AN ORGANIZED DISINFORMATION CAMPAIGN ON THE PORT DEAL

Monday, February 27, 2006
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton:

“Senator Menendez and I don’t think any foreign government company should be running our ports, managing, leasing, owning, operating. It just raises too many red flags. That is the nub of our complaints,” said Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., speaking via teleconference in response to Bush’s announcement.


As reported in USA Today, 80 percent of the terminals in the Port of Los Angeles are run by foreign firms. And the U.S. Department of Transportation says the United Kingdom, Denmark, Hong Kong, Japan, South Korea, Singapore, China and Taiwan have interests in U.S. port terminals. The blogger Sweetness and Light observed that the National Shipping Company of Saudi Arabia, which is partially owned by the government of Saudi Arabia as well as Saudi individuals and establishments, operates berths in the ports of Baltimore, Newport News, Houston, New Orleans, Savannah, Wilmington, N.C., Port Newark, New Jersey, and Brooklyn, New York. (The link has an inadvertently haunting photo, BTW.)

The argument from Democrats now that “foreigners” shouldn’t be operating U.S. ports is either protectionism, xenophobia, or both. And it is at least a decade late.



(jim geraghty at TKS. Read it all.)

11 comments:

Rick Ballard said...

If I look at this cute little map and read the accompanying article, I start to think of how important Turkmenistan and the UAE might be for our super duper extra special fireworks and light show in honor of the Revolutionary Guard.

Then I think of the probable briefing of the opposition party leadership and the very white faces that occurred immediately after that leadership heard about the plans for the special show.

Shoving wrenches into the spokes of a deal involving the UAE makes a bit of political sense if the UAE made approval of the port deal a precondition for use of their territory for planned festivities. The Dems sure don't want folks enjoying a demonstration of threat removal prior to November. Just wouldn't be helpful.

terrye said...

It seems the Demcorats are counting on ignorance once again to do for them what talent can not do.

So say Hillary gets her legislation passed. Considering the fact that we can't run our ports without these icky foreigners she is so eager to get ride of, just who is going to pick up the slack?

Cosa Nostra Ports?

Seneca the Younger said...

Oh, I don't think HRC wants the legislation to pass. They'll have the 45 day cooling offm, and by the time they're done, they can come back and talk about how the Republicans "gave away the ports."

Rick Ballard said...

Terrye,

When I look at it real hard, that explanation just doesn't hold up. The union will run the joint no matter who the owner is. It simply isn't what it seems and Bush's threat to use the veto - which he has yet to use at all - doesn't make sense either. Take a look at that map and the article - the Security Council is going to do something in early March. Bolton is there for a reason and this thing is going to be brought to a head.

I think that the worldwide consensus is that Iran is simply bad for business and needs to be "corrected". I would be totally unsurprised to see a commitment of Indian or Chinese troops involved in this. Bush's jaunt to India makes me wonder which one it will be.

Don't sell life insurance to any Iranian mullahs for less than a 100% of face value premium.

Skookumchuk said...

And the wondrous thing is that the National Shipping Company of Saudi Arabia, which is about one third owned by the Saudi government, began investing in US port operations some time ago.

Some time ago in an Administration previous to this one.

terrye said...

Rick:

I don't think very many people would lose sleep if that crazy man in Iran was gone and like you I think this might have something to do with it.

Sometimes I wonder if Bush is threatening the veto because he feels that the opposition is being obtuse and obstructionist for short term political gain.

This kind of thing can come back and bite them on the ass if folks start talking about the Chinese and Saudis getting port deals before Bush ever even came to town.

But truthfully, we have waited too long to try and change this quickly. It seems that Hillary is overlooking the fact that not one American firm put in a bid on this thing.

Seneca the Younger said...

The thing I think is chancy for HRC is just what Skook is talking about: the Clinton Administration allowed port rights to go to Saudi Arabian and Chinese companies. Is she betting that she'll get a few points and then this will go away?

Is she betting that the legacy media is in her pocket to such an extent that even if the SA and China deals are brought up, they won't be publicized widely?

(And if so, is she right?)

terrye said...

seneca:

She might be. But whoever is running against her will no doubt bring it up.

I can see the ads now.

Could it be she does not know the extent of these deals?

Skookumchuk said...

terrye:

Could it be she does not know the extent of these deals?

That's a good point. I think this whole globalization thing, like the internet thing, has just passed some people by.

Syl said...

I just heard Carl Levin on Lou Dobbs and they're both doing the disinformation thing. Together. In unison.

The scary thing to me is that the Dems may end up winning in November because of this issue.

(1)Even if the deal still goes through, they will claim some modifications that make it 'ok' and

(2)I don't see the normal hysteria from their side when they think they have a winning issue and run off at the mouth. This is more subtle because to demagogue would exhibit Islamophobia and they don't want to be shown going there.

So the Reps can't reap the benefits of the eye-rolling reaction to 'there they go again' lefty hysterics.

What really gets my goat is the knee-jerk initial reaction some Reps had. Malkin had a real lefty-reaction-type hissy fit. And it doesn't benefit Reps even if they change their minds (thus showing good sense and the capability to re-think once facts are known) because Dems will never acknowledge that. They just claim: 'See! Reps were against this too!'

terrye said...

Syl:

It should be be a rule: If you are a Republican and you see Hillary Clinton and Chuck Shumer get in front of a camera and a mike and start running off at the mouth...beware. These people are not your friends.'

It is hard to say what will effect the election in November, that is several months away and a lot can happen in that time.

The probem for the Democrats will be after blowing off, what are they going to do? I mean what ally will get the knife in the back next if they are to keep this going?

I have not watched TV news in about a week. I had enough when we went through the whole Cheney shoots lawyer insanity and now I just can not bring myself to listen to the pompous blowhards.