WAPO Comes out in support of the port turn-over to UAE.

[madinmaryland]

This is one of the strangest articals I've ever seen written. They seem to think the idea of turning the ports over to the UAE is a good idea.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/21/AR2006022101575.html

YOU KNOW THERE'S something suspicious going on when multiple members of Congress -- House, Senate, Democrat, Republican, future presidential candidates of all stripes -- spontaneously unite around an issue that none of them had known existed a week earlier. That appears to be what happened last weekend after politicians awoke to the fairly stale news that the London-based P&O navigation company, which has long managed the ports of New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia, had been taken over by Dubai Ports World, a company based in the United Arab Emirates. Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) called the deal "tone-deaf politically at this point in our history." Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) called for the White House to put a hold on the purchase. Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) seconded him, implying that Arab owners posed a major security threat -- as did everyone from Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) to Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) to Rep. Peter T. King (R-N.Y.) to Maryland Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. (R).

At stake -- in theory -- is the question of whether we should "outsource major port security to a foreign-based company," in the words of Mr. Graham. But those words, like that of almost all of the others, sound, well, tone-deaf to us. For one, the deal cannot "outsource major port security," because management companies that run ports do not control security. The U.S. Coast Guard controls the physical security of our ports. The U.S. Customs Service controls container security. That doesn't change, no matter who runs the business operations. Nor is it clear why Mr. Graham or anybody else should be worried about "foreign-based" companies managing U.S. ports, since P&O is a British company. And Britain, as events of the last year have illustrated, is no less likely to harbor radical Islamic terrorists than Dubai.

None of the U.S. politicians huffing and puffing seem to be aware that this deal was long in the making, that it had been reported on extensively in the financial press, and that it went through normal security clearance procedures, including approval from a foreign investment committee that contains officials from the departments of Treasury, Commerce, State and Homeland Security, among other agencies. Even more disturbing is the apparent difficulty of members of Congress in distinguishing among Arab countries. We'd like to remind them, as they've apparently forgotten, that the United Arab Emirates is a U.S. ally that has cooperated extensively with U.S. security operations in the war on terrorism, that supplied troops to the U.S.-led coalition during the 1991 Persian Gulf War, and that sends humanitarian aid to Iraq. U.S. troops move freely in and out of Dubai on their way to Iraq now.

Finally, we're wondering if perhaps American politicians are having trouble understanding some of the most basic goals of contemporary U.S. foreign policy. A goal of "democracy promotion" in the Middle East, after all, is to encourage Arab countries to become economically and politically integrated with the rest of the world. What better way to do so than by encouraging Arab companies to invest in the United States? Clearly, Congress doesn't understand that basic principle, since its members prefer instead to spread prejudice and misinformation.

[kenny blankenship]

1. Selling our ports to a royal monopoly is promoting democracy now ?

check.
(Maybe the problem all along has been people like the WaPo confusing greasy palm cronyism with democracy?)

[Warpy]

2. In some ways, this is a tempest in a teapot.

The ports have already been run by P&O, a UK company. Dubai bought out P&O, so this represents a change in corporate ownership, not a change in how our ports are being run. They run the day to day operations of getting ships in and out, loaded and unloaded. Security is still covered by the Coast Guard and DHS (heaven help us).

The whole flap seems to be because this is the first time most folks in the country have realized that something as vital as control of shipping has been OUTSOURCED to another country.

Some things really should be publicly owned, and port management is one of them, IMO. However, this hasn't been the case in most ports since the day they were built. Perhaps this whole uproar is a blessing in disguise and will get people to start thinking about ending the privatization/outsourcing fads.

[politicaholic]

3. They take the economic approach and not a "researched" approach...

The media is suffering from researchaphobia since the advent of infotainment...it's sad really.

They didn't seem to take into account that the Dubai port is considered by the CIA to be a port that is a major international hub for drugs and illegal weapons. When I say the CIA I mean the United States CIA...the agency that knew that Iraq had no WMDs...the agency that warned that terrorists might be plotting to fly planes into the WTC...that CIA.

Pathetic.

[Bob3]

4. "it went through normal security clearance procedures" WRONG!

Oh no it didn't - there is a 45 day security review mandated under federal law - that review did not take place and nobody seems to know why.

And The sec of Defense and dim son himself said they knew nothing about the deal - I can buy * didn't know squat but Rumsfeld's another story senile yes out of the loop no. So so much for everybody knew it.

It's the Money is more important than anything else neo-liberal we must bow to the corporate state nonsense that the MSM doles out to us proles from time to time.

[EC]

5. How is this a strong article?

It misdirects the belief that Dubai Ports World is "a company based in the United Arab Emirates" which makes one believe it is privately owned out of UAE - when in fact it is owned by the government itself. This is more than just "foriegn based" like the British firm, a company has no power to declare war, sabatoge the whole industry, or cut off oil completely like a COUNTRY can. And making it into a bigotry issue is just plain dumb, how about the issue that NO FORIEGN GOVERNMENT NO MATTER WHO IT IS SHOULD OWN PIECES OF OUR PORTS? If the UAE and other arab countries decide to embargo us, how will we stop them? Or if they declare war? It also states that security will still be in our hands, let's say 2 or 3 containers come in with Arab soldiers in them and take over the port, what good will security in our hands be?

And finally who cares that they Have been an ally lately? Who's to say how things will change in the future when oil gets scarce?

This just shows how myopic this administration and cohorts are...lets get the fast buck and to hell with the future...This is just a lot of words put together to mislead (as usual).