I’m A Bigot
By Justin Gardner | Related entries in The War On TerrorismYep, that’s right. I’m also an Islamophobe, a racist and a…wait…what is that word again…oh yes, xenophobe. And these are Republican talking points? HA!
Oddly enough, I even had to set a fellow peer straight as to why the majority of the blogosphere and beyond don’t agree that the UAE should be running our ports.
In any event, I’m fed up with it, and so is Michelle Malkin:
President Bush himself is ultimately responsible for encouraging the race-card players, thanks to his stunning comment that “those who are questioning” the deal need to “step up and explain why all of a sudden a Middle Eastern company is held to a different standard than a Great British company.”… Yes, there are countless homegrown terrorists across England, where Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co., the maritime company purchased by state-owned Dubai Ports World, operates. So what? So, now, a peaceful Western democracy that is infiltrated against its will by al Qaeda is on the same plane as an Arab federation whose ruling emiratis ran interference for Osama bin Laden before Sept. 11, which continued to be a logistical hub for al Qaeda for years after, which refuses to recognize the existence of Israel, bans our textbooks as “racist” because they point out Syria’s state sponsorship of terrorism, and is boycotting Denmark over the Mohammed Cartoons?
Now, all the proselytizers who tell us to collect the dots and connect the dots want us to throw them all away lest we give offense?
Perhaps Bush should consult with his own Justice Department, which understood the need for heightened scrutiny of Middle Eastern illegal aliens in the immediate aftermath of Sept. 11, and instituted temporary targeted fingerprinting and registration policies for Middle Eastern tourists, businessmen, and students.
See here’s the thing. The UAE is still full of red flags for me. That doesn’t mean they couldn’t successfully run our ports. However, to all of those who assure me that nothing will change after the Dubai company takes over the British one, how in the hell do you know that? These are massive companies. I don’t know about you, but when one company takes over another, things usually change. Cultures change, policies change, etc…so to think that this deal is any different seems a bit naive to me. And frankly, in a post 9/11 world, if everybody is really so concerned for our safety and trying to avoid another suckerpunch, why leave ANYTHING up to the free market? No thanks.
But hey, to all of those conservative commentators…please, keep calling us bigots. And we’ll keep providing detailed, reasoned responses to this name calling. It’ll be fun!
This entry was posted on Wednesday, March 1st, 2006 and is filed under The War On Terrorism. 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.
March 1st, 2006 at 6:03 pm
Michelle Malkin is such a nutball that I usually feel safe in assuming that the opposite of whatever position she takes is the correct position, even if I know nothing further.
Justin, I agree with your point that calling people bigots because they want to look into this security issue is absurd. No matter where the company is from, if the company’s role could affect our security, they should be investigated.
Still, I haven’t been impressed with the evidence that this is a threat. It’s my understanding that they would be doing little more than operating cranes. I have heard a shows on NRP, PBS, and other cable news shows interview port security experts who say that they have heard of no expert claim that a company could breach security by operating cargo terminals. I still haven’t heard an expert say this is a threat.
Until I hear an expert say this is a threat, I am just assuming that this is much ado about nothing.
March 1st, 2006 at 7:05 pm
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/03/01/aq-infiltrated-uae/
March 1st, 2006 at 7:50 pm
Again, for the reasons I’ve pointed out, along with others, the UAE should have no business running anything in our ports, period.
March 1st, 2006 at 9:11 pm
I think the entire way we hand out port contracts should be looked at. But I don’t see any real reason why DPW should be more feared than some of the others running our ports including Chinese companies with ties to the Chinese government and CITGO which is wholly owned by Venezuela (a nation that is much less of an ally than the UAE).
The fact that THIS contract has received so much scrutiny is curious. There is certainly bigotry involved–certainly not by principled critics like Justin, but people like Malkin butter their bread with xenophobic rhetoric and I find it hard to believe this is anything more than the same from Malkin and her ilk.
But I do agree that this deal shouldn’t just sail through unexamined. But nor should a lot of the other port deals.
March 1st, 2006 at 10:29 pm
I think part of my concern (which I’m guessing may be part of other people’s concern) is that since 9/11 to the present, this administration has been highly suspicious of the Arab world to the extent that we round them up, put them in concentration camps and hold them indefinitely in inhumane and torturous conditions. We’ve been racially profiling like it’s going out of style. Now, suddenly, and with little explanation, we are doing a ports deal with Arabs. We are told that it makes sense money-wise. So, to me, 2 + 2 = It’s OK to trust Arabs, as long as we get a sweet deal. And, by “we,” I mean Bush and Co.
So, even though I tend to agree with Jeff B. that I haven’t really heard anything specific about why this would be a really bad idea, I resent the fact that this administration is propagating the notion that it’s OK to deal with the Arab world as long as it’s good for Bush’s pocketbook, but nevermind worrying about the Arabs’ silly human rights.
March 2nd, 2006 at 6:06 am
“…Arab federation whose ruling emiratis ran interference for Osama bin Laden before Sept. 11, which continued to be a logistical hub for al Qaeda for years after,…”
How is that not enough to kill this deal? Just because the leaders of the UAE will not be physically guarding the ports doesn’t mean that there is absolutely no threat.
A government that has supported terrorism will have intimate knowledge of our port security.
March 2nd, 2006 at 10:28 am
Jeff B., you’ve got a pre-9/11 mentality because you believe that until something is proven to be bad, it is good. The post-9/11 mentality says that everything is bad until it is proven to be good.
The reason we haven’t heard anything to prove that the port deal is bad (other than the Israeli boycott support which, as I understand US law, is a deal breaker, and alleged ties to terrorism, is because a 45 day review (that I believe is required by law) was not done. If that had been done and the result was that everything was hunky-dorey, then we probably wouldn’t be having this discussion.
March 2nd, 2006 at 11:15 am
Now an Israeli company says it think UAE is fine. Done business there for years. On CNN right now.
March 2nd, 2006 at 12:31 pm
John C., I think you’re right about the review. I have heard the same argument. However, you’re first statement about attitudes post- and pre- 9/11 I disagree with. I hope you’re joking. If you’re not, I hope I don’t need to point out that “everything is bad until proven good” is an enormous over-generalization. Do you mean that all Arab’s are bad until proven good, or do you mean that everything Bush does is bad until proven good?
March 2nd, 2006 at 12:38 pm
This is no doubt true, but just as I agreed with her on the crescent shapped 9/11 memorial, I think she’s making some very good points now. And it’s not just rhetoric. Sure, she wraps herself in it quite often, but she’s come up with a lot of valid points, as have I.
Interesting. I’d like to hear more about this. However, what Israel think is cool and what we think is cool are two different things. Still, if you can find more, please share.
March 2nd, 2006 at 1:04 pm
The name calling game does get old.
I have been called a liberal so many times
I have to ask myself. If hate is all the GOP
has than America has a very big problem.
Bigot indeed!!! If you have valid concerns
why are you labeled a Traitor. Has demanding
a Goverment that uses commen sense.
Make me unamerican. No it makes me responsable.
Something name callers will never be.
Turn off Rush and find a brain.
March 2nd, 2006 at 3:39 pm
Justin: Malkin is a smart woman and I didn’t mean to suggest she doesn’t have valid points, only that I think her ports argument is likely fueled by her usual reactionary distrust of foreigners, particularly of Arabs. She’s one of those writers who, when right, is often right for the wrong reasons.
In this case, I think the DPW deal would not increase the threats to our ports. But I do think our port system is a weak link and if this debate leads to a real examination of our port security, then I’m glad it came up. Otherwise, I can’t figure why it’s ok for Hugo Chavez to opperate some ports but not ok for an Arab ALLY to do the same.
March 2nd, 2006 at 3:54 pm
John C-
As was pointed out, your comment that we have to assume that “everthing is bad” after 9/11 is absurd.
We can’t assume everything is bad. Some things have nothing to do with security. It depends on the position. If everyone who knows what they’re talking about seems to think that the crane operators for cargo terminals do not have the direct relation to security that most people seem to think that they do, then I don’t see why we should do anything more than our normal security review. If that includes this 45 day review, then they should have done that also.
If “everything” is assumed to be bad, then I guess that we should mandate that McDonald’s workers should be strip searched when they show up for their shifts every day. Hey, it’s post 9/11. We can’t take any chances.
I think that the fact 95% of the containers at ports aren’t searched is a problem and I think that the people who search them should be subject to a very thorough security procedure. The Dubai company won’t be doing that job, and until I hear evidence that their job presents more of security threat or that the current security procedure was inadequate in some way, I think that this is overblown and based on misperceptions.