27 February, 2006


TKS on National Review Online

Jim Geraghty:

And long after I, and many others, pointed out that this deal is significantly different than what we were initially told, a particular group of people continue to dramatically misrepresent – aw, hell, let’s call it what it is – continue to lie about what it entails.

There are plenty of folks on the GOP side of the aisle repeating and spreading the lies. But check out the comments on the other side of the aisle.

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton:
“Senator Menendez and I don’t think any foreign government company should be running our ports, managing, leasing, owning, operating. It just raises too many red flags. That is the nub of our complaints,” said Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., speaking via teleconference in response to Bush’s announcement.
As reported in USA Today, 80 percent of the terminals in the Port of Los Angeles are run by foreign firms. And the U.S. Department of Transportation says the United Kingdom, Denmark, Hong Kong, Japan, South Korea, Singapore, China and Taiwan have interests in U.S. port terminals. The blogger Sweetness and Light observed that the National Shipping Company of Saudi Arabia, which is partially owned by the government of Saudi Arabia as well as Saudi individuals and establishments, operates berths in the ports of Baltimore, Newport News, Houston, New Orleans, Savannah, Wilmington, N.C., Port Newark, New Jersey, and Brooklyn, New York.
. . .
Sen. Dianne Feinstein:
Do we want our national security assets to be sold to foreign powers? … Do we want, let's say, American companies that own nuclear power plants to be bought out by foreign entities?
. . .
Among the reasons that [New Jersey Governor Jon Corzine [Democrat]] has concerns about the UAE is that, “eleven of the hijackers involved in the 9/11 attacks traveled to the U.S. through the airport in Dubai.” Got that? A terrorist catching a connecting flight within your country signifies, in Corzine’s mind, a tie to terrorists. By that standard, Portland, Maine, Logan Airport in Boston, Newark International, Dulles International, and Fort Lauderdale in Florida have “ties to terrorists” – after all, the 9/11 hijackers passed through those airports as well.

Of course, New Jersey’s genius Senator, Frank Lautenberg, also thinks that a terrorist passing through an airport within your borders makes you an enemy in the war on terror:
“Dubai has allowed terrorists to pass freely through their own country,” said Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., this week. “Why in the world should we let this rogue government control ports in the United States?”
I take it New Jersey’s state government would qualify as a “rogue government” as well? I eagerly await your call for sanctions against your home state, senator.


BD said...

Maybe a Lost Hope ...but I certainly hope not.

It is becoming more and more apparent that politicians in the US have discovered in the Dubai Ports World issue a golden opportunity to grandstand. Dubai has no constituency in the US except suprisingly for George Bush himself, so no one gets hurt and more importantly no one loses votes if Dubai is trounced.

It's almost like what amazingly happened to little Denmark is now, just as unexptedly, happening to little Dubai. It is the turn of American politicians now to take a rather obscure issue and dramatize it in order to inflame passions and further their own agendas.

These politicians may act like dumb coon-asses (pardon my Cajun) but in most cases they're not. They're not stupid at all, just coniving. (Do I see Hillary Clinton in the house?) They know well that this deal is a non-issue and nothing new. But Billy and Lucy American voter don't really know any better, especially with President Bush having been hammering on the security issue like mad since 9/11.

So, what does the average American know about Dubai? Nothing. When politicians start harping about this and that threat the average American who never takes the time to understand issues anyway will start carrying picket signs and railing about how dangerous the terrorists are? Sound familiar? Do I hear Denmark?

The best and perhaps only hope now is that people in America will start reading beyond the headlines and learn what this deal and Dubai are really about.

Anonymous said...

"Citing broad gaps in U.S. intelligence, the Coast Guard cautioned the Bush administration that it was unable to determine whether a United Arab Emirates-owned company might support terrorist operations, a Senate panel said Monday."

"The former head of the CIA's Osama bin Laden unit joined in the criticism.
'The fact that you are putting a company in place that could already be infiltrated by al-Qaeda is a silly thing to do,' said Mike Scheuer, who headed the CIA unit until 1999."

Anonymous said...

I think the average American doesn't really care. I keep forgetting about it, then I see it again everytime I turn on the TV or look in the paper. It will get settled eventually, and there is nothing I can do about it either way.

But trust me, if I really did care, I would not be like "Denmark" and start burning embassies and going nuts over it.

I'm more concerned with getting my income tax done so I can get my refund and pay my property taxes...

Tim Newman said...

It's almost like what amazingly happened to little Denmark is now, just as unexptedly, happening to little Dubai.

I've yet to hear any UAE embassies urging their citizens to leave the country through fear of violence, nor Americans marching through the streets shouting "Behead those who want our ports!"

BD said...

Tim, I suppose my Denmark/Dubai metaphor doesn't hold true in every aspect. My main point is that you have people taking a relatively obscure issue and blowing it way out of proportion for obviously self-serving purposes.

It's ashame that mullah's, or whoever it was that hijacked the cartoon issue, could turn it into a way to deflect critisim (from say their failure at doing anything for the impoverished Muslim massess--their constituents). In the same way, American politicians have hit upon a relatively obscure issue and found a way to turn it into a politcal jackpot. Nevermind that there's little merit in it. But all one has to do is scream "terrorism," just as in the days of McCarthy when the word "communism," and then any inuendo becomes proof of conspiracy.

It is all so shamelessly political, and this time it isn't faraway little Denmark, but our own Dubai!

John B. Chilton said...

anonymous, you embarrass yourself by quoting selectively.

Any fool can read the rest of the article which goes on to say,
"The Coast Guard said the concerns reflected in the document ultimately were addressed. In a statement, the Coast Guard said other U.S. intelligence agencies were able to provide answers to the questions it raised.

"The Coast Guard, the intelligence community and the entire CFIUS (Committee on Foreign Investments in the United States) panel believed this transaction received the proper review, and national security concerns were, in fact, addressed," the Coast Guard said."

You discredit your side of the argument. Good luck convincing me you're bringing me the truth the next time.

Perhaps you should try dropping your selective quotations at other sites more likely to be populated by fearful uninquisitive kneejerkers.


Post a Comment

NOTE: By making a post/comment on this blog you agree that you are solely responsible for its content and that you are up to date on the laws of the country you are posting from and that your post/comment abides by them.

To read the rules click here

If you would like to post content on this blog click here