UAE Ports Deal – An Inner Struggle
February 22nd, 2006 at 10:26 pm by CrankyI’ve been so conflicted about the the idea of having Dubai Ports World running several U.S. ports.
At first, I was strongly opposed to it. Last night, however I heard Bill O’Reilly’s reasons why it is not a bad idea. Normally, I think O’Reilly is a self-absorbed gas bag. This time, he was a self-absorbed gas bag that made sense.
The USA cannot win the War on Terror without the help of moderate Arab nations. “Talking Points” believes we will actually lose the terror war unless we build alliances in the Middle East. Right now, there’s no reason to fire the Arab company, except that they are Arabs. Isn’t that racism? Can America afford to send that message to the world?
This morning I’m listening to my favorite talk radio show and he’s making a very good case as to why this is a very bad idea. And now I’m back where I started.
So, let’s look at the pros and cons and reach an informed decision.
Pro: The CIA characterizes the United Arab Emirates favorably:
Con: The U.A.E. was identified as a major financial center used by al-Qaeda and was one of three governments to recognize the Taliban.
Pro: In both cases, after 9-11, the U.A.E. quickly cooperated with the U.S.
Pro: James Zogby, president of the Arab-American Institute, pulling the race card, says it’s all about the prejudice.
Surely we’re not prejudiced.
Con: Then again, maybe we are. Given their track record, perhaps there is a good reason.
Pro: Constructively engaging an Arab country could help in moderating them and bringing about reforms.
Con: Look at the moderating effects we’ve had on Saudi Arabia with billions and billions of dollars in oil revenues.
Pro: President Bush is for the deal.
Con: President Bush is for the deal.
When it comes to helping his friends out in ways that might hurt our national security, Bush gives us that “I can’t believe you actually took that stuff seriously. C’mon that was a State of the Union address!” (See also Julie Myers)
Pro: There was this great exchange student from the U.A.E. in one of my classes. Marwan was his name. Anyway, at the end of the semester we all went out afterward. He insisted on buying a round of beer even though he didn’t drink.
Good guy.
So upon reflection, I think it is a good idea to let the U.A.E. company run the U.S. ports.
Marwan. Good guy.
UPDATE:
Marwan is not the same one as the terrorist from Ohio. Actually the crew from Ohio had that whole ZZTop thing going. My friend didn’t.
My favorite morning Talkshow guy was still on the warpath against the deal this morning. His angle was that this section of 9-11 commission report shows the U.A.E.’s complicity with al Qaeda:
Early in 1999, the CIA received reporting that Bin Ladin was spending much of his time at one of several camps in the Afghan desert south of Kandahar. At the beginning of February, Bin Ladin was reportedly located in the vicinity of the Sheikh Ali camp, a desert hunting camp being used by visitors from a Gulf state. Public sources have stated that these visitors were from the United Arab Emirates.151
Yes, no argument there. But pre-9-11 who was serious about offing bin Laden? Bill Clinton? The Sudanese offered him up to us free of charge.
Pre 9-11, Pakistan was a good friend of al Qaeda and the Taliban too. Though not exactly worthy of sainthood, it appears that they came around and were no longer penalized by the U.S.
Funk, I hear your concern. That is the bigger question for another time.
Also, Sister Toldjah has a very complete roundup of what everyone is thinking. Check it out.
UPDATE II: Conservative Sub makes some good points too. Mostly by mentioning Six Meat Buffet, but also kissing up to Dan of Riehl World View
And also for saying this:
UPDATE III
Then again, LindaSoG presses the point that maybe a moderate Islamic state isn’t so moderate after all.
Something to consider…
February 22nd, 2006 at 11:46 pm
I’ve been more concerned with how the situation has been bungled politically. It took Cheney too long to have a statement prepared after his shooting however Bush leapt into the fray with wild abandon and threatening a veto within a day of this story breaking.
On the other hand, the same liberals who cry “racism” at the thought of racial profiling at airports have no qualms about racially profiling a foreign owned company to try and score some points. Or as one of our local gotards lectured “Democrats do policy, not politics”. Uh-huh. In TN, one of our better employers is Toyota. Someone could make the argument that whatever state Timothy McVeigh was from that a business from there shouldn’t be allowed to buy a port.
I would prefer a more public vetting of the company in question rather than this whole “trust us” BS again like we had with the Miers nomination. I’ve always taken more of a “trust but verify” stance. Either way, he’s painted himself into a corner with the veto threat.
February 23rd, 2006 at 1:45 am
The UAE port deal: I support it
The more this UAE port management story is being reported, examined, and discussed in the MSM, as well as on opinion pages and in the blogosphere, the more I find myself believing that the issue has bas been overhyped unecessarily. Even with saying …
February 23rd, 2006 at 6:58 am
So Hamas won’t be on Synagogue security detail then?
Timothy McVeigh was from mine own new York, just a few minutes north of me in Pendleton. No, we shouldn’t be allowed to buy a port. We shouldn’t be allowed to buy pointy sticks, or laxative tablets in packages of two or more. We certainly shouldn’t be publishing the nation’s most influential media, but… if wishes were nickels, right? Or Nichols… Terry Nichols. Whatever, it’s early.
February 23rd, 2006 at 8:12 am
Your Marwan argument has me taking another look at the issue.
February 23rd, 2006 at 8:35 am
He’s threatened vetos in the past. Never once followed through on them. I wouldn’t put much stock in that promise.
February 23rd, 2006 at 9:36 am
Two points: First, this deal has everything to do with the creepy, smarmy world of the international oil business that typically has leadership of both parties diving under sultans’ robes to provide whatever service is requested. American national security is a mere afterthought in this business.
Second, The national security inmplications aren’t really just about arabs here. Our international trade imbalances are causing us to give away the farm in the name of “free trade,” with complete disregard to national security. As we become less and less able to make steel, electronics, and pants in this country, the day comes closer when other countries will have the power to cut us off, and in times of crisis we’ll be fielding armies of pantsless soldiers with no tanks, planes, or hummers, and no way to phone home.
February 23rd, 2006 at 11:24 am
Such a serious post? But I feel the same way.
February 23rd, 2006 at 11:59 am
There was a 42 year old “Marwan” arrested in that Ohio terrorist plot yesterday. Same guy? Or is that like “John” over there?
February 23rd, 2006 at 12:05 pm
I think I said this in another post, but…
The UAE is the epitomy of a moderate muslim state and they are in fact our allies in the GWOT. They bought the port operations from the Brits and it was all above board. Terrorist funds have passed through the UAE, but so they have passed through the US and Britain. To deny the port operations purchased by the UAE just on the basis that they are an Arab state IS racist. Security operations will not change; the US Coast Guard will remain in charge. The US has beenn and will continue to oversee port security. This is a non-issue aside from the fact that it is an Arab state (not extremists) and the dems are looking for yet another Bush bash. Conservatives should have done their homework before jumping on board blindly. And, btw, aside from being our ally, the UAE is not exactly friendly with Iran.
February 23rd, 2006 at 12:07 pm
There was a 42 year old “Marwan” arrested in that Ohio terrorist plot yesterday. Same guy? Or is that like “John” over there?
comment by smantix — Thursday, February 23, 2006 @ 11:59 am
Wouldnt that be the Mother of All Irony?!
February 23rd, 2006 at 1:20 pm
Port Operations: The Truth Behind Rumor
Many conservatives should have done their homework before jumping on board blindly. From what I’ve read, Dan is the only conservative blogger who has gotten it right from the outset. He has excellent analyses here, here and here. 6MB appears to be co…
February 23rd, 2006 at 1:37 pm
Port Security: We Weren’t Wrong To Question, But We’re Satisfied By The Answers
As of yesterday, the port story was proceeding, full steam ahead, as major headline news. Every outlet is scrambling to jump on board, getting their piece of the action. And just like any good reporter knows, scandal (or perception thereof) makes for …
February 23rd, 2006 at 2:52 pm
Gordo, glad to hear your friend isnt a terrorist. That’s always good news in my book.
February 23rd, 2006 at 3:48 pm
The outrage of all of this is how this little “deal” was just all of a sudden sprung upon us this past weekend and almost force-fed down our throats without even a whimper. For something like that to almost take place while we ewre all collectively in REM sleep should tell you that there’s something TERRIBLY WRONG WITH THIS “DEAL”!!!!
:idea:
February 23rd, 2006 at 4:02 pm
Arabs Cry
The President of the Arab American Institute calls port opposition “bigoted,” but the definition of bigotry is “One who is strongly partial to one’s own group.” Is anyone as bigoted as the Arabs? Arabs are the only group in the world who feel it a…
February 23rd, 2006 at 4:08 pm
Theloneous Funk – that may be the best comment I’ve seen in forever. Well done. And depressingly accurate.
February 23rd, 2006 at 4:16 pm
Oh, that’s low. At least I came up with the RIGHT conclusion on my own, as opposed to a certain Buffet which shall remain nameless.
And re: kissing up, we’re still trying to collect that blog support. Your approach wasn’t too effective Gordo.
February 23rd, 2006 at 6:45 pm
DAMN, I didn’t think I’d see this post here, but then I saw Cranky wrote it and not that fascist bastard, Preston.
I’m right there with ya, Cranky. I was a little like “WTF?” at first, but I’ve changed my mind.
February 23rd, 2006 at 6:47 pm
Yiddish Steel: Here’s one view on why it was just sprung on us:
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.
February 26th, 2006 at 1:07 pm
The UAE supports terrorists, the UAE funds terrorists, the UAE honors terrorists. So what does that make the UAE?
“Any government that supports, protects or harbours terrorists is complicit in the murder of the innocent and equally guilty of terrorist crimes.” – George W. Bush
February 26th, 2006 at 1:24 pm
I hear ya, Linda. Junior is pretty damn selective about how he applies his “doctrine”.
February 26th, 2006 at 11:39 pm
Yes he is selective Preston. I am constantly amazed at the fact that the War on Terror does not cross the border into Israel.
March 2nd, 2006 at 11:42 am
Yes he is selective Preston. I am constantly amazed at the fact that the War on Terror does not cross the border into Israel.
comment by LindaSoG — Sunday, February 26, 2006 @ 11:39 pm
I know, right? Damn, Linda, now I have to rethink rethinking about the ports–and I was so self-righteous about it and all.