.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

Rantings of a Sandmonkey

Be forewarned: The writer of this blog is an extremely cynical, snarky, pro-US, secular, libertarian, disgruntled sandmonkey. If this is your cup of tea, please enjoy your stay here. If not, please sod off

Saturday, March 04, 2006

Democrats say bye to Arab goodwill

I am becoming more and more convinced every day that the democrats have the dumbest leadership ever. I mean, after finally getting the American Arab vote, which was solidly republican for the past 40 years, they want to jeopardize it by invoking bigotry over the US port deal which they think will earn them extra political points with "Heartland America". How? They want an immediate vote on the ports deal, before any kind of review takes place. Francine Busby, a school board member in a San Diego-area district, said Democrats want an immediate vote on the controversial ports deal, an increase in the screening of arriving cargo and more resources for the Coast Guard.

Congressional GOP leaders want to wait for the results of the administration's new investigation of DP World, a company owned by the government of Dubai, one of the United Arab Emirates, before considering legislation to delay or block it on security grounds.


House Democrats tried to force a debate and vote on legislation Thursday that would require the 45-day security review and congressional approval of the takeover. That effort failed on a procedural, largely party-line vote.

I can see how that debate would've been like "But they are arabs. We can't trust arabs. They will like use those ports to kill us all. Sure, the security is handeld by us, but they will figure out a way. Did we mention that 2 UAE citizens were part of 9/11? The whole country must be guilty then."

Yeah. It will be surely amusing to watch how they will shoot themselves in the foot over that one.


At 3/04/2006 02:48:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The Democrats are champs at losing the public. And even if they gain ground, their best efforts will only work to prove to the US public, just how much they should never be in power!

At 3/04/2006 02:51:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

SM, they don't shoot themselves in the foot, they stand in circles and fire instead.;)

At 3/04/2006 06:32:00 PM, Blogger Bitman said...

You're talking about one of the 3 countries that acknowledged the Taliban. A country who's proven to be a link for distribution of neuclear materials to Syria, North Korea and Iran. It's known to launder/distribute money between terrorist organizations (as defined by the US).

What I'm puzzled about is why this is NOT a problem? I couldn't care if they are jews, atheists or Arabs - the country has played both horses, and even letters seems to more than indicate that the government is infiltrated by Alqiada - or at least compromised enough for crap like the above to be able to happen.

Chineese companies owns port facilities in the US. So does about a handful of other non-US companies. So that's not the issue. The issue is, that the US ports are pretty insecure as it is, and the facility owners play a big role in enforcing whatever security there is. And it makes sense to give that control to a government who's proven to not have the best interest in US security?

It's funny - here we have the party who's yelling right and left about giving up civil rights and protections in the name of security - but there's no problem selling out the control to countries who's directly linked to 9/11 - both on the person and on the finance side?

At 3/04/2006 07:03:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

HMMMM, Bitman, you are aware that about 70% of what comes into those ports from around the world and about 90% of the cargo from Europe comes from ports operated by this same compay from the UAE? That they basically only manage where the ships dock and which wharehouse the goods are shipped from? What exactly is the deal? The MSM false spin that they will "control/own" the port? Security will still be the Coast guard, ports still owned by the port authority of the local city, same sh*t different day! If you alienate one of our better allies in the Middle East since the WOT began expect that their cooperation will not be as willingly given. They are living with the terrorists in their backyard cooperating with the USA carries risk. See info,reward,info reward.... It is very racist to object to this when not one of our ports have been domestically run since the 1950's! Why the objection now?

At 3/04/2006 07:11:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Chineese companies owns port facilities in the US.

Not true! Ports are owned by the port authority of the city in which they are located. The ports are "managed" by a Chinese, you know they employ longshormen to unload the ships, tell the ships which dock to pull into, and which warehouse the cargo is unloaded to/shipped out of. I believe they took over with Clinton's blessing in 1997. Funny I didn't hear the Press tell such tall tales about that tranaction?

At 3/04/2006 07:40:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I guess it all depends on who your biggest trading partners are. Ah, I love the smell of money in the morning.

At 3/04/2006 08:03:00 PM, Blogger Bitman said...

anno 7:11: "Ports are owned by the port authorty ..."

You should stop listening to right wing garbage and read a book :) Port FACILITIES are privately owned - that's where the ships DOCK. That's what this is all about - only the frigging US media refers to this as owning a port - I never said that, and the facilities are owned by private companies. The port authority doesn't even exist in most ports; in some cases it's the state, some cases it's a private company etc.

It's a different discussion whether foreign companies should be allowed to OWN all aspects of facility management on US grounds. This issue however is different ... it's not a private company. I wouldn't mind also evaluating other types of foreign ownership of US sea and air ports. How can the US talk about security without addressing those aspects?

At 3/04/2006 08:06:00 PM, Blogger Bitman said...

Anno 7:03
The deal is that they take part in the security. They have the obligation to report "suspecious" cargo and unusual acts that would warrent checks. Nobody has talked about their ability to manage a terminal and facility. They've clearly shown they can do that in the past.

The only question is, whether they can be trusted to upheld US security or if they'll pur their idiology first and then US security ....

At 3/05/2006 10:26:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bitman may I suggest you take your own advice. I can see that you know little to notjhing about the shipping trade. Since I've grown up around it let me tell you that all of the info you are saying is false, isn't. Ports are privately "controlled" but are "owned" by their cities. Somehow most of the journalists on the left keep mixing these two very different pieces of information up. Security is taken care of in the same way it always has been, nothing will change. BTW, did you know that this deal is only for a limited number of docks, less than 25% of most of them. This has been so blown out of proportion by people like you who don't know anything about what they are talking about that it really would be funny if it wasn't so stupid!

At 3/05/2006 02:36:00 PM, Blogger Bitman said...

anno 10:26
Well, ports are my industry - so THREE (I can play tose childish games too - doesn't really bring us closer to an agreement does it?).

Facilities are OWNED - as much as we can own anything in the states. As our supreme court has clearly stated, the state can take any ground they deem "serves the greater good" ... so I guess nobody really owns any land but the government. Whether you call it control or ownership - the result is the same. The operation of the facility is handled by the "owner".

That said, the only stipulation on the ownership is, that the facility cannot prohibit access from port "authorities" like the coast guard, INS etc etc etc. Something you can do with private lands.

The facility owner is responsible for getting/monitoring manifests, working with the authorities enabling them to conduct their searches etc. The facility owner is too required to check things. They don't have anything to do with deciding who's on the crew of the ships etc. but they have a great responsability on how the goods loaded and unloaded are handled, stored and moved in and out the facility area. THEY hire the security to ensure only the right people have access to the goods, and THEY monitor goods to identify what could constitute a threat or at least very much out of the ordinary.

Yes, only US Customs and to an extend the US Coast Guard can legally gain access. But if the facility feels something is screwy they contact those who'll do the search.

Bottom line is, the facility has a lot to do with the security; and the owner of the facility states how that roles i carried out.

You're totally right - the media is extorting the true aspect of this. No PORT is being sold. And it's not the WHOLE port in any sense of the word. However, the facilities are mainly container based traffic which is where we get the biggest risk - considering how little is being monitored as is.

A chain is only as strong as it's weakest link. You seem to be inable to argue without resulting to insults? You're fighting over words, not meaning. Is that really what you think politics is about? So far, I haven't seen one argument that explains why you think this is not a threat? Yes, it's not the whole port, and yes CG, INS and Customs have access to the facility - but so what? Could you finish your argument and explain how that removes the risk?

At 3/05/2006 03:51:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I wasn't playing a game, I'm serious about the shipping buisness. At one time the majority of ports in my father's country were owned by my family. I know what I am speaking of and you sir have no idea.

At 3/05/2006 03:54:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bitman from what I was reading you are the one who started the insults. Typical liberal BS, accuse the other of what you are doing. Now I will insult you, your loser attitude is as bad as your photo, 38 my butt

At 3/06/2006 09:32:00 AM, Anonymous Melissa in NorCal said...

I was for the deal seeing as how UAE is one of the most progressive Muslim nations, but then learned they boycott Israel. I can't accept that. If I'm wrong and they don't boycott products from Israel, educate me.


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home