argument and sell his point of view. It's not just that Bush can be stubborn and bullheaded. That's a given. It's that he seems more comfortable dealing in the world of decrees, which he expects to be accepted by everyone without question.

And now that he has been challenged on the port issue, his first instinct is to strap on his six-shooter and basically tell congressional critics in both parties: "Go ahead, make my day." In five years, Bush has never vetoed a piece of legislation. But now he's threatening to break the streak by vetoing any attempt by Congress to blow up the port deal. It's a bad move.

Like just about everyone else in the world of politics, except those strangest of bedfellows Jimmy Carter and John McCain, I think the port deal is a goofy idea.

It's nothing personal. I'd like to think I'm not dabbling in racism or racial profiling, especially since I've spoken out against both a lot since Sept. 11, 2001, and I wouldn't hesitate to do so again. I'd feel differently if this were an Arab-American company--one that had links to the United States--instead of one owned and operated by a foreign government.

This isn't about racism. At most, it's about nationalism. And it's also about common sense.

Despite the Bush administration's assurances that the UAE is a friend and ally, you'll forgive me if I'm a little skeptical of the source. From Harriet Miers to Katrina to illegal wiretaps, the White House has been wrong a lot lately. How can we be sure it's not wrong again this time?

I'm not convinced that the UAE has the cleanest of hands. It was home to two of the Sept. 11 hijackers and served as a base for them and their fellow mass murderers as they were planning the attacks. Was the UAE government in the dark about that, or did it simply turn a blind eye? Until we know for sure, we should be safe rather than sorry.

The whole idea of putting an Arab-run company in charge of managing our ports makes about as much sense as putting a company owned by the Mexican government in charge of managing our borders. Again, a Mexican-American company, different story. But the Mexican government has its own agenda with regard to illegal immigration: that is, to encourage as much of it as possible and use it as an economic engine. What exactly is the agenda of the UAE?

I'd love to see Congress block the deal. I also wouldn't mind if governors in New York, New Jersey, Maryland and other affected areas made good on threats to pull their ports out of the deal. That should settle everything. No ports, no dice.

With only about 5 percent of the cargo entering this country getting a once over, our ports deserve more attention than they've been given since Sept. 11. Americans love fighting the last battle by beefing up airport security, or indulging their nativist dislike for immigrants by building walls and fences. But they never think much about the ports and the possibility that bad guys with bombs will come not by air or land but by sea.

I guess Bush doesn't think that'll happen. He may even have a persuasive argument to that effect. If so, let's hear it.

----------

Ruben Navarrette is a syndicated columnist based in San Diego. E-mail: [email protected]

[lizbud]

As everyone knows by now, the ports deal was stopped. (as written)
The UAE agreeded to turn over the management to an American firm.

It seems to me that the "chickens have come home to roost" for GWB.

After talking for years about that part of the world in very dire terms,
it's no wonder this deal scared the begeebers out of a lot of people.
I love it that he had to back down & didn't have the support for this
deal. He must have expected everyone to just "trust me" on this.Those
days are over for sure.