Port Authority
By Callimachus | Related entries in Dumb Things Said By Smart People, In The News, The War On Terrorism, The WorldI’m agreeing with Tim F. that the panic over Arabs running our ports is an over-reaction. I’ve said that from the start. It would seem the Bush Administration held the high ground here: Can you imagine the outrage if it had been the federal government that said, “Hey, we can’t let a bunch of A-rabs own our stuff.” But in a matter of a day the story has managed to morph into yet one more sad example of the Bush Administration tripping over its own feet.
I remain unconvinced that the fate of the free world rests on who manages a percentage of our ports, but I think that Bush’s handling of the issue reveals something at least as important. …
What strikes me more than the mortal danger to our republic is the stark way that this highlights the president’s deficiencies as a leader. Josh Marshall touches on this, and I would only add that if this deal is as ordinary as some claim then the president should be able to sell it to his country. A majority in both houses would be perfectly happy to get his back politically, as long as he gave them some time for coordination. Instead he basically blindsided them. … [I]t seems like most Republican politicians heard about it for the first time when livid constituents began clogging their phone lines. Putting your allies in a position of panicked damage-control isn’t a great way to build support.
This entry was posted on Wednesday, February 22nd, 2006 and is filed under Dumb Things Said By Smart People, In The News, The War On Terrorism, The World. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
February 22nd, 2006 at 10:24 pm
It’s an easy way to score “we care about security” points for both sides. It’s an overreaction, but there are some legitimate points for concern.
February 22nd, 2006 at 10:46 pm
Is it an overreaction? Absolutely, positively yes. Is it one I don’t mind making? You betcha.
We worry about being dependant on the Middle East for our oil, and it’s virtually a unanimous agreement there, that we should be less dependant. Largely because our own money is effectively funding terror and instability indirectly. UAE control of our ports is, while not exactly the same, very similar. We say that we must remain objective, and not prevent a sale simply because it originated in that corner of the world. But how on earth does that jive with our policy to reduce our dependance on Middle Eastern oil? We’re about to entrust critical infrastructure into the hands of people who are very possibly going to end up being much more willing to consort with, fund, or aid terrorists, simply by virtue of sharing a common culture and/or religion. Part of the problem is simply that we just plain don’t know, and for all the assurances that may be made, there’s no way to guarantee it. The best thing we can do is reduce the risks to an acceptable level. The switch to UAE control of our ports may very well keep the risks at an acceptable level, however, there is absolutely no way that you could convince me that UAE control represents a reduction in risk or even a maintenance of the status quo.
And when you consider that the risks are already probably too high right now…
Yeah, I just don’t see any reason why a veto should be used here.
However, it is exceptionally instructive to see what Bush cares enough about to use his veto power on… Think about it… Bush vows to keep us safe, stomps all over our civil liberties to do it, invades another country or two, and generally proclaims (with his actions, if not his words) that sometimes you have to give a few things up in the name of security? But give up the right to profit and capitalism? Heck no! Can’t tread on that, the most holy of all our freedoms.
February 22nd, 2006 at 10:50 pm
Brian, I’m sure the initial objections were genuine, but I agree, much of the people joining the chorus now are doing it purely for “security” bonus points with their constituency.
February 22nd, 2006 at 11:01 pm
I have posted on this same topic, but I believe that the centrist position is with the legislative branch in opposing the move to DP World, at least for now.
I have posted at The American Moderate Party about my belief that Congress should use their oversight obligation to review this action. The President should not be given a carte blanc pass on this.
February 23rd, 2006 at 12:35 am
Some of the saner commentary on this powder keg of prejudice and paranoia is being done over at the Glittering Eye and by Dennis the Peasant.
February 23rd, 2006 at 12:52 am
One of my (strangely dissenting) posts at Exposetheleft.com can better articulate my argument then trying to re-hash.
Brian in MA Said:
February 22, 2006
My question is:
Where does the Witch Hunt end?
Think about it for a moment:
A British company “controlled our ports� before potentially selling it off to the UAE. That’s funny because I distinctly remember the Coast Guard and National Guard being the defenders of our ports during this time, not the British Royal Navy. Its not like we’re going to have UAE ships guarding the harbor, everything still has to get through the US Coast Guard and any other American import/export authorities.
Second, we can’t all jump the gun and say “Arab = EVIL!� We’ve been doing that for quite some time and it’d be nice if for once we showed a gesture of some minute level of trust to the Arab world.
Look at Iraq, last I checked, just because we kicked Saddam out Iraq didn’t suddenly become “not Arab� or “not Muslim�. If we can foster some semblance of trust from the Iraqi’s, why not try it with the UAE?
December 26th, 2006 at 10:11 pm
Just look at a map of the Persian Gulf, and you see what my objections are and have been since the news first came out. The Emirates don’t have the means to defend their own country, their port or keep the Strait of Hermuz open. It only takes one nearby Country a few ships to blockaid the only way in or out. It has nothing to do with Nationality.