Schwarzenegger seems confused

February 27, 2006

California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s Meet the Press appearance yesterday wasn’t terribly newsworthy, but there was one exchange that stood out, though not in a good way.

Tim Russert asked Schwarzenegger for his take on the controversy surrounding the Dubai Ports World contract. Schwarzenegger, after expressing relief that the deal does not include any California ports, explained his perspective a bit.

“[I]t’s a very complex issue, because, you know, we have the globalization, we want to do trades with everyone all over the world, but at the same time, globalization crosses with terrorism now, and there’s that whole fear. And then we have villainized the Arab world also so much that now Arab country — or company taking over our ports and maybe have some influence in our security, it freaks everyone out, and rightfully so.”

Maybe Schwarzenegger has taken a few communications hints from the president, because I’m really not following his thinking here. It sounded like Schwarzenegger disagrees with characterizing all Arabs as villains, while agreeing that the port deal should “freak everyone out.”

Russert didn’t ask for a clarification. Maybe he was lost, too.

Russert, and Schwarzenegger too for that matter, ran out of gas long, long ago.

  • And they were going to change the constitution so that this idiot could run the country come 2009. The whole lot of these repiglithans are a hoot. Makes me LOL. After being here for 30 years you would think that Arnold could learn some English, but then again after being born in Connecticut and growing up Texas, with that fake Texan accent, one wonders why the idiot-in-chief couldn’t learn English himself!

  • maybe I’m giving him too much credit but it sounds like Herr Gropinator is saying the following:

    We villianized Arab countries.
    Thus, Arabs may not like us.
    Thus, we shouldn’t want them to be in charge of port security.
    Given that they are in looking to be in charge of our port security, we should be worried.

    Perhaps I think he’s saying that because I tend to agree with that analysis. For the record, I think the problem stems from the first point, not the second point. And thus we should fix the first point and therefore not need to worry about the rest.

    What’s clear, though, is that Arnie missed the latest round of Rovian talking points. He should be talking about how great it is to have the UAE in charge of our ports.

  • So, how many port terminals in the UAE are operated by foreign companies? And are any foreign companies allowed to operate freely in the good old UAE?

  • Phil,

    I assume your question is rhetorical….but I’ll answer it anyway.

    How many port terminals in the UAE are operated by foreign companies? None

    Are any foreign companies allowed to operate freely in the good old UAE?
    “Only firms with an appropriate trade license can engage in importation, and only UAE nationals can obtain such a license (this licensing provision is not applicable to goods imported into free zones).”
    http://www.heritage.org/research/features/index/country.cfm?id=UnitedArabEmirates

  • Let me try again on the last answer. This is additional info that didn’t copy correctly, but comes from the heritage foundation’s site:
    Foreign investment in the UAE is restricted. “Except for companies located in one of the free zones,” reports the U.S. Trade Representative, “at least 51 percent of a business establishment must be owned by a UAE national.

  • “So, how many port terminals in the UAE are operated by foreign companies? And are any foreign companies allowed to operate freely in the good old UAE?”

    All our work in Iraq and Afghanistan would be logistically impossible with massive use of “good old UAE” ports, so save you sarcasm for something you know about.

  • I’m confused chefrad. Help clarify for me.

    Are you saying that you believe Phil was sarcastic in asking those questions and because the UAE allowed the US military to move equipment/personnel through its ports that he can’t be critical of a foreign government? or are you saying that because the UAE has been of assistance to the US military they deserve to be awarded the control of the ports in the US as a reward and that Phil shouldn’t be concerned about who the US allows to control the ports?

  • No Gridlock, “All our work in Iraq and Afghanistan would be logistically impossible withOUT massive use of “good old UAE” ports, so save you sarcasm for something you know about.” He forgot the “out” in without. But I think chefrad wants you to believe that all the work the US military is doing is considered free enterprise. He fails to recognize that free foreign, PRIVATE enterprise, with respect to operating port terminals, is restricted to UAE nationals. The sarcasm was necessary.

  • Sorry, it seems to me that I understand what the Governator was trying to say, and it seems like a non-issue to me. The way I translate this is, “We’re afraid of terrorists. We have demonized the entire Arab world as terrorists. So the *public response* to Arabs taking over our ports is understandable.”

    The tag “and rightfully so”, however, sounds like he’s saying, “I’m stupid, and I’ve bought into this idea too even though I know it was manufactured.” *That’s* the part that gets me.

    • Comments are closed.