A conversation on my email list goes in the "You don't want to play poker with George Bush" file:
There's no way you can spin Bush's stance on the port thing as smart. I was originally sure he was simply timing the rejection to keep Dems for attacking him on it, but to push it as strongly as he's doing is crazy, just crazy.But Ben says:S.
Actually, it's beyond smart, it's brilliant. He has nothing to lose by fighting it:1. he's not going to be re-elected, so he loses no political capitol.
2. It can't really be portrayed as a "republican" thing if a Republican congress overrides his veto
3. If the Democrats do make a campaign issue out of it, the Republican repartee will be "Please do. Let's focus on security as a major campaign issue, PLEASE", so the GOP loses no capitol either.
On the other hand, the UAE will know Bush went to the mats for them, and in the mindest there, they will know Bush is a Partner.
On the third hand, the Arab world might sense that there really is an Angry American Street, and Bush is the wise and just leader restraining them, as best he can.
Bingo!
And as for Arabs thinking that Bush is being the good guy -- something worth a few pennies, anyway -- the Saudi Arab News has already editorialized.
Bush is absolutely in the right here and everyone who's bleating about this is making an ass of themselves.
1. We're talking about a transfer of capital ownership here, nothing much about the actual manegment of the ports is likely to change.
2. Port security is and will remain the purview of the Coast Guard. This is not a national security issue.
3. While DPW is technically state-owned, it's run basically like a normal multinational corporation, and by all accounts a respectable one.
4. The UAE government is one of the best and most pro-US governments in the entire Middle East and is likely to remain that way.
There is no there there. Just knee-jerk Arabophobia and fact-free posturing, and it's disgraceful.
However I do wish that Bush had, you know, grown a pair and dicovered his veto sometime before now...
This is one of those issues that has the potential to make almost everyone look stupid and hypocritical, if they're not really careful and if they just play politics as usual.
Gung-ho attack-the-Administration Democrats will look stupid for making this a security issue, if they've ever opened their mouths on the subject of anti-Arab racism or racial profiling.
And gung-ho security Republicans will look stupid if they're on any record of being in favor of greater globalization and democratization through trade ties.
It's just one of those decades.
It's not that these positions can't be reconciled, of course. In the end, that's what makes this development interesting-- balancing the pros and cons and above all risks of implementing a strategy of trade links, answering the no longer rhetorical question, "Well, what good is it to be an Arab ally of the United States if we're shut out of major trade deals?" while asking what assurances we have that their security is really up to this.
But the knee-jerk instant opinions make it less likely that people will get out unscathed by their own will to stupidity.
No Matt, this is a horrible deal and I hope it's killed. If Bush is over-ridden I hope it's by a HUGE margin.
UAE provided two of the 19 9/11 hijackers. It provided money laundering. Hamas and other terrorist organizations operate openly there. Al Qaeda members have allegedly transited the United Arab Emirates with impunity.
The company will make the security clearances of the employees, not the Coast Guard. Al Qaeda will have the entire security plans for our vital ports two seconds after the company does.
GWB deserves to be beaten on this issue. I would not trust the Gov't of the United Oil Emirates (which has a HORRID human rights record and only recently outlawed the child slavery of kid camel jockies, replacing them with robots I kid you not) any farther than I could throw them.
Heck, how did Al Qaeda lose this bid?
No Bush looks weak and stupid. Careless with the nation's security and willing to sell us out to Arabs just like the idiots Clinton and Gore.
But the #1 reason to ditch this deal and make Bush pay a heavy price: JIMMY CARTER favors it.
Jesus H. Christ Rockford, do you ever think before you type?
"UAE provided two of the 19 9/11 hijackers."
So the fact that two of the 9/11 guys were born there must logically mean... uh... what, exactly? Germany was the site of the 9/11 planning, should they be blacklisted?
"It provided money laundering."
Oh for god sake, it's the financial hub of the Middle East, I'd be extremely surprised if no money laundering ever occurred there. AFAIK, no UAE governmental involvement has ever been shown with respect anti-Western terrorist activities.
"Hamas and other terrorist organizations operate openly there."
And Hizb-ut-Tahrir operates openly in Britain. We blacklisting them now too?
"The company will make the security clearances of the employees, not the Coast Guard."
The port staffing will still be American. And FYI, DPW already has existing security relationships with the US and has for years: US authorities pre-clear cargo with DPW overseas for shipment to US ports.
"Al Qaeda will have the entire security plans for our vital ports two seconds after the company does."
Oh bullshit. DPW is an unimpeachable enterprise that already runs ports in Europe, Asia and the Middle East. If you've got some sort of substantive evidence to back any of this crap up, by all means share it witht he class. If not, you can shut it.
(Apologies to Joe & the rest of the mods for the anger here, but is anybody ever going to give Rockford the Raymond talk? I think it's needed.)
Some leaked info on the conditions of the deal can be found here.
Matt, with respect to the "unimpeachable" nature of DPW - swell, but why is it so impossible that AQ will find it easier to infiltrate and conduct espionage against a UAE company rather than, say, a British company? This is not a matter of prejudice against Arabs or Islam - simply that we have an avowed enemy that, for reasons of culture, language, etc, will have an easier time passing under the radar.
If our enemy right now was, say, the IRA, I'd likely prefer the UAE company, where the hard men of the IRA might stick out a bit. But the IRA didn't knock over the buildings in NY, Al Qaida did.
Is it alarmist to think that this company will be a target of AQ? Or rather is it naive to think that they won't be...
Finally, while I admit that my opening question was indeed rhetorical, I'm very happy to hear concrete reasons as to why I shouldn't worry about AQ infiltration at this company. But I submit that the burden of proof in this case should rest with those who assert the deal is safe.
Matt, Jim Rockford may be right or wrong, but he's light years from Raymond or the other folks we've taken steps with. No, there are no plans here for anythng like that. He'll make his points, and you'll make yours, and readers will make up their minds. I'd say you're strongly ahead on points for this one, but that's just my judgment and this thing still makes me somewhat uneasy.
FYI, Daniel Drezner has a well-researched and extensive article up on this issue.
Over at National Review's blog The Corner, meanwhile, they're going back and forth and taking this on from all angles: pro, con, political (i.e. conning by pros), etc. Got to the point where they ended up doing an impromptu symposium with various contributors arguing their case.
The WHOLE Ports thing was to try and embarass Bush and Cheney to WIPE AWAY the lunacy of the Media Rage-on at the Cheney Shooting...
Unfortunately, The Press and the Pols who jumped at the bait come across as shallow, racist and ignorant. What they thought was a Freebie is turning into YET ANOTHER embarassment.
Blind Hatred combined with Blind Ambition leads to stupid things being said before the facts are presented. The more that is known makes it look like Team Bush (aka the Administration) were taking care of business and not playing politics. I wonder who spun out the Story Of The Week?
Will we EVER know who leaked the news about the NSA and/or the Secret Jails? Will anyone EVER be prosecuted? Or will everyone continue run to the next Scandal that Will Bring Down Bush?
A bit of live blogging of CNBC Squawk Box: Dennis Kneale, Managing Editor of Forbes Magazine is sitting in for Joe Kernen. Blathers on about how the objections to the port deal are nothing but racism, and how it's so sad that "we haven't healed from 9/11, we're not over it". Becky Quick stares at him like he's a friggin alien.
Big huge noise in general on CNBC about this issue. Politics rarely intrudes too heavily - not a peep about the cartoon wars, seldom anything much about Iraq - this is getting alot of coverage and not just from the business angle. Perhaps the "grassroots" of the financial industry downtown is not pleased?
I've read around a bunch this evening and it appears there is less to the story than originally reported - e.g. the blogfather seems reassured - but I retain my reservations.
Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, Danish cartoons, and the patent Arabophobia in so many reactions to the DPW ports deal here in the U. S. have a lot more currency in the Middle East than democracy promotion, the overwhelming U. S. responses to tsunami and the earthquake in Pakistan, and the many times the U. S. military has been deployed to protect Muslims. That currency undercuts any soft power efforts we've made over the last 5 years which are, in my view, an essential component of the struggle we're in.
Over the last few weeks what I've seen from practically all parties is mostly unreasoning anger and no good can come from it.
Isn't anyone wondering why this is only now becoming an issue? It's not like the Dubai Ports acquisition of P&O wasn't news in November of 2005 or anything like that --- oh, wait, it was.
And it's not as if port security depends at least as much on security where the cargo originates as where it arrives -- oh, wait, it does.
No one thinks that killing this deal might make the UAE think about putting some conditions on their cooperation with us, including basing rights, do they?
This controversy has the disloyal opposition's disingenuous fingerprints all over it. It's pure political opportunism. That's it. Republicans are foolish if they fall for it, because opposing the president on this won't help them in November -- it will only diminish the real advantage that Republicans have on national security by giving the false impressions that there are Democrats other than Joe Lieberman who are actually interested in security.
The case for the deal is an easy one to make -- it's already been done by the Washington Post and the WSJ editors, not to mention a Coast Guard Admiral, among others. So, Congressional staffers who missed this issue back in November, when it was news, can be fired without jeopardizing anyone's ability to make the arguments necessary to persuade the public that approving the deal is good policy.
The merits are irrelevant in this - it's just like the Panama Canal Treaty dispute. Dozens of Congressmen and Senators, almost all Republican, who supported President Carter on the Canal Treaty had their careers blasted for it. Many were beaten in their next election. Senator Howard Baker's presidential ambitions died right there. Michael Barone devotes a whole page in his book, Our Country to the political disaster the Canal Treaty was for the elected officials who supported it.
And hindsight proves the Canal Treaty was a good thing for the country.
President Bush's inept PR here has a lot to do with it too. His veto threat has zero credibility given that he has never, ever, vetoed anything as President, while he has threatened many and then caved in when Congress passed the bills anyway.
This is a gift from heaven for the Democrats.
Any Republican Senators and Congressmen who support this deserve what will happen to them.
Just wondering - why on earth would the American people want the Islamist terror supporters of the UAE to think that George Bush is a "player". Why should we respect the opinions of the people who happily continued to finance terror after the bombing of the USS Cole and our embassies in Kenya?
According to the 9/11 commission, the vast majority of the money funding the Sept. 11 attacks flowed through the U.A.E. The Islamists who run this Shariah-dominated government ignored American pressure to clamp down on terror financing until after the attacks.
The UAE government ignored American pressure to clamp down on terror financing after Al Qaeda declared war on the United States.
The UAE government ignored American pressure to clamp down on terror financing after the Cole bombing and after more than 220 people were killed and over 4,000 were wounded in simultaneous car bomb explosions at the United States embassies in Kenya.
This is the government that went on to happily finance the slaughter of 3,000 Americans in an unprovoked act of war.
The UAE government supported al Qaeda's war against the US because they share al Qaeda's goals - a shariah-led caliphate in the Middle East - basically, the quest for Islamist lebensraum. They supported al Qaeda's war against us because they too were at war with us. They're still at war with us, although, due to the fact that the have no real military forces to defend themselves against us, their tactics have changed. Now, like our terror-supporting slaveholding allies in Saudi Arabia, the Sudan and Yemen, they pretend to be our friends.
The UAE, like our terror-supporting allies in Saudi Arabia, Yemen and in the Sudan do what they do because they're at war with us. They want more money and more power, and they're willing to kill and lie to get it. It's kind of simple, any idiot can see that. But those who support Bush's side in this issue are way too smart to see something that's so obvious.
So, yes, Bush is being smart here. According to this police analysis of classic cons and scams, smart people are usually the easiest to deceive.
Many of our readers are asking themselves, "Why was I stupid enough to invest in Enron or Tyco?" Well, why were they? The biggest misconception about fraud is that the victims are stupid. The truth is, con artists prefer intelligent people. First, smart people are more likely to have money. Second, smart people are easier to fool precisely because they think they're too smart to get scammed. We deal with victims who are doctors, lawyers, judges -- even cops. The easiest people to deceive are those who think that they are immune to deception..
..One of the biggest giveaways that you might be part of a con is a sense of immediacy: You have to make this decision now. If a stock is a good deal today, it will be a good deal tomorrow. When you're dealing with any scheme that involves money, you should ask yourself two questions: Is it possible that this person could be lying to me? And if they are, what do I stand to lose? If the answers are "yes" and "a lot," take some time to investigate further.
So, when analysing this issue, ask yourself - do you think you're immune to deception?
Is there a sense of immediacy?
Is there a possibility that the terror-supporting Islamist government of the UAE could be lying to us?
If they are lying, what do we stand to lose?
If your answer is "a lot" take some time to investigate further.
I'm uneasy with this deal, in that I'd be uneasy with this deal if any foreign company was involved - not for any reasons of security but merely because it represents the flight of capital from the country.
But I'm even more uneasy with blocking the deal. I'm uneasy with the given reasons for blocking the deal. I'm even more uneasy with the message that blocking such a deal will send the Arab world. To me, blocking the deal says, "It doesn't matter how well you play with us, ultimately you are still just Arabs (or use Ann Coulters noun if you prefer) and we will never partner with you and never trust you."
mary: Let's not confuse UAE with Saudi Arabia. This is a country with relatively little oil wealth that realized back in 1971 that the only way it was going to be able to secure its future was to modernize and to an extent Westernize.
"Try this view of UAE"http://travel.theemiratesnetwork.com/to_do/wild_wadi_water_park_dubai.php
Not exactly Taliban dominated Afghanistan.
I'm not saying that there aren't reactionary Islamist militants in UAE - of course there are - but living in the UAE is a totally different experience than living in Saudi Arabia or Iran. And I have a very hard time imagining that the Sheiks in Dubai want to see a Caliphate reestablished, because they above everyone else have the most to lose in seeing the return of a Caliph in Bagdad or Persia or Turkey or anywhere else.
Someone needs to explain to Ben what political capital(not capitol) is and how it's used.
Let's not confuse UAE with Saudi Arabia. This is a country with relatively little oil wealth that realized back in 1971 that the only way it was going to be able to secure its future was to modernize and to an extent Westernize.
The UAE was supporting al Qaeda during the late '90's as westerners played in Dubai. They supported the bombing of our embassies and the murder of hundreds of Africans as westerners drank booze in Dubai. They paid for 9/11 as they built hotels and bars. The enslaved African children and they enforced sharia among their citizens as they promoted Dubai as a hot vacation spot. They were at war with us then and they're at war with us now.
The Saudi government supports sharia when applied to their citizens. They still chop off hands for theft, they still execute people for selling liquor - but they don't follow Sharia banking rules. When bin Laden demanded that the American military must leave Saudi soil, he didn't also demand that Aramco should close its doors. He didn't forbid American dollars from entering the country. These Sharia-dominated groups are very flexible when it comes to money. They're at war with us, and they expect us to finance this war.
And we do, because we are so smart.
This is the government that went on to happily finance the slaughter of 3,000 Americans in an unprovoked act of war.
Mary, what's the basis of that statement? As far as I know, the UAE had a non-regulated banking industry, which allowed people to bank without i.d., but that's a far cry from financing slaughter. Of the $400,000 to $500,000 spent on 9/11, about $300,000 passed through U.S. banks. Did the U.S. or those banks finance the slaughter?
The basis of that statement was this article in the New York Times, which quotes the 9/11 commission report.
According to that statement, the American government was pressuring the UAE to clamp down on terror financing before the 9/11 attacks. The UAE government did not comply with those requests.
Of the $400,000 to $500,000 spent on 9/11, about $300,000 passed through U.S. banks. Did the U.S. or those banks finance the slaughter?
Was the American government pressuring American banks to stop allowing terror-financing before the 9/11 attacks? Did those American banks ignore those requests? If they did, then the comparison is valid.
Wasnt Al Gore just in Saudi Arabia pitching a fit about Arabs being unfairly singled out post-911? Just asking. There is an awful lot of hypocracy on both sides of this one.
I think the NY Times is spinning a bit. This is from the staff report to the 9/11 commission
The types of anti-money-laundering laws that were in place at the time, however "largely focused on drug trafficking and large-scale financial fraud and could not have detected the hijackers' transactions. The controls were never intended to, and could not, detect or disrupt the routine transactions in which the hijackers engaged."
So, UAE should have enacted those laws, but the benefits for counter-terrorism, and the 9/11 plot in particular, appear exagerated.
Mark,
It's only about posturing now - hypocracy city.
I agree with most of what is said so far. I'm uneasy about the deal, but don't really understand what this group could actually get away with that terrorists couldn't do already. And, if this deal doesn't theoretically degrade security, isn't this just a big FYou to UAE?
Having briefly read through that NRO website, I'm still undecided.
But I would like to say one thing that will make nobody happy: I do not beleive this is Bush's strategy; it is the puppetmaster's strategy, which is why Bush was not informed until after the trade was over. The question is: Which puppetmaster was it?
That’s an excellent point. If we do decide to try and block the deal (by which I mean stop the UAE company from managing these ports since we probably can’t stop one foreign company from purchasing another), it has to be for a darn good reason that minimizes any fallout amongst our allies and those we’re trying to bring on board.
As an aside, I’m undecided about the issue which makes this a particularly interesting debate as I can see the merits of both arguments. Pity that some are behaving so badly with the stakes being so high.
The UAE had no money-laundering law, although at U.S. urging in 1999 it started drafting one, which was not finalized until after 9/11. Although the UAE was aware that terrorists and other international criminals had laundered money through the UAE, and that it was the center for hawala and courier operations, it did little to address the problem.
It did little to address the problem after al Qaeda attacked our embassies and after al Qaeda attacked the USS Cole. I'm not a big fan of the NY Times, but that's pretty much what they said too.
Why should we support this deal? Because we're afraid of losing money? Because we're afraid that our friends in the UAE won't like us anymore? Those are the classic reasons why people fall for cons.
Again, is there a possibility that the terror-supporting Islamist government of the UAE could be lying to us?
If they are lying, what do we stand to lose?
Please. This issue is not about security, it's about something far more important to the people in power...money.
Alchemist.
You're joking with the puppet master thing right?
If not, don't you think it's a little late in the game to start wondering who the puppet masters are?
Yeah, I'm joking. But I don't really think Bush had any invovlement in this decision at all.
Why should we support this deal?
1. Free trade. One of the 9/11 Commission's recommendations and one of Bush's strategies for Islamic terrorism is to open up the Middle East economies and promote reform.
2. Iran. Since UAE has historically been hostile to Iran, it might have an important role to play: either in soft power (broadcasting democratic propaganda in Persian) or hard power (air strikes)
3. Distraction. If I thought this issue were going to roll into a number of substantial reforms that made America better prepared, I probably wouldn't care. I sense no real desire to address the question about what do you do when a pirated ship, carrying a nuclear devise, runs aground at a major U.S. city. Doesn't port. Doesn't need to.
Alchemist
I don't believe he had any involvment in the decision either.
But it is curious how he's bowed up over it and I'm having a hard time understanding why.
My guess is there's something beneath all of this we aren't privy to. Not necessarily sinister or anything, but something.
Karl wouldn't allow Bush to walk this plank for no reason.
Iam willing to award World Ports port contracts currently held by a Brit firm. The NRO articles are excellent, but don't explain the issues in full. Think about this.
First, what exactly is the nature of this contract? It is basically a stevedore, or labor, contract for handling shipping. It has nothing to do with port security. The port security is handled by the Coast Guard and Customs. The CG is a competent organization, as is Customs, by most accounts. Ships are searched OFFSHORE before being allowed into a US port by these folks. They are two of the few Federal agencies which can claim to be overworked and understaffed. The tonnages of shipping and containers they are responsible for checking is overwhelming.
Some years ago COSCO, a Chinese Communist Red Army owned container shipping company sought to purchase the decommissioned Long Beach CA Naval Base. There was a SHITSTORM of opposition to this. CA Congressman Duncan Hunter was instrumental in passing legislation banning COSCO and the Chinese from the Long Beach Navy Base facility. So, COSCO finally bought some private property down the road and built its own port facilities and is busy as hell - the only company shipping directly from the PRC to the US. The abandoned Navy base now provides jobs for 14 people and sits unused.
This is not unsupported blather on my part. I called Duncan Hunter's office and talked with one of his aids for about 15 minutes and was pleasantly surprised at the guy's competence and understanding of the issues. Guess what? The Chicoms haven't nuked us yet!
When I first heard about the 6 ports deal and an UAE firm, I almost flipped. Well, actually, I did turn the air purple with obscentiy. Having looked at the issue carefully, I don't have a problem letting the UAE firm in. I would have a HUGE problem letting ANY shipping firm be responsible for it's own security compliance, or peddling a strategic advantage to an enemy.
Yes, the Arab nations are two-faced double dealing SOBs on one level. But the UAE is helping us in the war against terror, as they are as likely victims as we. On the other hand they are laundering money, shipping restricted materials, and funding f***ing HAMAS, giving money to the Nation of Islam nitwits. They are both allies and enemies, a tribal Muslim society I have real trouble understanding. The Al Qaeda and other really bad actors don't need this port deal to nuke us. I say go ahead with it and keep tight reins on our security.
Actually, most of the world now has a huge Muslim terrorist problem: America, Britain, France, Russia, Holland, Denmark... Where do we draw the line? The addage that states have interests, not friends is appropriate. Not to wax Machiavellian, aside from the really blatant state sponsors of terrorism: Iran, Syria, North Korea, etc., the US is relatively safe doing business with the UAE and its ilk. We are responsible for our own security and it needs huge improvement. Politically incorrect, or not if we don't start scrutinizing Muslims in this country, we will rue the day.
The aid at Duncan Hunter's office I spoke with told me if terrorists wanted to nuke Long Beach all they would have to do is put a nuke on a speedboat in Ensenada and drive it right up to the Harbormasters office. He's right.
Matt -- the record of DPW in the Port of Baltimore is horrid. Wooden blocks pretending to be surveillance cameras, intrusion detection systems turned off because of too many false alarms, patrol boats in drydock, gaps in fences, not enough guards. Well reported in a variety of Press sources, Powerline, Instapundit, etc.
As far as the UAE goes, remember when Clinton was all set to put a missile on Bin Laden but called it off because a visiting UAE prince would have been killed? Well this is that situation for Bush. The UAE just like Pakistan in bed with Al Qaeda and no one should deceive themselves. That includes ... YOU. Like Pakistan it co-operates in some areas and acts directly against us in others. A hard line is warranted to make them fear us.
The UAE government simply cannot be trusted with owning the company that operates our ports. The UAE is already shot through with Al Qaeda. Sultan Ahmed Bin Sulayem, the chairman of DP World and one of the UAE’s leading businessmen, gave an interview where he listed terrorism as one of his least significant concerns. A prominent UAE think tank founder went on Saudi TV to praise the mothers of suicide bombers. Like Pakistan the UAE can be "trusted" only when you stand right over them with massive, overwhelming force and show them highly negative consequences if they act against you while you watch them. The UAE like most Arab regimes have a political coping mechanism of absolute repression internally coupled with active encouragement of jihad and anti-Western hate. See: Egypt, Syria, Saudi, etc. We are the convenient targets and ALL Arab regimes practice this anti-Western hatred and encouragement of jihad against us to stay in power.
According to the Coast Guard Admiral interviewed by Hugh Hewitt, the Company DPW will continue to do the clearances and vetting for all employees, not the Coast Guard. You can find the interview on Radio Blogger. Considering the Admiral gave his half-hearted "following orders" approval of the deal this is pretty significant. And an unacceptable risk given the UAE government's past entanglement with bin Laden personally at the ROYAL LEVEL. Your downside is a nuked city. No congressman or Senator is going to vote for this deal with ads showing AK-47 waving, American Flag burning screaming Arabs overlaid onto icons like the Statue of Liberty.
Pardon me if I express concern that UAE Royals go hunting with bin Laden.
Bush deserves a massive defeat on this because it is one of the all time idiotic moves ever made by a President. I have supported his moves generally but I will go further. He deserves censure over this to pound the lesson home throughout government (and force him to fire a lot of people who at the lower level approved this). [Rove a genius? No this episode pretty much disproves that thesis]
Matt -- you need to drop you PC Multi-Culti nonsense and deal with the world as it is. If nothing ELSE the Cartoon Jihad with "Freedom go to Hell," "Behead those who Insult the Prophet," and "God Bless Hitler" show the utter fallacy of your Post-Modern, "Folk Marxist" philosophy of oppressed and oppressor groups or naive utopianism.
I would not trust Pakistan, Egypt, Saudi, or any other Muslim or Arab government purchasing vital companies and having sensitive access to infrastructure. We simply cannot afford your deranged Berkeley PC nonsense because the World Does Not Work Like a Disneyland Ride. [Dave Shuler this is not "Arabaphobia" but an honest appreciation by most Americans that "they hate us, they really hate us." As Derbyshire put on his website (NRO spiked the column), they hate us because we show their societies to be utter failures. Cartoon Jihad took off the mask and we know what they are, acting according to Machiavelli's principles which are ugly but have the distinction of actually, working. As opposed to Utopian nonsense.]
PC kills and at it's worst you get nuked cities.
Coior me with NC Republican Congresswoman who sent a one sentence reply to Bush. Blocking the deal would send an excellent signal: Arab nations become like Italy or France; or face exclusion as a "little people" destined to be ground into dust by history as Patrick Bergin says to the brutal tribalists practicing sadistic torture in "Mountains of the Moon." Maybe the regimes will finally look at the Arab Human Development Report by the UN. Probably not. Carrots have not worked and after Cartoon Jihad the Arab and Muslim worlds need a good dose of the stick.
Particularly with Iran looming. Strong action now might convince the Russians and Chinese we are serious and prompt them to act.
Joe -- I dunno, my impression is that the signal/noise ratio for JR is pretty close to Raymond's; long on rhetoric, short on substance. But eh, it's your house.
Lewy -- "Matt, with respect to the "unimpeachable" nature of DPW - swell, but why is it so impossible that AQ will find it easier to infiltrate and conduct espionage against a UAE company rather than, say, a British company?"
Why do you assume it would be easier? The onus here is on people who want to treat this as some sort of special case. According to the Heritage Foundation:I highly reccommend that link BTW, it lays out the actual facts fairly well.
celebrim -- "I'm uneasy with this deal, in that I'd be uneasy with this deal if any foreign company was involved - not for any reasons of security but merely because it represents the flight of capital from the country."
Uh, what? P&O is already foreign-owned, as are many other US ports:There's nothing new here.
This WaPo article is also good.
Is it true that the UAE doesn't recognize Israel?
Isn't anyone wondering why this is only now becoming an issue? It's not like the Dubai Ports acquisition of P&O wasn't news in November of 2005 or anything like that --- oh, wait, it was.
No one else sees a connection in the public's mind -- and the emotional rejection by what appears to be a majority of voters -- to the Muslim rioting over cartoons these past two weeks?
If the Emirates had come out strongly in support of free speech, had not paid attention to the cartoons, and condemned the boycott of Denmark, wouldn't we be more prepared to see them as adult partners, as opposed to hysterical spoiled brats?
I am pleased to report that UAE's online newspaper, GulfNews, printed several editorials supporting the boycotts, condemning free speech, and discussing Arab "hurt feelings".
As a consequence, for me not supporting this Port proposal is not racism or Islamophobia at all. It's merely me boycotting Dubai because of their boycott of Denmark and Sweden. Sauce = goose = gander.
If the Emirates had come out strongly in support of free speech, had not paid attention to the cartoons, and condemned the boycott of Denmark . . .
Just curious. How did the President of the U.S. come out on those criteria?
I'll note with approval a Wired News article by Bruce Shneier. Bruce is calling for more transparency in the deal, which is the direction things appear to be moving.
Schneier. Schneier.
i m teh bad sp3llx0r k thx bye.
Bruce is a guy with smart things to say about real security. Transparency will help, but the political truth is that this deal is probably dead on arrival. This despite the fact that I tend to side with Matt on the merits (excuse me while I pick up my jaw re: Matt quoting the Heritage Foundation), and think the collapse of the deal will have unpleasant blowback consequences.
I'd say Nancy, and Jim too, are on to something here. This despite the fact that if you want to find a place like Italy in the Middle East, the UAE is it. The meta-message of the reaction is pretty much "Arabs can't be trusted"; and that's a real and important public shift. I'd say the Cartoon Jihad has done a lot to firm up that belief in many people's minds.
If the Denmark company ends up getting the port deal, the symbolism would be complete....
Joe, don't damage your jaw on my account. My policy is "when you're right, you're right."
I don't even know if hiring a UAE company affects national security, and (like fellow sufferer of Bush Derangement Syndrome Kevin Drum (and many others), I rather doubt it. I don't, I must say, understand why the US Government itself doesn't do this, but that's some other thread.
What's happened here is that unlike other potential PR blunders, there isn't any credible way to reframe the issue as "Trust me, I'm in charge of the war on terror", leaving Fox News, Limbaugh, the right-blogosphere, et al devoid of talking points. When it was a question of torturing our prisoners, the defense was "They're bad Al Quaila members so it's OK, it makes us safer." (Yah, when a couple non-coms overdid it, they got jail but the plan's architects are promoted.) When it was kissing habeas corpus goodbye, even for a US citizen apprehended on US soil, it was "I know he's a bad Al Quaila member, and only the ACLU/Democrat weenies don't understand the war on terror."
Bush missed the brief window of opportunity here: he could have said that he was setting a brilliant trap and the AQ-infiltrated UAE security services would be sending double agents here, where we could more easily apprehend them. Doubtless the ovine Bush base would have started chanting "Better to fight them over here than all the way over there" (to the tune of "Four legs good; two legs better") now that the Iraqadventure has turned into hell on earth.