Port Whine

So the President is really taking a big hit over the Dubai Port World deal, described by more hysterical types as "selling our ports to foreigners."

I happen to think the President made fantastic points about the deal and good for him for his level headed thinking on this issue.

Lou Dobbs is pissed because neither the Emiratis nor DPW will give him an interview. Lou, you're a hack, non-journalist whose career revolves around agitating panic-stricken white people into a frenzy about how brown people are going to rob, ruin and replace their very existence. Being the clever opportunist, Lou takes the rebuff as badge of honor. DPW or Emirates shouldn't go on Lou's show for the same reason people who don't suck shouldn't go on Bill O' Reilly's.

Lou's CNN partner Jack Cafferty pretty much guaranteed a terrorist attack.

The usual suspects like Michelle and Charles' heads should be exploding any day now as they are conflicted between their hatred of Muslims and their love of Bush (hate wins with them every time).

Politicians are being their usual obtuse selves trying to score fear points with their constiuents:

Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y.. . . believes that aside from looking if there was anything flagrant in the company's file, there is "no reason to say this is safe,"

Of course, there's no reason to think that it isn't. I guess when it comes to Arabs, guilty until proven innocent is the rule.

"Since 9/11, we have to change the way we do things," Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., said Sunday. "And I just don't think any foreign company, period, ought to be running our ports."

Said the Senator from the state with Chinese owned ports.

"Most Americans are scratching their head wondering why this company, from this region, now," Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., added.

Lindsey, that's because people have been acting like paranoid bed-wetters for the last few years. Thanks for pretty much stating that, yeah, its them sorts thats the problem.


Liberals like Stephaie Miller and Rachael Maddow, continue to milk this issue. Miller, barely able to stop herself from blurting out "A-rabs" when trying to explain why they shouldn't be able to complete the deal - quickly changing it to the "country involved with 9/11," (despite any actual evidence of this "fact.") Stephanie is sort of a dope but I respect Rachael a lot, but she's wrong here. Many other liberals are making a lot of hay out of this without providing much more evidence for concern beyond "it's the United Arab Emirates!"

The funny thing, especially from liberals like Miller, is that they knew absolutely nothing about the UAE or DPW a week ago, yet suddenly they're experts on the history of the UAE and how they relate to international commerce and national security? I don't think so. That's what makes this out and out xenophobic hysteria.

At least Atrios had the good sense to not act like a freeper and question if this was prejudgmental before settling into the somewhat better, "no foriegn ownership of docks" which many liberals are using in the same vein as the "free speech" argument was used in the cartoon controversy.

As an avowed leftist, socialist, Chomsky-ite, I have to say the opinions coming from the left are embarrasing, repugnant and uneducated. They range from obvious, and admitted, political haymaking to sheer ignorance and fear.

Those on the right that think we on the left would not call out our own are incorrect. The root of this problem, for me, is Schumer, Clinton, Randi Rhodes, Stephanie Miller et al.. I don't care a bit that Santorum, Frist, Malikins, Coulter or Johnson jump on this train because I have no expectations of them to represent what I consider the moral high ground that I have come to expect from this country.

The problem is that except for a very few, most of the American political left is falling for this bullshit. Those of us who can maintain rational thinking in light of an opportunity to bash Bush are far and few between. Its too bad the majority of the critics of this deal can't pull their heads out of the asses long enough to see that Dubai is becoming the economic crossroads for Europe and Asia, and it is vital to our national security and ecomomic interest to be involved with Europe, Asia, and the Middle East co-operatively if we plan on mainting our lofty standards in the world.

Dennis the Peasant has another measured and rational post, exposing both the willfull ignorance involved with this story.

Not that it mattered much. Everyone from Senator Clinton to Senator Santorum understood what was going on... This is an election year. The issue was never "foreigners". The issue was Arabs, and by extension, Muslims. It was time to play The Muslim Card. It was time to ignore the reality that port security is in the hands of the federal, state and local governments and pretend that somehow having Dubai Ports World owning six port operating leases rendered every security agency in the country – from the Coast Guard to the Port Authority of New York – helpless. Senator Schumer, as well as Senators Clinton, Santorum and Frist (to name only a few) have decided to ignore the complex reality of U.S. national security and, instead, try to score some political points by indulging in the most blatant sort of racial (and religious) profiling on the most massive of scales.

This WaPo column hits the nail pretty hard too.

But those words, like that of almost all of the others, sound, well, tone-deaf to us. For one, the deal cannot "outsource major port security," because management companies that run ports do not control security. The U.S. Coast Guard controls the physical security of our ports. The U.S. Customs Service controls container security. That doesn't change, no matter who runs the business operations.

Justin Raimondo takes on the issue point by erroneous point:

Phony reason number two is that the 9/11 conspirators funneled money through Dubai-based banks. But Dubai is the major financial nexus of the Arab world, and, indeed, is right up there with any city in the West in that regard: funds traveling from sources in the Middle East are more than likely to have come through the U.A.E. in some shape, form, or manner. Targeting DP World on account of this is like embargoing Wal-Mart because the 9/11 hijackers bought their box-cutters there.

Because I said I would report on the liberal idiocy on this issue:

Randi Rhodes just said a black tar heroin epidemic is going to overtake New York when the DPW takes ownership of the ports.

6:10 pm est - Randi is now going on about 2 yr old camel jockeys who are being starved and abused apparantly unaware that's why they developed these robot jockeys and banned all jockeys under 16. It's not like I'm defending any camel racing, or care about it one bit as long as children aren't being abused. The point is that I like Randi, but she sounds like a fucking idiot going on about a practice that has been effectively ended as if its going on today. The other point is that while the UAE isn't perfect, they are more than willing to respond to Human Rights criticisms.


Tim Dickinson from Rolling Stone makes the precient point I've heard yet:

And just what is the insinuation being made here made by the alarmists? That Dubai Ports World is somehow going to collaborate with Al Qaeda to ease the entry of a radiological device through an American seaport? That's a pretty wild accusation. By that standard, shouldn't we have already banned Emirate airlines from flying into JFK? You know, because the pilots might gladly turn the company's Airbuses into jihadi missiles?