As is often the case, the Wall Street Journal editorial board delves beyond the headline hysteria.
Yes, some of the 9/11 hijackers were UAE citizens. But then the London subway bombings last year were perpetrated by citizens of Britain, home to the company (P&O) that currently manages the ports that Dubai Ports World would take over...And, as is typical for Washington, there's a bit of local politics and protectionism involved.Besides, the notion that the Bush Administration is farming out port "security" to hostile Arab nations is alarmist nonsense. Dubai Ports World would be managing the commercial activities of these U.S. ports, not securing them. There's a difference. Port security falls to Coast Guard and U.S. Customs officials.
The timing of this sudden uproar is also a tad suspicious. A bidding war for the British-owned P&O has been going on since last autumn, and the P&O board accepted Dubai's latest offer last month. The story only blew up last week, as a Florida firm that is a partner with P&O in Miami, Continental Stevedoring and Terminals Inc., filed a suit to block the purchase. Miami's mayor also sent a letter of protest to Mr. Bush. It wouldn't be the first time if certain politicians were acting here on behalf of private American commercial interests.Finally, the UAE is apparently a strong ally.
Critics also forget, or conveniently ignore, that the UAE government has been among the most helpful Arab countries in the war on terror. It was one of the first countries to join the U.S. container security initiative, which seeks to inspect cargo in foreign ports. The UAE has assisted in training security forces in Iraq, and at home it has worked hard to stem terrorist financing and WMD proliferation. UAE leaders are as much an al Qaeda target as Tony Blair.Finally, there's the public diplomacy aspect.
So the same Democrats who lecture that the war on terror is really a battle for "hearts and minds" now apparently favor bald discrimination against even friendly Arabs investing in the U.S.? Guantanamo must be closed because it's terrible PR, wiretapping al Qaeda in the U.S. is illegal, and the U.S. needs to withdraw from Iraq, but these Democratic superhawks simply will not allow Arabs to be put in charge of American longshoremen. That's all sure to play well on al Jazeera.All good points, but the White House should not rely on third-parties to make its case.
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.gopbloggers.org/mt/majority.cgi/3200
LOL!!!
Wow! Another level of republicans hiding their tail between their legs when it comes to calling out Bush!
You're as servile as the Germans when Hitler was telling them that they had to cause World War II in order to save themselves!
Here's a bit of news I thought I'd share:
UAE Would Also Control Shipments of Military Equipment for the US Army
Tuesday 21 February 2006
There is bipartisan concern about the Bush administration's decision to outsource the operation of six of the nation's largest ports to a company controlled by the United Arab Emirates (UAE) because of that nation's troubling ties to international terrorism. The sale of P&O to Dubai World Ports would give the state-owned company control of "the ports of New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia."
A major part of the story, however, has been mostly overlooked. The company, Dubai Ports World, would also control the movement of military equipment on behalf of the U.S. Army through two other ports. From today's edition of the British paper Lloyd's List:
[P&O] has just renewed a contract with the United States Surface Deployment and Distribution Command to provide stevedoring [loading and unloading] of military equipment at the Texan ports of Beaumont and Corpus Christi through 2010.
According to the journal Army Logistician "Almost 40 percent of the Army cargo deployed in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom flows through these two ports."
Thus, the sale would give a country that has been "a key transfer point for illegal shipments of nuclear components to Iran, North Korea and Lybia" direct control over substantial quantities U.S. military equipment.
Posted by: Christian at February 22, 2006 01:46 PM
So, all these liberals who were against profiling of any kind, are for profiling. Should we insure that no Muslim ever gets a job where he might see classified information and pass it along to al Quida?
Ultimately the problem of Isamofacsim will have to be solved by Muslims. We must find a way to embrace those who are with us and stiffarm the facists. So where do we begin?
Posted by: RA at February 22, 2006 04:25 PM
RA, did you even read Christian's post? I'll review:
operation of six of the nation's largest ports to a company controlled by the United Arab Emirates (UAE) because of that nation's troubling ties to international terrorism. The sale of P&O to Dubai World Ports would give the state-owned company...
It's about a hostile, terrorist-supporting, ADMITTEDLY anti-American state. That's not at all the same thing as denying a Muslim person a job! Get a clue.
Posted by: Tom at February 22, 2006 07:02 PM
Thanks, Tom.
Call me crazy, but I can't stomach any politician letting our servicemen (I've got friends and family in Iraq and Afghanistan) be supplied by a country who recognized the Taliban.
Posted by: Christian at February 23, 2006 12:00 PM
Tom & Christian,
Maybe you should do a little research on UAE first. UAE is not anti-American by any reasonable standard. Dubai already manages harbors and supplies our warships; Dubai (one of the Emirates) allows our warplanes to use their bases when flying sorties in the Gulf. UAE pilots are, at this very minute flying warplanes in Tucson on training missions. UAE security forces are training Iraqi military. UAE banking structures changed after 9/11 to make channeling money to terrorists more difficult; just as the US banking did.
I was opposed to this deal at first blush, the more I read the more convinced I become that the UAE is our ally, and this is a good deal for both countries. I don’t expect I’ll change any minds here; this deal will go through and there is no more risk with UAE than there is with Canada, maybe less.
Posted by: Rathaven at February 23, 2006 01:35 PM
Somethign to consider is that this company will be running commercial operations in the ports. It has nothing to dow tih security as the Coast Guard will handle security, as it always has done. In discussing this issue, security and operations need to be differentiated.
Posted by: JLB at February 23, 2006 02:30 PM
From CNN:
...As the simmering dispute boiled over, it looked as if Bush’s only high-profile supporter would be former president Jimmy Carter, who said on CNN that he did not think the deal was a threat to the United States or its security...
Hey-- There you go, Jimmy Carter thinks its a good idea! Well then shucks-- if somebody with his record on national security believes it, then we ain't got anything to worry about.
Christian
Posted by: Christian at February 23, 2006 07:05 PM
Let's look at the whole picture;
1. UAE Government controls commercial ports in US (and around the globe)with lots of US support.
2. US businesses want to get the oil flowing in Iraq and raise currency rates to make a big
profit no matter the human cost.
3. US gov wants to loosen spying on its citizens.
4. US torturing detainees at Guantanamo.
5. US Vice President shoots his friend.
6. Taliban back in action after US 'victory'
7. US household income down
8. US lost lots of respect in the world
9. US savings negative, first time since the great depression
10.US response to its own disasters highly suspect.
America... ah.... what a country!
Posted by: Tom Dooley at February 24, 2006 08:01 AM




