The backlash against the incompetent and cavalier manner in which the Bush Administration has handled the DPW port sale imbroglio has spawned its very own hysterical opposition – much of it from those who should know better. And I can assure these holier than thou hysterics that the way to make friends and influence people is not by calling them bigots or questioning their patriotism.
I don’t like waking up in the morning and discovering that I’m an “Islamaphobe” or “Un-American” for calling the Administration a bunch of rabbit heads for the way they’ve managed the unveiling of this idiocy. To tell you the truth, I resent it. It bespeaks a certain kind of intellectual laziness when the best one can do to counter an argument is to indulge in an orgy of name calling and finger pointing. Better to have the facts at one’s disposal and try and counter an opponent’s argument in a logical and rational manner.
The funny thing is, no one is disputing the basic facts that the Administration is using to justify the sale. Nobody is claiming the DPW isn’t competent enough to handle the management of the six ports in question. No one is arguing that the UAE isn’t a friend of the United States. Nobody is making any grandiose claims that our security will be compromised although dismissing security concerns out of hand reminds me of a pre-9/11 outlook on defending the homeland more worthy of the mindless mouthings of the John Kerry’s of the world. Nobody is saying that the deal doesn’t make good business sense.
What those of us who oppose this deal are criticizing is the way in which the decision was reached in the first place and that the decision has to be looked at in the much broader context of the cavalier way in which this Administration has handled some – not all – key homeland security issues that call into question whether or not we are doing all that is humanly possible to prevent a repeat of 9/11.
September 11, 2001 is the elephant in the room that refuses to get up and leave. The left has tried to sweep that date from the historical record because it disadvantages them politically. The date reminds voters (and they need little or no help from the Administration to have their memories jogged) that there is a difference in the way the two parties have responded to the challenges posed by the attacks on America: One party has responded by taking down two murderous thugocracies, pursuing the perpetrators of 9/11 all over the planet, attacking their financial infrastructure, and generally making life miserable for terrorists everywhere – even in this country.
The other party has whined incessantly about the Administration using the attacks to gain a political advantage and resurrect the Third Reich . Outside of that, there have been no concrete proposals for fighting terrorists save arresting them after they’ve committed a crime. The unspoken denouement to that little scenario is, of course, lots of dead voters which may explain why the majority of Americans trust the left with our national security just about as far as they can throw that elephant in the room.
But some of the critiques on homeland security from the left have been spot on. And one of their more prescient arguments is that our ports are wide open to attack because the Administration has failed to adequately plan and fund a comprehensive security program that would inspect more than the 10% of the 9 million containers that arrive by ship in this country every year as we do currently.
Yes, much has been done especially in upgrading our capability to detect nuclear materials and some bio threats. And we have also done much in concert with our trading partners to increase security generally at ports around the world. But more than 4 years after that awful September day, the Republican Congress and Administration have failed to give our ports the attention they deserve and have left us vulnerable to the kind of WMD attack that would make 9/11 seem mild by comparison.
And lets not even get started on illegal immigration. The attitude of the Administration and many in Congress toward the flood of lawbreakers who cross our borders with impunity is maddening. It isn’t just the illegals themselves. The megatonnage of drugs that cross our borders every year could someday be matched by a similar megatonnage in a nuclear blast effect given the ease with which both drug dealers and terrorists can enter the United States.
That’s why this argument is not taking place in a vacuum. And to accuse those of us who see this deal as one more piece of evidence that the Bush Administration is not doing enough to protect the homeland of ethnic hatred or betraying the “values” of America is pure bunk.
Is Michael Ledeen an Islamophobe:
This is the foreign-policy equivalent of the Harriet Meiers nomination to the Supreme Court, isn’t it? Just as her wit and wisdom were beside the point, so Homeland Security’s careful negotiations with the new owners have nothing to do with the main issue, which is that only a tone-deaf bureaucrat would turn over the operation of our ports to a company from Dubai. Not only does it add new security burdens to an agency already overwhelmed by its impossible mission, but it puts one of Iran’s closest partners in a most sensitive position inside the United States. As I’ve had occasion to note over the past few years, Dubai is home to billions of mullahdollars, and the black market through which all manner of illegal arms shipments and money-being-laundered have passed. I’m sure it will have the same outcome as the Meiers fiasco. Faster, please.
As I mentioned briefly in my post yesterday, Dubai has been a major financier in the export of the Saudi brand of Wahhabist Islamism to the west.
Alex Alexiev:
From the very beginning in the 1970s, the UAE has been a key source of financial support for Saudi-controlled organizations like the Islamic Solidarity Fund, the Islamic Development Bank (IDB), World Council of Mosques, and the Muslim World League (MWL) as documented in The Muslim World League Journal, an English-language monthly. The IDB alone, for instance, spent $10 billion between 1977 and 1990 for “Islamic activities†and at least $1 billion more recently to support terrorist activities by the Palestinian Al Aqsa and Intifada Funds.One of the most successful Islamist operations in the U.S. early on involved the Wahhabi ideological takeover of the Nation of Islam after the death of its founder Elijah Muhammad. Of the $4.8 million “presented†to W. D. Muhammad, Elijah’s son and successor, in 1980 alone, one million came from UAE’s president Sheikh Zayad, according to the August 1980 issue of the MWL Journal.
Why is this important? Could it be because DPW is a state owned company? I am puzzled when I read the argument made by those who downplay the security angle to this deal that other countries have terrorists operating inside their borders but we don’t penalize them for it.
“Much of the operational planning for the World Trade Center attacks took place inside the UAE.†Well, the Hamburg cell planned a lot in Germany. Are we to distrust German companies? Does this fact outweigh the fact that our military leaders credit the UAE for cooperation and help in the war on terror, and call them “very, very solid partners� Do we suspect that Donald Rumsfeld and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Peter Pace are lying, and putting American lives at risk because they really want to see this deal go through?
First, German companies are not under the thumb of their government like DPW is with Dubai which is ruled by a Medieval autocrat named Sheik Mohammed bin Rashid al Maktoum. Sheik Mo rules the Rhode Island sized city-state with a combination of “hail fellow well met” casualness and a draconian application of Middle Eastern thuggery. His cronies and, more importantly, his family owns and operate all major businesses including most of the locally owned banks that coincidentally handled much of the financial arrangements for the 9/11 hijackers. To this day, those banks are conduits for terrorist financing. Also, it has been charged but never confirmed that Sheik Mo participated in one or more of those famous “hunting trips” with Osama Bin Laden and Mullah Omar prior to 9/11.
What we do know is that the Sheik bankrolls the “hate the west” religious instruction taught in the Madrasses set up by the Wahhabi sect all over the world, including America. For that reason alone, the state owned DPW should be denied the contract.
But Geraghty brings up a good point about Rummy and Pace. Of course they don’t want to put American lives at risk. But perhaps Geraghty would like to explain why those two esteemed gentlemen were never briefed prior to the CFIUS Committee giving the go ahead on this deal.
While he’s at it, maybe he could include an explanation as to why President Bush himself was kept out of the loop.
This is the point of my critique. I asked yesterday, “How could DPW being in charge of the management of our ports facilitate a terrorist attack on the United States? Do you want to find out?”
It’s never been my contention that this deal is bad on its face. The problem I have with it has been that in the Age of Terror, from the bureaucrats who sit on the CFIUS all the way up to the President himself, there have been several blind spots relating to our security. By not engaging the President, the Secretary of Defense, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff at the outset on this issue, it is one more indication to me that there is too much business as usual, too much bureaucratic inertia that makes it appear that too many in the Administration take our security for granted.
In short, I just don’t trust them.
UPDATE
After having her site criminally hacked and put out of commission, Michelle Malkin is back this afternoon – with a vengeance.
Malkin’s post starts much as mine did – castigating the tone and language of supporters of this deal. She then rips their arguments to shreds with devastating clarity and without calling them nasty names:
Many retreating politicians, pundits, and bloggers are all too eager to overlook the dubious business-as-usual approval process that supposedly vetted the deal’s risks thoroughly. The supporters of, and retreaters on, the deal are also silent about the unprecedented, Islamic law-compliant funding scheme that allowed state-owned Dubai Ports World to force its more experienced rival to drop its bid for P&O. (The underwriters of Dubai Ports World’s $3.5 billion Islamic financing instrument called a “sukuk”—Barclay’s and Dubai Islamic Bank—were both cited as probable conduits for bin Laden money.)
Read the whole thing.
10:46 am
Ports Plan Critics Pile On Bush Administration Amid Some Softening Signs (UPDATED)
It’s almost like a classic football play, where players are piled high on top of another player. The steady drumbeat of…
11:28 am
Rick:
I do not know if it is a lack of trust, a lack of due dilligence, or just a lack of communication that is at play here. I tend to believe the latter.
There may have been a comprehensive multi-agency vetting process that preceded the decision to allow the control of these port’s management to proceed. But, as with a myriad of other situations, the administration has been caught left-footed in explaining its position to the American public.
Could this ultimately be a tempest in a teapot? Possibly. But in one very real sense, the adminsitration needs to pull itself out of its lethargy and get out front in these issues. Their communications strategies are abysmal.
Years ago in a discussion with my father-in-law, who made a name for himself in the auto repair business, he bemoaned the fact that so many automobiles on the roads in America today were of foreign make. I remember telling him at the time that America could be making the best cars in the world but who would believe them. Today, with the current administration, the same can be said. They may very well be doing the absolute best that can be done, but who would believe them.
12:30 pm
Bacon Break — Heavenly Harbors
image
So, what to think about the whole Dubai/UAE thing?
Rick Moran is flamin’ (at the idiocy of the Bush administration… and the backlash against the backlash)…
Don Surber says he’s chillin’…
Dafydd is compromisin’…...
1:06 pm
Rick:
Thanks for the nice article spelling out some of the issues so even I could get them. It is easy to agree with everything you said.
But, have you considered that the UAE company, and thus their government, will have access to all sorts of port data. Origin/destination, tonnage, crew information, and other information about every ship. The port operators must be included in emergency plans, the legally required records will be kept in UAE, not in the USA where a court order would allow an FBI raid and confistication. Also, with state-of-the art world wide communications capability, might they also have listening capabilities too? I can see many risks and dangers in the ports deal but I fail to see one advantage.
The President’s staff did not serve him well in keeping all the port deal information from him until after it broke in the press. Time for some personnel changes in the White House?
1:09 pm
“It’s never been my contention that this deal is bad on its face. The problem I have with it has been that in the Age of Terror, from the bureaucrats who sit on the CFIUS all the way up to the President himself, there have been several blind spots relating to our security.”
work in the maritime industry and some people actually consider me an expert. This whole firestorm is tough to write a written response to because to explain why deals like this are good, as it may actually risk anti-terror programs that the Government is undertaking. That has now happened in this deal.
The press has reported that the company had made a secret deal with the US concerning cooperation. This secret has now been made public in an attempt to keep the deal. Who knows what other secret agreements were made giving the US access to all sorts of information. Nobody ever bothered to sit back and think what the US was getting out of this deal.
Cargo does not only travel to and from US ports but between ports all around the world, with the cargo never reaching the US. The US would probably love to know what is being shipped to and from other countries, like wmd. So how can they gain access to that information?
As I posted to my blog, their are Saudi ships calling US ports. That hands down is a bigger threat than this deal. For that matter, this port operator has been loading cargo onto ships headed to the US for years. US Customs is also stationed at many of these ports checking the cargo as it is loaded.
Congress has ignored port security for years. They can’t even implement a “Transportation Worker Identity Card” (TWIC) to issue workers in ports (and AIRPORTS) standard Identity documents in order to control access to secure areas. This is a much bigger threat than who operates the ports. This is the heart of controlling access. And this program is not functioning. Where’s congress concerning this program?
Even the issue of uninspected containers is blown out of proportion. Inspecting all of the containers is a waste. The #1 shipper across the Atlantic to the US is Heineken. The transport chain for them is known, SO those get inspected last. and they work from there figuring out what to inspect…..
—-
“I don’t like waking up in the morning and discovering that I’m an “Islamaphobe†or “Un-American†for calling the Administration a bunch of rabbit heads for the way they’ve managed the unveiling of this idiocy. To tell you the truth, I resent it.”
I for one think your a great guy! I think your wrong in this issue, but unlike many, you can explain why you think this is wrong, which is a required basis in order to have a debate about anything.
1:33 pm
The NRO online analysis you quote is insightful, but only part of the story. I have posted here http://ladyheatherofsuburbia.blogspot.com/
on the issue and Jaguar at http://www.barking-moonbat.com/ has an excellent post on the subject. I suggest you are wrong. I do not impugn your motives. Look more carefully at exactly what the lease involves. It is basically a stevedore contract. World Ports actually stipulated to upgrade security in its operations. Port security itself is the responsibility of the Coast Guard and Customs.
Now, would I give this contract to Libya, or Cuba? ROTFLMAO
1:35 pm
BTW, the Bush administration made a complete bollocks of the PR in this matter. Really Bush league. Sorry about the pun – I like George.
1:38 pm
None of the information they will have could not be obtained for a lot less than billions of dollars. Any Longshoreman would volunteer it if he were assured it would damage Bush.
Besides, if they own it they may be less likely to break it.
8:36 pm
PORTGATE AND THE RUBBER-STAMPERS
After a rather rude (and criminal) disruption, I’m back. Let’s return to the ports, shall we? Lesson One of Portgate: Scream “Islamophobia/xenophobia” often enough, and people will start to back down. Lesson Two of Portgate: Mislead and mischaracte…
10:10 pm
This has nothing to do with Bush, really. I just think this deal is a 100% great deal for the United States. Zero downside whatsoever. Especially security-wise.
11:56 pm
Standing Firm on Port Sale
As I posted earlier, I have serious concerns regarding the sale of certain operations of six of our major U.S. ports to DP World. There’s been quite a blogswarm of criticism directed toward those who haven’t immediately retreated from their staunch o…
11:34 am
[...] Rick Moran is, like Michelle, really angry and resolute, still. [...]
1:02 pm
Rick,
the fact is if you take the arab ownership out of the equation you would not be so worried.
Arab does not equal Al Qaeda, or even Al Qaeda leaning.
There is no getting around this fact about your side of the debate.
You and Michelle are afraid to take the risk of trusting an Arab owned company. Don’t get on Bush’s case or anyone else’s because we cannot share your fear. Bush did not expect a large sector of America to lash out against this deal because Arabs were involved.
Don’t kid yourself or us. Since the status quo of a British Company is not an issue it is therefore the Arab ownership. Bush believed we were beyond this visceral, emotional reaction to an unspecified fear.
You may not feel comfortable about how we see this issue, but no one made you react the way you did. Fear did that.
I am afraid your side has gone where too many of us, who stood side-by-side with you, cannot go now. That is not our fault that we resist your choice, and are somewhat taken aback and repulsed by it. Maybe that is not a sign of how awful we are, possibly?
It has been a pleasure blogging with you over the last months. I fear this issue has created a divide too deep to cross for a lot of us. Good luck on the path you have chosen.
1:19 pm
[...] These bloggers admit the key element in the Port debate is Arab ownership of the company. When on the other side, my side, of the debate illustrate how the rationales to stop the deal make the UK and Germany look equally as good (to show where The UAE fits in the bigger world picture of allies and foes) – we come back to Arab ownership. People have made it clear, if not for Arabs in the mix there would be no problem. Unfortunately, lashing out at a people because of the acts of a few who share tenuous ties to the broader group is a place I cannot go. I wrote this to Rick Moran, who I admire greatly, on his post where he lashed out at those of us who have been somewhat repulsed by the backlash against The UAE and Bush. It applies to all the people I had the pleasure to get to know in this wonderful world of blogging, but who now stand in a place alien to me. So I decided to re-post my comment (#13 at Rick’s site) for all: Rick, [...]
2:25 pm
Dubai Ports – The Bigger Picture
I believe, that Saudi Arabia’s political situation defines that of the 7 Emirates and their present rulers on a daily basis, and as such, impacts directly on the security risk analysis of DP World’s acquisition of P
2:26 pm
[...] Other righties are struggling to justify the UAE deal against years of Bushie conditioning. Some columnists at FrontPage note that the UAE has close ties to Hamas. And Rich Moran of Right Wing Nut House complains, I don’t like waking up in the morning and discovering that I’m an “Islamaphobe†or “Un-American†for calling the Administration a bunch of rabbit heads for the way they’ve managed the unveiling of this idiocy. To tell you the truth, I resent it. It bespeaks a certain kind of intellectual laziness when the best one can do to counter an argument is to indulge in an orgy of name calling and finger pointing. Better to have the facts at one’s disposal and try and counter an opponent’s argument in a logical and rational manner. [...]
2:40 pm
More Port “Absurdity” III
On the so-called “Port Scandal”, here are some facts:
4:02 pm
For you folks who don’t like the port deal then prove these “probable conduits” exist between OBL and the Dubai Islamic Bank – enough “supposition”, “probability”, and “alleged” impropriety on behalf of the UAE. You know, on behalf of a REFORMED UAE.
So what if OBL had an account with DIB. Do you think Osama walked into DIB setup an account in person and then announced he not only wanted free checking but a debit card? The KKK, Black Panthers, Latino-based gangs and other notorious entities have patronized the American banking system. Should we close down all those banks/financial institutions for their “purported†connections to domestic terrorists?
I mean, you anti-port people lump the pro-port name-callers in with the pro-port non-name-callers and then proceed to castigate all of us. But, yet you’ll ignore those anti-Port people who hurl insults at George Bush. It’s flat out hypocrisy.
Sensitive information and management plans pertaining to Port operations will be in the hands of those on a need to know basis. There are thousands of Arab men and women who currently perform on DoD, CIVIL, Treasury, U.S, Mint and/or other Government vehicles, some requiring a TSC-w/poly badge. Only people who have the right clearance will gain access to that classified material. I doubt Michelle Malkin ever had a SSBI or had to fill out an SF-86 so what does she know about NTK solicitation requirements. That alone destroyed the BASE of her argument.
This country, UAE, has made strides to shed their sketchy past, and this is how we reward them? Don’t bash Bush because you anti-Port people became brainwashed during eight years of Clinton where there was no delegation. Bush actually makes people work, and he expects them to be accountable for their business decisions. No one ever thinks to blame Congress.
If you really wanted a conservative solution, it would be to disband CFIUS – heck, why not dismantle HUD and Education while you’re at it. I didn’t see them mentioned anywhere in the Federalist Papers as a Govie role. So much of what Malkin bashes actually affords her the lifestyle she enjoys in southern Maryland just like me in northern Virginia: the bureaucracies in Washington. The issue isn’t with Bush in this port deal; it’s with bureaucratic organizations that spend their entire budget in order to be funded for their next fiscal year. They’re all about keeping the status quo, thereby preserving their existence.
This in no way excuses national security risks. It really highlights the flawed tactics of Bush-bashing-anti-Port “conservatives†who are seeing the trees for the forest. As much as you try to spin this story, the fact remains: you are painting, in a non-racist way, individual Arabs with one broad brush and stroke. You made your bed, don’t be bitter when you have to sleep in it.
4:38 pm
[...] In other words, the White House’s “admission” that President Bush was unaware that Dubai Ports World, a company based in the United Arab Emirates, had purchased Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co., a company based in Britain — and thereby obtained management control of the business operations of six U.S. ports — strikes us as completely unnecessary. Why should the president know? Twelve government departments and agencies, including the departments of Treasury, State, Defense and Homeland Security, had examined the deal over a three-month period and found it acceptable. Perhaps the White House should have anticipated this week’s political storm and prepared for it. But because the objections are irrational, even that complaint is questionable. On the other side of the coin, Rick Moran is upset about the tone of the deal’s supporters: I don’t like waking up in the morning and discovering that I’m an “Islamaphobe†or “Un-American†for calling the Administration a bunch of rabbit heads for the way they’ve managed the unveiling of this idiocy. To tell you the truth, I resent it. It bespeaks a certain kind of intellectual laziness when the best one can do to counter an argument is to indulge in an orgy of name calling and finger pointing. Better to have the facts at one’s disposal and try and counter an opponent’s argument in a logical and rational manner. Well, agreed…and for the record, I DID state (and do believe) that there is some racism involved in SOME of the opposition to the port deal. I certainly hope I never implied that that was the case for everyone’s opposition…there are principled arguments that can be made on both sides of the issue. [...]
9:24 pm
RV Poll #6 – Do you believe the U.S. should have approved the UAE port deal?
Finally, our polls are back after a long hiatus. We took them down due to being too busy over the holidays – - then after that, we upgraded our blogging platform and the polls application that we were using wasn’t compatible and it’s taken…
6:24 am
Upon Further Review
....I am still not convinced about the efficacy of the Bush Administration’s jack-in-the-box-like ports deal with Dubai Ports World (a United Arab Emirates company™).
This comes a little later than “tomorrow,” but I won’t be able to sleep (a…
11:34 pm
let’s face it, NOWHERE has anyone just boiled it down to what it really is, we have economic issues on one side, security/soverignty issues on the other. the bush administration would sell their collective mother’s for a penny of profit, they ( big business open borders types ) will always sluff off security concerns, if there is money to be diverted to quasi-government companies. that is all there is to it. the past 6 years of bush’s attitude towards illegal immigration is proof enough of his disregard for security and soverignty of the United States. the port deal is all about putting money for a wealthy few over the security of the U.S.
1:25 pm
It’s funny, at the Iraq war’s beginning, people like me who were very much against it had to suffer the label of ‘Un-American’ and things of that sort. It was as if not wanting the same things as the Bush White House or wanting to get to those places using a different method made you anti-American and an anti-freedom idiot.
Welcome to our world.