This Whole Port Thing…
…leaves me cold, I must confess. President Bush says lawmakers who are threatening to hold up the deal need to explain why it’s all right for British companies to be involved, but not UAE companies…and I think he’s right. It’s hard for me to see how some of the opposition isn’t – well, racist.
Our good friend AJ has been fighting a losing battle on this one, trying to point out how ridiculous the controversy is. On the flip side is Michelle Malkin, who has framed the issue in terms of suspect financial shennanigans:
If demanding that our government put American security interests above foreign business interests makes me an “Islamophobe,” and if wanting to know the full details of the who, what, when, where, and why of this UAE government deal, secretly approved by the Treasury Dept.-led Committee on Foreign Investments in the US, makes me an “Islamophobe,” I plead guilty.
What do you think? Am I missing something here? Should I be outraged, too? Enlighten me, please…
The objection is that there is a history of terrorist funding from the UAE, and presumably their involvement is susceptible to infiltration. One could certainly imagine people with terrorist leanings seeking these jobs and bringing their friends.
Morover, one wonders why it has to be out-sourced — there aren’t any American companies capable of doing the job?
The second objection, I think, is a red herring – a British company was handling it before, and no one raised a stink then…as to the UAE being a source of terrorist funding, well, that may be, but the ports’ security will not be handled by the Dubai-based company, and here’s a quote from a man who should know (same link as the post above):
“This whole notion that Dubai is going to control or set standards for U.S. ports is a canard,” said Kim Petersen, head of SeaSecure, a U.S.-based maritime security company, and executive director of the Maritime Security Council, which represents 70 percent of the world’s ocean shipping.
You should be Mark,
It’s what you do best and what we all admire about you my friend.
BTW – I haven’t lost yet!
The Sum Of All Fears
Rescind Mr. President. Faith is a misplaced emotion in the long war on terror, and the assurance that U.S. ports will be secure when they are managed by a firm owned by a government in one of the most volatile parts of the world, is worthless.
Regarding out-sourcing: I think that one could question why a British company handled it before — isn’t there an American company with the expertise to do this? Perhaps not — but if so, other things being equal, shouldn’t a US company get an infrastructure contract?
Re the UAE: while we might be comfortable with a British company running things, we sure wouldn’t let an Iranian or Libyan compay do it — the UAE is somewhere in between the two extremes — as this is a judgment call, probably better to err on the side of caution –
[...] In other words, the White House’s “admission” that President Bush was unaware that Dubai Ports World, a company based in the United Arab Emirates, had purchased Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co., a company based in Britain — and thereby obtained management control of the business operations of six U.S. ports — strikes us as completely unnecessary. Why should the president know? Twelve government departments and agencies, including the departments of Treasury, State, Defense and Homeland Security, had examined the deal over a three-month period and found it acceptable. Perhaps the White House should have anticipated this week’s political storm and prepared for it. But because the objections are irrational, even that complaint is questionable. On the other side of the coin, Rick Moran is upset about the tone of the deal’s supporters: I don’t like waking up in the morning and discovering that I’m an “Islamaphobe” or “Un-American” for calling the Administration a bunch of rabbit heads for the way they’ve managed the unveiling of this idiocy. To tell you the truth, I resent it. It bespeaks a certain kind of intellectual laziness when the best one can do to counter an argument is to indulge in an orgy of name calling and finger pointing. Better to have the facts at one’s disposal and try and counter an opponent’s argument in a logical and rational manner. Well, agreed…and for the record, I DID state (and do believe) that there is some racism involved in SOME of the opposition to the port deal. I certainly hope I never implied that that was the case for everyone’s opposition…there are principled arguments that can be made on both sides of the issue. [...]