Who should control American Ports? - Fantasy Football Cafe 2014 Fantasy Football Cafe


Return to General Talk

Who should control American Ports?

Moderator: Football Moderators

Should companies based in foreign countries be allowed to control U.S. ports?

Yes
10
29%
No
25
71%
 
Total votes : 35

Postby knapplc » Wed Feb 22, 2006 10:44 am

The_Dude wrote:
knapplc wrote:The point of this post and poll is, do you think it's OK to have foreign companies/nations in control of American ports?

That's the real question.


But isn't the large overriding question why the President is going on the offensive over this policy? Why did he react so offensively? How is this sound economic policy (let alone the homeland security issues)? Did this company make the best bid for the contract? Does Bush have pre-Presidency ties to them?

I honestly just don't get it.

I think the Pres thinks this is a good political move for us. I'm guessing he thinks that by allowing this it will make Arabs think that there is no bias against them in the US.

That's the best-case-scenario I come up with.

The reality of it is, I don't understand this move, either. :-?
Image
How 'bout them Huskers!
knapplc
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Cafe WriterCafe RankerGolden Eagle EyeCafe MusketeerCafe Blackjack Weekly Winner
Posts: 18961
Joined: 27 Dec 2004
Home Cafe: Football
Location: It's an L, not an I

Postby mikus » Wed Feb 22, 2006 11:49 am

I don't question the decision to use UAE becasue they offer a reputable service. However, I do question the apparent hastiness of this decision. It seems to me that Bush is pushing a personal agenda, and tried to slap this on there and pass it through without anyone even noticing. How come we have not heard about this until this week? Wouldn't this have been in the planning stages for months?

I think it is a sensitive time for Americans, b/c of 9/11. And I think it's too sensitive to use the UAE to protect our ports b/c they come from the Middle East. Most Americans are not going to approve of this decision. There must be some hidden agenda or motivation for Bush to be such a strong supporter of this plan.

I don't understand why we cannot give something like this to an American company, instead of giving it to a foreign agency. Why aren't we trying to boost American employment?
Image
Thanks to madaslives911 for the sweet sig!
The Hazean: Fantasy football galore
mikus
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar
Fantasy ExpertCafe RankerWeb SupporterPick 3 Weekly Winner
Posts: 4658
Joined: 20 Aug 2005
Home Cafe: Football
Location: Same place as every other blogger: My Mom's basement. That is where bloggers work, right?

Postby jayday » Wed Feb 22, 2006 11:53 am

knapplc wrote:
The_Dude wrote:
knapplc wrote:The point of this post and poll is, do you think it's OK to have foreign companies/nations in control of American ports?

That's the real question.


But isn't the large overriding question why the President is going on the offensive over this policy? Why did he react so offensively? How is this sound economic policy (let alone the homeland security issues)? Did this company make the best bid for the contract? Does Bush have pre-Presidency ties to them?

I honestly just don't get it.

I think the Pres thinks this is a good political move for us. I'm guessing he thinks that by allowing this it will make Arabs think that there is no bias against them in the US.

That's the best-case-scenario I come up with.

The reality of it is, I don't understand this move, either. :-?

Me either...It just seems very odd the way he lashed out about it....And sure, you may sway some Arabs to believe there is no anti-Arab bias...but you're also inviting loony bird Bombadiers....

You want to hope their isn't any under-lying reasons for this...but sometimes (Ok 99% of the time ;-) ) I just wonder what's really going on...
jayday
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
CafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe RankerGraphics ExpertMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyePick 3 Weekly WinnerCafe Blackjack Weekly WinnerLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 5459
(Past Year: 8)
Joined: 14 Aug 2005
Home Cafe: Football

Postby The_Dude » Wed Feb 22, 2006 1:20 pm

This just gets weirder and weirder... now Bush is saying he didn't know about it until a couple of days ago... something doesn't add up here.

Bush Unaware of Ports Deal Before Approval By TED BRIDIS, Associated Press Writer
58 minutes ago



President Bush was unaware of the pending sale of shipping operations at six major U.S. seaports to a state-owned business in the United Arab Emirates until the deal already had been approved by his administration, the White House said Wednesday.

Defending the deal anew, the administration also said that it should have briefed Congress sooner about the transaction, which has triggered a major political backlash among both Republicans and Democrats.

Bush on Tuesday brushed aside objections by leaders in the Senate and House that the $6.8 billion sale could raise risks of terrorism at American ports. In a forceful defense of his administration's earlier approval of the deal, he pledged to veto any bill Congress might approve to block the agreement involving the sale of a British company to the Arab firm.

Bush faces a rebellion from leaders of his own party, as well as from Democrats, about the deal that would put Dubai Ports in charge of major shipping operations in New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia.

While Bush has adamantly defended the deal, the White House acknowledged that he did not know about it until recently.

"He became aware of it over the last several days," McClellan said. Asked if Bush did not know about it until it was a done deal, McClellan said, "That's correct." He said the matter did not rise to the presidential level, but went through a congressionally-mandated review process and was determined not to pose a national security threat.

"The president made sure to check with all the Cabinet secretaries that are part of this process, or whose agencies or departments are part of this process," the spokesman said. "He made sure to check with them — even after this got more attention in the press, to make sure that they were comfortable with the decision that was made."

"And every one of the Cabinet secretaries expressed that they were comfortable with this transaction being approved," he said.

Commerce Secretary Carlos Guiterrez, told The Associated Press in an interview: "They are not in charge of security. We are not turning over the security of our ports. When people make statements like that you get an instant emotional reaction."

Treasury Secretary John Snow said failure to complete the transaction would send the wrong message overseas.

"The implications of failing to approve this would be to tell the world that investments in the United States from certain parts of the world aren't welcome," Snow told reporters Wednesday following a speech in Connecticut to a fuel cell manufacturer. "That sends a terrible message."

The sale's harshest critics were not appeased.

"I will fight harder than ever for this legislation, and if it is vetoed I will fight as hard as I can to override it," said Rep. Pete King, R-N.Y., chairman of the Homeland Security Committee. King and Democratic Sen. Charles Schumer (news, bio, voting record) of New York said they will introduce emergency legislation to suspend the ports deal.

Another Democrat, Sen. Bob Menendez of New Jersey, urged his colleagues to force Bush to wield his veto, which Bush — in his sixth year in office — has never done. "We should really test the resolve of the president on this one because what we're really doing is securing the safety of our people."

McClellan dismissed any connection between the deal and David Sanborn of Virginia, a former senior DP World executive whom the White House appointed last month to be the new administrator of the Maritime Administration of the Transportation Department. Sanborn worked as DP World's director of operations for Europe and Latin America.

"My understanding is that he has assured us that he was not involved in the negotiations to purchase this British company," McClellan added.

"In terms of David Sanborn, he was nominated to run the Maritime Administration because of his experience and expertise," the spokesman said. Sanborn is a graduate of the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy. He is an operations professional.

Earlier, several lawmakers determined to capsize the pending sale said they would not be deterred by Bush's veto threat.

Sen. Joseph Biden (news, bio, voting record), D-Del., said the bipartisan opposition to the deal indicated "a lack of confidence in the administration" on both sides. "Sure, we have to link up with our Arab friends but ... we want to see and those in Congress want to know what ... safeguards are built in," Biden said on ABC's "Good Morning America."

Bush's veto threat sought to quiet a political storm that has united Republican governors and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist of Tennessee with liberal Democrats, including New York Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Schumer.

To assuage concerns, the administration disclosed some assurances it negotiated with Dubai Ports. It required mandatory participation in U.S. security programs to stop smuggling and detect illegal shipments of nuclear materials; roughly 33 other port companies participate in these voluntarily. The Coast Guard also said it was nearly finished inspecting Dubai Ports' facilities in the United States.

Frist said Tuesday, before Bush's comments, that he would introduce legislation to put the sale on hold if the White House did not delay the takeover. He said the deal raised "serious questions regarding the safety and security of our homeland.

House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., asked the president for a moratorium on the sale until it could be studied further.

Lawmakers from both parties have noted that some of the Sept. 11 hijackers used the United Arab Emirates as an operational and financial base. In addition, critics contend the UAE was an important transfer point for shipments of smuggled nuclear components sent to Iran, North Korea and Libya by a Pakistani scientist.
Image

I am the Walrus
The_Dude
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar
Cafe RankerEagle Eye
Posts: 3481
(Past Year: 2)
Joined: 14 Aug 2003
Home Cafe: Football
Location: My ivory tower, where I oversee the intellectual development of America's youth

Postby knapplc » Thu Feb 23, 2006 9:52 am

And the plot thickens...

Documents Reveal White House Deal on Ports

By TED BRIDIS, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - Under a secretive agreement with the Bush administration, a company in the United Arab Emirates promised to cooperate with U.S. investigations as a condition of its takeover of operations at six major American ports, according to documents obtained by The Associated Press.

The U.S. government chose not to impose other, routine restrictions.

In approving the $6.8 billion purchase, the administration chose not to require state-owned Dubai Ports World to keep copies of its business records on U.S. soil, where they would be subject to orders by American courts. It also did not require the company to designate an American citizen to accommodate requests by the government.

Outside legal experts said such obligations are routinely attached to U.S. approvals of foreign sales in other industries.

Dubai Ports agreed to give up records on demand about "foreign operational direction" of its business at the U.S. ports, according to the documents. Those records broadly include details about the design, maintenance or operation of ports and equipment. It also pledged to continue participating in programs to stop smuggling and detect illegal shipments of nuclear materials.

"They're not lax but they're not draconian," said James Lewis, a former U.S. official who worked on such agreements. If White House officials negotiating the deal had predicted the firestorm of criticism over it, "they might have made them sound harder."

The conditions over the sale of London-based Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co. were detailed in U.S. documents marked "confidential." Such records are regularly guarded as trade secrets, and it is highly unusual for them to be made public.

The Republican head of the Senate Armed Services Committee, John Warner of Virginia, planned an oversight hearing Thursday. Warner has expressed support for the agreement, describing the UAE as an important ally against terrorism.

Rep. Peter King of New York, the Republican chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, said the conditions are evidence the Bush administration was concerned about security. "There is a very serious question as to why the records are not going to be maintained on American soil subject to American jurisdiction," King said.

Another critic, Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., added: "These new revelations ask more questions than they answer."

The disclosure of the negotiated conditions came as the White House acknowledged President Bush was unaware of the pending sale until the deal had been already approved by his administration.

Bush has pledged to veto any bill Congress might approve to block the agreement, but some lawmakers said they still were determined to capsize it.

Dubai Port's top American executive, chief operating officer Edward H. Bilkey, said he will work in Washington to persuade skeptical lawmakers they should endorse the deal; several Senate oversight hearings already are scheduled.

"We're disappointed," Bilkey told the AP in an interview. "We're going to do our best to persuade them that they jumped the gun. The UAE is a very solid friend, as President Bush has said."

Under the deal, the government asked Dubai Ports to operate American seaports with existing U.S. managers "to the extent possible." The company promised to take "all reasonable steps" to assist the Homeland Security Department.

The administration required Dubai Ports to designate an executive to handle requests from the U.S. government, but it did not specify this person's citizenship.

It said Dubai Ports must retain paperwork "in the normal course of business" but did not specify a time period or require corporate records to be housed in the United States. Outside experts said stricter provisions are routine in other industries.

Foreign communications companies with American customers are commonly required to store business records in the United States. A senior U.S. official said the Bush administration considers shipping manifests less sensitive. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because of the confidential nature of the agreement.

Bush faces a potential rebellion over the sale from leaders of his own party, as well as a fight from Democrats. It puts Dubai Ports in charge of major terminal operations in New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia.

In Lebanon, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Thursday that the agreement was thoroughly vetted in a review process that took approximately three months. "This is supposed to be a process that raises security concerns, if they are there, but does not presume that a country in the Middle East should not be capable of doing a deal like this." She described the United Arab Emirates as "a very good ally" and said "if more details need to be made available then I'm sure they will be."

The White House said President Bush did not know about the agreement until recently. The AP first reported U.S. approval of the sale to Dubai Ports on Feb. 11, and many members of Congress have said they learned about it from the AP.

"I think somebody dropped the ball," said Rep. Vito Fossella, R-N.Y. "Information should have flowed more freely and more quickly up into the White House. I think it has been mishandled in terms of coming forward with adequate information."
Image
How 'bout them Huskers!
knapplc
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Cafe WriterCafe RankerGolden Eagle EyeCafe MusketeerCafe Blackjack Weekly Winner
Posts: 18961
Joined: 27 Dec 2004
Home Cafe: Football
Location: It's an L, not an I

Postby Redskins Win » Thu Feb 23, 2006 10:33 am

If Warner (former Gov. of VA) is down with it how bad could it be?
Image[/quote]
[size=14][b]Letters from the procupine, they'll stick straight through you.
So read one anytime you think you've made mistakes.[/b][/size]
Redskins Win
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Mock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeMatchup Meltdown SurvivorCafe Blackjack Weekly WinnerLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 8272
Joined: 23 Sep 2003
Home Cafe: Football

Postby The_Dude » Thu Feb 23, 2006 10:59 am

Redskins Win wrote:If Warner (former Gov. of VA) is down with it how bad could it be?


Wrong Warner...

The Warner in the article is John Warner, your senator since 1978.

The former beloved Governor/2008 Presidential hopeful is Mark Warner.
Image

I am the Walrus
The_Dude
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar
Cafe RankerEagle Eye
Posts: 3481
(Past Year: 2)
Joined: 14 Aug 2003
Home Cafe: Football
Location: My ivory tower, where I oversee the intellectual development of America's youth

Postby Redskins Win » Thu Feb 23, 2006 11:01 am

The_Dude wrote:
Redskins Win wrote:If Warner (former Gov. of VA) is down with it how bad could it be?


Wrong Warner...

The Warner in the article is John Warner, your senator since 1978.

The former beloved Governor/2008 Presidential hopeful is Mark Warner.


DOH!!!!!!! I knew I liked him ;-D
Image[/quote]
[size=14][b]Letters from the procupine, they'll stick straight through you.
So read one anytime you think you've made mistakes.[/b][/size]
Redskins Win
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Mock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeMatchup Meltdown SurvivorCafe Blackjack Weekly WinnerLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 8272
Joined: 23 Sep 2003
Home Cafe: Football

Postby gogogadget » Thu Feb 23, 2006 11:42 am

I agree with most of the things posted, but i think some are forgetting...America is not giving the ports to an Arab country. A company based in Great Britian(not Great Britian itself) owned the ports and are now selling them to a company based in UAE(not UAE itself). We cant give the ports to an American company unless we used force to take it away from the companies that own them. I got the feeling that this was being overlooked.

I think this is a lose-lose for the administration. If they took it away from the company, then they would be criticized for being prejudice, and gaining too much governmental control on the industry. Since they decided to not interfere, they are said to be crazy for opening our ports to terrorists.

I personally dont think anything will change once UAE purchases the ports. They will be just as vulnerable as they were before.

edit* But now if something does happen through those ports everyone can blame Bush.
Image
"When I know nothing, the possibilities are endless."
gogogadget
Offensive Coordinator
Offensive Coordinator

User avatar
Mock(ing) Drafter
Posts: 814
Joined: 27 Aug 2005
Home Cafe: Football
Location: Jordan-Hare Stadium

Postby knapplc » Thu Feb 23, 2006 11:54 am

CNN is running a poll just like mine (I've often thought they got a lot of their ideas from me... :-? ). Current results are 85% say No to 15% who say yes.

The bottom line here is this - the GOVERNMENT should be running these ports, specifically the Coast Guard. I can't believe it's something we let into the hands of the private sector, let alone foreign companies. I don't think an American company should have controlling authority over our ports any more than a British or UAE company should.

Which border town along the US/Mexican border or the US/Canadian border is controlled by a private company?

These are matters of national security. How is it that we let a private business run the port? I don't get that.
Image
How 'bout them Huskers!
knapplc
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Cafe WriterCafe RankerGolden Eagle EyeCafe MusketeerCafe Blackjack Weekly Winner
Posts: 18961
Joined: 27 Dec 2004
Home Cafe: Football
Location: It's an L, not an I

PreviousNext

Return to General Talk

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

Forums Articles & Tips Start & Sit Sleepers Rankings Leagues


Get Ready...
The 2014 NFL season kicks off in 10:16 hours
(and 37 days)
2014 NFL Schedule


  • Fantasy Football
  • Article Submissions
  • Privacy Statement
  • Site Survey 
  • Contact