So was this deal supposed to fly under the radar, and then some nosey journalist or government organization uncovered it or something?

If that's not the case, then what was this administration thinking? This administration/the Republican party was already facing all sorts of criticism over numerous issues...and it seems like a huge gaff given their current low numbers and the mid term elections coming up soon. Perception is a bitch, and whether or not this deal actually is a bad idea for national security is irrelevant. What matters is what the average American Joe thinks. And Joe sees the UAE as a country that has a history of supporting terrorism. Even without their particular murky history, turning over port security to any middle eastern country just seems like a stupid proposition given our current political and social climate. What was this administration thinking?

[note: I am not seeking an debate on whether or not this deal is a good idea. I am curious how this deal was supposed to happen. Did this administration plan for news of the deal to be public? And if so, how did they expect to answer the wave of criticism that surely would result.]

3/8/2006 7:41:04 PM

you're going to ask what were they thinking.... NOW?

3/8/2006 8:09:03 PM

^^ They were color blind.

The people making the decisions saw the color of the buyers skin, recognized the "social problem", but cencered their own thoughts because they were worried about being politically incorrect. Too bad they didn't realize that racism was now all-right as long as it was directed against people of middle-eastern descent.

3/8/2006 8:29:11 PM

^Interesting take on the matter. And by interesting, I mean bullshit.

3/8/2006 9:44:38 PM

being wary of a country with a sketchy terrorism record is not the same thing as being wary of brown people

overlooking that same sketchy record so as not to offend brown people is a stupid fucking call

3/8/2006 9:48:48 PM

I heard an explanation on NPR, and it was pretty interesting.

Basically, before officially applying for the deal, Dubai had managed to ease concerns of the 17 member interagency panel (State, Commerce, Homeland Security, Defence, etc.) that oversees foreign investments and purchases. They had eased their concerns about the deal and Dubai began to move forward, officially applying for the right to make the bid.

Then apparently one of the companies who was partnered with the firm who currently owned the ports found out what was going on and didn't want to partner with Dubai. So they found themselves a well connected lobbyist who tapped Chuck Schumer. This was already months into the deal. Between the lobbyist, the good senator, and an AP journalist, they rallied up a firestorm and all hell broke loose.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5252263

3/8/2006 10:43:39 PM

Quote :

"Too bad they didn't realize that racism was now all-right as long as it was directed against people of middle-eastern descent."

on the $$.

Why stop with quashing this deal, why not just stop doing buisness with all mid-eastern countries. Why don't the democrats draft a bill? What a switch-a-roo, a month ago they were upset that we were monitoring phonecalls to particular terrorists in the region, ... now rather than fighting for the right of mid-easterners to be presumed innocent till proven guilty we see they are pushing for this company to be persecuted merely because it is associated with a country that had some terrorist ties. I'm confused, it's wrong to listen to terrorist phone calls but it's ok to block all trade with countries that have some terrorist ties ( not state sanctioned).

3/9/2006 1:55:12 AM

quote from THE MATHMAAAAAAAAN!

Quote :

"Obviously calls to terrorist organizations oversees should be protected, just like we let all the Nazi spies have their unmonitored phone call back to Hitler before we hanged them back in WWII. After all the enemies of America should be given safehaven once they're here. It only makes sense. Every one has the right to privacy always even if it endangers the lifes of American citizens. After all it's not like the congress just authorized the president to take action to help another 9-11 from happening, or like two-months ago we were all up in arms about poor intelligence. Anyway, monitoring phone calls to terroists could not possibly help our intelligence anyway, it's just the evil crazy W with his power hungry crazy neanderthal tactics. Remember, the terrorists will leave us alone if we'll just ignore them and be nice. It worked with Hitler. Appeasement is always the way to go, go Democrats!"

so Im confused. Ok so not wire tapping terrorists phone lines is some how related to Appeasement and Germany during WW2 yet its cool that a country that has ties to terrorism to control our major ports?

and also, I think the how port thing is fine and that its not that big a deal but talk about switch-a-roo or whatever.

3/9/2006 8:23:41 AM

appeasement?

appeasement?

who the fuck are you?

3/9/2006 9:03:08 AM

Quote :

"a country with a sketchy terrorism record"

To the best of my knowledge, Great Britain has produced FAR more terrorists than Dubai. Substantially more, you cannot imagine how many more! Yet, the deal that is so snafu'd was taking the ports away from a Great Britain company and selling it to a Dubai operation?

That said, I think it is rediculous to assume a company from Great Britain, government run or otherwise, is infiltrated with IRA terrorists. Similarly, I think it is rediculous to assume a company from Dubai, government run or otherwise, is infiltrated with Jihad Terrorists.

Has the government of Dubai been caught giving money to terrorists? Has this particular company been caught doing the same?

Just because a couple terrorists were from Dubai, and a few wakkos in Dubai give money to terrorists, it doesn't mean the government or all the people of Dubai are corrupt, just those people.

3/9/2006 10:39:59 AM

my brain is about to explode.

The IRA comparision is complete INSANE!!!!!!!!! Never in history has a member of the IRA came to the US with intentions to cause harm to Americans. It completely destroys me that the same people that are all gung-ho about the war on terrorism can support this and then compare middle eastern terrorists to the IRA.

oh wait I forgot, the UAE is like the right wing, capitalist's wet dream right now.

OMF DUDE LIKE ITS ALL RICH PEOPLE HOW CAN THEY BE BAD!!!!!!! THEY HAVE A FUCKIN SKI RESORT IN THE DESSERT BRAH!

3/9/2006 11:01:07 AM

it's an international form of cronyism

bush is in bed with every rich dude in the middle east

except osama bin laden

of course

3/9/2006 11:04:35 AM

seriously

you can't compare the IRA to Al Kwayda

3/9/2006 11:53:30 AM

^^^ Like GW said, a terrorists is a terrorist. Besides, I don't see much difference between an organization that makes a living killing British citizens and one that makes a living killing American citizens. Both are reprehensible. I would be equally outraged if a group killed a random guy in Britain as I would be if a group killed a random guy in California. Both are about the same distance away.

Like I said before, is there ANY evidence that this company or its government contacts have engaged in any terrorist activities or supported individuals that did?

If not, then you have no grounds to assume they exist, therefore you are in favor of blocking the deal for reasons other than evident safety concerns. You simply cannot imagine how their could not be safety concerns, so you ignore the facts and assume they exist. In other words, you just don't trust their kind.

[Edited on March 9, 2006 at 11:59 AM. Reason : kind]

[Edited on March 9, 2006 at 11:59 AM. Reason : ^]

3/9/2006 11:57:08 AM

I agree with LoneSnark. If you blow up innocent people to acheive an end, you are a terrorist. Al Qaeda might be worse terrorists simply because they've killed more people, but the IRA is still terrorist.

3/9/2006 12:02:29 PM

i guess we're back to the ol' "George Washington was a terrorist" routine then

3/9/2006 12:05:00 PM

I thought we were talking about American safety here. The IRA has nothing to do with the USA and we shouldnt even be mentioning then in this thread.

And I think the UAE is fine to take over the job. I just find it very silly that so many conservatives are getting all huffy puffy over it.

OH and like I said. the UAE is right wing capitalist boner land.

3/9/2006 12:11:25 PM

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060309/ap_on_go_co/ports_security

DPW gave up.

3/9/2006 4:12:07 PM

Quote :

"so Im confused. Ok so not wire tapping terrorists phone lines is some how related to Appeasement and Germany during WW2 yet its cool that a country that has ties to terrorism to control our major ports?"

Wiretapping terrorists is done for the same reason as wiretapping calls to Germany during WWII, to gather
intelligence of future plots against the US. Clearly Germany was a different situation but then general idea is the same. One large difference would be that we were at war with basically all of Germany so (correct me if I'm wrong) we were not trading anything except for bullets with Germany during WWII.

On the other hand, at the present time we are not at war with particular countries. Rather, we are at war with terrorists. These are in many countries, but they do not make up an entire country. So, it is illogical to exclude a whole country from trade just because it had some association with terrorists. Especially when it has been helping us lately. What would be logical is a focused attack on the terrorists and their methods, for instance monitoring their communications in as much as we can.

As far as the port deal goes, LoneSnark summarizes my complaint against the knee-jerk
anti-port deal crowd,

Quote :

"Like I said before, is there ANY evidence that this company or its government contacts have engaged in any terrorist activities or supported individuals that did? If not, then you have no grounds to assume they exist, therefore you are in favor of blocking the deal for reasons other than evident safety concerns. You simply cannot imagine how their could not be safety concerns, so you ignore the facts and assume they exist. In other words, you just don't trust their kind."

[Edited on March 9, 2006 at 4:21 PM. Reason : were]

3/9/2006 4:20:16 PM

Absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.

3/9/2006 4:52:07 PM

^ Strangely enough, it does. We call it "innocent until proven guilty"

Go figure.

3/9/2006 7:04:21 PM

I was just quoting Rumsfield (or was it Cheney that said that?).

3/9/2006 7:08:27 PM