Target Centermass

Category: Politics

  • Ports Deal Crumbles, Dubai Firm to Sell U.S. Assets

    Well, so much for the United Arab Emirates ports story.

    With President Bush unable to contain a Republican congressional rebellion, a company owned by the United Arab Emirates vowed Thursday to turn over its just-acquired operations at six major U.S. port terminals to an American entity.

    The surprise move came after congressional leaders told Bush on Thursday morning that there was no way to stop lawmakers from blocking Dubai Ports World’s takeover of terminal operations at the ports.

    Republican and Democratic lawmakers reacted cautiously to the company’s apparent surrender, saying they needed to learn more about the details before abandoning their attempts to block DP World.

    DP World obtained the terminals as part of its acquisition of Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co., a British firm. That transaction, which the Bush administration approved in January, aroused a public furor that drove Congress into open conflict with the White House.

    The announcement was an extraordinary retreat that signaled a shift in the power relationship between the White House and Congress. Bush has been unused to losing. But this time, the Republican-led House of Representatives, which has been a rubber stamp for the president for the past five years, was the first to revolt.

    Republicans were furious when the president promised last month to veto any legislation that blocked the deal. Congress ignored Bush’s threat, and a 62-2 vote to block the deal by the House Appropriations Committee on Wednesday left no doubt that Congress would override a veto if the president dared to cast one.

    After Thursday’s meeting of congressional leaders with Bush at the White House, DP World’s chief operating officer, H. Edward Bilkey, surprised lawmakers when he issued a statement promising that the company would divest itself of its U.S. terminals.

    “Because of the strong relationship between the United Arab Emirates and the United States and to preserve this relationship, His Highness Sheikh Mohammed Bin Rashid Al Maktoum, vice president and prime minister of the UAE and rule of Dubai, has decided to transfer fully the U.S. operations of P&O Ports North America Inc. to a United States entity,” Bilkey’s statement said.

    Nevertheless, Senate Democrats pressed ahead with attempts to block DP World’s takeover, and House leaders weighed whether to proceed as well.

    Critics of the original deal weren’t backing away from congressional action.

    “I’m skeptical,” said Rep. Mark Foley, R-Fla. “I’d prefer (legislation) go through because it gives us a safeguard.”

    Likewise, Rep. Jerry Lewis, R-Calif., the chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, said he didn’t intend to remove the ports provision from an emergency spending bill for hurricane relief and the war in Iraq.

    Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, R-Fla., added: “Congressional plans are to move forward with the appropriations language next week which kills the transaction. Just to make sure.”

    DP World would have taken over terminals in Miami, Philadelphia, New York, New Jersey, Baltimore and New Orleans as well as some stevedoring operations at 15 others.

    […]

    The question that loomed late Thursday was who would buy the U.S. interests, and whether the firm would sell the assets in pieces.

    Eller & Co., whose Miami subsidiary Continental Stevedoring & Terminals sued to block the sale, said it might attempt to buy the terminals. “We are certainly encouraged by what the statement said,” Eller attorney Michael Kreitzer said. “We think we are one of the companies (that could buy it). We have been in the business for 70 years. We could do it.”

    Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., an early opponent of the DP World deal and an influential one as the chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, said Thursday’s announcement was encouraging. “I don’t think Dubai ports would have done this … if they didn’t think there was someone out there,” he said. “Hopefully they have more than one (bidder), otherwise they’re going to have to do a fire sale.”

    Michael Hopkins, the vice president of Crowley Liner Services at Port Everglades in Florida, said he expected DP World to sell its interests to several firms rather than one large operator.

    […]

    “To be honest, I have no idea,” said Steve Erb, who manages P&O ports operations in Miami. “I can just say that the five largest terminal operators in the world aren’t American.”

    I had not blogged on this brouhaha yet, though I had certainly intended to do so (damn you, oncall pager). I’ll admit that I initially balked when I heard the news that an Arab company was being handed the security responsibilities for six American ports. And that right there is why this deal is dead — horridly bombastic, sensationalistic and inaccurate journalism. The deal did not involve control of security. The fact that these six terminals are already managed by a foreign company was not reported. Still, weeks later, a large portion of the stories continued such inaccuracies and omissions. Remember when former Vice President Al Gore yelled that the Bush administration played upon our fears? Well, that is most assuredly what the media did with this story, at the sad expense of the truth. Politicians from both sides chose to capitalize upon these fears. Hey, after all, it’s an election year, and the media have already made clear how they will play this tale.

    Instead, the victim in this tale is an Arab ally, just the sort of friend we should be fostering. Protein Wisdom‘s Jeff Goldstein at expands greatly upon my concerns in this matter.

    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 show 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.

    […].

    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.

    Indeed, I hope every senator and representative that has played a part in attacking this business move by an ally will have the integrity to follow through with the rhetoric used to date — move immediately to stop foreign management of all points of entry. Otherwise, just come right out and say that you have essentially used racial profiling to shut down a business deal.

    These same six terminals were previously controlled by a British-owned company; are you saying that our terrorist enemies could penetrate a U.A.E. company but could never have been an issue with the U.K.? Really, I have little complaints about profiling, but there are places where I think it should be utilized first before this instance. I fully expect everyone in Congress who helped kill this deal that doesn’t immediately move against any foreign port management to explain why they will racially profile an ally-owned company but will not racially profile airline passengers that match those who have previously and repeatedly killed our fellow citizens.

  • Carnival of Liberty XXXV

    This week’s installment of the Life, Liberty, Property community’s Carnival of Liberty is up over at Owlish Mutterings. Go read another fine collection of posts from a libertarian slant.

  • Cindy Sheehan Arrested After U.N. March

    Gold Star mom Cindy Sheehan is back in the headlines again for yet another arrest. Bully for her — she’s scored another attention fix.

    Cindy Sheehan, who drew international attention when she camped outside President Bush’s ranch to protest the Iraq war, was arrested Monday along with three other women during a demonstration demanding the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq.

    The march to the U.S. Mission to the United Nations by about a dozen U.S. and Iraqi anti-war activists followed a news conference at U.N. headquarters, where Iraqi women described daily killings and ambulance bombings as part of the escalating violence that keeps women in their homes.

    Women Say No to War, which helped organize the news conference and march, said Sheehan and three other women were arrested while trying to deliver a petition to the U.S. Mission to the United Nations with more than 60,000 signatures urging the “withdrawal of all troops and all foreign fighters from Iraq.” Police said they were arrested for criminal trespassing and resisting arrest.

    […]

    Richard Grenell, the spokesman for the U.S. Mission, said in response to Sheehan’s arrest: “We invited her in to discuss her concerns with a U.S. Mission employee. She chose not to come in but to lay down in front of the building and block the entrance. It was clearly designed to be a media stunt, not aimed at rational discussion,” Grenell said.

    This is the third arrest for Gold Star mom Cindy Sheehan (see here and here for her previous run-ins with the long arm of the law). At this point, one has to wonder how much ink has to be wasted on this woman, be it through biassed fluff pieces in the media or through fingerprinting during bookings.

    Meanwhile, Gold Star mom Cindy Sheehan’s upcoming protest in front of an American military base in Germany is still on, and Davids Medienkritik brings us the good word that a counter-rally is in the works.

    Cindy Sheehan will be in Germany this upcoming weekend to spread her message of retreat and defeat as she marches from a church in Landstuhl (a town where wounded American soldiers are treated) to a location outside Ramstein Airbase where she plans to set up another “Camp Casey.”

    But not everyone is planning to sit around and silently watch the German media fawn and drool over Ms. Sheehan. Several groups are organizing a peaceful counter demonstration to support American and Coalition soldiers and victory in Iraq. We strongly encourage all of our readers in Germany and surrounding areas to converge on Ramstein this Saturday to take part! Our website has already christened the demonstration site “Camp David.” We will be contacting other bloggers throughout Germany and Europe to spread the word.

    Check it out for details.

  • High Five for World Peace

    Now, before it’s too late! There’s only a little time left in International High-Five a Muslim Day and I’m rather late to the show.

    Do check the video — it’s great for a chuckle, though I doubt we’ll be seeing any Christian riots over the portrayal of Jesus. Hey, maybe this is just the sort of outreach we need to find world peace. After all, there are most certainly far worse ideas being presented.

  • Carnival of Liberty XXXIV

    This week’s installment of the Life, Liberty, Property community’s Carnival of Liberty is up over at Committees of Correspondence. Go read another fine collection of posts from a libertarian slant.

  • Sheehan to Protest at U.S. Posts in Germany in March

    Ah, Gold Star mom Cindy Sheehan, you should certainly be able to get a good attention fix with the plans you’ve got in the works now.

    Cindy Sheehan, mother of a soldier killed in Iraq and the woman who protested the war last summer outside President Bush’s Texas ranch, is scheduled to bring her anti-war message to U.S. military installations in Germany next month.

    “[We’ve already heard] that Cindy Sheehan is like Hanoi Jane [Fonda] coming here,” said Elsa Rassbach, an event organizer with American Voices Abroad, which is supporting Sheehan’s trip.

    But, she said, “We’re here to just democratically talk about U.S. policy.”

    The Hanoi Jane comparison sounds about right for Gold Star mom Cindy Sheehan. To denounce our government policy and lie about America on our soil, however disgusting in this case, is her right. To do it abroad, as she will, is beyond vile.

    On March 11, protesters plan to walk from Landstuhl Regional Medical Center to a parking lot just outside Ramstein Air Base, where Sheehan will be at a “camp,” paying tribute to those who have died in the Iraq war.

    “Cindy will be with us at Camp Casey Landstuhl/Ramstein to call attention to the fact that Germany is Europe’s logistical hub for the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and others threatening Iran and the Middle East,” according to an event flier. “Germany has the power to stop the further use of U.S. bases in Germany for illegal wars and criminal methods of warfare — the power and the right to just say no!”

    Organizers are hoping to erect the camp — known as Camp Casey for Sheehan’s son — in a parking lot outside Ramstein Air Base’s west gate. The parking lot is under German jurisdiction, said Erin Zagursky, an Air Force spokeswoman at the base. Protest organizers are meeting with city officials in Ramstein and Landstuhl to gain permission for their event.

    […]

    Sheehan’s goals are to bring the troops home and have peace on earth, she said in an e-mail to Stars and Stripes.

    She also wants to teach the world to sing in freakin’ perfect harmony. And everybody gets a pet bunny.

    Her son, Army Spc. Casey Sheehan, 24, was killed in Iraq on April 4, 2004.

    Snark aside, SPC Sheehan was honored by Blackfive in a manner far, far better than anything than anything Gold Star mom Cindy Sheehan has done or will continue to do in her constant quest for notoriety.

    Sheehan said in an e-mail she was too busy for a phone interview with Stars and Stripes.

    “I don’t know anything about the visit,” she wrote. “It is being arranged by some people in Germany.”

    With the Kaiserslautern military community home to more than 50,000 Americans with military ties, Sheehan could face a rough welcome. When asked for comment Wednesday on Sheehan’s upcoming visit, several soldiers in Kaiserslautern asked if they could be quoted anonymously.

    One soldier, who recently returned from Iraq, did give his name but didn’t have much to say about Sheehan.

    “Anything I would have to say about her, you couldn’t print,” Army Staff Sgt. Mark Genthner said.

    SSG Genthner speaks — or rather diplomatically refuses to speak — for a great many of our troops. Here’s hoping Gold Star mom Cindy Sheehan will have a grand opportunity for a great deal of interaction with those she’s trying to save.

    Certainly, friendly confines and adoration await Gold Star mom Cindy Sheehan on much of her European vacation.

    Beginning March 9, Sheehan’s European visit will take her to Frankfurt, Aachen, Landstuhl and Ramstein in Germany. On March 13, Sheehan is scheduled to have a news conference in Paris, and the following day will address the European Union parliament in Strasbourg, France.

    A protest organizer in Landstuhl said he was asked by others, including some of the 732 members of the European Union parliament, to arrange the protest involving Sheehan.

    “The meeting with Cindy Sheehan is coming to us by an offer of members of the European Union in Strasbourg,” said Detlev Besier, a Protestant reverend in Landstuhl. “They asked whether it was possible or not to visit Ramstein Air Base and the hospital. It was not our idea. We were asked whether it was possible or not.”

    Yes, the tripe of Gold Star mom Cindy Sheehan will play very well in France and before the EU parliament. Perhaps she may even call for an end to the American military occupation of Germany, as she has previously of Iraq and Katrina-ravaged New Orleans.

    Rassbach said she did not know what response servicemembers would have to Sheehan’s appearance outside Ramstein Air Base.

    Oh, I have some guesses. Hat tip to Greyhawk and the Gunn Nutt, who weigh in with their thoughts on the plans for Gold Star mom Cindy Sheehan’s Euro adventures.

    Previous Gold Star mom Cindy Sheehan blogging:

  • Carnival of Liberty XXXIII

    This week’s installment of the Life, Liberty, Property community’s Carnival of Liberty is up over at Peter Porcupine. Go read another fine collection of posts from a libertarian slant.

  • Dems May Unite on Plan to Pull Troops

    Apparently, the Democrat party is gelling around the idea that strategic redeployment is a double-plus good strategy for Iraq. To translate from their window-dressing newspeak, the accurate phrasing they’re looking for is, in a word, retreat.

    After months of trying unsuccessfully to develop a common message on the war in Iraq, Democratic Party leaders are beginning to coalesce around a broad plan to begin a quick withdrawal of US troops and install them elsewhere in the region, where they could respond to emergencies in Iraq and help fight terrorism in other countries.

    The concept, dubbed ”strategic redeployment,” is outlined in a slim, nine-page report coauthored by a former Reagan administration assistant Defense secretary, Lawrence J. Korb, in the fall. It sets a goal of a phased troop withdrawal that would take nearly all US troops out of Iraq by the end of 2007, although many Democrats disagree on whether troop draw-downs should be tied to a timeline.

    Howard Dean, Democratic National Committee chairman, has endorsed Korb’s paper and begun mentioning it in meetings with local Democratic groups. In addition, the study’s concepts have been touted by the senator assigned to bring Democrats together on Iraq — Jack Reed of Rhode Island — and the report has been circulated among all senators by Senator Dianne Feinstein, an influential moderate Democrat from California.

    The party remains divided on some points, including how much detail to include in a party-produced document, fearful of giving too much fodder for attacks by Republicans.

    The concern for campaign accusations of defeatism and retreat are well placed, as those are the actual features of the plan.

    ”We’re not going to cut and run — that’s just Republican propaganda,” Dean said in a speech Feb. 10 in Boston. ”But we are going to redeploy our troops so they don’t have targets on their backs, and they’re not breaking down doors and putting themselves in the line of fire all the time. . . . It’s a sensible plan. It’s a thoughtful plan. I think Democrats can coalesce around it.”

    Reed, an Army veteran and former paratrooper who has been charged with developing a party strategy on the war, said the plan is attractive to many Democrats because it rejects what he calls the ”false dichotomy” suggested by President Bush: that the only options in Iraq are ”stay the course” or ”cut and run.”

    ”It’s important to note that it’s not withdrawal — it’s redeployment,” Reed said. ”We need to pursue a strategy that is going to accomplish the reasonable objectives, and allow us to have strategic flexibility. Not only is it a message, but it’s a method to improve the security there and around the globe.”

    Withdrawal is redeployment. Black is white. Up is down. Running away from hardship is strengthening security. Granted, there are times the latter may be true; however, this is not one of those times, as radical Islamists will immediately declare it a victory so great that the Somalia tail-tucking will pale in comparison.

    Under Korb’s outline, all reservists and National Guard members would come home this year. Most of the other troops would be redeployed to other key areas — Afghanistan, Southeast Asia, and the Horn of Africa — with large, quick-strike forces placed in Kuwait, where they could respond to crises in neighboring Iraq.

    Yes, let’s immediately declare that our military’s reserve components, long held as a key portion for our national security plans, are now to be kept safely under glass — only break in the event of a hurricane.

    Korb said in an interview that setting dates for troop withdrawal would send a message to the Iraqi people that the United States does not intend to set up permanent military bases in Iraq. Starting the redeployment quickly will ensure that the Army does not wear out before the insurgents do, he said.

    Trust me, the message would also be sent to our Islamist enemies — bleed us and we will flee, and we’ll set a date that you merely have to hold out to that you can enter into your Defeat-America project plan.

    But some strategists say the goal of a near-total withdrawal within two years is overly optimistic. US troops that are a plane ride away won’t be an effective deterrent, and Iraqi security forces appear unlikely to be able to handle the violence on their own in the near future, said Michael O’Hanlon, a centrist defense specialist who is a lecturer at Princeton University.

    ”You’re demanding that the political system produces a miracle,” O’Hanlon said. ”Any plan that envisions complete American withdrawal in such a period of time is still a prescription for strategic defeat.”

    Quite freakin’ right.

    In November, Representative John P. Murtha, a Pennsylvania Democrat, shook much of Washington with his call for an immediate withdrawal of troops, and his estimate that all troops could be out of Iraq within six months. The generally hawkish Vietnam veteran also called for quick strike forces to remain close to Iraq — similar to the Korb plan — but that was largely overlooked in the barrage from Republicans.

    White House spokesman Scott McClellan said the Murtha plan amounted to ”surrender to the terrorists.”

    Yes, the Democrats seem to be on the verge of rallying around an only-slightly modified version of the Murtha plan for retreat, a plan that lacks substance in the areas of actually maintaining an abililty to respond quickly enough to in-region actions and a threshold at which such re-engagement would be justified. In short, the plan offers the Iraqi government the same hollow promise we gave the South Vietnamese in 1973: we’ll be there if needed. The only problem is the Islamist terrorrists, the Iraqi people and the whole world know that we failed on that earlier promise.

    Hat tip to Charlie Munn of the Officers’ Club, who points out some key contradictions in the so-called strategy in the following:

    Next, what other key areas do we need 130,000+/- troops deployed to? (I would answer “Iran”) Afghanistan is being effectively handled by SF and light units, putting power in the hands of the locals and backing them up with a small US footprint. Does this new strategy suggest that we’ve been bungling OEF, and we need to put mech and armor units on the ground? Same with the Horn of Africa- if our footprint is the problem in Iraq, why is it the solution in other places?

    Further, the logic for this “strategic re-deployment” seems to be that US forces are causing terrorist attacks simply by being there (echoes of Osama). Following that logic, anywhere we deploy we will be attacked, so we might as well not do any military operations anywhere, ever. Also, if the threat is currently in Iraq, and we “strategically re-deploy” to where the threat is not, it is rather easy to label this strategy as a “cut and run.”

    Yes, it does seem to be a strategy of being where we ain’t targets. Well, it doesn’t take much to figure the counter-strategy for the radical Islamist bastards — hit the American military wherever they are and watch them flee all they can flee.

    Damn, but I do hope the American public sees this for the defeatist retreat that it is.

  • A Tale of Two Duh! Headlines

    Please be so kind as to file them both under the “well, I should freakin’ hope so” category.

    Poll: Americans fear Iran will develop, use nukes

    Americans are deeply worried about the possibility that Iran will develop nuclear weapons and use them against the USA, a USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll finds, but they also fear that the Bush administration will be “too quick” to order military action against Iran.

    […]

    There is little doubt among Americans about Iran’s intentions. Eight of 10 predict Iran would provide a nuclear weapon to terrorists who would use it against the USA or Israel, and almost as many say the Iranian government itself would use nuclear weapons against Israel. Six of 10 say the Iranian government would deploy nuclear weapons against the USA.

    I’ll admit, I’m editing quite selectively, but the story really did try to hide the meat of the poll behind the numbers based upon a so-far successful undermining of the Bush administration and piss-poor reporting of our successes in Iraq.

    US and Israel ‘trying to destabilise Hamas’

    Hamas has accused the US and Israel of refusing to accept the result of a democratic election, after a report that the two countries are discussing means to destabilise and bring down a Hamas-led Palestinian administration.

    The New York Times, citing diplomatic sources in Jerusalem, said Washington and Israel intend to block funding for the Palestinian Authority in an attempt to ensure that Hamas cabinet ministers fail and new elections are called.

    After Hamas’s election victory, the US and EU warned the Islamist group that unless it renounced violence and recognised Israel’s right to exist they would cut funding for the Palestinian Authority.

    Let’s see … a terrorist organization is rightfully elected the run the Palestinian state-or-whatever. The two governments that have previously shouldered a lion’s share of the funding for the state-or-state-of-anarchy balk. Is this undermining or just a shade of common-sense diplomacy? I’m voting for the latter, and I would really like to see a little hardball played here — the Palestinians made a choice and Hamas must find a way to function as a true government or fail upon their promises. After all, they have a rather sizable role to play in the violent anarchy over which they now supposedly govern. That Hamas would decry a withholding of funding from those they’ve deemed enemies is a truly special brand of weak victimization for a state-or-state-of-bloodletting that has already banked for years upon its claims of victimhood.

  • Carnival of Liberty XXXII

    This week’s installment of the Life, Liberty, Property community’s Carnival of Liberty is up over at New World Man. Go read another fine collection of posts from a libertarian slant. Special kudos to the carnival’s Valentine’s Day theme.

    UPDATE: I highly recommend Blog d’Elisson’s take on the Mohammed cartoon war. Follow the link at the carnival, as I won’t steal New World Man’s carnival thunder.