Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : I Will Continue to Continue, to Pretend.... -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sully- who wrote (18375)	3/2/2006 12:21:56 AM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

Still More On the Ports Posted by John Power Line We're getting quite a few emails from people who work in international shipping. So far, they are pretty much unanimous in saying that the UAE port terminal purchase is a non-issue. Here's another one: <<< Thank you for printing part of the C-SPAN interview with Commissioner Ahern from this morning. For those of us who work in the international shipping business, it was a breath of fresh air to finally see some reasonable discussion on the port issue. There are several other points worth making: 1) Over the past five to seven years there has been significant investment by international companies in the US freight transportation infrastructure. As the US investors demand high returns on investment, increasingly foreign companies have moved into lower return industries where they have certain scale advantages. The logistics and transportation industry is but one example. Freight companies like DHL (owned by the German post office), PWC Logistics (a Kuwaiti warehouse company), and others have made significant investments in the US. The fact that DPW seeks to manage port operations may make for better political fodder, but if the truth be known, the companies who manage transportation networks have a greater impact on security. After all, they have responsibility for ensuring that dangerous cargo is not loaded in foreign ports where there is the greatest opportunity for abuse. To those who fear DPW, I ask, where were you when PWC bought GeoLogistics, or DHL bought AEI? 2) As Commissioner Ahern noted this morning, the post-9/11 initiatives to secure intra-continental freight networks have been focused on pushing the inspection process to the points of origin. Immediately after 9/11 there was a rush by people in my industry to put in place tracking systems that would secure cargo containers from door-to-door. That being said, even prior to 9/11, US customs and the carriers used relatively sophisticated data base management tools to track cargo. As such, we in the industry cringe every time we hear the "we only inspect 3% of shipments" shibboleth. In point of fact, the 3% number more accurately describes success than failure. 3) Perhaps the most interesting part of the whole DPW issue has been completely overlooked by the press and the politicians. From what I understand, the UAE is working to establish a locally based capital market that trades in Sukuk, a debt instrument that conforms to Islamic law (usury being against the teachings of Islam). In this effort, they are using DPW as a "base company" - an enterprise with enough trading volume to stabilize the new market. That taken into account, it becomes more clear why President Bush is so adamant about letting this deal go through. Not only is there payback for the help the UAE has provided in the GWOT, but it also fits his vision of integrating the Middle East economies into the broader, global economy. For without their own method for raising capital, the likes of Saudi Arabia and the UAE will forever be beholden to foreigners for capital and will have much more difficulty diversifying their oil/gas based economies. >>> Interesting stuff. Let's hear from more readers with first-hand knowledge of port security issues. powerlineblog.com

To: Sully- who wrote (18375)	3/2/2006 1:12:26 AM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

As for me, I respect the courage to make a decision based on the facts, and to separate the facts from the emotion, and to pursue the longer-range goal and not give in to a whim of expediency, especially when it would just play into the hands of a political party which knows nothing of courage or commitment these days. National Security -- DJ Drummond PoliPundit.com “Please, look at the facts” - President George W. Bush “Yearrrrrrrrrrrrrrrgh!!!” Howard Dean, Michelle Malkin, William Bennett et al. Quite the popular game these days, people playing at the righteous guardian of our borders and safety of the Commonwealth. Why, even Hillary Clinton and Chucky Schumer get to pretend they care about our citizens’ safety and well-being. What fun. But in the real world, security is quite another matter. The much-maligned deal to sell P&O Ports to DP World is sadly lacking in fact, in balance, and in context, and this should be of greater concern to Conservatives than I see. I do not expect Liberals, as they exist today, to focus on facts and evidence, much less proportionate priorities, but Conservatives, especially those in the New Media, should meet a higher standard. ‘National Security’ is a catch phrase, which means that a lot of people mean different things when they use it in discussion. For me at least, it’s pretty simple – I want to be reasonably sure that I and my family are safe from another 9/11 attack, and that includes having terrorists enter the United States and blow up cities, major roads, that sort of thing. I also expect the government to follow through on its commitments in places like Afghanistan and Iraq, where we have paid enough blood to take the land away from dictators, that we should do what is needed to make sure those lands won’t fall back into the hands of a madman. As evidenced by the statements and policies from the major American political parties, this precludes my ever voting for a Democrat in a national election in my lifetime. Even if an individual Democrat should prove to be the superior candidate in a general election, I cannot in good conscience lend power to a party which treats the defense of our nation so trivially, or which could sponsor the candidacy of a Gore, a Kerry, a Murtha, a Reid, a Kennedy, or a Biden. So the question in any election raises the stakes significantly in the primaries, because the true decision is what Republican to be given the nomination. I mention the political dimension here so early, because there is an aspect to National Security which a lot of people will not like. That is, at some point we have to accept that we trust our leaders to do the job, and we must accept some decisions even when they do not appear wise on the surface. This hardly means we must be naïve, but the recent trick of bashing the President as soon as any question rises in relation to one of his decisions is not only dishonorable for Republicans, but damages the authority of the White House and blurs the focus about what his job and responsibilities are. In the case of the DP World deal, while questions are reasonable, a disappointingly large number of commentators, including some noted Conservatives, immediately began to attack the President as soon as they heard about the deal. Long before they bothered to find out whether their concerns and worries were valid or properly centered. It has been demonstrated convincingly, for instance, that the deal will effectively change nothing in port security procedures, which was one of the early charges made against the deal. It has been demonstrated that DP World is a private corporation with a long and effective record in port management, rather than an arm of the UAE government, which runs against rumors and false accusations which even today are still be thrown around. It has been demonstrated that the deal concerns not ownership of the ports, nor control of operations by any reasonable definition, but merely the leases on operations, which boils down to the production of paperwork and the compliance with ordinances and regulations by the Port Authority for each location, as well as Customs and the DHS/Coast Guard. But there again, whispers of some kind of Arab conspiracy, some ‘can’t trust the Muslims’ hysteria, finds its way into the print of newspaper columns and radio airwaves. If this were coming from Air America or the New York Times, I might shrug and expect it, but some of the lying, some of the racism (yes Malkin I will use that word – it fits the actions) is coming from figureheads on the Right. Military men explain what is and what is not addressed in the deal, but people like Bennett sneer at anyone suggesting they have not done their homework. Businessmen explain what the deal means in economic terms and the effects of demonstrating the veracity of our promises to an ally, but Malkin still pretends that a DP World port means a delivery from Al Qaeda through their connivance. Unfortunate, especially as the giddy Democrats are only to happy to use the Republicans’ stupidity and bias against them, collecting sound bites in hopes of playing hate this fall to claim back power in the Congress. It’s no surprise to hear Democrats making false statements and showing prejudice, but it rankles to see Conservatives handing them weapons to use against Republicans. Ronald Reagan created the Eleventh Commandment, basically to remind the party that we must work together, that we must remember our ideals, and that we must not air feuds where the Democrats can, as they so love to do, turn us against one another. It should give any decent person pause to find themselves on the same side of an issue as Hillary Clinton and Charles Schumer, and against the man who has done more for the War on Terror than anyone else. But loyalty is also one of those ‘obsolete’ ideals, it seems. We are at war, and I trust President Bush to know what he is doing, and I try to look at the facts before jumping on a bandwagon, especially one which attacks Dubya. No doubt that will be called ‘bootlicking’ or ‘sycophantic’ by people who only cheer the President when he is doing what they want; leadership depends on following the herd, some seem to believe. As for me, I respect the courage to make a decision based on the facts, and to separate the facts from the emotion, and to pursue the longer-range goal and not give in to a whim of expediency, especially when it would just play into the hands of a political party which knows nothing of courage or commitment these days. polipundit.com forbes.com crocuta.net capitalnews9.com today.reuters.com forbes.com

To: Sully- who wrote (18375)	3/2/2006 1:42:07 AM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

The Ports and November, 2006 by Hugh Hewitt If the issue is security, the solution will never be the election of more Democrats. That's the bottom line of the ports controversy, and the president's continued defense of the deal today suggests that he knows that the longer the country studies any issue of national security, the better off he and his party will be. From Reuters: "My position hasn't changed to my message to the Congress," Bush said. "If there was any doubt in my mind or people in my administration's minds that our ports would be less secure or the American people in danger, this deal wouldn't go forward." I have been reading Bill Sammon's new book, Strategery, and on p. 36 he recounts a Bush press conference from the Spring of 2004, which concluded when Bush replied to a question by NPR's Don Gonyea on whether Bush though he had "failed as a communicator" on the war. Bush answered that the presidential campaign would answer that question: I guess if you put it into a political context, that's the kind of thing the voters will decide next November-- that's what elections are about. They'll take a look at me and my opponent and say "Let's see, which one of them can better win the War on Terror? Who best can see to it that Iraq emerges as a free society?" I feel strongly about what we're doing. I feel strongly that the course this administration has taken will make America more secure and the world more free, and, therefor, the world more peaceful. It's a conviction that's deep in my soul. And I will say it as best as I possibly can to the American people. What is a proper use of American power? Do we have an obligation to lead? Or should we shirk responsibility? That's how I vciew this debate. And I look forward to making it, Don. I'll do it the best I possibly can. I'll give it the best shot. I'll speak as plainly as I can. One thing is for certain, though, about me --and the world has learned this. When I say something, I mean it. The president appears to be counting on his well-earned reputation for sincerity on matters of security to settle the ports issue. It may, or it may not. But it is clear he doesn't mind the debate. And increasingly it is obvious why not. As with the Patriot Act, as with the debate over the NSA program to conduct surveillance of al Qaeda communicating with its agents inside America, and as with the war on all of its fronts, the president and the party he leads are serious about the debate and the stakes. The Democrats aren't. A photo op at the harbor with Chuch Schumer and Hillary is just another in a long line of stunts that is supposed to pass as a policy: Congressman Murtha's demand for an immediate withdrawal; Harry Reid's gloating that he "had killed the Patriot Act," John Kerry's never-ending campaign --they are all the same stunt. It didn't work in 2002. It didn't work in 2004. And it isn't going to work in 2006. If the issue is the nation's secuirty in a time of grave and growing threats, the answer isn't, and probably won't be for at least a generation, the Democrats. Bush is setting up the next eight months to be yet another referendum on the war's conduct. Incredibly the Democrats have agreed to the terrain, which always has them fighting uphill. They seem to think that some combination of Katrina and the ports debate will allow them to emerge as a credible alternative on national security --when they refused to allow exploration in ANWR, opposed SCOTUS nominees in large part because Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito might agree that the president has stand-along war powers pursuant to Article II, and routinely argue idiocies like Dick Durbin's assertion that members of the American military are similar in their action's to the thugs of Hitler's, Stalin's and Pol Pot's regime or Howard dean's blanket assertion that the war can't be won, and that it is another Vietnam. The sneering and jeering of Democrats on the ports issue is instantly recognized as rank posturing, the political equivalent of a demand for better exercise equipment from the morbidly obese. President Bush is flying off to India and Pakistan to greet and meet two allies in the GWOT, two allies he has nurtured along from the brink of nuclear war to parallel if not collaborative cooperation with the U.S. in the GWOT. He's betting the American electorate will want the real thing in November when it comes to serious national security policy. The case for his optimism is compelling. hughhewitt.com today.reuters.com amazon.com latimes.com

To: Sully- who wrote (18375)	3/2/2006 1:57:57 AM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

If we are to believe that Hillary is sincere, then we should conclude that Bill Clinton has no clue how to secure the nation; after all, he's provided material support to the emirs in attempting to gain control of the ports. Talk About Triangulation By Captain Ed on National Politics Captain's Quarters The Democrats have seized the center stage for opposing the Dubai ports deal, claiming that the questionable decision to approve the transfer of port operations to state-owned Dubai Ports World shows that the Bush administration puts profits ahead of national security. Hillary Clinton in particular has assailed the decision and promised to push legislation to block the deal. Perhaps she should consult with the man who helped the UAE firm defend the deal ... former President and current husband, Bill Clinton: <<< Bill Clinton, former US president, advised top officials from Dubai two weeks ago on how to address growing US concerns over the acquisition of five US container terminals by DP World. ... It came even as his wife, Senator Hillary Clinton, was leading efforts to derail the deal. Mr Clinton, who this week called the United Arab Emirates a “good ally to America”, advised Dubai’s leaders to propose a 45-day delay to allow for an intensive investigation of the acquisition, according to his spokesman. ... Mr Clinton’s contact with Dubai on the issue underscores the relationship he has developed with the United Arab Emirates since leaving office. In 2002, he was paid $300,000 (€252,000) to address a summit in Dubai. >>> While Bill provided tactical advice to Dubai's leadership to help complete the deal, Hillary has actively campaigned to do the exact opposite. Here is the statement on Hillary's Senate web site outlining her stance on the DP World deal: <<< We thank you for joining the call of lawmakers who are gravely concerned about the Dubai Ports World deal. As you know, unless Congress acts, operations at six major U.S. ports, and other U.S. port facilities, will be turned over to Dubai Ports World, a company owned by the government of the United Arab Emirates, on March 2. This sale will create an unacceptable risk to the security of our ports. We therefore request that emergency legislation we are introducing to ban foreign governments from controlling operations at our ports be slated for immediate consideration when the Senate convenes on February 27. ... This issue transcends philosophical posturing and partisan bickering – it is about our nation’s security. >>> What are we to conclude from Bill Clinton's intervention with the emirates? If we are to believe that Hillary is sincere, then we should conclude that Bill Clinton has no clue how to secure the nation; after all, he's provided material support to the emirs in attempting to gain control of the ports. While Hillary and her party excoriated George Bush for accepting the unanimous CFIUS approval of the deal -- the result of a process that Congress approved years ago and has never challenged before -- the previous Democratic president helped engineer the UAE response intended to gain final approval of the transfer. Democrats wonder why the American electorate doesn't trust them with national security. Talking out of both sides of their mouths and stoking fears just to score a few political points are chief among the reasons for the well-earned distrust. (Hat tip: CQ reader Keemo) captainsquartersblog.com clinton.senate.gov;

To: Sully- who wrote (18375)	3/2/2006 7:29:58 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

RE: DUBAI DEAL Kathryn Jean Lopez The Corner The head of a major Israeli shipping company is supporting the deal and speaking highly of Dubai Ports World, according to CNN. corner.nationalreview.com

To: Sully- who wrote (18375)	3/2/2006 10:27:52 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

If you find yourself on the same side as Osama bin Laden... By jkelly Irish Pennants ...and you call yourself a conservative, it might be a good idea to reexamine your premises. The bottom line in the ports controversy is that Al Qaida and the mullahs in Tehran have been trying to convince Muslims that the West generally, and the United States in particular, are at war with them all, not just with the extremist subset of Muslims who attacked us on 9/11. This is what the cartoon wars is all about. By responding so xenophobically to the purchase by Dubai Ports World of the British firm who has commercial operations in six U.S. ports, opponents of the deal have echoed and reinforced al Qaida's message. They have helped the radical Islamists and harmed the United States. In the end, there will be a few changes in the terms of the ports deal -- some cosmetic and some substantive -- and it will go through. But the bulk of the damage has been done. Al Qaida could not have gotten more benefit from Sean Hannity, Michelle Malkin, Ann Coulter et al than if Osama had paid them to say what they have said. That of course was not their intent. But it is their effect. Michelle and Michael Reagan are sensitive to criticism that their opposition to the ports deal is based primarily on a knee jerk antipathy to Arabs. But the facts, and their current arguments, make it clear their opposition is based on nothing else. It is not unreasonable, at the outset, to suspect that a firm owned by Arabs would be easier for Islamic extremists to infiltrate than would be a firm owned by Englishmen. Frank Gaffney, the first person to bring the ports deal to attention beyond the business pages, is a sober and serious man, and if he has doubts about the adequacy of the CFIUS review process, they should be taken seriously. We learned on 9/11 that the agencies which are supposed to protect us are not always as vigilant as they ought to be. But sober and serious people would have educated themselves a least a little about the deal before running off at the mouth, and this Michelle, Sean Hannity, Cal Thomas, Michael Reagan et. al. did not do. Assertions made by many of those opposed to the ports deal are breathtakingly stupid: 1. Dubai Ports World is buying commercial terminals at six ports. It is not buying the ports, as many MSM journalists continue to "report." The difference is the difference between owning Yankee Stadium, and owning a hot dog stand in Yankee stadium. That is a considerable difference. 2. The people at the six ports who offload containers from ships and put them on trucks will remain the same as they were when P&O owned the company. (P&O inherited them when it bought the commercial port operations in 1999). And, hey, the ceo of Dubai Ports World is an American. 3. Neither Dubai Ports World nor any other commercial operator has anything to do with port security, which is the responsibility (chiefly) of the Coast Guard and Customs. 4. If our concern is that terrorists might smuggle WMD in in a container, the place to prevent that is WHERE THE CONTAINERS ARE LOADED. Customs does in fact have such a program. 5. The place to intercept suspicious cargo is not in the port, but at sea before the ship docks. The Coast Guard does in fact have a program to do this. 6. The UAE has been a staunch ally of the U.S. in the War on Terror. Dubai Ports World has been servicing Navy warships for more than a decade. UAE special forces fought alongside U.S. troops in Afghanistan. We have no better friend in the Arab world (though Iraq may one day supplant them). The people who knew these things from the get-go, or who looked into them before popping off, supported the deal. Others, such as Hugh Hewitt, have changed their view as the facts emerged. But Michelle & Co. have gone on to phony reasons. Michelle argues there would have been less opposition to the ports deal if more Americans were confident the Bush administration were doing more to protect our borders and the homeland. I yield to no one, including Michelle, in my criticism of the lax attitude the Bush administration has displayed toward illegal immigration from Mexico (though few have noticed the administration's gotten a lot tougher in the last six months). BUT THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE PORTS DEAL. I yield to no one, including Michelle, in my amazement, anger and contempt for the administration for failing to pay special attention to young Muslim males in screening for airport security. We weren't attacked on 9/11 by the Swedish bobsled team, or by your grandmother. BUT THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE PORTS DEAL. I am among those who think the Bush administration could do more to make the ports more secure. It mystifies me why the administration hasn't implemented the plan Admiral Loy and Stephen Flynn outline here. nytimes.com BUT THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE PORTS DEAL. Other arguments are dishonest. The Coast Guard raised questions about security, critics shrill. That's what the Coast Guard's supposed to do. What the critics don't tell you is the Coast Guard's questions were answered to its satisfaction. The UAE was friendly with the Taliban and with Osama bin Laden before 9/11. True, and irrelevant. After 9/11, the UAE made a choice. It joined our side. The UAE isn't friendly with the Taliban or Osama bin Laden now. The lamest argument against the deal is the UAE boycotts Israel. So does every other Arab country, and THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH PORT SECURITY. Ann Coulter always, and Michelle Malkin sometimes, seem willing (in Coulter's case eager) to play al Qaida's game and wage war on Islam generally. This would be unwise as well as immoral. There are about 1.4 billion Muslims in the world. Perhaps we could kill them all. But it would be hard, and they would kill a lot of us. We will succeed in the war on terror only if we can separate the Islamofascists from those Muslims who are willing to live in peace with people of other religions, or who have no religion at all. We know there are many in the latter category. I mentioned "the trainer" and the 1,715 Muslims currently serving in the U.S. Army in my column Sunday. Mansoor Ijaz, who has a good discussion with Andy McCarthy on the ability of Islam to modernize in NRO today, is a sterling example of Muslim who is a dedicated and effective American patriot. (If Dick Cheney should resign and be replaced by Condi Rice, I think Mansoor would make an excellent secretary of state.) It would be helpful if we knew how many Muslims were with the Islamofascists, and how many were with us. The issue has been clouded by political correctness, and the cowardice of most of our media. I divide Muslims into three categories: There are first, the clowns who call for the heads of the Danish cartoonists. I don't want to submit to them. I want to kill them. There are second the smarmy guys at CAIR who largely share the goal of the Islamists to dhimmify us, but are unwilling to endorse their methods. And, third, there are people like Mansoor Ijaz and the trainer. To separate the Category I guys from the Category III guys, and to move the Category II guys away from Category I and toward Category III, we need to be firm against our enemies in the Muslim world, but steadfast in support of our friends. Which is why the ports controversy is so damaging. irishpennants.com townhall.com frontpagemag.com nytimes.com opinionduel.com

To: Sully- who wrote (18375)	3/3/2006 5:17:42 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

And yet, the fear of the Outsider persists - demonstrating that in at least one important regard, bin Laden is still winning. He has managed to plant the seeds of blank, unreasoning, hide-under-the-bed fear in many Americans, including talk-tough politicos who affect boldness while advocating retreat. The essence of surrender by Tony Snow townhall.com Mar 3, 2006 WASHINGTON, D.C. -- A fair number of analysts have linked the Dubai Ports World controversy with President Bush's approach to border security. The president, they say, can't keep our borders safe, so why should we trust his word when it comes to securing our ports? The question unmasks the questioners. While our borders have become porous, they haven't become highways for terror, at least by the slender evidence available to laymen. Instead, they have become the focal point for fearful imaginings -- of Islamofascists secreted in otherwise empty trucks or train cars; underground railroads for bin Laden-trained thugs who have slithered around the world and up through South and Central America. When one asks the Frightened Fringe for data to support the claims of a silent invasion, one gets mildly paranoid, slightly off-point questions: What if you're wrong? What about the Millennium plot? The same with the Dubai Ports deal. The most furious critics of the transaction seem blithely uninterested in facts. It doesn't matter that DPW operates worldwide. It doesn't matter that the port in Dubai services more U.S. Naval vessels than any port outside the United States, or that Dubai Ports World handles some of that business. Nor does it matter that the company's management team is American, or that the parent government (the United Arab Emirates) has been more helpful in the war on terror than virtually any other nation in the world -- having placed troops in Afghanistan and Iraq, while providing extraordinary amounts of intelligence since literally the first volley of the war. (Gen. Tommy Franks says the Emirates actually provided the grid coordinates for the first bombing strikes in the Afghan invasion.) Supporters of the deal, including the president, get peppered instead with vague indictments of all Arabs and Muslims -- "How can you trust them?" The DPW skeptics knit these suspicions to a set of shaky assertions -- that the Emirates recognized the Taliban (upon whom it spied), doesn't recognize Israel (it adopts the standard Arab position of acknowledging Israel's right to exist, with the expectation of diplomatic recognition upon completion of a peace treaty with Palestine), funneled money to 9-11 terrorists (as did U.S. banks) and was the homeland to two of the 9-11 hijackers (which is akin to blaming the United States for having raised Timothy McVeigh). The problem with such an approach to the world is not that its advocates are racists -- it's that they're afraid. Fear has become the defining characteristic of a new strain of American nativism that sees the world as a hive of imminent threats and the United States as a large, lumbering, disabled beast, ripe for a good stinging. The analysis not only ignores the facts, but defies them. The Dubai hysteria came on the heels of a successful effort to tamp down a would-be rebellion in Iraq, followed by the arrest of dozens of al-Qaida operatives spread across Saudi Arabia, Iraq and the Levant. More importantly, the United Arab Emirates offers a case study in how one must proceed in order to prevail against a murky, terrorist foe. The Emirates have supplied for this war what the French Underground provided in World War II: Locals who can infiltrate, investigate and even disable enemy cells. They also have become active and aggressive partners in developing prophylactic measures, such as the testing of outgoing cargo for radiation, and of screening all outgoing sea cargo by means of technology that would permit a thorough but quick scan of all containers. This is precisely what Democrats demanded in the last election campaign -- remember John Kerry's insistence for making nice with the rest of the world and soliciting active aid from allies? It also fits the president's announced plan for victory -- turning the battle over to local authorities, so the Americans might enjoy the comforts of home once more. And yet, the fear of the Outsider persists -- demonstrating that in at least one important regard, bin Laden is still winning. He has managed to plant the seeds of blank, unreasoning, hide-under-the-bed fear in many Americans, including talk-tough politicos who affect boldness while advocating retreat. These are the naive folks. They seem to believe that the United States ought to go it alone in order to avoid contact with impure elements. This is the Pat Buchanan variation of Jimmy Carter's foreign policy. But that's as much a loser now as it was 30 years ago. America always has thrived by engaging a fractious world, and demonstrating what a free people can achieve, especially under conditions of stress and privation. Eternal vigilance remains a cost of liberty -- and Fearful Fringe nativism is what it always has been: the essence of surrender. Tony Snow is the host of the 'Tony Snow Show' on Fox News Radio. Copyright © 2006 Tony Snow townhall.com

To: Sully- who wrote (18375)	3/6/2006 2:53:42 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

BILL THE LOBBYIST Dick Morris NEW YORK Post Opinion March 6, 2006 BUBBA AN AGENT FOR DUBAI? IS Bill Clinton serving as a lobbyist and public-relations guru to the government of Dubai? It sure looks like it. Note, too, that he's been paid a pretty penny by Dubai's rulers - including some profit (amount not disclosed) off business relationships that include Dubai's crown prince. The whole affair raises disclosure questions for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, too. While publicly opposing the port deal, she privately benefits from her husband's Dubai-related income. Published reports indicate that that Clinton has been directly advising top Dubai officials over the past two weeks on how to overcome negative public opinion and congressional resistance to the takeover of six U.S. ports by DP World - which is owned by a Dubai government holding company. A Clinton spokesman says it was Bill himself who suggested to Dubai leaders that they propose a 45-day delay to allow for investigation of the port deal. (Columnist Robert Novak also reports that the ex-prez pushed them to hire his former press secretary to spin the port story, but Dubai declined.) Should an ex-president be devising a strategy to help a foreign government deal with Congress on a sensitive political issue? It's certainly not a routine undertaking for a former commander-in-chief. Clinton's spokesman brushed it off as just another example of world leaders regularly seeking out his advice. But - given the combination of Clinton's role in devising the Dubai strategy, his personal financial connections, and his frequent public statements in praise of Dubai - he probably should register as am agent of a foreign government. Why should he register? Because Congress and the public deserve to know whether Clinton has a personal bias in favor of Dubai when he issues seemingly neutral public statements. Bill Clinton is undeniably influential; his listeners should have full information to assess his credibility here. The public purpose behind the foreign-agent registration law, after all, is to make sure that we can distinguish between propaganda and information - especially, to know when statements are coming from someone who's acting in a public-relations capacity, paid or not. For the past week, while traveling around the globe, Clinton has repeatedly gone out of his way to inject himself into the Dubai controversy. And in every instance, Clinton had high praises for the Arab nation that was home to two of the 9/11 hijackers and the place where $100,000 was wired to lead hijacker Mohammad Atta. "I have a very high opinion of the UAE and Dubai in particular," he parroted from India to Australia, citing the country as a "good ally." He may well be right - but now his admiration and advocacy for Dubai may have been motivated by more than that of a selfless statesman trying to remain a voice of reason amidst the political fracas. What are Clinton's major personal financial dealings with Dubai? Plenty's been written about his $300,000 fee for a 2002 speech; a more recent talk likely yielded the same amount. Dubai also contributed handsomely to the Clinton Presidential Library, and to the William Jefferson Clinton Scholars Program at the American University in Dubai. Bill also works for a company that has formed a partnership with the Crown Prince of Dubai, Sheik Mohammed bin Rashid al Maktoun. Back in 2002, the Yucaipa Co. LLC hired the former president as a "senior adviser." He won't say how much that pays; Hillary's disclosure forms only put it at "more than $1,000" a year. A company lawyer recently disclosed that he gets a percentage of profits, if they're above 9 percent -and also says the firm's been averaging about a 40 percent. And Yucaipa last year with the Dubai Investment Group to create a new U.S. company: DIGL Inc, with, which invests the private funds of the Crown Prince. So Bill and Yucaipa have a big stake in keeping a positive image for the Dubai royals and their many companies. The public deserves full disclosure on how his Dubai relationships effect his public statements - and how, if at all, his Dubai income influences the positions of a U.S. senator. Eileen McGann co-authored this column. nypost.com

To: Sully- who wrote (18375)	3/9/2006 1:02:57 AM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

The merits and demerits of the deal have become irrelevant in the panicked atmosphere that appears to have afflicted Congressional Republicans. Regardless of the merits of the deal.... a second review would have allowed the White House to calm the hysteria and at least have an opportunity to get the facts on the table. A Spoonful Of Panic Helps The Majority Go Down By Captain Ed on War on Terror Captain's Quarters House Republicans on the Appropriations Committee abandoned the effort by the White House to give the Dubai Ports World deal a second, more thorough security review and voted 62-2 to amend an emergency appropriation bill with language specifically making any attempt to engage DP World in port operations illegal. The GOP joined all of the committee Democrats in slamming the door on any further negotiations with the UAE port-management firm: <<< In an election-year repudiation of President Bush, a House panel dominated by Republicans voted overwhelmingly Wednesday to block a Dubai-owned firm from taking control of some U.S port operations. By 62-2, the Appropriations Committee voted to bar DP World, run by the government of Dubai in the United Arab Emirates, from holding leases or contracts at U.S. ports. Bush has promised to veto any such measure passed by Congress, but there is widespread public opposition to the deal and the GOP fears losing its advantage on the issue of national security in this fall's elections. "This is a national security issue," said Rep. Jerry Lewis, the chairman of the panel. The California Republican said the legislation would "keep America's ports in American hands." >>> The merits and demerits of the deal have become irrelevant in the panicked atmosphere that appears to have afflicted Congressional Republicans. Regardless of the merits of the deal -- which I still don't like -- a second review would have allowed the White House to calm the hysteria and at least have an opportunity to get the facts on the table. The quote above gives a great example of the level of ignorance that has surrounded this issue since its explosion in February. American ports have always been in American hands, regardless of the nationality of the port operators. America owns its ports, and the Coast Guard and Homeland Security have the responsibility of securing them. If Lewis intended to say that port operation would remain in American hands, then he's still demonstrating a high degree of ignorance -- because the ports in question had been under British management up to now. Most American ports have foreign operators, including state-owned/controlled companies from Saudi Arabia and mainland China. All this hysteria does is make the Republicans look as foolish and uninformed as Democrats. Instead of focusing on the hypocrisy of the opposition party (under whose administration the Chinese and Saudis took over management of American ports, and whose last President has been advising the UAE on the deal) in pushing ethnic profiling for port operators but not for immigration and airport security, the GOP has abandoned its President and a reasonable offer to suspend the deal pending review and oversight by Congress at the end of it. They could have waited for that review and allowed all the facts to come to light, and then made an informed and rational decision to kill it. This measure is the equivalent of putting hands over ears and shouting nonsense to avoid hearing any debate. I'm not convinced that this deal was a good idea under any circumstances. However, properly structured, we could have created an American group under American management that would represent DPW interests and allow for a reasonable compromise that would still satisfy security concerns. With the resources of DPW, that American subsidiary may have grown to the point where it could reasonably compete for other operations, such as those controlled by the Saudis and the Chinese, giving us an even better grip on our ports. Perhaps it would not have been possible, but it certainly won't happen now. Now what do we do with the ports under the control of Saudi, Chinese, and Singaporean operators? Do we kick them out -- and if we so, who then replaces them and in what kind of time frame? Do we bar any state-owned entity from port management, regardless of nationality? That's my main objection; a state-owned company represents the interests of the state before the interests of business and profit, and we will not have an opportunity to react quickly enough if their state interests suddenly change to hostility towards the US. That seems like a rational prerequisite to securing our ports, and DPW fails in that regard, unless they partner with outside investors to establish an American subsidiary that would find its motivation in ensuring safe and secure business transactions. A rational debate could have answered these questions. Instead the House GOP has panicked, damaged the administration, and created a liability for their own party rolling into the midterm elections. This doesn't serve the country or the Congress well, even if I agree with the end result. They turned a controversy into an unnecessary debacle. UPDATE: My two friends at Power Line, John Hinderaker and Scott Johnson, disagree with each other on this development. John agrees with me: <<< This is a mistake, I think, in both policy and political terms. I've seen no evidence that ownership of port terminals by DP World would create any security issues, or, for that matter, bring about any change in the manner in which the facilities are run, or the identity of the people running them. Politically, it appears that many Republicans are nervous about November's election and anxious to put some distance between themselves and President Bush. This strikes me as a foolish calculation; surely the Republicans will be better off if they stick together. The headlines generated by this kind of party split--the ports issue is almost entirely symbolic, and is all about headlines--will do more to hurt Republican Congressional candidates than help them, I think. >>> Scott, however, says that the political threat to the GOP is real and required this action: <<< I think Republican Senators and Congressmen justifiably fear the unpopularity of the DPW deal and the devastating use to which a vote in its favor could be put by their political opponents. I don't have the knowledge necessary to evaluate the deal on the merits, but I think it is politically untenable. >>> I think that the truth lies somewhere in between. I do think that there are some substantive security issues in allowing a state-owned company to manage ports, and I would have welcomed a rational debate on the topic. Instead, as John wrote to me in an e-mail, the committee's Republicans have formed a circular firing squad. captainsquartersblog.com news.yahoo.com powerlineblog.com

To: Sully- who wrote (18375)	3/9/2006 2:57:05 AM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

President Gulliver Congress is acting like the "imperial" branch. The Wall Street Journal Editorial Page Thursday, March 9, 2006 Let's hope that the next time some Beltway potentate bemoans the "Imperial Presidency," everyone starts hooting with laughter. What we're watching this week is the Lilliputians on Capitol Hill tying down a Bush Administration that increasingly looks like Gulliver. Over in the House, Republicans are preparing to block the Dubai port management investment as a political sacrifice to Democratic criticism. This even before the new 45-day review requested by the company is even two weeks old. Let's hope the world's investors conclude that this is a craven, one-time political surrender, rather than the start of an attempt to politicize every foreign investment in America that can be linked to "national security." If it's the latter, we're all in for some heavy economic weather, and Republicans won't believe how low their approval ratings can go. At least this rout can be attributed to GOP panic in the face of lousy poll numbers and a company owned by Arabs. Less explicable is this week's White House mugging by Republicans on the Senate Intelligence Committee over warrantless wiretaps of al Qaeda by the National Security Agency. On this one, Republicans were winning, the polls showed public support, and everyone outside the fever swamps had dropped their "impeachment" fantasies. Nonetheless, a couple of GOP Senators forced the White House into conceding more Congressional oversight of wartime intelligence programs. Olympia Snowe of Maine and Chuck Hagel of Nebraska vowed to join Democrats in voting for a full-scale Senate probe of the NSA wiretaps unless President Gulliver bent to their wishes. Such a vote would have humiliated their Chairman, Kansas Republican Pat Roberts, at a minimum. But it would also have risked exposing intelligence sources and methods in a way that could have made the wiretap program less effective, if not entirely worthless. Faced with this ultimatum from Lilliput, the White House agreed to let the Senate, and presumably also the House, set up a new subcommittee to oversee the NSA program. That means seven more Senators (and more in the House) will at any one time have to be briefed on the program, in addition to the eight Members of Congress who already are. Given committee rotation, this means dozens of more tight-lipped Members will have access to the details of one of the country's most highly classified programs. Of course, none of them will ever leak. It's true that Mr. Bush at least prevented any expansion of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), or any further intrusion by the courts into the President's war-fighting power. But the White House did concede to bring the warrantless wiretaps under the current FISA process after 45 days at the discretion of the Attorney General. And rest assured that the pressure from Congress will be to prod Alberto Gonzales to move every such search under the FISA court's purview. We'd be less critical of this concession if Congress gave any indication that, having won this new power, it will behave more responsibly. But Congress is by definition a committee with diffuse responsibility and a penchant for running for cover in a storm. That's what happened when the NSA wiretap story first leaked, and Senate Democrat Jay Rockefeller immediately joined the blame game even though he'd been briefed on the program for years as Vice Chairman of the Intelligence Committee. Expanding the list of Senators who oversee the program is likely to make every individual even less accountable if something does leak, or if there is an intelligence screwup. We'll know that's the case if Mr. Rockefeller names Michigan Democrat Carl Levin to the new subcommittee, even though he has harassed and undermined the Bush Administration at every turn over the last four years. He has single-handedly blocked numerous Presidential appointees from confirmation, including the general counsel nominee for the new Director of National Intelligence office. Mr. Bush finally had to make Benjamin Powell a recess appointment. We appreciate that a President with a 40% approval rating has to pick his fights carefully, though we think he could have won this one had the Senate voted for a wiretap probe. Far less defensible are those Senators who are taking advantage of Mr. Bush's weakened political state to grab more power, though not real responsibility, for themselves. Mr. Hagel has made it clear to everyone that he thinks he deserves to be President, but he ought to run and get elected before he starts behaving like he already is. opinionjournal.com

To: Sully- who wrote (18375)	3/9/2006 5:40:40 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

Dubai Company to Give Up Stake in U.S. Ports Deal By Liza Porteus Thursday, March 09, 2006 WASHINGTON — A United Arab Emirates-owned company said Thursday it would give up its management stake in a controversial ports deal that has taken Washington by storm and has caused massive upheaval in the president's own party. The Thursday announcement came just hours after Republican leaders warned President Bush that the House and Senate appeared ready to block Dubai Ports World from taking over some terminal operations at six U.S. ports. "Because of the strong relationship between the United Arab Emirates and the United States and to preserve that relationship, DP World has decided to transfer fully the U.S. operation of P&O Operations North America to a United States entity," DP World's chief operating officer, Edward H. Bilkey, said in a statement, read on the Senate floor by Sen. John Warner, R-Va. The company said its decision was "based on an understanding that DP World will have time to affect the transfer in an orderly fashion and that DP World will not suffer economic loss." The announcement was somewhat of a blow for Democrats, who were pushing for a Senate vote on an amendment that would halt the deal. The Senate later voted 51-47 to ignore GOP requests to wait until a 45-day review of the deal is completed before they try to stop it. Republican leaders needed 67 votes to stop debate on the measure. "This should make the whole issue go away," said Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, holding up a copy of the DP World press release that announced the U.S. ports concession. "The [review] process is underway ... we should not have to interrupt it on the floor of the United States Senate." A Warner spokesman told FOX News that based on conversation between his boss and DP World lawyers, "we understand this is a full divestment or sale of the U.S. operations of P&O." That would mean the Senate amendment would essentially be off the table. Democrats were pushing that amendment to lobbying reform legislation to ensure that no UAE-related company has any control over U.S. port operations, particularly since so few details of the latest DP World plan is known. The amendment, sponsored by Sen. Charles Schumer, would not only block the Dubai deal, but also other U.S. ports deal with any company wholly owned or controlled by any foreign government that recognized the Taliban in Afghanistan from 1996-2001. If they succeeded in forcing a vote on the amendment, Democrats could then claim a big election year win in the area of national security — an area Republicans generally have a stronger track record on. "The bottom line is, security has to come first. We know that this deal would not bring security," Schumer, D-N.Y., told reporters Thursday. "We had to force this vote, it's unfortunate that we did but now the handwriting is on the wall and that is that the UAE will not operate ports in the United States of America, plain and simple." The political firestorm erupted after the administration approved a plan to hand over some terminal currently operated by the British company, Peninsular & Oriental Steam navigation Co., to the UAE-owned DP World. DP World finalized its $6.8 billion purchase earlier Thursday of P&O, which through a U.S. subsidiary runs important operations in New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia. It also plays a lesser role in dockside activities at 16 other American ports. The deal in question, however, focused primarily on lucrative Asian markets. DP World valued its rival's American operations at less than 10 percent of the nearly $7 billion total purchase. A senior Frist aide told FOX News that the Senate majority leader and his staff informed DP World and UAE government officials Wednesday night to pull the plug on the deal. When asked what prompted this action from Frist, the aide said the House action Wednesday night created a "destabilized coalition among House and Senate GOP." Just one night before, GOP-led House Appropriations Committee passed a bill blocking the deal. Bush has vowed to veto any measure halting the deal. By attaching it to a larger must-pass $91 billion spending bill, lawmakers are challenging Bush: If he follows through on his veto threat, he would also be vetoing the entire package. Earlier Thursday, the White House said Bush was open to compromise but expressed concern that the House GOP tactic could "slow down passage of vital funds and resources" and said Bush's veto threat still stood. "It does provide a way forward and resolve the matter," White House spokesman Scott McClellan said later, after the DP World announcement. "We have a strong relationship with the UAE and a good partnership in the global war on terrorism and I think their decision reflects the importance of our broader relationship." The administration has repeatedly argued that port security would not be outsourced as part of the deal and that the UAE is a strong ally in the War on Terror since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. The White House even reluctantly agreed to conduct a broader investigation into potential security risks of DP World's plans, but that has not been enough. 'The Devil's in the Details' With the latest DP World news, many members of Congress who thus far have been critical of the deal may be much more positive toward it. "It resolves all of the security issues involved," Rep. Peter King, chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee and a lead critic of the deal, told FOX News. "It's a very positive step and now we can go forward on overall legislation dealing with the ports." "DP World's agreement is a positive outcome," added Rep. Pete Hoekstra, R-Mich., the chairman of the House Select Committee on Intelligence. "I hope that it will not impact our strong relationship with the United Arab Emirates, a valuable ally in prosecuting the War on Terror." Added Sen. Wayne Allard, R-Colo." "Dubai's decision to withdraw, and turn over management of the ports to a U.S. company, certainly relieves those concerns. Congress still has a critical roll to play in decisions that affect ports security, and national security overall." But many lawmakers, particularly Democrats, are still cautious, arguing that DP World has to let go of all control over any firm that may take over the port operations. "The devil's in the details," Schumer said. "Those of us who feel strongly about this issue believe that the U.S. part of the British company should have no connection to the United Arab Emirates or DP World." On the Senate floor Thursday, Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., argued that with Dubai's record of failing to recognize Israel, among other things, it's "crazy" to do business of any great magnitude with a UAE-owned firm. "We ought to play showdown here, to use the expression, and vote whether or not we want this deal to go through," Lautenberg said. "It's not political, just do it." Senate GOP leaders had been hoping to prevent any votes until the conclusion of a 45-day review of the deal, being conducted by the U.S. Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS). "The right thing to do right now is not to vote on this [Schumer] amendment," Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., said Thursday on the Senate floor. "The amendment attempting to be offered is a political stunt, not based on knowledge of what is and isn't the facts. ... We can beat up on the president but the fact is, he's operating under the law. He has not broken law. Now maybe the law needs to be changed ... [but] we've got 45 days. And if true that this should not go through, then we'll stop it ... but it will be on the basis of fact, not politics." Frist tried to argue that the lobbying reform bill should be dealt with before the ports issue; before Schumer's actions Wednesday, Senate Democrats had earlier said they would not try to attach ports bills to the lobbying measure. But Democrats were demanding that a specific time and date be set to debate and vote on the hot-button topic. Instead of giving them a date, Frist on Thursday ended debate on the lobby bill altogether and moved on to a budget bill. "This issue should not be tangled up on the debate over whether or not to strengthen our lobbying disclosure laws," said Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, who has been a leader on both issues. The House committee-passed amendment was attached to a $91 billion emergency supplemental funding measure for hurricane recovery and wars in Iraq and Afghanistan on Wednesday. The committee vote in favor of the deal-blocker package was 62-2. The full House could consider the measure as early as next week. But Democrats charge that the administration should be prevented not only from going through with this deal involving the UAE-owned company, but also from future deals allowing foreign-government owned companies from controlling U.S. assets. "The Republican proposal only stops President Bush's current backroom Dubai ports deal. It does not prohibit future ill-advised Bush administration agreements that will let other firms controlled by foreign governments operate in U.S. ports, nor does it address the lack of U.S. cargo security, which poses an even larger threat," said House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi of California. But House Republicans feared that if they did not move to block the deal now, Democrats would beat them to it. "There's no way that we should or will, leave the national security issue to the Democrats," Senate Banking Committee Chairman Richard Shelby, R-Ala., told FOX News on Thursday. "We could pay a price in the fall [elections] and we cannot afford not to do this." Democrats said the Dubai deal is just a small part of the broader issue of port security that they say the Bush administration has not paid enough attention to. "Dubai deal or no Dubai deal, it's clear that this is just the tip of the iceberg of the administration's failure on port security," said Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass. "A new report from the Department of Homeland Security shows that Target does a better job monitoring their stores than our government does monitoring our ports. Their failure to put together a basic program after all the warnings must be a wake-up call to finally get it right on homeland security." FOX News' Major Garrett, Molly Hooper and Trish Turner and The Associated Press contributed to this story. foxnews.com

To: Sully- who wrote (18375)	3/9/2006 9:11:46 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

U.A.E. Threatens Retaliation By Steve Verdon Outside The Beltway The United Arab Emirates is furious over the killing of the buy out of Penninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation and is threatening retaliation. Not militarily, but economically by refusing the docking of any and all ships American ships including U.S. naval vessels as well as against lucrative deals for Boeing. <<< The Emirates Group airline will decide later this year whether it will buy Boeing’s new 787 Dreamliner or its competitor, Airbus A350. The airline last fall placed an order worth $9.7 billion for 42 Boeing 777 aircraft, making Dubai Boeing’s largest 777 customer. >>> Oh well, now that the ports are safe. Oh wait…never mind. <<< The family-ruled sheikhdom may buy as many as 50 wide-body aircraft from Boeing and Airbus during the next four years, according to Aerospace Enterprise officials. The UAE military also bought Boeing’s Apache helicopters. Meanwhile, Boeing has been in talks with the emirates to try to sell its AWACS planes. >>> Well killing these deals only makes sense, after all we don’t want to arm a rogue terrorist nation right? And who knows maybe the U.A.E. will decide to move forward less vigorously now on reforms to reduce money laundering as well. And we had better get on our representatives and senators to kill this too, <<< Several businesses have expressed concern that the controversy over the $6.8 billion ports deal could damage trade with the UAE. Dubai is one of the seven emirates. The United States and the UAE are meeting next week for a fourth round of talks to sign a free-trade agreement. >>> Free trade with a terrorist nation?!?! What are those idiots in Chimpy’s Administration thinking? <<< But when it comes to the emirates’ cooperation in the war on terrorism and in intelligence gathering, there is concern that some help may be pulled. “If we reject the company in terms of doing the [ports] work, they are going to lose a lot of face. In the Arab culture, losing face is a big deal,” a former government official said. “We risk losing that help. It is not an empty threat.” >>> Yeah, but they’re terrorist anyway, so who cares, right? outsidethebeltway.com thehill.com

To: Sully- who wrote (18375)	3/9/2006 9:15:54 PM
From: Sully-	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 35834

DP World Backs Out Power Line DP World has announced that it will "give up its stake in U.S. ports." I assume that means that it will spin off U.S. operations to a new company that will be American-owned. This should end the ports controversy, but it won't. From now until November, we'll hear about the "deal," how badly it was handled by the administration, etc. What we won't hear about, is whether there was ever any substance to the claim that DP World's involvement in managing port terminals posed any security risk. Nor will we hear about the other port facilities that are already being managed by foreign companies, unless a way can be found to spin that fact against the administration. Via Power Line News. powerlineblognews.com powerlineblog.com startribune.com

To: Sully- who wrote (18375)	3/9/2006 11:13:03 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

Congress has damaged our relationship with the Gulf states ....and shown us to be unwilling to practice what we preach. ...[It] is strange, feeling like I have to rely on the pragmatism of the UAE in order not to take a giant ideological step backward in the war on terror. Dubai, and thanks for all the fish... Posted by Jeff Goldstein protein wisdom From the Washington Post: <<< The United Arab Emirates company that was attempting to take over management operations at six U.S. ports announced today that it will divest itself of all American interests. The announcement appears to head off a major confrontation that was brewing between Congress and the Bush administration over the controversial deal. Sen. John Warner (R-Va.) announced on the Senate floor shortly before 2 p.m. that Dubai Ports World would “transfer fully the operations of U.S. ports to a U.S. entity.” Warner, who had been trying to broker a compromise on the issue, said DP World would divest itself of U.S. interests “in an orderly fashion” so as not to suffer “economic loss.” It was not immediately clear how the divesture would be handled or what U.S. company would take over the operation. Warner’s announcement came just hours after Republican leaders from the House and Senate met with President Bush to tell him Congress appeared ready to block the deal. The GOP leaders gave Bush their assessment of where the deal stood at a private meeting at the White House, according to Amy Call, a spokeswoman for Sen. Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) Although the gathering was a regularly scheduled meeting, according to Call, it was significant because it came only one day after lawmakers took their first formal steps toward killing Dubai Ports World’s acquisition of a British-owned company. The administration had repeatedly said it would veto any attempts to crush the deal, arguing that port security is in the hands of U.S. agencies and would not be put in jeopardy by the takeover. Americans have reacted viscerally to the deal, lawmakers say, driving Congress towards a confrontation with the White House. “We want to protect the American people,” said House Speaker Sen. J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill). “We’ve been doing it the last four and a half years. We fought a war in Iraq, fought a war in Afghanistan, stood up to the Homeland Security Department. We will continue to do that. We will maybe have our differences, but we think we’re going to continue to” oppose the Dubal deal,” he said Thursday morning. The House Appropriations Committee Wednesday added a measure to block the deal to a must-pass war-funding bill. The vote on the bill was 62-2. A full House vote on the bill is expected to pass overwhelmingly next week. >>> The fallout from this, domestically, is that, from the Republican party standpoint, the problem is fixed; on the Democratic side, I suspect that the party leadership will try to wring every last bit of outrage over how close we came to turning over ports to “terrorists” (whose very existence, remember, Republicans overstate at the peril of alienating moderate Muslim countries. Go ahead. Take a dip in THAT irony). Is this a national security question? My sense is that while it has been hyped as such—and that the majority of congress persons and the American public caved to their fears—it never really was. And from a free market perspective—which, along with the promotion of liberal democracy, is part of the memetic message we are trying to sell abroad—this is a set back. To win this war, we must insist that our way of life is worth defending. Congress has damaged our relationship with the Gulf states (and in the UAE, we have a very good working relationship), determined our economic policy, and shown us to be unwilling to practice what we preach. I only hope that the UAE understands the vicissitudes of our political system in advance of elections and is willing to accept that the timing for the deal—moreso than any idea of xenophobia—is ultimately responsible for outcome. Which is strange, feeling like I have to rely on the pragmatism of the UAE in order not to take a giant ideological step backward in the war on terror. Similarly, we are going to be forced to rely on the pragmatism of the rank and file Muslim who, we must secretly hope, recognizes that we have security concerns that must be dealt with domestically—and so they are able to resist the spin our enemies are likely to put on this: that the US, as Al Gore already told them, is openly hostile to Muslims. Sadly, had this deal been handled properly, we could have avoided all this grandstanding by politicians (which resulted in unwarranted fears by the public), and the deal would have been a step forward in promoting western ideals of free trade and working coalitions. All it would have taken were certain quiet domestic assurances to the right people that we would trust but verify, with respect to the UAE’s management over certain ports, and that we would do so covertly. That way, we could have given extra protection to the ports while promoting free trade and offering a hand to an ostensible Arab ally. A positive outcome from all this might be that we take a closer look at securing points of entry (and resistance to the deal by Democrats could potentially redound on them when it comes to the Mexican border, if certain Republicans play their rhetorical cards right)—but I hope we manage to do so in a way that is consistent with the free market system we profess to promote. ** update Glenn Reynolds quips, “Stay tuned. If Halliburton gets the deal, will people think the whole thing was a sucker-punch?”** instapundit.com proteinwisdom.com washingtonpost.com

To: Sully- who wrote (18375)	3/9/2006 11:31:33 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

SO MUCH FOR THE PORTS DEAL... TKS jim geraghty reporting A couple quick thoughts on word that the Dubai Ports World deal is dead: 1) Well, this takes what had been a sucking chest wound of an issue for the Bush White House and makes it go away. Recall that at one point not too long ago, Harriet Miers' withdrawn nomination was supposed to be a sign of an unstoppable GOP crack-up. 2) If this deal had an unrevealed aspect to it, involving intelligence-sharing, I hope we figured out some other quid pro quo to help out the UAE. 3) Those who demagogued this issue and helped organize the campaign of misinformation… got away with it. No consequences. No deterrence from using this tactic again. Expect to see it again in the near future. tks.nationalreview.com

To: Sully- who wrote (18375)	3/10/2006 4:23:27 PM
From: Sully-	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 35834

Top Gun Where was the outrage when the United States sold its most advanced fighter to the UAE? by Reuben F. Johnson The Weekly Standard 03/10/2006 ACCORDING TO yesterday's news, the controversial deal that would have had a United Arab Emirates firm, Dubai Ports World, take over the management of six major U.S. ports is now dead. The Dubai-based firm has decided, in the face of congressional opposition and an almost endless campaign of inflammatory and polemical grandstanding by some members of Congress, to withdraw from the deal. One of those leading the pack in denouncing the DP World bid was New York Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton. Her opposition to this UAE company has been only slightly short of hysterical, including at one point an analogy to the national security concerns that faced the United States in 1957 with the launch of the world's first satellite, Sputnik, by the Soviet Union. It is both amusing and ironic that the junior senator from New York chose a moment in aerospace history as the analogy that justified her decision on this issue. However, one wonders what her husband and the rest of his administration were thinking when another moment in aerospace history occurred during the waning days of his administration. EARLY IN 2000 and well before the presidential election that placed the current occupant in the White House the Clinton administration signed off on a contract that permitted the UAE Air Force to purchase 80 Lockheed Martin F-16E/F Block 60 model fighter aircraft. The Block 60 (as it is commonly referred to in order to differentiate it from all other versions of the F-16) is the most advanced model of the long-serving U.S. fighter. Its complement of onboard systems includes a new-generation electronic warfare (EW) system, the APG-80 Active Electronically Scanning Array (AESA) radar, and a new integrated infrared targeting system, all of which were designed and built by Northrop Grumman. The UAE is the only air force operating this model of the F-16. Not even the U.S. Air Force has the Block 60 in its inventory. For those who think this is no big deal, let me set you straight. AESA radar technology is the most revolutionary development in fighter aircraft since the invention of the air-to-air missile supplanted machine guns as the primary air-to-air weapon in air combat. It turns a fighter's radar dish--once a mechanically steered antenna that was a maintenance and reliability headache and could usually only lock onto an opposing aircraft--into a fixed, electronically beaming, multifunction array that can simultaneously track and fire on other aircraft, select and drop ordnance on ground targets, transmit EW to jam other aircraft, and create maps using its electronic imaging capability. It also changes the role of a fighter pilot from that of a silk-scarf wearing warrior who is out to joust with his opponent in a cockpit some miles away into an all-encompassing battlespace manager who can change the entire balance in a zone of military conflict in an instant. Both the F-22A Raptor and F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)--also built by Lockheed Martin--will be equipped with AESA radars, but the Raptor only entered into service with the USAF in limited numbers last year, and the F-35 is still in development. Based on the outcry over the DP World contract, one would think that Sen. Clinton and her allies in this fight would have been all over the F-16E/F deal and would be demanding that in the name of national security these fighters be either returned to the United States straightaway or be cut up and melted down into razor blades. ("To think that an A-rab country has already been given a technology that our own air force is only now taking delivery of. How could this have happened?") It also would not have been much trouble for the senator and her colleagues to discover what the F-16E/F's AESA radar is all about. The unit was designed and is built a stone's throw away at the Northrop Grumman radar division in Baltimore. I took a tour of the production line myself this past December. THE REAL-WORLD, adult answer as to why the UAE has been sold such a powerful weapon system is two-fold. One is that this small, Arab state has proved to be one of America's most reliable allies in the region. After Operation Desert Storm in 1991, the UAE was one of the few countries in the region that permitted the United States to pre-position military equipment on its territory in case we would have to return at a later date to engage in another conflict with Iraq. As it turned out, we did come back and the UAE's willingness to let us use their country as an equipment depot saved countless lives and untold sums of money. The other reason is that the Block 60 was a record-making program in which the small, Middle Eastern nation paid for the development of this variant of the fighter. In so doing, the cost of developing the AESA radar and much of the avionics suite used in the F-35 was significantly reduced. In other words, the UAE royal family's willingness to risk funding this technology--at a time when the expense of doing so was at its height and the certainty of what the end result would be was at its lowest--resulted in a huge windfall for the U.S. taxpayer when it came time to develop the F-35. Having spent a lot of time in the UAE over the last 13 years, I can see why it is one of the America's favorite regional partners. In contrast to most of its neighbors, it is a liberal and largely tolerant society that is free of violent political conflict and has a booming economy. The UAE is considered to be such an island of sensible governance that other Middle Easterners who have the means to do so often quit their own nations and move to Dubai or Abu Dhabi--the two largest of the seven emirates that make up the UAE. Dubai now has a growing colony of wealthy Iranians who have tired of the fanaticism of the regime at home and the stifling corruption that is part of everyday life in Iran. Dubai and the other emirates are far from perfect models of democracy, but they are worlds ahead of Syria, Iran, and Saudi Arabia. If there is any hope for the region at all, it will be because other countries become more like the UAE. One would think that such a nation would receive preferential treatment from the Congress rather than the abuse they have suffered recently. Reuben F. Johnson is the Defense Correspondent for Aviation International News and for Military Periscope, a Washington, D.C.-based defense information service. weeklystandard.com

To: Sully- who wrote (18375)	3/14/2006 3:58:49 AM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

Save Us From Our Politicians By Robert Samuelson Newsweek WASHINGTON -- The idea of letting an Arab-owned company, Dubai Ports World, run container terminals at some major U.S. ports struck many Americans as an absurdity. Why not just turn control directly over to al-Qaeda? In late February, a CBS News poll found that 70 percent of respondents were against the deal and only 21 percent in favor. The company's withdrawal last week can be seen as a triumph of public opinion. Or it can be acknowledged for what it is: a major defeat for the United States, driven by self-indulgent politicians of both parties who enthusiastically fanned public fears. Leadership in a democratic society requires a willingness and ability to challenge and change public opinion when it is based on misinformation, no information, prejudice or stupidity -- as it was in this case. There never was a genuine security problem. The Dubai company wouldn't have ``taken over'' the U.S. ports. It simply would have run some terminals. Cargo would still have been handled by American, unionized longshoremen. The Coast Guard and the U.S. Customs and Border Protection agency would still have been responsible for port security. To be sure, the 9 million or so containers arriving annually in the United States do pose security threats. In congressional testimony, Stephen Flynn of the Council on Foreign Relations outlined one danger: a truck driver, sympathetic to al- Qaeda, picks up a container of sneakers in Indonesia; on the way to the port, he diverts the trucks so terrorists can load the container with a ``dirty'' nuclear device; the container is shipped to Chicago, where it's detonated. Flynn urged more worldwide electronic and radiation scanning of containers at ports of departure. He estimated that screening would require about a $20 fee per container. ``We need to know what's in the box more than we need to know who is moving them around a container yard,'' Flynn testified. Both Flynn and James Jay Carafano of The Heritage Foundation testified that Congress had underfunded the Coast Guard. No matter. It was a free-for-all on Capitol Hill. Democratic Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Charles Schumer of New York led the fearmongering. Republicans quickly joined the chorus. As political theater, the posturing might be harmless. But all the grandstanding -- precisely because the criticisms were overblown -- damages American interests. It's a public-relations disaster in the Middle East. The United Arab Emirates -- of which Dubai is a part -- has been a strong American ally, permitting the use of its ports and airfields for U.S. ships and military aircraft. Dubai's ruler, Sheik Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum, is trying to integrate his city-state into the world economy. There's been a building boom of offices, malls and luxury hotels. Dubai has also gone on a global investment binge; that's how it came to own some U.S. port operations. If this isn't what we want from Arab countries, what do we want? Much bitterness is reported in Dubai, especially among those who are pro-Western. They blame racism. That's understandable and perhaps correct. A Washington Post poll last week found that 46 percent of Americans had a negative view of Islam -- a crude proxy for Arabs. (Yes, not all Arabs are Muslim, and not all Muslims are Arabs. But the poll is still suggestive of American opinion about Arabs.) The ports furor also hurts the United States in another way. It weakens confidence in the dollar as the major global currency. The U.S. trade deficit now spews more than $700 billion into the world annually. To some extent, global economic stability depends on foreigners' keeping most of those dollars. Mass dollar sales could trigger turmoil on the world's currency, stock and bond markets. People outside the United States hold dollars because they believe the currency maintains its value and offers a wide menu of investment choices. The message from Congress is that the menu is shorter than people thought. Once any investment is stigmatized -- rightly or wrongly -- as a ``security problem,'' Congress may act against foreigners. Every country has the right to protect its security interests. But those interests must be defined coherently and not simply as the random expression of political expediency. That's what happened here, as it did last year when Congress pressured a Chinese oil company (Cnooc) to withdraw its bid for a U.S. firm (Unocal). The more this process continues, the more it corrodes confidence in the dollar. It will be said that other countries are equally nationalistic and political, so their currencies aren't realistic alternatives to the dollar. Not true. If we imitate the French or Malaysians, the dollar will have compromised its special status. The irony is that the people who are creating all these risks are the very same members of Congress who claim to be protecting us. realclearpolitics.com

To: Sully- who wrote (18375)	3/25/2006 6:02:59 AM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

Dubai Ports Deal Would Have Made Us Safer Interesting... Say Anything <<< NEW YORK (AP) — The U.S. missed an opportunity to make its shores safer when it drove away a Dubai-based company poised to operate cargo terminals at several American seaports, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said Thursday. In a speech to the Council on Foreign Relations, Chertoff said the international shipping firm DP World could have helped implement stronger security at many ports where the U.S. now has limited influence. "We could (have) actually built in some additional assurances, which would have given us more security in the wake of the deal than we had before the deal," Chertoff said. "The oddity of this, the irony of this, is that had the deal gone forward, we would have had greater ability to impose a security regime worldwide on the company than we have now." >>> That's a good point, though one that is probably lost on the protectionists, isolationists, panderers and knee-jerk partisans who got the ports deal nixed in the first place. feeds.feedburner.com usatoday.com

To: Sully- who wrote (18375)	4/4/2006 1:01:03 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

If only Clinton had been a Republican by Burt Prelutsky Townhall.com Apr 4, 2006 The way that so many people, especially politicians, went nuts over the ports deal reminded me once again what a difference party designation makes. One only has to compare how harshly Sam Alito was treated during his confirmation hearings with the way that the ACLU’s chief counsel, Ruth Bader Ginsberg, sailed through hers. Getting back to the matter of the ports, I’m still not sure if it was a good idea or a bad one to allow the United Arab Emirates to manage those installations on the east coast. But I’m awfully curious why some of those same people who wanted Bush’s head on a pike weren’t the least bit upset when, during Clinton’s reign, Communist China was granted the authority to manage ports on the west coast. So far as I’m concerned, anybody who believes we have more to fear from Dubai than from Beijing needs a brain transplant. It was only after Saddam Hussein bought off several nations with his oil-for-food scam, and ignored a kazillion U.N. resolutions, that Bush invaded Iraq. Immediately, the cry went up that he didn’t have a coalition. Afterwards, the complaint was that he lacked an exit strategy. Odd that nobody said “boo” when Clinton unilaterally invaded Somalia; odder still that when he sent troops to Kosovo, promising they’d be home within a year, nobody took him to task when, a few years later, when he left the Oval Office, our forces were still there. That’s some exit strategy. His liberal critics accuse Bush of being in bed with Halliburton, but Halliburton, you should be aware, did just fine in the 90s when Clinton was minding the store. You also hear about Bush pandering to Enron. Well, there’s no denying that the sleazebags at Enron donated over $400,000 to the party, and kicked in another $100,000 to help pay for the president’s inauguration. And there’s no getting around the fact that Enron’s chairman stayed at the White House on 11 different occasions. Talk about having access! What’s more, the Export-Inport Bank subsidized Enron to the tune of $600 million in a single transaction. Clearly, where Enron is concerned, the president has a lot to answer for. But the president we’re talking about happens to be Clinton. Bush, in case you didn’t notice, is the president whose administration has Enron CEO Ken Lay up on charges. Clinton is the same fellow who had Yasir Arafat as a house guest seemingly every other week, while Bush is the guy who declared the terrorist persona non grata. His enemies like to charge Bush with being in league with the Saudis, but at least the sheiks provide us with oil. Nary a peep was heard, however, when Clinton handed over military technology to the Red Chinese in exchange for nothing more than campaign contributions. There’s one last thing about Clinton. We keep hearing that he was the first black president. Aside from the fact that he and that other serial adulterer, Jesse Jackson, allegedly prayed together when they were both caught tom-catting around, what made Clinton so darn black? Heck, taking his lead from Congress, he even revamped welfare and tried to get recipients weaned off the federal teat. If Clinton had been a Republican, the Black Caucus would have stormed the White House with torches and pitchforks. Aside from Jackson, the only black person Clinton seemed to hang around with was Vernon Jordan. I spent eight years trying to figure out what he did for a living. I finally narrowed it down to two things. He had to let Clinton beat him at golf, and when things got too hot with Monica Lewinsky, it was Jordan’s responsibility to get her out of town and try to find her a job in New York City. But I never was able to get a handle on what made Clinton blacker than, say, George W. Bush. It’s Bush, after all, who has appointed Colin Powell and Condi Rice to the highest positions in his cabinet. You would think that would count for something with the left, especially with one of them being a woman. So what made Clinton so black? That he spoke with a southern accent, played a musical instrument, came from a dysfunctional family, and was blatantly promiscuous? If that sounds racist, don’t blame me. I never regarded Clinton as a credit to any race -- black, white or human. Burt Prelutsky has been a humor columnist for the L.A. Times and a movie critic for Los Angeles magazine. He is the author of Conservatives are from Mars (Liberals are from San Francisco). Copyright © 2006 Townhall.com townhall.com