Who started the flap over the ports? A leading neocon!

[atommom]

More proof that they're disenchanted with BushCo...

WASHINGTON, Feb 23 (IPS) - Love him or hate him, Frank Gaffney is effective.

The founder and president of the Washington-based Centre for Security Policy (CSP), a small think tank funded mainly by U.S. defence contractors, far-right foundations, and right-wing Zionists, Gaffney was among the first to seize on the government's approval of a Dubai company to manage terminals at six major U.S. ports and helped blow it up into a major embarrassment to Pres. George W. Bush.

Indeed, it was Gaffney who wrote the first nationally syndicated column about the approval, which, if sustained, would turn over the management of terminals in the ports of New York, New Jersey, Philadelphia, Miami, Baltimore, and New Orleans to Dubai Ports World (DPW), a government-owned company based in the United Arab Emirates (UAE).

"How would you feel if, in the aftermath of 9/11, the U.S. government had decided to contract out airport security to the ...country where most of the operational planning and financing of the attacks occurred?" he asked in his weekly column in the right-wing Washington Times Feb. 14.

More: http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=32275

[4dsc]

1. Here's a neocon response to this

the company is in charge of port management, not port security. The Coast Guard and other Federal organizations are in charge of that. Second of all, we are not "selling our ports" to the UAE, we are renting the rights to manage them. Besides many of our ports are already run by foreign investors, including the very ports in question, which were previously run by a firm in London.

This is how the right is framing the issue. Its not about port security..

[bluemarkers]

4. yes, and my response has been

to remember my audience and keep it simple :)

The company is owned by the royal family, who supports bin laden.
UAE recognizes the Taliban but not Israel.


P&O btw was not owned by the British Royal family.
The management does do the paperwork. and They did allow Iran to ship nuclear material to Libya. They will be able to manipulate the manifest of the cargo and documentation of those on board.

The management is aware of Coast Guard Security Protocol. Making it easy to bypass.

(you can mix it up a bit there are plenty more, keeping it simple though)

It is about security. It about BushCo's connections to the middle east. It is about selling our nation to the highest bidder. You know a German company owns the water rights in parts of the NorthEast and France in Atlanta? How in the heck to you sell these to a company outside the US?

[adriennui]

6. thank you for your post

i get a little weary of certain veiled code words.

[Inspector77]

7. What you wrote in NOT a neocon position. They are livid for the most

part that the Deal may undermine their propaganda gains against Arab resurgence and for
U.S.( and defacto Israeli) dominance in the region.

[Wordie]

9. They may be splitting along pro-Israel/hawk vs. pro-business lines.

Because some others are coming out swinging against this deal, such as Michael Ledeen of the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) and Peter Brookes of the Heritage Foundation.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=509890&mesg_id=509890

[cantstandbush]

12. See my posts on why the neocons don't like this deal. I posted twice on

this subject. Too much to go into, but I think the reasons have nothing to do with caring about US security but more to do with being pissed at Bush for his poor handling of the deal and thus forcing folks to look closer at ALL the decision of this administration...which, if looked at closely, might derail the neocon-PNAC agenda.

[TomClash]

2. Put Frank Gaffney in charge

and we can all move to Bikini Atoll.

:nuke:

[bluestateguy]

3. The neo-cons have very little loyalty

There is little evidence to suggest that Bush himself was a loyal neo-con when he was setting up to run for president in 1999. It's not really clear that he even had a foreign policy ideology. In fact, the PNAC crowd and the neo-cons didn't particularly like Bush's father, who they regarded as more of a traditional Cold War "realist'. They were always mad at him for leaving Saddam in power in 1991.

They needed a president, and Bush Jr. needed some kind of foreign policy ideology. So they hooked up. But when Bush starts losing support st home and the Iraq war becomes an even bigger clusterfuck, then you'll start to see the neo-cons jumping off of the boat, as Frances Fukyama did recently.

[Jeffersons Ghost]

5. "jump off the boat"

reminds me of an old Navy expression: "You can tell the ship is sinking when the rats leave."

[atommom]

8. That's very true. It will be interesting to see how the rest of Bush's

presidency plays out, now that the neocons are getting vocal about their displeasure.

[sandnsea]

10. DU had it on the 11th

Posted a Washington Post article.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/11/AR2006021101112.html

Clinton and Menendez introduced legislation just a few days later. Please stop helping them spread their propaganda that the right is stronger on defense.

[atommom]

11. I don't see any of us saying that the right is stronger than defense.

Dems are speaking up too, though much of this controversy appears to be political posturing (on both sides).