The Japanese martial art of aikido has always fascinated me in its attempt to use the energy of the opponent to defeat him. On reflection, the choice of an United Arab Emirates company for taking over “significant operations” at six US ports may contain elements of that. The UAE folks have now officially been co-opted.
Of course, if this was the strategy, Bush, who claims not to have known about the contract while it was being negotiated, cannot take credit for it. But some others can. From the AP:
The disclosure of the negotiated conditions came as the White House acknowledged that Bush was unaware of the pending sale until the deal had been already approved by his administration.
PJM Home
Pajamas Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
The clause regarding "hate speech" has been deleted because readers criticized it as being too loosely defined. We agreed.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that Pajamas Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pajamasmedia.com.
19 Comments
1. David Thomson:ìIn approving the purchase, the administration chose not to require Dubai Ports to keep copies of its business records on U.S. soil, where they would be subject to orders by American courts. It also did not require the company to designate an American citizen to accommodate requests by the government.î
This might be where a compromise can be reached. Some of the earlier opponents are seeking a way to save face. The Dubai Ports Company will simply ìkeep copies of its business records on U.S. soil,î and that will be the end of the screaming and yelling.
This is an all or nothing situation. If we say no to the Dubai Ports Company —then we must also exclude every other foreign firm. Not to do so, will send the wrong message to moderate Muslims.
Feb 23, 2006 - 9:45 am 2. Test Test:inverted reality and wishful thinking
Do you really think these people are geniuses
Please they’re regular dumbasses making dumbass decisions based on self interest like all the rest of us
Feb 23, 2006 - 10:00 am 3. The Scrutinator:“Bush was unaware of the pending sale until the deal had been already approved by his administration…”
Sounds like he’s hired the right people. Good sign of a chief executive.
I like Bush’s “ride herd over the Einsteins” mentality over Clinton’s “I’m the Rhodes Scholar here so I’ll just micro-manage it.”
Feb 23, 2006 - 10:22 am 4. PJPOK,Sr:It is hard to determine whether this White House has a ‘tin ear’, a ‘bull head’ or some combination of both but it’s effectiveness is being compromised. Before they allow this to become a ‘bumper sticker’ issue, the administration should make the results of the vetting process it conducted available to congressional / public scrutiny. PJPOK,Sr.
Feb 23, 2006 - 11:03 am 5. exmaple:UAE is already co-opted by their fear of their strategic threat, Iran. Yet they can play any side in the creases.
The only stratergery deployed by Bush is his macho threat to deploy a veto. This matter strikes many nerves and sore points, one of which is the discomfort Bush never deployed a veto on budgets and bridges to nowhere. Didn’t even threaten one.
Bush’s allegations of racism are not unlike the same allegations he makes against 80% of the American people who support sane immigration control.
The web is crawling with stunned Bush supporters. In frustration they sling rocks every where but the Administration. It’s and internet panic attack which might hit levels reached in the Schiavo affair.
Feb 23, 2006 - 11:35 am 6. Knucklehead:It’s and internet panic attack which might hit levels reached in the Schiavo affair.
Now there’s an “issue” that had real staying power. Anybody out there voting for or against anyone due to the Schiavo Affair?
Feb 23, 2006 - 12:01 pm 7. markus:“Anybody out there voting for or against anyone due to the Schiavo Affair?”
Bush had a shitty year in 2005, politically speaking, and Shiavo was the first major speedbump that he hit after his second inauguration. Or perhaps you might say it was “the hall of fame slugger’s first big strikeout”. Pick your metaphor.
Wouldn’t be surprised at all if in fact Dubai Ports is NOT a real security risk. The President might actually be right on the merits here.
Still, it’s a delight for me, from a partisan perspective, to watch the President’s smirking cockiness go up against a veto-proof bipartisan supermajority, enflamed in large measure by the popular anti-Arab xenophobia that the administration has previously welcomed and benefitted from.
Feb 23, 2006 - 12:46 pm 8. Sandy P:Josh Marshall recently wrote that W is most probably the smartest pres this country’s ever had and that’s why the lefty and righty intellectuals don’t like him.
Feb 23, 2006 - 1:03 pm 9. Sandy P:As to W not knowing, either plausible deniability or this reminds me of the perception of #41 in the grocery store.
Why would anyone expect the president of the US to personally negotiate contracts?
Feb 23, 2006 - 1:05 pm 10. Knucklehead:Sandy P,
Why would anyone expect the president of the US to personally negotiate contracts?
Because they have no idea about how anything complex gets done?
Feb 23, 2006 - 2:14 pm 11. Coisty:Markus: it’s a delight for me, from a partisan perspective, to watch the President’s smirking cockiness go up against a veto-proof bipartisan supermajority, enflamed in large measure by the popular anti-Arab xenophobia that the administration has previously welcomed and benefitted from.
Far from encouraging anti-Arab xenophobia this president has pandered to them as well as Muslims in general. Bush has been an outspoken opponent of racial profiling (a disgrace in my view) and he and his cronies have attacked those of us who oppose his MidEast democratization policy as bigots with low expectations of Arab Muslims.
I find it odd that the masses who are quiet when it comes to not singling out suspicious Arabs getting on planes are suddenly upset about this innocuous ports contract. Perhaps liberal Democratic opposition to the ports deal has provided cover for an explosion of suppressed anger regarding political correctness. I see nothing wrong with a UAE company running the ports as they’ll be subject to the same regulations as the previous company. Chuck Schumer and company seem to be engaging in the kind of profiling that Al Gore was recently sounding off about in Saudi Arabia.
Feb 23, 2006 - 2:17 pm 12. OJ:Coisty: I agree 100%!
At the risk of sounding cynical:
Feb 23, 2006 - 2:27 pm 13. Always right:I wonder how long before the ACLU feels inclined to intervene on behalf of the poor Dubai based company which doesn’t get the same shake as Chinese, Singaporian and European port owners…
Sandy P,
We don’t.
However, why let Schumer and old media mis-represent the DP World deal as national security risk, and kept key persons in the dark? When the storm was gathering strength, why not invite Senate/Congressional heads and relevant committee heads to clear things up? Then it won’t come to the present sorry state that Frist, Haster (sp?), and all kinds of ambitious lefty and righty persons (Lindsey Graham, for example) publicly oppose the deal, with a strong majority of Americans behind them. Why let this thing go for so long till both lefty and righty bloggers have hissy fits over misinformation?
Karen Hughes used to have a very good grip on the regular Americans’ pulse. Now that she’s in charge of PRing US image overseas (ME), it seems she’s out of her depth. I don’t know where Karl Rove is doing, somebody in WH is definitely “tone deaf”. And this is but another example of this kind of reacting to un-necessary hysteria, both ìtoo little, too lateî variety.
Feb 23, 2006 - 2:28 pm 14. Knucklehead:Can we please stop with this “owning ports” stuff!
What is “owned” are freight terminal facilites within ports. O&P “owns” (lease with long enough term to justify investing a LOT of money in freight handling infrastructure) a 50% interest in the CONTAINER terminal in the Port Newark/Elizabeth Marine Terminal. There are several other large freight terminals in that port. There are several other large ports – the PATH of NY/NJ includes of seven Marine Terminals each of which have several freight terminals. Nobody owns the ports other than the city/state where the port is located.
In the Port of Baltimore they own the lease on two container terminals. There are four other “public” freight terminals and eight “private” ones in the Port of Baltimore.
What DPW, partly owned by the UAE government, would “own” is not “American Ports!” but a portion of the container terminals in a handful of US ports. Foreign corporations (China, Singapore, etc) “own” various freight terminals in various US ports. Regardless of who owns them the Coast Guard and the US Customs Service are the ones responsible for the “security” of the ports. Whoever owns the terminals has to deal with the same security operations and if they don’t they’ll be our of business. I don’t know a single person in the UAE or from the UAE but I am absolutely sure the UAE does not want to see a $6B investment go up in smoke in one of their container terminals in the US.
Feb 23, 2006 - 2:56 pm 15. photoncourier.blogspot.com:Sandy P…no one would expect the President to personally negotiate contracs; however, a good executive expects his subordinates to identify issues that have high sensitivity and inform him of them in advance of decisions being finalized. And good subordinates know to do this without being specifically told.
Feb 23, 2006 - 4:08 pm 16. Sandy P:As a poster pointed out elsewhere, IIRC, the Chicoms have contracts and nukes and we’re probably going to be at war w/them in a few years, so, what’s the big deal?
Just a business deal.
Feb 23, 2006 - 7:27 pm 17. Brian:An old professor of mine defined postmodernism as “what you do when you’re losing an argument”. The pro-Dubai faction has gotten very postmodernist over the last few days, with racism this and racism that and Bush’s recent crack that a UAE firm is no more worrying than a British one.
Anyway, here’s a little wrinkle that may change some minds, from a commentor quoted by Frank Gaffney over on National Review:
Granted it’s an anonymous source, which means a wait & see attitude is called for, but it doesn’t seem that farfetched for a Middle East firm to act this way. Do we really want to be doing business with a firm like that? Is this how you want your tax dollars to be put to work? Should we be giving billions to terrorists once removed?
Feb 24, 2006 - 4:12 am 18. Brian:Hmmm. I’m wondering if the “Palestinian ‘charities’” referred to above might be the UAE’s conspiracy-mongering Zayed Center, which Charles Johnson calls “the lunatic black hole at the center of the Arab galaxy”.
Memri backgrounder on Zayed Center here. Harvard charity scandal story here.
Am I the only one who finds all this curious?
The Zayed after which the Center is named is the president of the UAE, Sheik Zayed, who presumably owns the company which will be running our ports.
Feb 24, 2006 - 4:37 am 19. dw:Brian said “Is this how you want your tax dollars to be put to work? Should we be giving billions to terrorists once removed?”
how do you make the leap from Dubai Ports buying a British firm and “our tax dollars being put to work?” This has nothing to do with our tax dollars.
Feb 24, 2006 - 5:04 pm