Yesterday I highlighted a typical piece of liberal, Democratic bias by the MSM.  Today I have to eat my words a bit.  Don't get me wrong.  The MSM is definately biased towards the leftists liberal view of the world, but every once in awhile even a Democrat will have a few seconds of clear thought and writes something like this:

After years of struggling to define their own approach to post-Sept. 11 foreign policy, Democrats seem finally to have hit on one. It's called pandering. In those rare cases when George W. Bush shows genuine sensitivity to America's allies and propounds a broader, more enlightened view of the national interest, Democrats will make him pay. It's jingoism with a liberal face.

The latest example came this week when Democratic senators and House members demanded that Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki either retract his criticisms of Israel or forfeit his chance to address Congress. Great idea. Maliki — who runs a government propped up by U.S. troops — is desperate to show Iraqis that he is not Washington's puppet. And the United States desperately needs him to succeed because, unless he gains political credibility at home, his government will have no hope of surviving on its own.

Maliki took a small step in that direction this week when he articulated a view of the Israeli-Hezbollah conflict quite different from that of the Bush administration. His views were hardly surprising: Iraq is not only a majority-Arab country; it is a majority-Shiite Arab country. And in a democracy, leaders usually reflect public opinion. Maliki's forthright disagreement with the United States was a sign of political strength, one the Bush administration wisely indulged.

But not congressional Democrats. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid demanded that Maliki eat his words or be disinvited from addressing Congress. "Your failure to condemn Hezbollah's aggression and recognize Israel's right to defend itself raise serious questions about whether Iraq under your leadership can play a constructive role in resolving the current crisis and bringing stability to the Middle East," wrote Reid and fellow Democratic Sens. Richard J. Durbin and Charles E. Schumer on July 24.

How, exactly, publicly humiliating Maliki and making him look like an American and Israeli stooge would enhance his "leadership" was never explained in the missive. But of course Reid's letter wasn't really about strengthening the Iraqi government at all; that's George W. Bush's problem. It was about appearing more pro-Israel than the White House and thus pandering to Jewish voters.

Reid's letter is not an anomaly; it is part of a pattern.

[...]The Democratic Party's single biggest foreign policy liability is not that Americans think Democrats are soft. It is that Americans think Democrats stand for nothing, that they have no principles beyond political expedience. And given the party's behavior over the past several months, it is not hard to understand why.

Granted, the writer is a liberal that is a rarity in today's world.  He wrote a book ""The Good Fight: Why Liberals—and Only Liberals—Can Win the War on Terror and Make America Great Again"…..stop laughing.

Seriously tho, he may be VERY wrong when he came up with that title but he believes there is actually a war on terror, another rarity in the liberal world.  For this I will give him his due.  

Someone else I have to give his due is Alan Dershowitz who writes today:

As a liberal Democrat, I listened carefully to the opposition voiced by many Democratic senators to the nomination of John Bolton as our chief representative to the United Nations. Mr. Bolton has been representing us at the United Nations since August. During the current Middle East crisis, I have been able to listen for myself to what Mr. Bolton has been saying at the United Nations.

On the basis of his performance, I have become a Bolton supporter. He speaks with moral clarity. He is extremely well prepared. He is extraordinarily articulate. He places the best face on American policy, particularly in the Middle East during this crucial time.

[..]Now, there's John Bolton, who follows in that tradition with distinction. Were he not to be confirmed as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations at this crucial juncture it would send a powerful message to the international community that Senate Democrats do not stand behind our policy in the Middle East. It would be seen as undercutting American policy toward Israel. Even if that were a misunderstanding, it would have a devastating impact on the world's perception of America's solidarity with Israel.

[...]What remains of last year's nomination battle, though, is what I suspect to be the real reason that some Democrats oppose the Bolton nomination. That is, they felt uncomfortable with Mr. Bolton's oft-expressed and blunt skepticism over the United Nations' legal and moral authority. Mr. Bolton can even, at times, come off as "contemptuous of the U.N.," in Sen. Barbara Boxer's words.

But Mr. Bolton is right to be skeptical, and all the great U.S. ambassadors to the United Nations – from Adlai Stevenson to Arthur Goldberg to Pat Moynihan to Jeane Kirkpatrick – have shared that skepticism. Mr. Bolton is absolutely justified in pushing for reform of the notoriously corrupt and inefficient bureaucratic structure in Turtle Bay. As he once said, "If member countries want the United Nations to be respected … they should begin by making sure it is worthy of respect."

Most importantly, Mr. Bolton understands that his job is to represent the United States and our interests to the world, and not the other way around. When The Washington Post's Dana Milbank chided Mr. Bolton for "disparaging the very organization he would serve," the Wall Street Journal's James Taranto promptly corrected him by saying, "the American ambassador to the U.N. is supposed to serve America, not the U.N."

Alan recognizes the one thing that Democrats stand for.  Hating the United States.  The whole reason Bolton is so hated by the left is because he is a advocate for the United States.  

Amazing isn't it?  Years ago Alan was considered a far left liberal, now the majority of the left has passed him by as they sped onward to the fringes of idiocy.  Simply amazing, and at the same time a godsend for the right.  Elections are not won by those on the fringes of society, which now includes the majority of the Democratic party. 

Other's Blogging:

• Blue Crab Boulevard
• The Anchoress
• Decision '08
• Captain's Quarters

So it appears a deal has been made that pretty much benefits everyone on both sides, some more then others:

WASHINGTON ? A United Arab Emirates-owned company said Thursday it would give up its management stake in a controversial ports deal that has taken Washington by storm and has caused massive upheaval in the president’s own party.

“Because of the strong relationship between the United Arab Emirates and the United States and to preserve that relationship, DP World has decided to transfer fully the U.S. operation of P&O Operations North America to a United States entity,” DP World’s chief operating officer, Edward H. Bilkey, said in a statement, read on the Senate floor by Sen. John Warner, R-Va.

The company said its decision was “based on an understanding that DP World will have time to affect the transfer in an orderly fashion and that DP World will not suffer economic loss.”

[...]A Warner spokesman told FOX News that based on conversation between his boss and DP World lawyers, “we understand this is a full divestment or sale of the U.S. operations of P&O.” That would mean the Senate amendment would essentially be off the table.

I don’t think the Democrats are too happy because they thought they could use this vote for the upcoming elections:

The announcement was somewhat of a blow for Democrats, who were pushing for a Senate vote on an amendment that would halt the deal. The Senate later voted 51-47 to ignore GOP requests to wait until a 45-day review of the deal is completed before they try to stop it. Republican leaders needed 67 votes to stop debate on the measure.

[...]Democrats were pushing that amendment to lobbying reform legislation to ensure that no UAE-related company has any control over U.S. port operations, particularly since so few details of the latest DP World plan is known. The amendment, sponsored by Sen. Charles Schumer, would not only block the Dubai deal, but also other U.S. ports deal with any company wholly owned or controlled by any foreign government that recognized the Taliban in Afghanistan from 1996-2001.

If they succeeded in forcing a vote on the amendment, Democrats could then claim a big election year win in the area of national security ? an area Republicans generally have a stronger track record on.

The Democrats lose a bit on this deal, Hillary loses even more since she will have to explain why she was against this deal while at the same time her husband worked behind the scenes to get this deal done.

Either way, while this pull out by the UAE has calmed people done the fact that EVERYONE politicized this deal and panicked beyond reason cannot be forgiven. Even the top US Commander in the Middle East thought the whole thing was foolish:

He said the United Arab Emirates, of which Dubai is a part, is vital to the military’s stake in the Persian Gulf region. The Navy heavily uses the port there.

“I am very dismayed by the emotional responses that some people have put on the table here in the United States that really comes down to Arab and Muslim bashing that was totally unnecessary,” Abizaid, who just returned from Iraq for meetings in Washington, told reporters.

I guess congratulations are in order to the Republicans who went into hysterics with this deal. They have managed to give the Democrats a election year victory based on hysteria and lies, and of course the Democrats PR machine….sigh.

Thankfully some level headed Republicans were able to persuade the UAE to make a deal, which definately softened the Democratic victory, not completely, but at least softened it.

Mark Steyn pretty much spelled it out today on the Hugh Hewitt show: (via RadioBlogger)

Well, I would say there aren’t really many happy endings in this story for the Democrats. They saw an opportunity to bash Bush on this, because he looked vulnerable on it. Not just the Democrats, a lot of conservative commentators, Michelle Malkin and others were upset about this deal, too. But the Democrats really ran with this, and panicked enough Republicans into joining them. And the question now is who do these things go to? Do they go to Halliburton? I mean, Halliburton might as well get it, because the reality is that PNO, the British company who were running things at these ports were running them because there’s no American company that does it. What are we going to do? Are we going to create a company specifically for the purpose of running these ports, which would be some semi-nationalized off-shoot of Homeland Security? I wouldn’t personally want to see that. Or is there going to be a real company that steps forward. Interestingly, as I understand this deal, Dubai Ports World will still be running Canadian ports. So if the argument is that these ports will be vulnerable to getting something suspicious trucked in, shipped in, all they have to do is ship it into Vancouver and drive it over the border to Washington State. So I’m not sure quite what the benefits are there.

Now how about those other ports?

While allowing some countries to operate our ports may be considered a security risk, others’ already run some of our ports, such as China and Saudi Arabia, but they are not considered dangerous? Hell, why don’t we look at the Americans who are running them currently:

With all the recent talk about security vulnerabilities at the nation’s ports, one subject goes virtually unmentioned. The men who actually control many of the nation’s docks, especially on the Eastern seaboard, are in the hip pocket of the Mafia and have been for decades.

Regardless of whether or not a Dubai-owned company manages operations at these ports — currently the source of much hand-wringing in Washington — many of those with the most direct access to the billions of tons of cargo that move through those ports owe their jobs to the mob.

How can that be? It all has to do with the peculiar institution of the union hiring hall. No matter who owns or operates the ports, the union, not the employer, actually assigns workers to jobs. You can’t work unless you carry a union card. And on East Coast and Gulf ports, the union card belongs to the International Longshoreman’s Association (ILA), one of the most mobbed-up unions in the country.

In July 2005, the U.S. Department of Justice filed suit under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) against the ILA, which targets the entire 31-member ILA executive council, including the president, secretary-treasurer, executive vice president, general vice president and more than two dozen others.

In a press release accompanying the suit, the Justice Department notes, “For decades the waterfront has been the setting for corruption and violence stemming from organized crime’s influence over labor unions operating there, including the ILA and its affiliated locals, as well as port-related businesses. Since the late 1950s, two organized crime families — the Gambino family and the Genovese family — have shared control of various ports, with the Gambino family primarily exercising its influence at commercial shipping terminals in Brooklyn and Staten Island, and the Genovese family primarily controlling those in Manhattan, New Jersey and the Port of Miami.”

The Justice Department has already won convictions against more than a dozen high-level Gambino and Genovese mobsters who controlled docks on the East Coast and is also seeking convictions of several ILA officials. The government has charged these men with extorting money from waterfront businesses and terminal operators and extorting thousands of dollars from individuals seeking employment on the docks, among other crimes.

And who support the Unions no matter what? You got it, the Democrats.

Could these guys, the ILA, be the reason no US company will touch the ports with a 10 foot pole? Do you think a terrorist organization could involve a mobster in getting a WMD onto our ports as easy as they could if they operated the port itself? Just wondering.

Even more interesting is way down in this article:

Among the top recipients of ILA PAC money in the last few elections were Sens. Frank Lautenberg, D-NJ, Robert Menendez, D-NJ, Barbara Mikulski, D-Md., Chuck Schumer, D-NY, and Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-NY, all of whom represent states with important ports. Some of these same senators are among the chief critics of the Dubai port deal, but they are noticeably silent when it comes to mob influence in the union that actually controls who works on these ports.

Things that make you go hmmmm.

Other’s Blogging:

• Captain’s Quarters
• Ed Driscoll
• Residual Forces
• Independent Conservative
• The Pink Flamingo Bar & Grill
• Say Anything
• Mark A. Kilmer
• Baldilocks
• Dinocrat
• The Discerning Texan
• Small Town Veteran
• Gina Cobb
• Riehl World View
• Michelle Malkin
• A Blog For All

Read the rest of this entry »

Up to this point I have felt that the Republicans are still on good footing going into 2006, the idiocy of the left assures us that they will stay on the sidelines. But the fact that the Republicans went into panic mode while the Democrats took advantage of this panic has made me sadly reconsider. This smacks of going along with the polls, and that will not get us anywhere:

In an election-year repudiation of President Bush, a House panel dominated by Republicans voted overwhelmingly Wednesday to block a Dubai-owned firm from taking control of some U.S port operations.

By 62-2, the Appropriations Committee voted to bar DP World, run by the government of Dubai in the United Arab Emirates, from holding leases or contracts at U.S. ports.

Bush has promised to veto any such measure passed by Congress, but there is widespread public opposition to the deal and the GOP fears losing its advantage on the issue of national security in this fall’s elections.

“This is a national security issue,” said Rep. Jerry Lewis (news, bio, voting record), the chairman of the panel. The California Republican said the legislation would “keep America’s ports in American hands.”

What is it with these people? Can they not understand that the ports have ALWAYS been and ALWAY will be in American hands. Our Coast Guard and our Homeland Security still secure them and it won’t matter if it’s a UAE company operating 6 ports, or if the GASP….Chinese, or even the GASP….Saudi Arabians. Those countries operate ports in this country as we speak, where is the freakin outcry?

I mean the Democrats were the ones who allowed those countries to operate the ports in the first place but no one had a problem with a Communist country running our ports. Why is this? The Republicans are looking foolish, and the Democrats must be rubbing their hands with glee. We are handing this victory to them on a silver platter. We could instead be dragging the hypocrisy of the Democrats through the wringer, I mean come on, even a lowly jarhead like myself can see this. How in the world is it ok to profile a Arab company but not okay to profile a Arab airline passenger?

Christopher Hitchens said as much on Fox today:

[gv data="XDBkB_0xdz4"][/gv]

Instead the Republicans are abandoning our President while at the same time both sides of the aisle are playing politics with a bill intended to fund our military. Disgusting.

Other’s Blogging:

• The Strata-Sphere
• Ed Driscoll
• California Conservative
• Expose The Left
• Blogs For Bush
• Captain’s Quarters
• Riehl World View
• Michelle Malkin
• Say Anything

Read the rest of this entry »

Interesting that while Hillary has been doing everything she can to discredit this port deal her husband has been doing everything he can to make it happen.? Why?? Well he will get a cut of the action:

Former President Bill Clinton is up to his eyeballs in dealings with Dubai, his former top political adviser has revealed. According to Dick Morris, author of the best-selling book, “Condi vs, Hillary,” Clinton is a paid agent of the crown prince of Dubai, now involved in a firestorm over its deal to take over some of the operations at six major U.S. ports.

“Bill Clinton is a senior adviser – a paid adviser – to a company called Yucaipa which recently set up a relationship with a group called the Yucaipa Investment group to set up a new company called DIGL,” Morris said on “The O’Reilly Factor.” “DIGL Inc. is in charge of managing the investments of the crown prince of Dubai throughout the world. Bill Clinton is paid by Yucaipa a percentage of the profits it makes, and Yucaipa said its profits have exceeded 40 percent in recent years. “He is a paid agent of the crown prince of Dubai.

That in addition to the roughly million dollars they gave his library, in addition to the probably $600,000 in speaking fees he got, and in addition to the scholarships for Dubai children they endowed through his library. “I have three points about that. First, when Bill Clinton tells us this port deal is kosher, he ought to disclose that he’s being paid by the government. Secondly, he should register as an agent of a foreign principal because he’s giving public relations advice to a foreign company. And thirdly, his wife should disclose how much Clinton is being paid and when he’s been paid, because it goes into a joint bank account and this is in effect a payment to the husband of a senator.

“And then I would raise another question: Didn’t Hillary jump out of the box opposing this port deal because she knew of her husband’s vulnerability and wanted to get out ahead of the story? I was talking to a source of mine who’s very close to the Clintons about seven or eight months ago and the source said that he’s all the time going back and forth to Dubai and getting deeper and deeper into that relationship. She (Hillary) was worried about that and its political impact,” Morris said.

While this is of course news worthy I don’t see much to be surprised about.? Bill and Hillary have alwasys been and always will be a whore to whoever can either pay him the most or give him the power they so desperately craves.

Capitalizing on polls showing widespread opposition to the takeover of six U.S. port operations by Dubai Ports World, Senator Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) is expanding her complaint about foreign companies operating in the U.S.

“Allowing businesses headquartered in foreign companies to operate in America is wrong,” said Clinton. “It should only be permitted if accompanied by donations that support our electoral processes.”

It was Senator Clinton’s husband who approved a Chinese company’s (Hutchison-Whampoa) purchase of the Panama Canal’s two ports. Then-President Bill Clinton brushed aside security concerns. “I knew they were okay when they contributed to my 1996 re-election campaign,” said Clinton. “Enemies don’t give you money.”

Of course to keep the facade up that Hillary is opposing the deal on principal rather then a power grab she has to issue a statement saying she knew nothing about how Bill got all that money……sure thing:

Hillary Clinton, a leading opponent of DP World’s takeover of some US port operations, was this week forced to admit that she did not know her husband had advised Dubai leaders on how to handle the growing dispute.

But former President Bill Clinton’s ties to Dubai and the United Arab Emirates should not have come as a surprise to his New York senator wife.

Mrs Clinton’s own senatorial financial disclosure forms reveal that her husband earned $450,000 giving speeches in Dubai in 2002.

Officials from the UAE also donated between $500,000 and $1m to fund Mr Clinton’s presidential library in Arkansas.

It was part of an effort by the emirates, said a person close to UAE officials, to forge a close relationship with a former US president who is influential and highly regarded in the region.

[...]Mrs Clinton’s tough stance that the deal represented an “unacceptable risk” to national security has caused UAE officials some consternation.

Regarded as the leading Democratic candidate for the 2008 presidential elections, she has used the deal ? which polls show is disliked by most Americans ? and the anti-Arab sentiment it sparked to attack the Bush administration on national security, an issue that has been seen as a weak point for Democrats.

Although Mrs Clinton has been careful not to criticise the UAE directly, her stance has put her in the same camp as legislators who openly accuse Dubai of helping to finance the September 11 terrorist attacks and deem the UAE untrustworthy.

Privately, some Democrats see the revelations about his ties to the UAE as a classic Clinton dilemma. Mrs Clinton told the New York Post on Thursday that she did not know her husband had been contacted by Dubai officials two weeks ago and offered them advice on the deal. Although both Hillary and Bill Clinton say he stands behind her on the issue and there is no direct conflict, his relationship to the UAE has complicated her political stance on the transaction.

Honey, why didn’t you tell me how $450 grand ended up in our bank account?….sigh

While I have posted often that opposing this port deal is foolish, the fact that these two are taking both sides of the issue for nothing more then political and monetary gain is disgusting.

Has there ever been a slicker political double-play combination than Bill and Hillary Clinton?

Consider how the former president, and the desperately-wants-to-be president, seek to have it both ways in the controversy over the Dubai ports deal.

Sen. Hillary – joined by her New York colleague, Chuck Schumer, and New Jersey’s Bob Menendez – has emerged as a leading voice in opposition to the deal, saying, “Our port security is too important to place in the hands of foreign governments.”

Indeed, she and Menendez are pushing legislation that would automatically ban any company owned by a foreign government from managing a U.S. terminal.

This is more than a security problem, she says – it’s “a larger problem” of ceding “some of our fiscal sovereignty.”

Now that’s an exercise in xenophobia that should cause a Democratic eyebrow or two to be raised in surprise.

Hubby Bill, on the other hand, supports Dubai. Big time.

He not only supports it, he’s even been advising the company on the sly on how to get around the opposition of senators like – well, Hillary.

Better still, he reportedly tried to get Dubai Ports World to hire his former mouthpiece, Joe Lockhart, as its new spokesman in Washington.

(Columnist Robert Novak reports that Lockhart was turned down because he asked for too much money. Lockhart insists he was only recommended by a former top Clinton official who now works as a lobbyist for ex-Secretary of State Madeleine Albright. A Clinton spokesman would say only that “I don’t know for sure, but I don’t know him to generate employment, even for someone he likes and admires as much as Joe Lockhart.”)

Actually, Bill’s been a big fan of Dubai for some time now.

[...]This neat little arrangement keeps the Clintons covered on all sides of the issue. And it helps tuck a little boodle in the family piggy bank, too.

But then, that’s the way the Clintons operate. One hand washes the other, and all that matters is advancing the Clinton self-interest.

Fiscally.

And politically.

(click picture to see it more clearly)

Finally, please people shut up already about?his peace prize.? When he shares company with Carter, Arafat, and Annan as receipants and Tookie Williams as a nominee?then you just have to know it’s worthless.? Nothing more then a paperweight.

This guy has a point: (Via The Strata-Sphere)

Since I work in the cargo industry, I am not surpised in any way with the UAE port deal. This type of deal has been around the cargo business – air and sea – for years upon years. It?s a neccessary evil to get goods from point A to point B. Import or Export. It has an incestuous nature to it – always has.

Why are some vociferous conservatives not as concerned (visibly speaking) about cargo-only airlines that are owned by arabs? Their aircraft fly into the US on a regular basis. Arabs own or invest in many cargo-only airlines. They all fly in and out of the US. Why is there no concern that these same arabs might fill a single 747, or other wide-body cargo aircraft from ten different cargo airlines with 56 Tonnes each of explosives, or nuclear devices, or chemical devices or other instruments of mass destruction and fly legally into US airspace?? 10 bomb filled planes that need not veer off course (hence no red flags) – they need only fly to their destination and detonate.

Don?t even need security measures for that because they would not be violating our airspace, our ports or our airports. It will happen – there is no way of monitoring the overseas ports/airports/employees.

The US does not control the airport/port security overseas, they rely on our allies to do so. So who do we want and need as an ally? Who can we really rely on to protect US interests by not allowing terrorism to foment at their port/airport? Who is the most strategically placed ally? Which Middle Eastern country is more interested in promoting and protecting the human race than destroying it? Who has been investing in the US – and has a stake in it?s future? Those are the countries we need on our side.

I daresay we have come pathetically close to dismissing one of our biggests allies in the region. Ignorance is not always bliss.

The cargo is put onto the airplane in the country of origin and then lands here. Why is there no outcry that we are allowing the cargo airlines owned by Arabs to fly into our airspace? They could easily put a WMD into a 747 right?

This thing has really gone to far. I’m astounded by the short-sightedness of people regarding this thing. People are now trying to find every negative thing about the UAE it can to dismiss this deal, but they say nothing about China’s record on human rights, or many other countries that own and operate companies over here.

Get a grip people.

Oh, and check out AJ’s other excellent post today about this deal:

Conservatives who are against the UAE port are going to face a hard lesson in humility – deal with it or undermine Bush?s second term. The UAE Port deal is going through, there is nothing to stop a determined President from respecting a good ally (at least when compared to Russia, France and Germany):

[...]And he is not going to stop it. Bush is demonstrating leadership and principle over political opportunism and rank fear. So all those who opposed the deal are going to be facing a test of convictions. Do they abandon Bush and risk losing on issues like the NSA surveillance? Or do they suck it up, take the loss and get back into the game?

Being one of those who wanted to hear more about Harriet Miers before we ejected her from consideration I will be honest and say I relish seeing how well people deal with this political failure.[...]

I have heard enough to know opponents are fighting an uphill battle of speculative fantasy verses 5 years of demonstrative acts on the part of The UAE. By all objective, MEASURABLE factors, the DPW deal protects our military as they transit into and out of harms way, provides us an ally which will be checking cargo from all over the world before it ships here, and provides us an ally with intelligence potential in parts of the world we can only imagine.

Did you know that the people who manage the movement of shipping containers, the terminal operators in question, do not know what is in each container? I learned that tonight from real reporters at Fox News. So all these scenarios about infiltrating the terminals to smuggle things through is pure day dreaming. To smuggle you need to know contents in order to know what containers to slip by. Otherwise you have a needle in a haystack.

[...]I have been toying with the idea of calling for everyone to take a stand on The UAE Port deal. A gut check stand.

We have with The UAE the best possible ally we will ever see, for decades, in the Middle East. We have seen them step up where are NATO allies have wilted away. they fight by our side and protect our backs. If we decide the incredibly marginal risk of this Port Deal is of sufficient concern to scuttle it, after all The UAE has done, then the bar has been set very high indeed to trust Muslim Arabs in any aspect of our society.

Who will stand by their opposition to this Port Deal if the end result is this counry, America, decides to bar Muslim Arabs from all areas of potential risk in our society. Using the DPW Port deal as a benchmark, we can and should envision all sorts of protective measures.

[...]So I have been ready to put the test to the bloggers, talking heads and political leaders alike – would they continue to oppose the port deal if it lead to establishing a second class of people in this country? A class of people barred from positions where knowledge of security processes and protocols are known? Will the opponents to The UAE deal go on record to say they are willing to oppose the deal all the way to establishing barriers to employment and business opportunities in all areas of mass transportation (civil and commercial), all areas of police and security, all areas of the nation?s food and water supply chain?

I think it is fair to ask opponents how far they will go. Will they throw this President overboard if they do not get what they want?[...]

It is a simple stand. Yes, we oppose the deal even if it leads to barring Muslims and Arabs from certain parts of our society, or not. No middle ground in this poker game. Call or fold.

I’ll say it again, get a grip people. You do not throw away an ally in a region where we are at war. This deal does not make us any less safer then we were yesterday.
And AJ, you know where I stand on this one.

Read the rest of this entry »

I don’t want you to miss this excellent post by AJStrata:

I knew it was coming. The anti-port forces have gone from veiled insults regarding a key ally in our efforts in the Middle East to open insults. Apparently still trying to convince Americans to toss out our besy qualities and ?fear the Aurabs? the anti-port voices are now endangering our foreign policy efforts.

The UAE is a critical ally watching our backs with regards to material being shipped here from ports they run overseas, to intelligence from the Middle East on possible AQ activities, to protecting our troops flowing in and out of the region.

The last one is the most important. If we stand by our troops, then our fears cannot become so obsessive we end up putting our troops at risk. We already ask them to risk everything to change the face of the Middle East. We cannot allow emotions to run rampant and sever our ties with an ally who is protecting our fighting men and women. The ally deserves better. The troops DEFINITELY deserve better.

We have been working quietly (the way it is done when doing something classified and clandestine) with The UAE ever since 9-11. That country immediately became our ally and stayed that way through our invasion of Iraq. Which is more than we can say for France, Belguim, Germany, NATO, Russia, Canada and Mexico.

Rick Moran, in some fit of irresponsible humor, has insulted The UAE by comparing them to murderous thugs who target children for suicide bombings:

In a continuing effort to prove that Americans are not anti-Arab Islamaphobes, the government has announced that day to day operations of the passenger rail carrier Amtrak will now be in the hands of a state owned company run by the Palestinian group Hamas.

The deal comes on the heels of an agreement to allow the state owned Dubai Ports World(DPW) to manage ports in the United States.

People in the Middle East are not thin skinned, but they do take honor seriously. Very seriously. And this kind of insult will not, and honestly should not, be dismissd by them or us. Rick seems upset people don?t want to share in his fear of all things Ayrab – so he presents us with a fantasy of where all this will lead. He does this deliberately and with the intention of associating a far better ally than those countries I mentioned above. And in doing so he insults our ally to the core of their being.

The UAE has done nothing to deserve this idiotic comparison. That is like comparing Americans who support the deal with Hamas supporters. Which Rick may also trying to be doing. I have been saddened by this fiasco because I could see so many people losing all self control. But this is not to be tolerated. Some people just are not cut out to deal with international issues and foreign policy.

People who cannot discern an ally after 5 years of impressive support on their part from our enemies because of some cultural connections just don?t have the vision and perception to deal with this subject. The blogosphere allows us all to show our strengths and weaknesses. Those insulting The UAE through insinuation, or in this case an outright slap at their humanity, are not helping our cause. But they sure are exposing their weaknesses. As I commented to Rick on his sight, he and the others should stop trying to screw up our foreign policy and national security anymore than they have done already.

National security is not a game. There are 150,000+ US troops in the region whose backs are being guarded by The UAE. While you have a right to speak, it is not always the case that you should speak. With our troops exposed and our reliance on The UAE to keep them safe, it is time the anti-port deal folks understand we heard you, we disagree with you, and you can stop trying to do all you can to destroy our relationship with our ally The UAE. An ally I am proud to have, as our many, many others.

Much more where that came from. As usual AJ is dead on with his analysis. This is just getting out of hand and is becoming a panic, a panic that is leading us down a dangerous road. This is all common sense people. The same people who work on those docks now will be working there after. The same Coast Guard and Border Control officials will be providing security. This is an investment deal on paper by a company that is running ports all over the world, don’t you think if they wanted to hit us they could have by now? I mean China, a Communist country, runs ports on the West Coast, where was the hysteria then?

The UAE is an important ally that should not be treated like this. We need all the allies we can find in that region and to throw it all out over some simple minded hysteria is just plain wrong!

Oldcrow made a great comment to the post:

A few points I would like to make. I have been in the Navy for 17 years and have been to the U.A.E. many many times. The Navy fully vetted DPW a long time ago because they run Jebel Ali the worlds largest manmade shipping port. All the supplies that go to U.S. Naval vessels and a large part of the supplies for the Army in Iraq come from either Jebel Ali or Fujiera U.A.E. also a huge amount of the cargo containers destined for the U.S. go thru Jebel Ali and we have Customs and HS inspectors there inspecting the containers that is why we did not have to investigate them as thurouly as others and may explain why it was considered no big deal by the CFIUS.

If a cargo container with a WMD makes it to say NY harbor it is already to late so the key to security is inspecting the containers before they get here. If we stop this deal does anyone honestly believe that the U.A.E. will continue to allow us to inspect cargo in their country? I know if I was the U.A.E. I would tell those U.S. inspectors to pack their bags and get out as well as the U.S. Navy. So all the hysteria and the threat from Congress to stop this deal will actually make us less secure.

Please people, get a grip!

Read the rest of this entry »

While listening to Larry Elder this afternoon on the way home from work I heard a segment where he played an interview with a former intelligence officer. In it the officer details how wrong the critics are in this port business, and how dangerous the end result can be if the left, and the right continue down this road. I’ve looked all over for this soundbite with no success

It really illustrated the ties we have with the UAE and the harm that this hysteria can do to us in this war. The hysteria being propagated by both sides of the aisle is just mindboggling when all this is is a change of ownership to a company that has been managing ports all over the world for years. Where was this outcry when China took over the ports on the west coast?

Yes, in the past some of the UAE citizens have been the bad guys but to ignore the strides they have made to become our partners is just being ignorant. Dennis over at RedState has some experience in the UAE:

When I was the Chief of the Terrorist Financing Operations Section (TFOS) at the FBI, we maintained direct dealings with the UAE concerning numerous issues. In particular, the UAE Central Bank provided considerable support and was consistently receptive and responsive to requests for information. As the Dubai Ports World story gained momentum, reports indicated that two 9/11 hijackers came from the UAE and bank accounts supporting 9/11 were maintained in the UAE. It should be noted that the UAE Central Bank provided important information concerning these accounts. In addition, they provided significant account information for other matters pursued by TFOS and companion agencies. In one instance, they facilitated the apprehension of an important TFOS subject. Actions such as this clearly demonstrate how important an ally the UAE is and the contribution they?ve made to our war on terrorism. While rightfully showing concern about port security, we should not be irresponsible in our rush to judgment. After all is said and done, the UAE is an important ally.

Yes, they are anti-semetic, as EVERY country in that region is. But in every war you have to ally yourself with those who’s views might not be your own. Unless this country demonstrates it is a threat to us, which it HAS not done, it is just irresponsible to continue down this road of hysteria. The Heritage Foundation weighed in on some of the same points I have made:

Dubai World Ports is a holding company, and it will have little to do with the day-to-day management of these port facilities. Its ownership alone does not entitle its employees to access any classified or sensitive security information unless, as now, they meet the requirements of ISPS and U.S. law. Moreover, almost all of the employees at these facilities are U.S. citizens. As well, with over $6 billion invested, no company would want to see its facilities used by terrorists. Finally, terrorist tradecraft does not involve high-profile purchases of companies. Terrorism infiltration, like criminal smuggling, involves penetration by individuals. That is a challenge for any company.

The UAE Is an Ally. Since 9/11, the UAE has provided unprecedented cooperation to the United States in the war on terrorism, including finding, arresting, and turning over high-ranking al-Qaeda operatives and participating in the U.S. Container Security Initiative to screen cargo bound for the U.S. That Dubai World Ports is owned by the UAE should reassure Americans.

I think the most disappointing thing in this whole episode is the speed and ferocity that the right has began attacking Bush. I mean since 9-11-01 our President has unsheathed the sword and slashed at those who engage in terror and those who support it. He has also sent the message that if you renounce your ill ways and stop supporting terrorism then we can work with you. The only two states in the region who have not heard the word, Iran & Syria, are against the wall. Everyone else who has tried to befriend us have been shown gratitude by this Administration and it’s a great thing. But to now pull the rug out from under a Country that has tried to do right by us, that just sends the wrong message. This is not a deal that will harm our national security.

Gen. Pace knows how important this ally is to our country:

The United States military plans to widen its already extensive access to ports and military bases in the United Arab Emirates which it considers one of its most reliable military allies in the region.

“The military-to-military relationship with the United Arab Emirates is superb,” Gen. Peter Pace, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said. “In everything that we have asked and work with them on, they have proven to be very, very solid partners.”

Pace told a Pentagon briefing on Feb. 21 that the UAE has accommodated U.S. Navy aircraft carriers that patrol the Gulf region. Later, officials said, the UAE’s Jebel Ali port was regarded as the safest in the Gulf region.

“They’ve got great seaports that are capable of handling, and do, our aircraft carriers,” Pace said. “They’ve got airfields that they allow us to use, and their air space, their logistics support. They’ve got a world-class air-to-air training facility that they let us use and cooperate with them in the training of our pilots.”

[...]“We have a port there [in the UAE] where they help us,” Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said. “They have an airfield. We share intelligence and we have a partnership that has been very, very helpful to the things we do in that part of the world.”

Gateway Pundit notices some of the success’s of the UAE:

The UAE held elections this past year and has made serious steps towards democracy and improving womens rights. The UAE also scrapped its “Ministry of Information” which used to control the media. And, the UAE announced in December that “democracy” will start being taught in the first grade!

Even the left’s hero had good things to say about the UAE last December:

Clinton said: ?Dubai is a role model of what could be achieved despite the other negative developments in the region. When I went to Dubai for the first time, I was taken to a technology facility where I hooked up to a bank kiosk and found that one can use a conventional banking service, while at the same time opt for an Islamic Sharia compliant service, which I thought was wonderful. This is a very good example of how cultures and values could be merged and offered to the rest. I was amazed and I have a lot of admiration for Sheikh Mohammed for what he?s doing in Dubai.?

But I’m not surprised at the attacks on Bush from the left, they will attack ANYTHING he does just because it’s Bush. But the attacks from the right are sad. Misinformed scare mongering has brought attacks on this Administration for no other reason then gaining political points, and at the expense of the Republican party.

Other’s Blogging:

• Martin’s Musings
• The Strata-Sphere
• Gina Cobb
• Riehl World View
• Macsmind
• California Conservative
• Decision 08′
• Blogs For Bush
• The Counterterrorism Blog
• Heavy-Handed Politics

Read the rest of this entry »

More of my thoughts on this port dustup.

• This is going to be primarily a investment deal. Nothing more, nothing less. This is a deal on paper. They will have no presence at the terminal.
• The same U.S employee’s who are working in management will still be there, as they were when the British owned the company (on paper also). Nobody from this company will be involved with terminal operations.
• Security will still be handled by our Coast Guard and our law enforcement
• It appears this UAE company is in acquisitions not into managing, or security, or building terminals. They are investors.
• This company will have no presence on the facility. The company heads might visit but you can read who they are in my prior post, mostly Americans.
• The employees still have to pass a background check by homeland security before they set foot on the terminal.
• They already own the global port assets of CSX Corp., which gave the company critical terminals in Asia and made the it one of the 10 largest port terminal operators in the world.
• They already own a US firm which tracks US goods globally. They already track our goods and anything that is classified they do not see, they don’t have clearance from the governement.
• This company has already been in place in Australia for years. PM Howard must think it isn’t a huge deal and he is no spineless jellyfish.
• For those who are worried about the company sending terrorists over here: We already have Arab owned airlines, with Arab employee’s…why no outcry?
• Why piss off an obvious ally in the War, when we may need them more then ever with Iran, and over a paper transaction?

Something really smells about this hysteria.

Since I really didn’t have much knowledge about this whole port thing (it seems as if EVERYONE is now a expert on port operations…./sarcasm) I wanted to take some time and check it out. What did I find out? Freakin hysteria.

Calm the eff down people.

From the facts I have been able to ascertain, Dubai Ports World (DP World) has made a $6.8 billion bid to buy out P&O, a British company that operates ports along the East coast.

There was one other company trying to buy this company and that was PSA International from Singapore.

Currently there are 3 companies that operate large ports like those in the news, DP World, PSA International and Maersk, a Danish company.

There are NO American companies that operate ports on this scale.

All of America?s ports are currently operated by foreign countries.

Now, lets take a look at the lineup inside the company.

• COO: Mr. Edward Bilkey, US Navy (ret), graduate of Yale and Harvard
• General Counsel: Mr. George Dalton, a graduate of Fordham
• Senior VP Operations: Mr. Joost Kruijning, a native of the Netherlands
• Mr. Matt Leech, graduate of Georgetown
• Senior VP Commercial: Mr. Michael Moore, a man who started in trucking in the US
• CFO: Mr. Vijay Sharma, a native of India.

I’m not too sure but they don’t seem to be a group of fanatical Islamists ready to bring destruction to the US.

But what we do know is that Dubai is an ally. They have allowed us to place our Coast Guard at their ports in the United Arab Emirates so that we could monitor security of ships before they even headed for our shores.

The ports will still be owned by the state in which is resides. The US Coast Guard will still run security at ALL ports. The employees at ALL of these ports will still be the same Americans who are now employed, the very same ones that have to have federal background checks, by law.

The thing that gets me is that a foreign country has been in control of our ports for quite some time, that company being British. Now the UAE is buying that company and now people have a problem with it. I just don’t get it. Any long time readers know damn well that I am pretty wary of anything coming from the Middle East but this sideshow is ludicrous.

Do you really think that all the crap Bush has gone through to protect this country that he would now just throw it out the window? Do any of you realize the same people who were complaining about the NSA wiretaps are now complaining about this? These same people who won’t let us profile Middle Eastern males are now all in favor of rejecting this deal for the ONLY reason being they are Arabs.

Meanwhile the nutty left is smiling at the hysteria because they smell blood in the water.

Cancelling this deal would likely mean the end to basing rights of our troops in UAE, losing an ally in the region in our War on Terror. We have had troops there since Desert Storm and those bases are quite important to us if and when we need to do something about Iran or any other hot spot in the region.

Spook86 makes a great point:

Overturning the port deal could also create other problems in the Persian Gulf. Cancellation of the contract would be viewed as an insult to the UAE and its leadership; regional critics would accuse the U.S. of hypocrisy–anxious to utilize UAE bases and sell its defense hardware to the Dubai, but unwilling to let a UAE company manage operations in U.S. ports. Such criticism, in turn, would cause other Gulf allies to question Washington’s long-term committment to the region, and make it more difficult for the U.S. to sustain basing rights in such countries as Qatar and Bahrain. In fact, the loss of basing in the UAE would probably force the U.S. to approach Qatar, Kuwait and Bahrain to take in more U.S. personnel, a potentially tough sell in the wake of a cancelled port deal between the Dubai and Washington. U.S. basing in Qatar is viewed as extremely critical, since the Gulf nation is home to a multi-billion dollar Air Operations Center, that is used to direct combat operations in the region.

The UAE opened up ALL their financial records to us after 9/11 so we could track the money and they allow our military there. This isn’t Pakistan or Yemen, this is an important ally that we should not be throwing away in a dangerous group hysteria.

Cancelling this deal makes no sense since it will do NOTHING to our port operations. The same people who are working there now will be working there later.

People are asking “what if the UAE puts some al-qaeda agents onto our ports?”

Fair question. My answer would be that the British have quite a problem with fanatic jihadists at the moment, have had it for some time. What is the guarantee that none of these bad guys would get here via Britian?

Either we trust our Coast Guard and our Federal background checks or we should just pack it all in. Do you think that once they own this company that all of a sudden the Coast Guard is going to unclassify information for them?

The only thing that is going to change here people is the pink slip.

Get a grip.

UPDATE

This is some funny stuff from The Corner:

Here’s a list of acquisitions of Western assets by Middle Eastern countries.

Here are a few example…The UAE is Chrysler’s third largest shareholder. … Also, a Dubai based private Equity firm owns Madame Tussauds. Can you hide a dirty bomb in a wax statue? Has anyone checked the Hillary Clinton statue that was just shipped to NYC from London!

This from Jonah Goldberg:

All this in response to a largely paper transaction (longshoremen will keep their jobs, the coast guard will still handle security, etc etc) between a British-owned and Arab-owned firm. In fact, it doesn’t seem overwhelmingly obvious to me that Jihadis would have a much harder time infiltrating a British firm than an Arab one. But mostly, I’m skeptical that this is the security disaster everyone claims because domestic national security is one of the few areas where I really do trust this White House to err on the side of safety. For five years, liberals have been saying that Bush is an obsessed madman when it comes to the terror threat. And for five years conservatives have been saying, trust him. Suddenly, all of that goes out the window.

UPDATE II

Some interesting facts in this article that I bet not too many people are aware of:

The White House appeared stunned by the uprising, over a transaction that they considered routine ? especially since China’s biggest state-owned shipper runs major ports in the United States, as do a host of other foreign companies. Mr. Bush’s aides defended their decision, saying the company, Dubai Ports World, which is owned by the United Arab Emirates, would have no control over security issues….

But [the] firestorm of opposition to the deal drew a similarly intense expression of befuddlement by shipping industry and port experts.

The shipping business, they said, went global more than a decade ago and across the United States, foreign-based companies already control more than 30 percent of the port terminals.

That inventory includes APL Limited, which is controlled by the government of Singapore, and which operates terminals in Los Angeles, Oakland, Seattle, and Dutch Harbor, Alaska. Globally, 24 of the top 25 ship terminal operators are foreign-based, meaning most of the containers sent to the United States leave terminals around the world that are operated by foreign government or foreign-based companies.

“This kind of reaction is totally illogical,” said Philip Damas, research director at Drewry Shipping Consultants of London. “The location of the headquarters of a company in the age of globalism is irrelevant.”

Big Lizards has this to say:

Singapore, of course, is also a country with a large and radicalized Moslem population that is infiltrated — inundated is the better word — by international terrorist organizations like al-Qaeda and their affilliate, Jemaah Islamiah; yet no one is up in arms about APL operating American ports. What is the difference?

The danger to the shrillest voices opposing this deal (especially the Democrats) is that they never objected when other dicey foreign countries operated the ports… but when an Arab country, even a friendly one that has been a huge help to us in the war, wants to do the same thing, the Democrats become hysterical. It smacks of racism — the idea that it doesn’t matter what an Arab thinks or even how hard he has fought on our side in the war against jihadism… his ethnicity alone makes him suspect. After flinging such charges at Republicans for so many decades, Democrats are very edgy about such accusations sticking to them.

Then, as usual, Dafydd has a solution:

Neither side has noticed that there is a fairly obvious compromise staring us in the face, which Big Lizards believes would resolve the very real security concerns without losing the equally real security benefits from this deal.

Both the actual national-security risk and also the political danger come, not from the ownership of the company, but rather from the day to day management — the actual control of operations. The emirate wants the profits that accrue from ownership; rational Americans want to see control of the port, even the cargo areas, in friendly hands, preferably American.

This suggests a workable compromise: an American company should be chartered — American owned and American managed — that is a wholly owned but independently operated subsidiary of Dubai Ports… call it American Port Services, Inc., or somesuch name that makes clear the nationality; and then let all the actual management of the ports be handled by the American APS, not by Dubai Ports.

This will add a middle corporate layer, so Dubai Ports won’t make quite as much of a profit as they would running the ports directly; but on the other hand, it’s still better than no profit at all. And Americans can be assured that rather than shifting from British control to UAE control, we will in fact have shifted from British to American control of port operations.

This resolves both the security and the political problems

As Bill and Ted would say….Excellent!

Kathryn Jean Lopez:

I had the pleasure of working in the transportation industry in Dubai for almost 5 years in the late 90’s. I am currently based on the US West Coast. Given my choice of depending on Dubai World Ports or the ILWU (the longshoremen’s union that has the entire West Coast transportation system held hostage to its demands) to provide better port security, my money’s on Dubai.

Other’s Blogging:

• The Strata-Sphere
• The Jawa Report
• Hyscience
• The Counterterrorism Blog
• Blogs For Bush
• Debbie Schlussel
• The Irate Nation
• GayPatriot
• QuickRob
• A Certain Slant Of Light
• Penraker
• Alpine Summit

Read the rest of this entry »