Bush [hearts] Dubai

Just Wondering ....

Hooray! Oh wait...

Your friend and mine Lileks. And an interesting little anecdote from Dreher.

What will be the negative propaganda ramifications of saying that foreign capital can own companies with security implications for the U.S., provided that they're not Arabs?

bush <3 dubai

I'm on the fence with this one. Yes, they have used the old fear card in the grand American tradition - foreigners, anarchists, reds, commies, etc..., but I think for a relatively unsophisticated (read 'dumb') administration, they've been pretty consistent about saying this is not a war on Islam or on Arabs but on terrorists. Inasmuch as being openly racist about capital ownership in the U.S. specifically targets Arabs, it makes for bad press.

It worries me that Democrats, in our hatred often as irrational as the Republicans hatred of Clinton was, miss the Libby story for the shotgun one, and will miss the story about corporate ownership and concomittant lax security (i.e. for commercial reasons) for a misguided opportunity (in concurrence with 'conservatives' of the most xenophobic stripe) to kick Bushco in the nuts.

Thus, though, my 'implicitly' comment -- I think that without actually saying it, they've been at the least extremely unwilling to tackle those expressions of virulent xenophobic hatred one can all too readily encounter. All I've ever noticed are a couple of photo ops.

Dubai, 24 January 2006: - Global ports operator DP World today welcomed news that one of its senior executives, Dave Sanborn, has been nominated by US President George W. Bush to serve as Maritime Administrator a key transportation appointment reporting directly to Norman Mineta the Secretary of Transportation and Cabinet Member.

The White House has issued a statement from Washington DC announcing the nomination. The confirmation process will begin in February.

Mr Sanborn currently holds the position of Director of Operations for Europe and Latin America for the Dubai-based company

Mohammed Sharaf, CEO, DP World said:
“While we are sorry to lose such an experienced and capable executive, it is exactly those qualities that will make Dave an effective administrator for MarAd. We are proud of Dave’s selection and pleased that the Bush Administration found such a capable executive. We wish him all the best in his new role.”

Ted Bilkey, Chief Operating Officer, DP World said:
“Dave’s decades of experience in markets around the world, together with his passion for the industry and commitment to its development, will allow him to make a positive contribution to the work of the Maritime Administration. We wish him well for the future.”

Mr Sanborn, a graduate of The United States Merchant Maritime Academy, joined DP World in 2005. He previously held senior roles with shipping lines CMA-CGM (Americas), APL Ltd and Sea-Land and has been based, besides the US, in Brazil, Europe, Hong Kong and Dubai during his career. He has also served in the US Naval Reserve.

Mr Sanborn is due to take up his new role based in Washington DC later in 2006.

And yet the reaction isn't.

(Nice nepotism find, stencil!)

Otoh, it will be interesting to see what a Bush veto looks like.

As far as I can see they are far more dedicated to playing themselves in this case than being played.

Ethan is unsurprisingly quite correct.

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.

Hmmm.

hrm, any issue?

If they are smart they should be able to convey that Bush's allegiance to humongo-corporate interests trumps his commitment to national security (and with the issue of globalization and the outsourcing of America's own security as an icing on the cake).

but that's the thing, in this case there's no real reason to suspect that this deal has much, if anything, to do with "national security," given the details.

I think the average man on the street would see it a little differently. Republicans from Gov. Pataki on up to Frist have immediately read the tea leaves on this one, which is why they've been willing to split the party by digging in their heels against Bush's line. I don't think the Dems should do anything to make it easier on them.

"We think that kneejerk xenophobia is deplorable. We want to take some time to look this deal over and if it's as unobjectionable as the presdient says it is we won't object to it, but we do feel that the security of our ports is at risk, has been at risk for some time, that the Admisitration knows and has known about it and just as they failed to act on intelligence in the summer of 2001, they're failing here and we want to know why. Are their corporate contributors pressing them to compromise national security for their own narrow interests?

If Bush was running for re-election, there would be a decent argument for replacing Cheney.

barring some sort of spiro agnew action (which of course could happen, maybe), they're not dumping cheney.

As it stands, I was thinking that whoever has to run for the GOP in 2008 surely has to run implicitly, if not explicitly, *against* Bush and whatever legacy there is. Which will be interesting.

there is a real bind cuz bushco loyalists are a bigger demo in the party than prolifers even and yet overall the guy is an anchor - none of frist's distancing moves seems to have won him points (except the ability to say 'i disagreed with president about that' in general debate come 08 should it come to that which it won't). throw in immigration (which depressingly is really gaining steam) and the real wedge seems to be between rove and alot of the party base.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060228/ts_nm/security_ports_frist_dc

In fact, even when MP recalculates the CBS job approval results for the most recent survey using the average party composition reported on their last three surveys (33% Democrat, 28% Republican, 39% independent or other), the Bush approval percentage still rounds to 34%. The reason is that my recalculation just increases the number of independents at the expense of Democrats. However, Bush's rating is now so low among both subgroups as measured by CBS that the adjustment makes little difference.

Efforts by the White House to hold off legislation challenging a Dubai-owned company's acquisition of operations at six major U.S. ports collapsed yesterday when House Republican leaders agreed to allow a vote next week that could kill the deal.

Appropriations Committee Chairman Jerry Lewis (R-Calif.) will attach legislation to block the deal today to a must-pass emergency spending bill funding the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. A House vote on the measure next week will set up a direct confrontation with President Bush, who sternly vowed to veto any bill delaying or stopping Dubai Ports World's purchase of London-based Peninsular & Oriental Steamship Co.

Hmmm. No wonder Bush is all of a sudden interested in line-item vetos. ;-)

In an election-year repudiation of President Bush, a House panel dominated by Republicans voted overwhelmingly Wednesday to block a Dubai-owned firm from taking control of some U.S port operations. Democrats clamored for a vote in the Senate, too.

By 62-2, the House Appropriations Committee voted to bar DP World, run by the government of Dubai in the United Arab Emirates, from holding leases or contracts at U.S. ports.

Bush has promised to veto any such measure passed by Congress, but there is widespread public opposition to the deal and the GOP fears losing its advantage on the issue of national security in this fall's elections.

About the only thing going for Bush is that even on most days of the week he comes across as saner than the likes of Duncan Hunter, but they're the ones currently riding high. This is going to be a debacle of huge proportions for Bush if he stands his ground.

My simple complaint is that Bush stinks at defending his own policies, and I've grown weary of doing it for him.

The United Arab Emirates company that was attempting to take over management operations at six U.S. ports announced today that it will divest itself of all American interests.

The announcement appears to head off a major confrontation that was brewing between Congress and the Bush administration over the controversial deal.

Sen. John Warner (R-Va.) announced on the Senate floor shortly before 2 p.m. that Dubai Ports World would "transfer fully the operations of U.S. ports to a U.S. entity." Warner, who had been trying to broker a compromise on the issue, said DP World would divest itself of U.S. interests "in an orderly fashion" so as not to suffer "economic loss."

It was not immediately clear how the divesture would be handled or what U.S. company would take over the operation.

In softening the White House's previous stand, presidential spokesman Scott McClellan said, "Our emphasis is not on trying to draw lines or issue veto threats. It's on how we can work together and move forward."

Of course.

http://www.aaiusa.org/polls/ArabAttitudes2005.htm

BUSH: Thank you very much.

Jerry likes to give a short introduction.

(LAUGHTER)

I appreciate you letting me come by to visit with you some. And I look forward to answering some questions you might have. You can't come to a newspaper deal without deal without answering questions.

Probably not many, but at least we are a democracy, so when our government has dealings with UAE we at least have the illusion of having been consulted. The point is that what Bush calls "cooperating with moderate allies" is often part of the very problem that makes the US is so unpopular over there. US approval ratings are often lowest in the authoritarian, undemocratic Arab states in which the US supposedly has good relations with the government. The fact that we collaborate with repressive regimes does not really work in our long-term favor in building bridges with the Arab world.

Democracy has the capacity to turn enemies into allies; to cause, kind of, warring factions to come together.

*sigh*

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/12/world/middleeast/12dubai.html?_r=2&hp

Excellent article on plummeting economy in Dubai.
The catch here is that when you owe debt there, you don't just get bad credit, you go to "debtor's prison".
Neighboring emirite apparently knew Dubai was a Walmart Creepshow all along.

gah!

Now, many expatriates here talk about Dubai as though it were a con game all along. Lurid rumors spread quickly: the Palm Jumeira, an artificial island that is one of this city’s trademark developments, is said to be sinking, and when you turn the faucets in the hotels built atop it, only cockroaches come out.

this dubai is kinda awesome in theory - abandoned skyscrapers, sinking islands, violent gangs of foreigners roaming around...

“Why is Abu Dhabi allowing its neighbor to have its international reputation trashed, when it could bail out Dubai’s banks and restore confidence?” said Christopher M. Davidson, who predicted the current crisis in “Dubai: The Vulnerability of Success,” a book published last year. “Perhaps the plan is to centralize the U.A.E.” under Abu Dhabi’s control, he mused, in a move that would sharply curtail Dubai’s independence and perhaps change its signature freewheeling style.

sonned by an abu dhabi in a bubble economy city beef.

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/the-dark-side-of-dubai-1664368.html