Some say the American response is racist.  That's likely so -- but as we
play out this awe-full clash of civilizations, there is Common Sense to
consider.  Eric opened the West Point .pdf and passed on this clip:

"Based on his reading of these works and the experience of the jihadis
in Afghanistan, Naji articulates a grand strategy for defeating the
United States.  First, he observes that after the rise of the two
superpowers following World War II, nations allied themselves with the
United States or the Soviet Union in return for financial and military
support. The jihadi movement had been unsuccessful in the past because
the superpowers propped up these proxy governments and convinced the
masses through the media that they were invincible. The solution, Naji
says, is to provoke a superpower into invading the Middle East directly.
This will result in a great propaganda victory for the jihadis because
the people will 1) be impressed that the jihadis are directly fighting a
superpower, 2) be outraged over the invasion of a foreign power, 3) be
disabused of the notion that the superpower is invincible the longer the
war goes on, and, 4) be angry at the proxy governments allied with the
invading superpower.  Moreover, he argues, it will bleed the
superpower's economy and military. This will lead to social unrest at
home and the ultimate defeat of the superpower."

# 4, above, is interesting -- angry at proxy governments allied with the
invaders.  Let's say that UAE is truly our best buddy and forever loyal;
if  #4 is true, their [obvious, now] presence in so vulnerable an area
gives terrorists even more reason to direct their attention to ports --
any strike would be a double-whammy.

Given the larger picture, it isn't sensible to hand over control of
anything vital to American wellbeing to middle-eastern control, no
matter how benign  -- they're at war among themselves, we're at war with
some of them. It's war time, like it or not. David Sirota, toward the
bottom, gives us the corporate connections that have allowed this to
happen -- the final piece gives us a good look at the port system and
the global economy it's designed to serve. First, though, read Dub's
disclaimer ... pffft!  MoDo takes a swipe at Dub next, then Progress
Report gives us the state of our port funding, personnel and  equipment.

So, perhaps the public response to this is racist at heart -- us/them.
But, as before, that was a Giant wakened [and enraged] by this very
president,.whose back room free-trade deal does not consider the will,
or even the safety, of the American public.  It's just one more in a
long series of same and, in my opinion, it's a great mercy that it has
captured the imagination of the American public. It makes them ponder
the question at hand -- if this is no-thing to George W. Bush ... what
is?

Jude

Bush Played No Role in Approval of Port Deal, White House Says
February 22, 2006
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Ports-Security.html

WASHINGTON (AP) -- 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 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, 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. ++

G.O.P. to W.: You're Nuts!
MAUREEN DOWD
February 22, 2006
http://select.nytimes.com/2006/02/22/opinion/22dowd.html

WASHINGTON - It's enough to make you nostalgic for those gnarly union
stevedores in "On the Waterfront," the ones who hung up rats on hooks
and took away Marlon Brando's chance to be a contend-ah.

Maybe it's corporate racial profiling, but I don't want foreign
companies, particularly ones with links to 9/11, running American ports.

What kind of empire are we if we have to outsource our coastline to a
group of sheiks who don't recognize Israel, in a country where money was
laundered for the 9/11 attacks? And that let A. Q. Kahn, the Pakistani
nuclear scientist, smuggle nuclear components through its port to Libya,
North Korea and Iran?

It's mind-boggling that President Bush ever agreed to let an alliance of
seven emirs be in charge of six of our ports. Although, as usual,
Incurious George didn't even know about it until after the fact.
(Neither did Rummy, even though he heads one of the agencies that
green-lighted the deal.)

Same old pattern: a stupid and counterproductive national security
decision is made in secret, blowing off checks and balances, and the
president's out of the loop.

Was W. too busy not calling Dick Cheney to find out why he shot a guy to
not be involved in a critical decision about U.S. security? What is he
waiting for - a presidential daily brief warning, "Bin Laden Determined
to Attack U.S. Ports?"

Our ports are already nearly naked in terms of security. Only about 5
percent of the containers coming into the country are checked. And when
the White House assures us that the Homeland Security Department will
oversee security at the ports, is that supposed to make us sleep better?
Not after the chuckleheaded Chertoff-and-Brownie show on Capitol Hill.

"Our borders are wide open," said Jan Gadiel of 9/11 Families for a
Secure America. "We don't know who's in our country right now, not a
clue. And now they're giving away our ports." The "trust us" routine of
W. and Dick Cheney is threadbare.

The more W. warned that he would veto legislation stopping this deal,
the more lawmakers held press conferences to oppose it - even
conservatives who had loyally supported W. on Iraq, the Patriot Act,
torture and warrantless snooping.

Mr. Bush is hoist on his own petard. For four years, the White House has
accused anyone in Congress or the press who defended civil liberties or
questioned anything about the Iraq war of being soft on terrorism. Now,
as Congress and the press turn that accusation back on the White House,
Mr. Bush acts mystified by the orgy of xenophobia.

Lawmakers, many up for re-election, have learned well from Karl Rove.
Playing the terror card works.

A bristly Bush said yesterday that scotching the deal would send "a
terrible signal" to a worthy ally. He equated the "Great British" with
the U.A.E. Well, maybe Britain in the 12th century.

Besides, the American people can be forgiven if they're confused about
what it means in the Arab world to be a U.S. ally. Is it a nation that
helps us sometimes but also addicts us to oil and then jacks up the
price, refuses to recognize Israel, denies women basic rights, tolerates
radical anti-American clerics, looks the other way when its citizens
burn down embassies and consulates over cartoons, and often turns a
blind eye when it comes to hunting down terrorists in its midst?

In our past wars, America had specific countries to demonize. But now in
the "global war on terror" - GWOT, as they call it - the enemy is a
faceless commodity that the administration uses whenever it wants to win
a political battle. When something like this happens, it's no wonder the
public does its own face transplant.

One of the real problems here is that this administration has run up
such huge trade and tax-cut-and-spend budget deficits that we're in hock
to the Arabs and the Chinese to the tune of hundreds of billions of
dollars. If they just converted their bonds into cash, they would own
our ports and not have to merely rent them.

Just because the wealthy foreigners who own our debt can blackmail us
with their economic leverage, does that mean we should expose our
security assets to them as well?

As part of the lunatic White House defense, Dan Bartlett argued that
"people are trying to drive wedges and make this to be a political
issue." But as the New Republic editor Peter Beinart pointed out in a
recent column, W. has made the war on terror "one vast wedge issue" to
divide the country.
Now, however, the president has pulled us together. We all pretty much
agree: mitts off our ports. ++

Two Ships Passing In The Night
2/22/2006
www.progressreport.org

Over the last several days, Congress has reacted with "a sharp
bipartisan backlash"
to the administration's approval of a sale that would turn over
operations at six
U.S. ports to Dubai Ports World, a state-owned company from the United
Arab
Emirates. President Bush responded by threatening to veto any
legislation that would
delay the transaction. While close scrutiny of the transfer is
warranted, the
vitriolic debate overlooks the issues that are less provocative but more
important
to port security. U.S. ports handle 2.5 billion tons of cargo each year,
accounting
for more than 20 percent of the nation's GDP. Volume is expected to
double by 2020.
The federal government, not Dubai Ports World or whatever company
ultimately is in
charge of operations, is principally responsible for ensuring the
security of the
six ports in question. Right now, there are critical gaps in the
funding, equipment,
and personnel necessary to protect our ports that need to be addressed.

THE FUNDING GAP: The Coast Guard estimated in 2002 that it would cost
$5.4 billion
over 10 years to implement critical security improvements to the
nations' ports as
mandated by the Maritime Transportation Security Act. Last year,
Congress
appropriated just $175 million to the program. (The Bush Administration
asked for
$46 million for fiscal year 2005, which was below pre-9/11 levels).
Overall,
"federal money allocated in the first five rounds of the program --
about $708
million -- accounted for only about one-fifth of what seaports
identified as needs,"
a funding gap of over $3 billion. The funding shortfall has forced the
Department of
Homeland Security to limit "eligibility to top-risk ports," creating "a
class of
underprotected ports" that could become a prime target for a terrorist
attack.
American Progress has recommended a minimum of $500 million a year for
the program.

THE EQUIPMENT GAP: Each year, millions of freight containers arrive at
U.S. ports
but only six percent of them are physically inspected by customs
officials. The
biggest security threat associated with ports is the risk that a
radiological device
-- which can be used to make a so-called "dirty bomb" -- would be
smuggled in a
freight container. One way to reduce that risk is to equip each port
with devices
that scan every container. (Last July, President Bush touted the use of
this
technology.) Yet, this equipment is not available at all ports.
Containers continue
to arrive every day that have not been scanned for the presence of
radiation.

THE PERSONNEL GAP: The Coast Guard is principally responsible "for
protecting the
nation's nearly 100,000 miles of waterways and about 300 ports."
According to Kim
Petersen, president of the nation's largest maritime security consulting
company,
"port security is a big problem" because "the Coast Guard does not have
enough
resources for the waters close to ports." Petersen said the Coast Guard
"doesn't
have either the people or the necessary physical resources to provide
the in-water
patrols that are so desperately needed." ++

Truth About UAE Port Security Scandal Quietly Leaks Out
David Sirota
02.22.2006
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-sirota/truth-about-uae-port-secu_...

The more you read about the UAE port security scandal, the more it
becomes patently obvious this is about far more than just one deal with
one company or one country. The harsh reaction from the Bush
administration to the proposal to rescind the deal should be a red flag.
This administration is unquestionably the most corporate-controlled
administration in recent history, meaning its reactions are usually tied
directly to the reactions of Corporate America. And the fact that the
White House is ignoring its own security experts and reacting so
negatively to Congress's opposition to the deal means this cuts to the
much deeper issue of global trade policy - an issue that trumps all
others for Big Money interests, even post-9/11 security.

In a previous post* I noted how the Bush administration is
simultaneously negotiating a "free" trade agreement with the UAE - the
country tied to the terrorists who attacked America on 9/11. The
administration was negotiating this deal at the very same time it tried
to quietly slip this port security deal under the radar. It's not
surprising few in the media or the political system have mentioned that
simple fact - as I note in my upcoming book Hostile Takeover, the
political/media Establishment's devotion to "free" trade orthodoxy is
well documented, and the Establishment's desire in this current scandal
to make sure a discussion of trade policy never happens is obvious.

But as the coverage continues, the true motives of Bush's position are
starting to slip out, almost inadvertently.

Look at the comment of Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff.
Remember, he is the guy whose only job is to protect America. He's not
supposed to be thinking about anything else. Yet, just a few days ago,
he said about the UAE deal that "We have to balance the paramount
urgency of security against the fact that we still want to have a robust
global trading system." Technically, of course, he's right - but the
fact that the Homeland Security secretary is publicly lecturing Congress
about the need to protect the "global trading system" and defending the
UAE deal tells us a lot about how devoted to prioritizating the
corporate agenda our government really is - even the government agencies
whose only responsibilities are securing America.

Similarly, the New York Times today quotes a corporate consultant in
London who says that Congress's concerns about a country tied to the
9/11 terrorists managing U.S. port security are "totally illogical."
Why? Because, he says, "The location of the headquarters of a company in
the age of globalism is irrelevant."

There it is in all its glory: the Establishment publicly pushing the
idea that absolutely nothing should matter - not even security
concerns - other than preserving the mobility of capital. And that is
ultimately what "free" trade is really all about - creating all sorts of
restrictive, protectionist rules that corporate interests want (like
patent/copyright protections), but making sure that capital can freely
move all over the world, without regard to any labor, human rights,
environmental and - yes - security concerns. It was GE CEO Jack Welch,
the well-known "free" trader, who famously said, "Ideally you'd have
every plant you own on a barge."

And so any attempt to stop the UAE port security deal fundamentally
threatens the Tom-Friedman-style "free" trade orthodoxy that says we
must eliminate all barriers to trade - even those that protect national
security. When you realize that, President Bush's threat to use the
first veto of his presidency on the UAE port security issue suddenly
becomes not so surprising. He is proudly defending what Jeff Faux calls
"The Party of Davos" or John Perkins calls the "corporatocracy" - that
is, the multinational interests who have bankrolled Bush's entire
political career, and who desperately rely on the American government
preserving a "free" trade system that subverts all other concerns to the
corporate profit motive.

Again, the fact that this isn't being reported should not shock anyone.
And you can rest assured that the usual cast of Establishment characters
(including self-described "progressives") on the editorial pages and in
Congress will soon begin a vehement defense of the "free" trade policies
that created the rationale for this UAE port security deal and other
shady business deals like it. Both parties have pushed this "free" trade
nonsense over the last two decades, and both have been rewarded with
huge piles of corporate cash. That bipartisan devotion to "free" trade
largely continues to this day.

Similarly, the major media in America are all owned by huge corporations
with an interest in preserving the "free" trade system. But don't let
the Establishment's silence on "free" trade's centrality in this scandal
distract you. In America's corporate-owned political system, the truth
is often found where things are quietest. ++

*The dirty little secret behind the UAE port security flap
http://www.workingforchange.com/blog/

Growing criticism puzzles many in shipping industry
'We haven't done a good job of explaining how we work'
 Meredith Cohn
February 22, 2006
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/local/bal-te.bz.ship22feb22,0,236863...

Just about any given time, it's possible to find a Greek-owned ship
flying a Liberian flag, employing a Filipino crew and carrying cargo
from China into a U.S. port terminal managed by a British company that
hires American longshoremen.

This is how Wal-Mart, Best Buy, Target and others get their socks and
stereos for the U.S. consumer.

So, some in the shipping industry have been taken aback in the past week
by growing criticism in Washington and in state capitals to a deal that
would transfer control over some operations in several major U.S. ports
from a British company to one owned by the government of Dubai.

"To be fair, we're on the edge of the world and we haven't done a good
job explaining how we work, so people are confused by it," said Art
Wong, a spokesman for the port of Long Beach, near Los Angeles.

Wong lived through a similar controversy about six years ago when China
Ocean Shipping (Group) Co., an ocean carrier owned by the Chinese
government, was doing such a booming business bringing products to the
United States that it sought a bigger landing spot at the Southern
California port. Before the company could move to a former Navy base, a
groundswell of opposition on Capitol Hill over national security
concerns killed the deal.

Critics of the Dubai deal express similar concerns about possible
threats from Middle Eastern terrorists. Dubai Ports World, which paid
$6.8 billion last week to acquire Peninsular and Oriental Steam
Navigation Co., is based in the United Arab Emirates, where one of the
Sept. 11, 2001, hijackers lived and others passed through.

In the major U.S. ports where Dubai Ports World would operate
terminals - Baltimore, New York, New Jersey, Miami, New Orleans and
Philadelphia - many of the shipping lines, the stevedores that load and
unload ships and terminal operators have foreign owners.

The top 10 containership fleets are based in Denmark, Switzerland,
Taiwan, China, Germany, France, Japan, Hong Kong and Singapore, said
Peter S. Shaerf, managing director of AMA Capital Partners LLC, a
merchant banking firm that focuses on the maritime and transportation
industries. All call on U.S. ports, and some of the shipping lines
manage terminals.

Other terminal operators with U.S. operations are based in England,
Denmark and Hong Kong.

Panama has the world's largest ship registry, and Liberia is second.
Brad Berman, president of the company that runs the Liberian registry,
said about 2,300 ships fly that country's flag and that they carry 10
percent of the world's cargo tonnage.

Shaerf described Dubai Ports World as a respected international company.

The Bush administration announced last month that it would nominate
David C. Sanborn, director of operations for Europe and Latin America at
the Dubai company, to be administrator of the Maritime Administration of
the Department of Transportation, which aids marine commerce and ensures
that a U.S. fleet is prepared for emergencies.

"The real risk is in a poorly run port. A badly run port is more of a
terrorist target than perceived bad ownership," Shaerf said. "This is an
international business. If you welcome their commerce, you have to
welcome them."

Many U.S. ports, including Baltimore's, have offices and agents overseas
to drum up business from foreign companies. Some want shipping lines to
visit their terminals, and some want them to run and invest in their
operations.

Cosco was operating at Long Beach when the political questions arose in
2000, Wong said. The company still operates there, bigger than ever
because of record imports coming to the West Coast from Asia. Although
Cosco was barred from moving to the former Navy location, other
companies moved to that site, freeing land around Cosco's operation
where it could expand.

In Baltimore and elsewhere, P&O, the British company being bought by
Dubai Ports World, is largely responsible for loading and unloading
container cargo and managing dockside storage.

Administrators work directly for the company - about 65 of them at the
port of Baltimore, one of the larger operations - but most of the work
is done by American longshoremen.

The Coast Guard, one of the agencies on the front lines of port
security, said everyone with an interest in the port is treated the
same.

"The Coast Guard recognizes we live in a global economy and that
foreign-owned corporations are operating within the United States," said
Jeff Carter, a spokesman, in a statement yesterday. "Laws and
international conventions are currently in place."

The Coast Guard and other Homeland Security agencies collect information
on crews and cargoes and flag a small number of the millions of
containers that arrive on the estimated 5,300 commercial ships that make
more than 60,000 calls on U.S. ports each year.

The safeguards do not appear to have reassured a growing list of critics
of the Dubai deal that includes Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. of Maryland
and Gov. George E. Pataki of New York, both Republicans, and U.S. and
state lawmakers of both parties, most representing states where the
ports affected are situated.

Some say they oppose any foreign government control, and others say the
Dubai case is special because the government involved is Middle Eastern.
Several lawmakers have pledged to introduce legislation to stop the
deal. Others have called for hearings.

President Bush reaffirmed yesterday his support for the deal and said he
would veto any legislation aimed at stopping it.

The deal has sparked a lawsuit by Continental Stevedoring & Terminals
Inc. of Miami, which partners with P&O to load and unload cargo at the
city's port. The suit claims that P&O is violating its agreement and
would make Continental an involuntary partner with the Dubai government.

Many of the deal's critics say they just want more information or
further review by the Treasury Department's Committee on Foreign
Investment, which examines investments that could pose security risks.
The committee reviewed and cleared the $6.8 billion deal in recent
months. But lawmakers say the review was done in secrecy and that the
committee has released no specifics.

Helen Delich Bentley, a former Maryland congresswoman and a port
consultant, said the committee has always operated that way and approved
many deals that she objected to.

She said the Dubai deal should not be blocked because it would be unfair
to single out one foreign-owned company. But she said foreign ownership
should be addressed, with questions about job opportunities examined
along with security issues.

"I don't think we ought to pick just one," she said. "I almost give up
hope this is a wake-up call. America has been much too complacent." ++

It is not enough to be compassionate; you must act.
-- The Dalai Lama