Wednesday, March 08, 2006
Dubai Ports deal
Subjected to intense scrutiny, I would be very surprised if any evidence might be discovered which would legitimately lead one to conclude that our ports would be any less safe under DP ownership. There is only one reason to use government authority to block the deal. Fear. Arising from chauvinism and anti-Arabism.
Fear. That is driving Democrats and Republicans to kill this deal. Political fear and real, emotional fear. It leads to things like internment too. Fear and chauvinism is bipartisan folks. This is a sign of it. It ain't right.
8 Comments:
By 
Gordon Smith, at
Wed Mar 08, 07:21:00 PM:
I would be very surprised if you ever expressed an opinion that wasn't in complete lockstep with George W. Bush.
By Cardinalpark, at
Wed Mar 08, 08:06:00 PM:
maybe cause we're both mba's....
By Jimmy K., at
Wed Mar 08, 09:31:00 PM:
Let's say your next door neighbor had two daughters. Both attended Muslim schools and Mosques in Dubai. One of the daughters killed a Christian by ramming them with a car and then said it was for her Moslem faith. Would you let the other daughter baby sit for you? Guilt by association. Yep and rightly so.
By Dan Kauffman, at
Thu Mar 09, 01:18:00 AM:
Guilt by association. Yep and rightly so.
___________________________________
I Listened the other night to Tommy Franks, the Uh CINC of the Liberation of Iraq.
Figured HE might have some knowledge of what is and is not a "Security Risk"
Yah TNINK?
He brought up an interesting point, our Naval shipping in the Region and our Supplies for the Troops in Iraq and elsewhere go throught the Port of Dubai,
Uh Run by guess who?
And here I thought Neo-Cons were the only ones who are supposed to be Islamophobic bigots.
Oh wait a minute it is only our ALLIES that the Democrats get worried about the others?
The ones trying to kill our troops blow up babies and such?
Why they are Freedom Fighters aren't they?
By Catchy Pseudonym, at
Thu Mar 09, 08:59:00 AM:
I find myself, and it makes me feel dirty, agreeing with the president on this one. I need to go take a shower.
By Cassandra, at
Thu Mar 09, 12:18:00 PM:
Oh but you see the smart smart people in Congress know that we will all be COMPLETELY safe if Singapore is running our ports instead of the UAE (which is the Arab nation that has granted us access to their ports and the one that allows more US Navy ships in than any other - how in the heck do you think we get our guys over there in the first place...or back home for that matter?).
****************
Because as smart folks like Senator Hils Clinton will be the first to tell you, there are no Muslim terrorist in Singapore
The preceding public service announcement has been paid for by the friendly folks at al Qaeda.
By Dawnfire82, at
Thu Mar 09, 12:55:00 PM:
It's one thing to have military equipment and personnel (which are quite capable of taking care of themselves) handled by foreigners in a foreign port while in transit, and another to have a foreign state run your port.
So the Dubai military shipping that the General was referring to are handled by natives hmm? And not by us? I wonder why it's such a terrible idea for us to do the same here, then...
I'd also like to reiterate (because no one ever brings it up) that the UAE company in question is state owned. Probably why the president wants this deal to succeed, as a way of rewarding the UAE for their helpfulness. But I think turning over something as important as major port operations to a foreign nation (not just company... nation) is not very smart on any level.
By Cardinalpark, at
Thu Mar 09, 01:57:00 PM:
I think nothwithstanding everybody's fuzzy comments, the point in the post isn't far wrong. The desire to block the deal is driven by fear, not by anything factual or evidence-driven. It's pure bias.
The guilt by association comment is remarkably off base, in that the UAE has been an ally of ours in the Iraq War.
Most people who read CP commentary on this blog will understand that on matters of war, I am a hardass. And I have no sympathy for Islamists. I want us to find and improsin or kill each one. And I am a fan of GITMO.
But that is prosecution of war. We cannot, it seems to me, stop commerce between the US and the Middle East, especially with our allies and trading partners, without excellent, fact-driven reason. We don't preclude Suadi Arabia from flying planes into the country. We don't preclude a Saudi prince from being the largest owner of our largest bank. And we shouldn't, absent going to war with Saudi Arabia.
I am not saying this deal won't be stopped by the way. It makes sense for both parties to vote to block the deal. They will compete with each other to bloviate on security.
That doesn't make it right. It makes it convenient in the politics of the moment. Many other more nefarious things extend from actions of this type. Should we block a Muslim American of Arab descent from owning a security company? Or working for the TSA?
The point of my post was that the only reason to block this deal -- absent some evidence of wrongdoing or incompetent port management by DPW -- is fear. And that this type of arbitrary action highlights the risk of other more significant violations which could be rationalized by the same fear.
