Urgent: Must Ensure Dubai Ports Deal Goes Through!

[JamRock]

Clearly the Democrats should want the Dubai Ports deal to go through so that they can use it against the Republicans in the Fall.

The worst possible outcome of the current brouhaha would be for Bush to reverse position and do an Alito.

Democrats must make sure deal goes through, while not being too obvious. There are currently 3 reasonable Democratic stances:

1. Al Gore – say nothing about it, focus on Bush war crimes abroad and “breaking the law” at home.

2. Jimmy Carter – say the deal seems “Ok” on the technical merits.

3. John Kerry – call for “full disclosure” knowing that this will be a long dispassionate process though which Bush will likely get his way.

Schumer’s and Hillary’s bombastic effort to block the deal are either misguided or self-interested demagoguery. It is they who should be blocked. They are risking the party to pander prematurely when there is no real security issue at stake.

For the past five years Bush/Cheney has stoked fear terrorism and anti-Arab sentiment in the red-states. If Arabs own these ports come November Democrats will have a chance to own Congress.

Please help with ideas on how to make sure the Port Deal goes through.

[iconoclastNYC]

1. You couldn't be more wrong.

You fight it and you stop it NOW.

Politics takes a back seat to doing what's right. This deal is wrong for our National Security and it must be stopped NOW.

[Katherine Brengle]

6. Exactly. This is more important than partisan politics. n/t

[bowens43]

2. You're kidding right?

[JamRock]

17. No. No security problem but serious implications for booting Repub in Nov

Dubai Ports World is reputed be one of the most technologically advanced, sophisticated and well managed global operations in the world with a reputation for investment in security.

Why DP World's investment in the facilities of a few U.S. ports should be “scary” or any less secure than the management by the financially troubled UK ports operator P & O continuing without that investment IS a mystery to security experts.

But it will be a great political issue because of the current climate of fear and bigotry.

[babylonsister]

3. .

:popcorn:

[H2O Man]

4. silly n/t

[FormerRepublican]

5. That's stupid. Just shoot yourself in the head to avoid hunger. Pfft.

[ClintonTyree]

7. I hope you're joking........

but I don't see any :sarcasm: emoticon anywhere. You're WAY off base on your assessment in my opinion. This is not what is best for the country. We can't allow ourselves to play the Republican game of putting party before country.

[CJCRANE]

8. BAD IDEA. nt

[Innocent Smith]

9. How about we do what's right

If the correct thing is to block it then block it - if the correct thing is allow it to go through then allow it to go through.

I'm a little tired of our political leaders doing what they think is politically popular instead of what is right.

[BurgherHoldtheLies]

10. Totally disagree. It's not just a security issue, but a cronyism/big $$

In 2004, Dubai Ports International (DPI) purchased CSX World Terminals. DPI then changed their name to DPI Terminals. DPI Terminals combined with Dubai Ports Authority = Dubai Ports World. The company purchased by Dubai Ports World, CSX World Terminals is a division of CSX Corporation. The former CEO of CSX Corporation is Treasury Secretary John Snow.

John Snow: Secretary of Treasury
Appointed by Bush as Secretary of the treasury after firing Paul O'neil: John Snow recently stepped down as CEO of CSX. Under Snow's watch, despite raking in close to a billion dollars in pretax profits since 1998, CSX paid no federal income taxes in three of the past four years – magically making all of its profits "pretax." What's more, thanks to a combination of accounting gimmicks and tax shelters, the company was even able to score a hefty $164 million in tax rebates during that time. Tax rebates on taxes that CSX NEVER PAID. After looting the treasury of our tax dollars, Bush has appointed him Secretary of that same treasury.

Under Snow’s leadership CSX has achieved the dubious distinction of being one of the 100 biggest overall campaign contributors to federal candidates and parties, shelling out $5.9 million between 1999 to 2002. Seventy-two percent of that total went to Republicans, including $25,750 to the Bush-Cheney campaign in 2000. In addition, Snow kicked in $75,000 to various federal campaigns.

But he could afford it. During his 12-year tenure at CSX Snow received more than $50 million in compensation. Last year, he made $10.1 million in cash and stock grants and received stock options valued at $8 million.

Alvin “Pete” Carpenter is one of three Pioneers who have worked for CSX railroad (see also Thomas Fiorentino and Joseph Bogosian). President Bush appointed then CSX-Chair and CEO John Snow as Treasury Secretary in December 2002, after forcing out Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill, who took a nonchalant approach to the nation’s sluggish economy. Carpenter became vice chair of CSX in 1999, the year he organized a 1999 Bush fundraiser that netted almost half a million dollars. He is one of the “Jacksonville Eight,” wealthy executives who raised hundreds of thousands of dollars for Jeb Bush’s 1998 gubernatorial campaign. CSX joined three other major railroad interests in “Destination DC,” a 1999 lobbying effort to prevent Congress from imposing new regulations on the industry through the renewal of the Surface Transportation Board. The 2000 Bush presidential campaign reimbursed CSX $3,800 for rides George Bush took on its corporate jets. Carpenter retired from CSX in 2001 but still consults for the company. Governor Jeb Bush appointed Carpenter to Florida’s Advisory Council on Base Realignment and Closures in 2003 and heads a panel Governor Bush created to study the state’s workers compensation system.

And this:

This is the United Arab Emirates
From the US State Department's Consular Information Sheet:

Americans in the United Arab Emirates should exercise a high level of security awareness. The Department of State remains concerned about the possibility of terrorist attacks against U.S. citizens and interests throughout the world. Americans should maintain a low profile, vary routes and times for all required travel, and treat mail and packages from unfamiliar sources with caution. In addition, U.S. citizens are urged to avoid contact with any suspicious, unfamiliar objects, and to report the presence of the objects to local authorities. Vehicles should not be left unattended, if at all possible, and should be kept locked at all times. U.S. Government personnel overseas have been advised to take the same precautions. In addition, U.S. Government facilities may temporarily close or suspend public services from time to time as necessary to review their security posture and ensure its adequacy.

[BushOut06]

11. Isn't that kind of like hoping for another terrorist attack

Just to prove how ineffective Bushie is?

[Mandate My Ass]

12. Have IQs suddenly dropped?

:shrug:

[Marie26]

13. No thanks

Let's endanger national security so we can blame the Republicans for it? That's nuts. Not everything is about politics. In spite of what you might think, DUers here won't support this post. I don't usually like to go accusing people of being trolls, but this might be an exception. *cough* Freeper. *cough*

[Imalittleteapot]

14. No. Get on the side of what is right.

I'm tired of secrets deals that benefit corporations and the Bush gang without regard of what is right for America.

[JamRock]

25. This is a petty rip-off of the Arabs not comparable to Halliburton

multi-billion dollar giveaways.

[Yavin4]

15. National Security SHOULD NOT BE USED FOR PARTISAN POLITICS

Just because the Bush admin has abused national security for partisan reasons, that does not mean that we should do the same.

[A-Schwarzenegger]

16. It's Reverse Psychology, Bubba, run for the hills!

Let's make sure we invade Iran, too. That'll show them Repubelicans!

[converted_democrat]

18. Nice try, but no cigar.....n/t

[KAZ]

19. Not too transparent, are we. n/t

n/t

[Stephanie]

33. Right? Cant they try a little harder?

:rofl:

[nadinbrzezinski]

20. National Security is NOT a partisan issue

or are you gonig to be able to sleep when an American city disapears in a mushroom cloud? No this is NOT hyperbole... why do you think they want that deal? THEY NEED A NEW PEARL HARBOR, got it?

[JamRock]

36. Oberman's terroism expert insisted that Dubai "security" issue is bogus.

That position is supported by much informed techical commentary.
There are deap machinations at work here, but security is not the issue.

[Joe Fields]

21. Sorry buddy. I won't play politics with national security.

This isn't a game to me. This is serious shit.

[JamRock]

29. Have you seen the security review -- Port security is f* without these

type of deals because Bush is unwilling to pay for the screening and technology investment
required.

[Der Blaue Engel]

22. Yeah, and if we just let terrorists take out the WTC, we can invade Iraq!

Oops...sorry, I just went back in time and turned Republican for a moment. :eyes:

[htuttle]

23. Get back under the bridge with that crap!

[wicket]

24. Did somebody order pizza?

:popcorn:

[RagingInMiami]

26. You obviously don't live in one of those cities

And that would only confirm the "democrats are weak security" argument.

[DearAbby]

27. This is not a football game...this is national security!

:wow:

[Jim Warren]

28. Many fish bite if you've got good bait

You sir, are no Taj Mahal

[wtmusic]

30. "the democrats" should want, eh?

Dead giveaway. Even you guys can do better than that.

[mdmc]

31. welcome to du, jamrock

:kick:

[Matariki]

32. this isn't going to work George ;-)

[KharmaTrain]

34. Play Careful, Play Smart

I keep smelling a Harriety Meiers here (and it's not a very good smell)

This is a Rovian ploy to give Congressional Repugnicans what appears to be "balls" and independence from a failing executive while they really never leave the reservation. Let's not help them.

This is all faux outrage. This regime is trumping up this deal (with the UAE going right along) to whip up a fake controversy (gay marriage ammendment anyone??) that whips up the base and gives the Repugnican Congresscritters something to divert attention away from Abramoff and onto "standing up" for national security.

This regime is playing its role by pretending to bluster with the threat of a veto, but will back down (this isn't worthy of a veto and it's so obvious it's painful) and a "compromise" (just like the NSA crap) will emerge. From the smoke-filled room (no Democrats allowed) will come a "American" corporation that will ride to the rescue...forced upon this regime by Congressional Repugnicans...and this company will be: (Drumroll) a subsidiary of the Carlisle Group. Yep...red, white and blue and the Congresscritters will go jumping up and down how they "stood up for national security"...or "stood up against a failing preznit"...and claim victory...all the while the fix was in from the start.

Then, these critters will want to help that "American" company through emergency tax breaks and subsidies to make it "competitive". And of course this is just another fleecing of the American taxpayer and consumer...but at least it's Americans fleecing us, not A-rabs.

There's a unique window here to expose the financial underbelly of this beast when it presents itself. Will the Democrats be ready when that happens?

Stay tuned...

[mattclearing]

35. This is why people hate politics.

It's the victory of strategy over policy. You'd love to destroy national security if only it meant Democratic majorities come January '07.

Give me a fucking break.

[onenote]

37. the ports debate already is more about politics than anything else

Personally, I think that there has been a rush to judgment on this on all sides. Hell, half of the people commenting on it (including members of Congress) still seem to think the ports themselves are being "sold" to the UAE.

The role that the ports management company plays in security issues continues to be the subject of conflicting reports. Concerns over whether placing the ownership of the port management company in the hands of a UAE-owned company increases security risks is a legitimate issue and one that the administration has not yet answered. On the other hand, the real risks relating to port security aren't going to magically go away if the ports management is handled by a US-owned company or even by the US govenrment.

onenote

[Skinner]

38. Locking.

This makes no sense.