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 good press.
We were one of the first to come out swinging, highlighting our concerns on the subject. Writing on Valentine’s Day, we expressed our disbelieve like this:
Today is significant. Not just because love is in the air. But because we find ourselves, for once, agreeing fully with Sen. Chuck Schumer. How can this be?
In hindsight, lack of better judgement is the answer. And we’ll explain why in a moment.
Two days after our initial post, Michelle Malkin picked up the reins and gave the story national visibility. And God love her, she’s been on a tear ever since. Now, we must respectfully disagree.
Until today, we also continued to highlight related news stories, casting doubt on the judgement of President Bush.
But we’ve changed our opinion.
FIRST OF ALL, we should’ve smelled a rat when Chuck Schumer was sounding, uncharacteristically, tough on terrorism and in favor of racial profiling.* Given his track record, along with that of most Democrats, it should’ve been a warning to proceed with caution.
SECONDLY, more details have been coming out. In fact, yesterday, we linked to a story that called for a cooling off. Good advice.
THIRD, as we started to consider the controversy with greater circumspect, last night’s episode of The Factor with Bill O’Reilly presented some excellent points, which gave some words to our growing apprehension. In his Talking Points Memo, O’Reilly argued:
“A company owned by the government of the United Arab Emirates has bought a British company that does work in some American ports. This has caused shock and awe on talk radio and on Capitol Hill, where some elements on both the left and the right want to kick the Arab company out. The Emirates, along with Jordan, is America’s best Arab ally in the war on terror, so let’s cut through all the bull and grandstanding.
If the Bush administration fires the Emirates company without cause, it spits in the eye of a strong Mideast ally. Talking Points believes we will actually lose the terror war unless we build alliances in the Middle East. There’s nothing Bin Laden would like more than for the US to alienate the United Arab Emirates. We have to give the new company a chance to work in our ports, but with strict oversight. As for the demagogues insisting we kick the Arabs out of the ports, one question: is that smart? The answer is no, that is not smart. It would hurt us dramatically in the war on terror.”
In his inimitable way, in just a few sentences, O’Reilly pinpointed the key reasons for moderation. We cannot “spit in the face” of our allies, and expect them to help us going forward.
During the program, he also went on to say that American intelligence and Homeland Security authorities would be all over this company — and they’d have to allow it. We’re talking FBI, CIA, etc. And this made us realize: Not only is O’Reilly correct on the cultural implications of denying the UAE business, but he also alludes to the unspoken benefit — our intelligence agencies will be given the opportunity, directly and indirectly, to tap into the UAE network*. What’s the value of that?
On the other hand, think about the liability issue. While we don’t want to imagine any future terrorist attack, no matter how great or small, if one does occur and it’s via the ports, then who’s first to blame? (Besides Bush, for all you lefties) That’s right: the UAE.
Logic dictates, therefore, that they would want to make damn certain that it doesn’t happen under their watch. By being business partners with the U.S., they will have a vested interest in our port security. Plausible deniability or not, they will be held accountable and the consequences would be dire. And, as O’Reilly suggests, since the broader goals of defeating terrorism require America to work with allies in the Middle East, here’s a test and an opportunity. Not just in rhetoric but in reality.
Furthermore, for all of our initial contempt, crying out for American security by Americans, it’s a hard argument to win since the company currently managing the ports isn’t an U.S. company, either. It’s British. And we know they’ve got more than a few Muslim terrorists hiding in their country. Who’s to say the risk wasn’t already great?
The Wall Street Journal notes:
“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. Which tells us three things: First, this work is already being outsourced to “a foreign-based company”; second, discriminating against a Mideast company offers no security guarantees because attacks are sometimes homegrown…”
Finally, as Jim Geraghty observes this morning:
“The controversy over this port sale have been driven by a great deal of vague, ominous and sloppy language thrown around by lawmakers, the media and bloggers. Had this discussion been marked by a precision and focus on just what was at stake, this would not have turned into the brouhaha it did. One almost wonders if the misleading language was deliberate.”
And for what purpose? Politics, of course. To put President Bush on the defensive (once again), turn his allies against him (once again), build up the negative press and, perhaps most cunningly, polish the Democrats’ image regarding terrorism.
If you step back and look at the big picture, this isn’t about port security. It’s about elections and winning credibility on the issue of homeland security. If politicians are truly so concerned about a WMD entering our nation via the ports, we wouldn’t still be inspecting only 4% of all containers entering the country since 9/11. There’s technology available to do better.
More from the WSJ:
“Some of us are scratching our heads all right, but we’re wondering why Mr. Graham and others believe Dubai Ports World has been insufficiently vetted for the task at hand. So far, none of the critics have provided any evidence that the Administration hasn’t done its due diligence. The deal has been blessed by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, a multiagency panel that includes representatives from the departments of Treasury, Defense and Homeland Security.
. . .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. “Nothing changes with respect to security under the contract,” Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said yesterday. “The Coast Guard is in charge of security, not the corporation.”
With all due respect to those who continue to object, we merely suggest taking some time out. Read the facts. It’s easy to pile on, but consider who you’re crushing and to what end.
Others blogging on the story:
The Anchoress
Below The Beltway
BlogsForBush: Here, here, and here
Daniel W. Drezner
Gateway Pundit
Glittering Eye
Iowa Voice
Outside The Beltway
Riehl World View
Rightwing Nut House
Six Meat Buffett
UPDATE: (2/23)
And the controversy continues…
AP reports: “Arab Co., White House Had Secret Agreement”
The Bush administration secretly required a company in the United Arab Emirates to cooperate with future U.S. investigations before approving its takeover of operations at six American ports, according to documents obtained by The Associated Press. It chose not to impose other, routine restrictions.
Has anyone considered this: What if all of this was being orchestrated on the QT in order for the UAE not to stir up controversy in the Middle East, as they might appear to be “working with America.” If that’s the case, the cover has been blown — and their ability to be actively helping us fight terrorism has been curtailed. They have their own hostile neighbors to deal with.
Contributing Editor Gary Gross offers more thoughts.
Instapundit reconsiders: “I gathered more information and changed my mind.”
RELATED:
GOP Governors Question Port Turnover
Firm Sues to Block Foreign Port Takeover
U.S. Port Security: Should The Fox Guard The Hen House?
February 22nd, 2006 at 11:38 am
Dick Meyer of CBS News Races to Defense of Arab Ports Deal
Dick Meyer of CBS News races to the defense of the proposed deal to allow six major American ports to be operated by a company owned by the United Arab Emirates with In Defense of Dubai. Meyer makes a good effort to lay out the best case for the ports
February 22nd, 2006 at 12:05 pm
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.
February 22nd, 2006 at 12:27 pm
What’s the big deal about the port deal?
I can certainly see why there’s some political controversy about a firm owned by the government of the United Arab Emirates helping to run ports on the Eastern seaboard — but after reading this Christian Science Monitor story by Alexandra…
February 22nd, 2006 at 12:59 pm
With Dubai, Dubya roils the right
Well, I don’t know what to think anymore on this story, but after considering Buster’s thoughts on it and reading news reports and blogs, I am officially unjerking the knee and deciding that we need to hear more from the President on the i…
February 22nd, 2006 at 1:57 pm
Hmm… Maybe the port deal is a good idea, maybe it is not. But I’d still be interested in hearing what people think about the fact that at one time, the UAE royal family and Osama bin Laden were pretty buddy-buddy…
http://in.rediff.com/news/2004/mar/25osama.htm
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/11/12/60minutes/main655407.shtml
February 22nd, 2006 at 2:18 pm
[...] California Conservative: Port Security: We Weren’t Wrong To Question, But We’re Satisfied By The Answers [...]
February 22nd, 2006 at 4:37 pm
Glad to see somebody I respect taking a real stand for or against this issue. The usual talk radio shows I listen to are still unsure. At the very least they desire a much longer screening process, but I doubt any amount of time will satisfy the knee jerk reaction of being against putting a transportation issue up to an ‘arab’ ownership. Laura Ingraham for example has unknowlingly used a “But Monkey” in stating that she knows that denying the UAE ownership will have negative results in an already hostile arab world, *but* she’s still against the deal. Honestly I hate to agree with either of them, but I’d rather agree with Jimmuh Carter instead of Cankles Clinton. Worst part of this whole thing is that it gives the democrats yet another talking point in their already tedius laundry list of administration “offenses”.
February 22nd, 2006 at 6:41 pm
With proper oversight, this probably isn’t such a big deal. Having worked indirectly for the government for a painfully long two years, I can attest that the oversight will likely be shockingly minimal but generate lots of cover-their-ass paperwork.
The surprising thing to me here is how the administration (not necessarily Bush himself) didn’t forsee that this might be a problem. One simply has to see the initial reaction of pretty much *everyone* and it has to make you wonder who was running the show on this and how they got into a position of authority.
February 22nd, 2006 at 7:51 pm
UAE DP World Port Deal is a Non-Issue
There seems to be some anger that a Company based in the United Arab Ererates will be Operating some Ports in the US. This is a perfect example of how people today go running off their mouth without knowing any facts about a situation.
February 22nd, 2006 at 8:50 pm
What… have you not been paying attention? Stop listening to the “No Intelligence Zone” for a minute and think about the implications of this deal. An “unspoken benefit” of tapping into some network… like the Emir is going to suddenly stop saying and doing things like giving aid and comfort to 9/11-style hijackers because we hand over our ports to him! This is the UAE gaining access to our networks and granting them an almost free pass to bring anything they want into this country.
Let me spell it out. The general manager of the Port of New Jersey wants a certain cargo ship to pass through inspections without any special attention or note. As the manager, he’s privy to the comings and goings of every ship, when it will be unloaded, who is going to unload it, when — and if — it will be inspected, etc. So, he tells the captain to sail on in at the precise moment when the inspectors are busy looking at that cargo container from elsewhere, and violà, the cargo is unloaded, offloaded to another mode of transportation, away from the port within minutes, and close enough to tens of millions of innocent people to cause some real damage. Get the picture?
You’re right, it is. But, what’s good for the goose is good for the gander (as my grandmother would say). How quickly did Bush mention 9/11 in this year’s State of the Union address? Oh yeah, it was only 3 and a half minutes into the address. And he used the word “terror” 21 times during the speach. I guess it’s okay for a Republican to pander to our worst fears, but if a Democrat brings up national security, well, its “Politics, of course. To put President Bush on the defensive (once again), turn his allies against him (once again), build up the negative press and, perhaps most cunningly, polish the Democrats’ image regarding terrorism.” Oh, poor Bush.
And finally,
No, it’s much more sinister. Coming from the AP this evening:
So, not only did Bush know about the plans (contrary to what he said earlier today), there were secret negotiations taking place! Negotiations that appear to exempt the UAE from some routine inspections. Why am not I surprised? This is de riguer for this administration.
All praise the almightly dollar. Get ready, the attack is on the way… it’s not a question of if, just when.
February 22nd, 2006 at 9:07 pm
Shouldn’t you be on the DailyKoz?
Thanks anyway.
February 22nd, 2006 at 10:08 pm
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 22nd, 2006 at 10:50 pm
Damned if we do and damned if we don’t?
Color me more confused as time goes on. Has White House bungling and Democratic misdirection created a major kerfuffle where there’s no need for one? From the New York Sun: On the Waterfront Somehow, it doesn’t add up. Senators Menendez,
February 23rd, 2006 at 8:46 am
Army of Davids comes to help protest the dangerous
IRIS Blog discusses how an “Army of Davids” in the blogverse (see this item from Instapundit to learn more) has helped to raise an outcry against the US government’s deal to hand seaports over to the United Arab Emirates
February 23rd, 2006 at 11:03 am
[...] » Google-Earthlink Partner To Provide Wi-Fi In San Francisco; Should We Worry About Our Health? » How To Overplay Your Hand » Democratic Disconnect » Another Al Gore » Why Is President Playing Race Card To Defend PortGate? » Mayor Ray Nagin: Big Easy to Get Easier for the Unemployed » How the Democrats Stole Paul Hackett’s Campaign » Helping Osama Keep His Promise » Politically Correct Coup » Port Security Worries, Part II » Court Documents: Hospital Gave Lethal Injections to Patients During Hurricane Katrina » Samarrah Mosque Bombing » GOP Powerhouse in the Making » Muslim Activists and Campus Liberals Agree: Free Speech Has Limits » Iran Promises Financial Assistance to PA » Port Security: We Weren’t Wrong To Question, But We’re Satisfied By The Answers » “Pussies” At The Gate » That’s Just Brilliant: Google’s Philanthropy » Thinking of becoming a liberal? » Praising Alan Dershowitz List all posts » [...]
February 23rd, 2006 at 11:17 am
[...] Security and the Sale of Port Facilities: Facts and Recommendations » Google-Earthlink Partner To Provide Wi-Fi In San Francisco; Should We Worry About OurHealth? » How To Overplay Your Hand » Democratic Disconnect » Another Al Gore » Why Is President Playing Race Card To Defend PortGate? » Mayor Ray Nagin: Big Easy to Get Easier for the Unemployed » How the Democrats Stole Paul Hackett’s Campaign » Helping Osama Keep His Promise » Politically Correct Coup » Port Security Worries, Part II » Court Documents: Hospital Gave Lethal Injections to Patients During Hurricane Katrina » Samarrah Mosque Bombing » GOP Powerhouse in the Making » Muslim Activists and Campus Liberals Agree: Free Speech Has Limits » Iran Promises Financial Assistance to PA » Port Security: We Weren’t Wrong To Question, But We’re Satisfied By The Answers » “Pussies” At The Gate » That’s Just Brilliant: Google’s Philanthropy » Thinking of becoming a liberal? List all posts » [...]
February 26th, 2006 at 1:07 pm
[...] Our readers know that we’ve covered this story quite actively. In fact, we were one of the first bloggers to come out swinging against the deal, but we have since changed our opinion. And that’s where we stand. [...]
February 27th, 2006 at 2:02 pm
[...] As I’m seldom subtle, I hope the title of this piece puts to rest my opinion on the United Arab Emirates acquisition of American ports issue*. Many have asked my opinion, but I just had to wait and watch the sheer folly of the who incident and what it’s revealed about the information absorbed by the American people and the ignorance/propaganda spewed once again by our mainstream media. [...]
March 4th, 2006 at 4:22 pm
[...] Topic of discussion: “Portgate” — The ongoing controversy regarding major American ports being managed by a company that’s owned by the UAE. Since there’s plenty of criticism, I decided to stand by my earlier position. [...]
February 19th, 2008 at 1:15 am
Side effects of xanax….
Xanax. Buying xanax with mastercard….