Redstate

To those who are for this deal I ask, why would be so ready to hand over control of US ports to a Muslim country?

Is that what you think is happening? No wonder you're against it. Oh well.

How do you know Harriet Miers wouldn't have been an excellent Supreme Court justice?

Unless you know that, you can't say that was a bad decision.

1.  That's like saying we can't "know" that Kerry would have been a bad president, so we are not allowed to have an opinion.  That kind of thinking is a fallacy.
   
2.  The reason you will find the great majority of conservatives and legal thinkers were relieved to see Harriet go was the fact that she brought almost zero constitutional experience to the table.  I wrote a RS comment that you don't bring a podiatrist to do cardiac surgery, nor a cardiac surgeon to work on your foot (and that night Krauthhammer used the same phrase!).  Harriet's only claim to fame was being the first woman to accomplish something in Texas.  None of her credentials made her qualified to persuade anyone on SCOTUS of anything.  Some might try to say her White House Counsel job qualified her, but she only held the position for a few months and the position has little to do with conlaw at any rate.

In other words, no constitutional law background (not to mention the lack of stellar conlaw background) = no SCOTUS.

I applaude Harriet and the president for doing the right thing, and am grateful for getting a powerhouse like Alito.

I thought the whole Harriet thing had been debated and settled long ago.

There's a big difference between John Kerry and Harriet Miers.  Kerry has a long public record, and told us many things he'd do in office.  Miers had no such record, nor could tell us how she'd rule.

I really don't care what Miers' "claim to fame" was.  It's clear that her real qualification was that she's worked alongside the President in the White House as his lawyer, presumably working on with a great many Constitutional issues.  I'd say there's a good chance he'd be able to get a feel for how well she'd serve on the bench because of that experience.

He wanted us to trust him on it.  Some of us could not, and fought him on it, so he relented.  Assuming Alito ends up to get the job done, it all worked out in the end.  However, his success doesn't imply that Miers would have been a failure, nor that the President was wrong, nor that it's correct to be picking fights with him, especially on matters that he's proven effective on, in the absence of facts and instead on the precautionary principle.

We are in a similar situation with Dubai Ports World.  The administration, which is proven effective in fighting the War on Terror, has made a decision (just as the President had a stellar track record of picking judges).  Yet suddently there's a big dogpile of people barking that the President just can't be trusted on this.

There's a big difference between the Supreme Court nomination and the ports contracts, though.  For the nomination, there was an opportunity for a second chance, if the President backed down.  For the ports, if the President backs down, and we damage our credibility with either Dubai or ports contractors both at home and abroad, we don't get a second chance.  The reputation is just gone.  Americans will be branded, and our ports will be radioactive to any foreign competition for terminal operations.  Further, any allies we're making in the Middle-east will look at how Dubai is being treated, and wonder just what working with America is really worth, if you're going to be treated like a filthy terrorist regardless of how far backward you bend over.

So we need to be very clear on this.  Whoever decides to join Chuck Schumer in attacking this President's commitment to homeland security, had better be absolutely sure about this.  Doubts and speculations are pretty shaky to go on here, and there's no going back if you're mistaken.

thatI didn't say control over the port terminals. I say port terminals several times. I know what the situation is, what the Dubai company will have control over, what they will be doing, etc.

Again, for those for the deal, why are you so eager to let an Arab company have more access without even vetting this properly? Why would anyone be against an extension so this can be vetted? Can anyone guarentee we will not be anymore vulnerable than we were before? I doubt anyone here is privy to that much info. That is why, like I said earlier, we have to trust our elected officials to be convinced.

Why would anyone be against an extension?

We also know this administration does a piss poor job of vetting. Remember Bernard Kerik?

nor that the President was wrong,

Yes he was. By any measure, Harriet Miers was not the most qualified candidate for the SCOTUS.

Yet suddently there's a big dogpile of people barking that the President just can't be trusted on this.

Only when he threatens to use his first veto on any attempt to stop the deal and he is against an extension so it can be looked at more closely.

The administration, which is proven effective in fighting the War on Terror, has made a decision

And this administration has made bad decisions when it comes to homeland security, as I mentioned before, Bernard Kerik.

any allies we're making in the Middle-east will look at how Dubai is being treated, and wonder just what working with America is really worth,

Any potential middle-east ally who doesn't understand why the US may want to look a little closer at this, I would tend to look at them closer before becoming their ally. And we can reward countries without giving them access to points of entry into the US. What is the difference between extra scrutiny for citizens of questionable countries (Muslim) to come to the US and extra scrutiny for companies, especially state owned, from questionable countries?

Doubts and speculations are pretty shaky to go on here

I would rather err on the side of caution.

My understanding is that DPW will handle contracts for Stevedorage (which is loading and unloading cargo). They'll bid competetitively on the contracts, take over some contracts from O&P, and stevedorage also in some cases implies managing operations at some port terminals. (at least, that's how I understand it.

I think this is a fair article, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with DPW's offer to back off on the deal concerning US ports for 45 days. Which will give us time to assess and get our act together on it.

Knee jerking goes both ways.  

why are you so eager to let an Arab company have more access without even vetting this properly?

That it was "not vetted properly" seems to be an article of faith among some people. The people whose job it is to vet these things say it was vetted properly. To some people however, it will not have been vetted "properly" until it has been turned down, that being the definition of "proper."

Why would anyone be against an extension so this can be vetted?

It was vetted, by the people who have the statutory responsibility for doing so. However, they arrived at a decision that flies in the face of what someone who knows nothing about these things might believe. Therefore we will do some more stuff that will not be "vetting" so much as "grandstanding" by Congressional camera-lovers. After Democrats and "mavericks" have had sufficient opportunity to get themselves on television bashing Bush and all his works and pomps, the press will move on to something else and the deal will quietly go through.

Can anyone guarentee we will not be anymore vulnerable than we were before?

Of course not. No one could guarantee that continued operation by P&O wouldn't have made us more vulnerable. The Brits, after all, have their own home-grown Islamic militants these days.

Anytime perfection is suggested as the standard for acceptance, we know that the real agenda is to stifle delivery. Why not just come out and say that's what your agenda is, instead of trying to snow us with "How do we know it isn't perfect?" mumbo-jumbo.

We also know this administration does a piss poor job of vetting. Remember Bernard Kerik?

Interesting proposal you have there. So you think Congress should hold hearings to "properly vet" every occasion when the Administration hires someone, or lets a contract, or writes a check? Or just the ones you disagree with? Why not the ones I disagree with? How about the guy behind the tree? Shouldn't Congress vet all his objections, too? We could have Universal Vetting of everything the executive branch does; have Congressmen — who know everything and get it right every time — look over the shoulder of every bureaucrat, every day, to make sure that everything is done perfectly every time. Especially on security. Every time a cop goes into an Arab 7-11 to buy a donut, the full Senate Select Committee on Meddling should rush to the scene to make sure the cop checks the place properly for bombs. Did he look under the sofa in the back? Our lives might depend on it.

Bernie would have been a much better DHS head than we ended up with.  

Of all the potential threats to our security, this deal hardly registers on the reality scale. Yes, your reaction is kneejerk from either ignorance of the process or from some type of un-admitted phobia. This is worse than the political opposition because at least they know what they are doing and have made a political decision to disregard the facts.

with topics to be determined by Pinch is the template. Every bullett fired must be investigated unless ginsberg-breyer appointing, right to abortion until the head clears democrat presidents are in office.

And in any event, the Rich in every state must be taxed to let Chuckie and Rodham pay for diversity and tolerance classes in NY and DC and to make dead body retreival quick enough so that their limos aren't delayed on the way to the next microphone, and, of course,

to make us safe.

It was vetted, by the people who have the statutory responsibility for doing so.

Bernie Kerik was supposedly vetted by whoever is supposed to do that before he was nominated. They did a hell of job on that, eh?

Therefore we will do some more stuff that will not be "vetting" so much as "grandstanding" by Congressional camera-lovers.

Of course politicians will grandstand. So what? I, like most other people, instinctively questioned this when the news broke. It wasn't anti-Arabism, it is healthy skepticism.

We regularly accuse liberals of trying to shove things down the throats of the American people do not want. They know better than we do when it comes to abortion on demand and gay marriage, even though the American people don't agree. More than half of Americans don't agree with this deal or are at least skeptical. Do you know what is best for the rest of us? Or, would it be reasonable to let the people who want to, become more educated and make a informed decision. Why not allow the extension? Because of grandstanding? I guess we might as well cut out confirmation hearings.

Of course not. No one could guarantee that continued operation by P&O wouldn't have made us more vulnerable.

I asked if anyone can guarentee we won't be anymore vulnerable than we were before control of the port terminal operation changes hands. Why would we even consider a deal that might lesson national security. Will UAE citizens or gov't officials have anymore access to the ports than they did before? If so, the deal should not go through.

The Brits, after all, have their own home-grown Islamic militants these days.

So do we. Like the Brits, our Islamists don't permeate our gov't.

Anytime perfection is suggested as the standard for acceptance, we know that the real agenda is to stifle delivery.

God knows I don't expect perfection from this gov't. I think this is by far the best country in the world, but we are far from perfect. I just expect competence, which is not always delivered by this gov't.

Every time a cop goes into an Arab 7-11 to buy a donut, the full Senate Select Committee on Meddling should rush to the scene to make sure the cop checks the place properly for bombs. Did he look under the sofa in the back? Our lives might depend on it.

Well, if the store owner launders terrorist money, a couple of his employees were 9/11 hijackers and he is ovetly anti-Semetic, then the cop may want to keep an eye on him. But I am a knee-jerk racist.

Yes, your reaction is kneejerk from either ignorance of the process

That is the @#$%ing point! News of the deal comes out, people question it and the President lets everyone know the deal is going through no matter what anyone thinks or what questions anyone has. He will even use his first veto to guarentee it. With an issue like this, the President shouldn't just tell the people the deal is going through, no questions asked an the American people are going to like it!

or from some type of un-admitted phobia

Maybe you are right. I was against affirmative action because it is racial discrimination by another name. But given my reaction to the ports deal and your insight into my mental state, I must be a closet racist. Watch out minority community, I am going after a face full of teardrop tatoos!

Or maybe you are too quick to throw the racist label around, like liberals.

This is worse than the political opposition because at least they know what they are doing and have made a political decision to disregard the facts.

Really? I am for the Iraq war, but I have a lot more respect for someone who was against the war from the beginning than someone who changed their mind because polls suggest the American people turned against the war and the politically expedient position is to be against the war now. The troops be damned!

to educate the unwashed on every government process. Those who wanted the facts, easily got them. Those to whom the facts were extraneous to taking a "position" would not have accepted his explanation anyway.

I never referenced anything about race. Inference is your problem.

I don't think I referenced the war either. See above.

If you just ping pong around, no wonder you can't focus on the realities of the port deal.

There are things from my younger years where I watched incredible happenings in front of me. So many things on the U.S boarder with Mexico. So I pose this. In this conversation, I have seen port security descibed in terms of "which company" or "government entity" has the authority of eversight for security. With that it seems, comes the "AUTO" claim of competence within the security processes, objectives and managenment ability of these entities to provide tight, well defined and rock solid security for the nation and people of the United States.

I've never been charged, or convicted, or been suspected or accused of, or have in anyway participated in any events that a few people I personally knew  took part in that I saw when I was younger that I documented.

Basically it came down to this. If Mexican's wanted to smuggle millions of tons of merchandise into the U.S., you have to pay a few people off for much bigger pay-offs and smuggling tonnage. Otherwise your limited to having runners drive up to the check points coming out of South, Texas and checking if the station is open or not, then they send the mules through, which is usually one or two. The transported merchadise itself can be placed in the most amazing places, in the most amazing configurations, capable of deceiving customs, INS, coast guard and all other governmental entities. With that, there still is chance, since about one out of every ten get some suspecion, and many times an outright search is conducted, an investor within any particular smuggling operations is compelled to up the odds abit. This is where corruption comes in.

If I am smuggling 10 tons of smoke every week over the Mexican boarder at a profit of $2,800 for an decent pound of good bud, that's $56 million dollars of profit during the harvesting season, a week !

This kind of money corrupts, I cannot tell you how true that statement is. Your either of the kind where you cannot be corrupted, or you or not, it's black and white, regardless of how many excuses can be made for this type of action, but the money is powerful to so many, and I mean many, many, many.

This is where the holes really exist. The personal employees, the managers, the dock hands, the "company" inspectors etc... etc... This is where most of the things that are smuggled are found, by these people, the insiders. And, only about 10% of potentially dangerous or illegal material at the very best estimates are actually discovered, and this is currently.

Employees of the companies and thier loyalties is what should be examined. This is where the actual holes are. Not a company record of past events, but what is today and all other aspects of the personnel involved should be the focus. If that checks out totally, then let the deal happen.

I would suggest from what I have seen, it probably shouldn't go through, but then again, what the hell do I know?

I never referenced anything about race. Inference is your problem.

Then what would be the standard (race, religion, ethnicity) of my un-admitted phobia?

I don't think I referenced the war either. See above.

I was using the war to make a point about politicizing an issue. You stated those with sincere questions are worse than those who are using the issue for purely political reasons.

Bernie Kerik was supposedly vetted

You keep bringing that up. I call: are you advocating "re-vetting" of all things by Congressional committees, or is that just a noise that your keyboard makes?

Why not allow the extension?

I don't think I have much to say about it. We will now endure 45 days of the press playing 'gotcha' and the Democrats slinging mud, after which the deal will be approved. Thank you for your part in arranging that.

Will UAE citizens or gov't officials have anymore access to the ports than they did before? If so, the deal should not go through.

Why is that? The UAE and DPW run the highest volume port-of-call for the U.S. Navy outside the United States. The Navy has nothing but good things to say about their performance. These people have daily access to our most advanced warships, in their own country. The Navy says they are great folks, and you're worried about what will happen if two of them get off a plane and walk onto a pier in New York? Stop telling us that it isn't because they're Arabs and
that you have a thing about Arabs. The question is whether your "thing" about "Arabs" makes any sense. I don't claim to know. The Navy says no; the CFIUS says no; Bush says no. But you want your day in the Sun to "vet" them. Fine, you got it. I hope you enjoy the show.

I just expect competence, which is not always delivered by this gov't.

Are you proposing that we vet, re-vet, and re-vet some more on every decision made, or not? If that's what you're proposing, say so. And don't tell me "only on things having to do with ports," or "only on things having to do with security." The list of things plausibly linked to "security" is at least 60% as long as the list of All Things.

Well, if the store owner launders terrorist money, a couple of his employees were 9/11 hijackers and he is ovetly anti-Semetic, then the cop may want to keep an eye on him.

The frigging mob runs the Longshoremens Union. A significant fraction of the goods entering our ports disappears every week, somewhere between the the time the Longshoremen get their hands on it and the Teamsters don't show up with it. You think Osama couldn't arrange to have that happen to one of his containers? Why? Because he would send a Bedouin in a sheet to deliver the bribe and the Mob would say no?

If security is your concern, why aren't you crusading for more money for the Coast Guard and the Customs Service? You think only scary guys in sheets represent a threat?

None of this concern about Dubai makes any sense when the Saudis are already operating ports here, the Chinese PLA owns a chunk of Long Beach harbor, and the Gambino family decides who can walk on the docks. This is Scary Arab Booga Booga, and that's all it is.

just pointing out that a rational, knowledgeable person would have already swallowed.

You are obviously fearful of something, not my job to figure out why, about the port deal. However, whatever your fear, it is irrational given the facts, consequently, it is a phobia. (BTW cameras won't steal your soul).

Just because you are sincerely wrong, does not justify you for being wrong. Waving around your support for the Iraq war also is immaterial.

Or do you think for every middle eastern looking male pulled out of line at the airport we should pull a little old white lady? Do you actually think we should give every country the same level of scrutiny? Are you that foolish? Because it might offend some anti-Semitic, terrorist sympathiser?

Why don't we let Lybia run the ports? Hey, they've come a long way since Reagan bombed them. They deserve it!

Don't tell me I'm not knowledgable. You sound like a liberal who's argument sucks so you resort to talking down. Your use of the word phobia is an underhanded way of saying I'm racist or Islamophobic. I don't have a phobia, I have a healthy skepticism for Muslims. Are you not knowledgable enough to follow that?

According to a recent Fox poll close to seventy percent of Americans are not comfortable with the port deal. A bunch of uninformed hicks, not up to your level of thinking, I suppose. I guess like liberals with gay-marriage, you know better, huh?

The democrats are using the race card to tweak the hot button of security minded Americans, especially Republicans. There is no difference between "The Administration is selling our ports" and the "The administration will destroy our military" except 58 years, a magnitude of color, and the target being the Bush rather than the Truman Administration.

Byrd was on the wrong side of that one too!

Malkin has a piece up about how some on the right are using the old lefty tactic of playing the race card (as in, oppossed to port deal = Islamaphobe!) against others on the right.

While I still haven't formed an opinion on the ports deal I have reservations about it that "could" make me an Islamaphobe.  I guess seeing the Muslim street celebrating after 9/11 (and not seeing the Muslim street showing any solidarity with us) makes me an Islamaphobe.  I saw what I saw, I didn't see what I didn't see.  That spoke volumes.

As I pointed out elsewhere, a lot of the funding for the 9/11 crew came from UAE banks.  We have so-called "allies" in the war, but they are often playing both sides.  Saudi Arabia for example has an interest in fighting the terrorist so they can keep their monarchy intact, but they also supply the funding, print materials, and state run news media that portrays Jews as evil and the United States as a friend to "evil" Israel.

On the other hand some people I respect point out some good facts.  Are we going to close terminals for foreign airlines too (since the threat should be the same)?  And what message does this send to Muslim countries that are making attempts at being friendly?

Like I said, I don't know where I stand yet.  I lean a little against "the deal" at this point.  But hearing our friends on the right play the race card against people concerned with national security is just ridiculous.  Will they be consistent and oppose profiling too?  Or do we have to keep searching grandma to appease the ACLU and Neil too?

What good is it to create a profile if you are not going to take advantage of the probablities it represents. Race may or may not be a factor in a particular profile. Inclusion of race or national origin is not racist, just a factor.

Based upon what I read here, I am further right than 99% of the posters.

I don't have to tell you that you are not knowledgeable. I was just pointing out the obvious. I don't use indirect ways of saying anything. If I thought you were racist, I'ld just say so like, your are, at best, ignorant about the port deal. I must have a healthy skepticism of heights.

Uninformed hicks? Yep. Gay marriage? Ping ponging again.

I must have a healthy skepticism of heights.

Not everyone is afraid of or has a phobia of heights. Otherwise windows higher than two stories wouldn't get washed.

I have a healthy skepticism for Muslims. They earned that on 9/11.

You obviously think every company should be scrutinized the same because you don't want to offend our Muslim friends.

And keep on talking down to people.

You ever hear the saying "It is better to remain silent and have people think you are a fool, than to speak and confirm their suspicions"? The same goes for writing.

skepticism of planes or tall buildings. They collectively had as much to do with 9/11 as Muslims collectively.

I hardly mind offending people, it's one of my gifts. For example, you. You think I'm talking down to you. I can at least compliment you on your recognition. The deal was scutinized and there was nothing there. I don't care if Muslims get offended but I do care we look like 70% of our population are ignorant fools particularly when far less than that voted fo Kerry.

It certainly does. Write some more if you must, but you've convinced me.