Kicking Arabs In The Teeth

[NATO AIR]

Congress in the wrong, not Pres. Bush, on this matter:

http://select.nytimes.com/gst/tsc.h....nytimes.com/2006/02/23/opinion/23brooks.html
Kicking Arabs in the Teeth
By DAVID BROOKS

It's come to my attention that many of the foreign goods we import into our country are made by foreigners who speak foreign languages and are foreign. It's come to my attention that many varieties of hummus and other vital bread schmears are made by Arabs, the group responsible for 9/11. Furthermore, it's come to my attention that the Chinese have a menacing death grip on America's pacifier, blankie, bunny and rattle supplies, and have thus established crushing domination of the entire non-pharmaceutical child sedative industry.

It's therefore time for Chuck Schumer, Hillary Clinton, Bill Frist and Peter King to work together to write the National Security Ethnic Profiling Save Our Children Act, which would prevent Muslims from buying port management firms, the Chinese from buying oil and mouth-toy companies, and the Norwegians from using their secret control of U.S fluoridation levels to sap our precious bodily fluids at the Winter Olympics.

In other words, what we need to protect our security and way of life is a broad-based, xenophobic Know Nothing campaign of dressed-up photo-op nativism to show foreigners we will no longer submit to their wily ways.

Never mind — the nativist, isolationist mass hysteria is already here.

This Dubai port deal has unleashed a kind of collective mania we haven't seen in decades. First seized by the radio hatemonger Michael Savage, it's been embraced by reactionaries of left and right, exploited by Empire State panderers, and enabled by a bipartisan horde of politicians who don't have the guts to stand in front of a xenophobic tsunami.

But let's be clear: the opposition to the acquisition by Dubai Ports World is completely bogus.

The deal would have no significant effect on port security. Regardless of who operates the ports, the Coast Guard still controls their physical security. The Customs Service still controls container security. The harbor patrols, the port authorities and the harbor police still do their jobs. Nearly every expert who actually knows something about port security says the ownership of the operating companies is the least of our concerns. "This kind of reaction is totally illogical," Philip Damas, research director of Drewry Shipping Consultants, told The Times. "The location of the headquarters of a company in the age of globalism is irrelevant."

Nor would the deal radically alter the workplace. If the Dubai holding company does acquire the operating firm, the American longshoremen would stay on the job, the American unions would still be there to organize them, and most or all of the management would probably stay, too.

Nor would the deal be particularly new in the world of global shipping. Dick Meyer of CBS News reports that Dubai Ports World already operates facilities in Australia, China, Korea and Germany. It's seeking to acquire facilities in 18 other countries — none of them caught up in an isolationist fever like the one we see here. Eighty percent of the facilities at the port of Los Angeles are run by foreign firms — somehow without national collapse — including one owned by the government of Singapore.

Nor is Dubai a bastion of Taliban radicalism. All Arabs may look alike to certain blowhard senators, but the United Arab Emirates is a modernizing, globalizing place. It was the first country in the region to sign the U.S. Container Security Initiative. It's signed agreements to bar the passage of nuclear material and to suppress terror financing. U.A.E. ports service U.S. military ships, and U.A.E. firms have made major investments in Chrysler and Time Warner, somehow without turning them into fundamentalist bastions.

In short, there is no evidence this deal will do any harm. But it is certain that the xenophobic hysteria will come back to harm the U.S.

The oil-rich nations of the Middle East have plenty of places to invest their money and don't need to do favors for nations that kick them in the teeth. Moreover, this is a region in the midst of traumatic democratic change. The strongest argument the fundamentalists have is that they are engaged in a holy war against the racist West, which imposes one set of harsh rules on Arabs and another set of rules on everybody else. Now comes a group of politicians to prove them gloriously right.

God must love Hamas and Moktada al-Sadr. He has given them the America First brigades of Capitol Hill. God must love the folks at Al Jazeera. They won't have to work to stoke resentments this week. All the garbage they need will be spewing forth from press conferences and photo ops on C-Span and CNN.

* Copyright 2006The New York Times Com

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Congress in the wrong, not Pres. Bush, on this matter:

Bullshit. We all call bullshit.

 

[trobinett]

The deal would have no significant effect on port security. Regardless of who operates the ports, the Coast Guard still controls their physical security. The Customs Service still controls container security. The harbor patrols, the port authorities and the harbor police still do their jobs. Nearly every expert who actually knows something about port security says the ownership of the operating companies is the least of our concerns. "This kind of reaction is totally illogical," Philip Damas, research director of Drewry Shipping Consultants, told The Times. "The location of the headquarters of a company in the age of globalism is irrelevant."

This whole deal is "out of control", and has become an emotional issue, no longer based on fact.

I really hate to see this kind of reaction, by both the Congress, and the American people.

The media REALLY needs to get the above type of information out, so the American people can start putting pressure on their representatives.

 

[dilloduck]

This whole deal is "out of control", and has become an emotional issue, no longer based on fact.

I really hate to see this kind of reaction, by both the Congress, and the American people.

The media REALLY needs to get the above type of information out, so the American people can start putting pressure on their representatives.

YA gotta wonder---who whipped up this frenzy and how were they able to turn usually rational people into hysterical xenophobes.THATS what I want to know.

 

[Annie]

YA gotta wonder---who whipped up this frenzy and how were they able to turn usually rational people into hysterical xenophobes.THATS what I want to know.

Oh yea, everyone agrees with Dillo or they are hysterical xenophobes, including Rick Santorum, that liberal Bush basher:

http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/editorial/13928863.htm

Bush must say no to ports deal
Letting a country with ties to Islamic fascism play a role in running U.S. ports is a risk.
By Sen. Rick Santorum

Since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, the primary focus of our government has been the protection of the American people and our homeland. As it should be. And the efforts that we have undertaken have been, up to this point, successful - in the nearly four and a half years since that fateful day, we have avoided a terrorist attack on American soil.

But it seems that as we move further away from the events of 9/11, a feeling of complacency has set in, a belief that what happened that day cannot and will not happen again. This is simply not true - we are in the midst of a war on terror, the stakes of which could not be higher.

In spite of the current world environment, a company called Dubai Ports World is in a position to gain significant control over a number of major U.S. ports. Dubai Ports World is based in the United Arab Emirates, a nation that had a significant role in the financial planning of 9/11. The very idea of allowing this state-owned company to control vital operational services of major American ports, including Philadelphia, is preposterous. Which is why, on Thursday, I sent a letter to President Bush imploring him to use every resource at his disposal to prevent this substantial security risk from taking place.

In terms of background, the Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation Co. (P&O), based in London, currently holds service contracts in Philadelphia, New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans and Miami. These are not small, inconsequential ports. They play a vital role in our nation's commercial and homeland security activities. P&O recently agreed to sell its interests to Dubai Ports World for an estimated $6.8 billion. It is exceedingly irresponsible to allow a nation that has long been influenced by the Islamic fascist movement to oversee and direct the operations at these six ports. Yet if the approved P&O sale to Dubai Ports World goes through, this is exactly the scenario we will be facing.

The sale of P&O may have ramifications well beyond those six major ports. It is my understanding that Dubai Ports World could gain a measure of control over two ports that are used extensively by our military, in Beaumont and Corpus Christi, Texas. These ports are not only shipping goods and services, but are also capable of deploying combat troops, artillery, and other vital military resources. Outsourcing control of these ports to a Dubai-based company is a gamble - and gambling with our national security is not a practice I'm about to begin or condone.

This administration must take action. Current law allows for a national security review of foreign acquisitions of U.S. companies and gives the President the authority to block a transaction that threatens national security.

Heavily involved in this process is the Committee on Foreign Investment (CFIUS), a 12-member body chaired by the secretary of the treasury that investigates the national security implications associated with a potential transaction and recommends action to the President. This is a 30-day process, after which CFIUS can propose a more in-depth investigation of 45 days. It is my understanding that this second investigation was not called for. If ever a situation called for greater scrutiny, it is this one, and the President should be taking a long, hard look at the implications of this sale.

While Congress does not currently have any direct authority to prevent Dubai Ports World from acquiring control over these ports, we will not sit idly by and watch this transaction take place. Many of my colleagues share the deep concerns I have, and when the Senate returns from this week's recess, the Banking Committee, of which I am a member, will hold a hearing on this issue. I will continue to press the administration to reconsider CFIUS's decision.

If our ports are not protected, then, truthfully, neither are we. While the United Arab Emirates has been an ally over the last few years, it certainly has ties to Islamic fascism and trusting that it will remain on our side in the war on terror is not a risk that I am willing to take. Nor should it be a risk that this president takes. He should not allow this transaction to go through.

 

[dilloduck]

Oh yea, everyone agrees with Dillo or they are hysterical xenophobes, including Rick Santorum, that liberal Bush basher:

http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/editorial/13928863.htm

Your penchant for making this a personal issue is tiresome. There are many on this board and out in the real world that are not panicking over this deal. Politically, this probably could have been handled better but those who are spreading lies to sink this deal disgust me. Hopefully the truth will win out and THEN a decision can be made. Santorum needs the votes--he's got to play the side he is. I expect the deal to be revisited and approved once everyone has had thier chance to make sure it wasn't just Bush and his cronies who thought this to be a good idea.
Show me where the government of UAE or DPW was involved in the financial PLANNING of 9/11.

 

[Mr. P]

Bullshit. We all call bullshit.

What he said.

 

[Annie]

Your penchant for making this a personal issue is tiresome. There are many on this board and out in the real world that are not panicking over this deal. Politically, this probably could have been handled better but those who are spreading lies to sink this deal disgust me. Hopefully the truth will win out and THEN a decision can be made. Santorum needs the votes--he's got to play the side he is. I expect the deal to be revisited and approved once everyone has had thier chance to make sure it wasn't just Bush and his cronies who thought this to be a good idea.
Show me where the government of UAE or DPW was involved in the financial PLANNING of 9/11.

No, your penchant for ridiculing just concerns, including the reasonable request to give time to check this out, which it now seems you are backing off from. Let's hope GW comes to the same conclusion, rather than threatening veto.

Originally Posted by dilloduck
YA gotta wonder---who whipped up this frenzy and how were they able to turn usually rational people into hysterical xenophobes.THATS what I want to know.

 

[dilloduck]

What he said.

Awesome rebuttals :talk2:

 

[Mr. P]

Awesome rebuttals :talk2:

Rebutt the NYT? :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao:

 

[dilloduck]

No, your penchant for ridiculing just concerns, including the reasonable request to give time to check this out, which it now seems you are backing off from. Let's hope GW comes to the same conclusion, rather than threatening veto.

Ridiculing seems to be a sport around here. If ridicule will help expose the truth so be it. I have never had a problem with checking this deal out out further after the frenzy hit. I have also tried appealing to peoples' sense of reason, requested links etc. I just have a thing about liars and those who buy into the lies without checking them out first.

 

[Annie]

Ridiculing seems to be a sport around here. If ridicule will help expose the truth so be it. I have never had a problem with checking this deal out out further after the frenzy hit. I have also tried appealing to peoples' sense of reason, requested links etc. I just have a thing about liars and those who buy into the lies without checking them out first.

Where are all the lies that have you so worked up?

 

[Mr. P]

Where are all the lies that have you so worked up?

I was going to ask the same, Dillo. What lies are you talking about?

 

[dilloduck]

Where are all the lies that have you so worked up?

We are giving up our port security to the UAE.
The impression that the GOVERNMENT of Dubai was complicit in 9/11
DPW will be more dangerous than the previous owners.

and the rampant specualtion when no one even knows what the deal entails.
How can anyone criticize a plan operating on pure speculation?

 

[Annie]

We are giving up our port security to the UAE.
The impression that the GOVERNMENT of Dubai was complicit in 9/11
DPW will be more dangerous than the previous owners.

and the rampant specualtion when no one even knows what the deal entails.
How can anyone criticize a plan operating on pure speculation?

Prove yours isn't speculation. You are attempting to quell others from questioning, much less debating. You have attempted to set the rules of arguement to a level none of us have access to-such as no classified documents.

 

[dilloduck]

Prove yours isn't speculation. You are attempting to quell others from questioning, much less debating. You have attempted to set the rules of arguement to a level none of us have access to-such as no classified documents.

You asked me what the lies were--there they are. Several sources has REPEATEDLY denouced these accusations as lies yet opponenets of the deal repeat them.

I'll go as far as to say it's all speculation, whipped up by the media and libs to make the administration look bad. So until the truth is all out there, common sense would dictate finding out what all the fuss is about BEFORE joining the ranks of Hillary. Jarhead, Hawk, Emmet have ALL attempted to refute the repetition of false impressions.
Hyteria occurs when people jump to conclusions before they know the details
What's wrong with confronting those who are panicking and repeating lies. I have repeatedly asked for answers or links that prove what opponents are asserting.

 

[NATO AIR]

David Brooks is a conservative. Happens to be an op-ed writer for the NYT, still writes for the neo-con Weekly Standard, the conservative Commentary, etc etc.

Santorum is the worst kind of politician out there; one who knows he's about to lose his seat of power and is desperate to do anything that can give him hope or momentum. I wouldn't trust his judgement in election season.

Clinton and co. are going gonzo over this, which is a bad sign. They're not concerned about security, they're looking to bash Bush on security issues in prep for the elections.

Republicans who make common cause with them are understandably doing so because Bush mishandled this politically from the beginning. Can the White House salvage this? That will be the question.

This is America's version of the cartoon riots. We're showing our ignorance and xenophobia to the rest of the world. At least no death threats or religious sanctions from us yet.

 

[Mr. P]

...

Clinton and co. are going gonzo over this, which is a bad sign. They're not concerned about security, they're looking to bash Bush on security issues in prep for the elections.
I agree with that, and W is giving the elections away.

Republicans who make common cause with them are understandably doing so because Bush mishandled this politically from the beginning.
No Nato, the problem is “he” didn’t handle it. What was it I heard first, “I didn’t know about it”? Now, it’s “Okay with me”. .BS
What has W done about borders?

Can the White House salvage this? That will be the question.
Only with rejection, IMO


This is America's version of the cartoon riots. We're showing our ignorance and xenophobia to the rest of the world. At least no death threats or religious sanctions from us yet.
No, I think its America being America and saying, “Oh, wait a sec, lets look this over a bit first”.

..

 

[Annie]

David Brooks is a conservative. Happens to be an op-ed writer for the NYT, still writes for the neo-con Weekly Standard, the conservative Commentary, etc etc.

Santorum is the worst kind of politician out there; one who knows he's about to lose his seat of power and is desperate to do anything that can give him hope or momentum. I wouldn't trust his judgement in election season.

Clinton and co. are going gonzo over this, which is a bad sign. They're not concerned about security, they're looking to bash Bush on security issues in prep for the elections.

Republicans who make common cause with them are understandably doing so because Bush mishandled this politically from the beginning. Can the White House salvage this? That will be the question.

This is America's version of the cartoon riots. We're showing our ignorance and xenophobia to the rest of the world. At least no death threats or religious sanctions from us yet.

David Brooks is NOT a conservative. He is also not the normal NYTimes frothing liberal. As for ignorance and xenophobia, maybe, then again maybe not. Check these out, seems like reason to at least take a breath. Links at site:

http://counterterror.typepad.com/the_counterterrorism_blog/2006/02/one_way_to_dete.html

February 23, 2006
Viktor Bout and the UAE, an Important Lesson?

One way to determine how a person or entity will act in the future is to see how they have acted in the past. As the debate over the UAE ownership of ports heats up, it is worth looking at how the leaders there have handled another important security issue related to radical Islamic terrorism--Viktor Bout. The response is deeply troubling.

Viktor Bout, the world's largest illegal weapons dealer, made $50 million selling weapons to the Taliban, according to the U.S. Treasury Department. He continues to feed murder and mayhem across Africa by selling weapons to rogue regimes and nonstate actors. And he continues to maintain several dozen aircraft in UAE--one of only three countries in the world to recognize the Taliban regime in Afghanistan.

Bout and 30 of his companies are designated by the U.S. Treasury Department and the United Nations Sanctions, meaning every country is bound to freeze the assets of those companies and individuals. Yet the UAE has made no move to go after Bout's aircraft, even though one of his designated companies, IRBIS, continues to fly openly, and has not even bothered to change its name. His aircraft sit on the runways of Sharjah, and his pilots continue to fly daily from there, including recent flights for the U.S. military and its contractors.

The United States, for the past EIGHT YEARS has been asking the UAE to crack down on Bout's illicit activities there, with no results. Read the full post here.

Posted by Douglas Farah at 09:18 AM

http://counterterror.typepad.com/the_counterterrorism_blog/2006/02/steven_emerson_.html

February 23, 2006
Steven Emerson: Mixed UAE Record on Terrorism, With Hamas Still Supported

Steven Emerson appeared on Rita Cosby's MSNBC program last night to discuss the UAE's record on terrorism and container security. You can see his appearance on the Investigative Project on Terrorism website (Windows Media). Here is the discussion on the UAE and terrorism:

RITA COSBY: Joining us now is terrorism expert, Steve Emerson. Steve, are they [the United Arab Emirates] an ally or not?

STEVEN EMERSON: Well, they are an ally of sorts. It depends who the "they" is. There are some members of the kingdom there- it's a federation- that are really close allies of the United States. Others aren't. So it's hard to say. I would not put them in the same category of an ally as a European nation would be. But they certainly have exhibited some pro-U.S. policies since 9/11. Though, I must point out that two of the 9/11 hijackers came from UAE and also there were even Hamas couriers as late as last year that were sent to the West Bank or Gaza that came in with UAE cash. So there is still a problem of terrorist supporting operations.

COSBY: In fact, you mentioned two of the hijackers were from there. Eleven actually traveled through Dubai and about 125,000 dollars, that's about half of the money spent on the 9/11 attack, was wired from banks in Dubai. Separately, also, terrorism analyst Bob Newman called me right before the show and he found some testimony- this is during the 9/11 commission, Steve, I don't know if you have heard this- but apparently there was supposed to be a strike on Bin Laden in February 1999. It was averted because apparently there were members of the UAE royal family with Bin Laden at that point, showing some pretty strong ties with Bin Laden and at least the royal family of the UAE. What do you say, Steve?

EMERSON: Well, in fact, they were one of the three of the regimes to recognize the Taliban and as you correctly noted some of the princes there had friendly relations with Osama Bin Laden himself. Look, the question is whether they have changed since 9/11. Let's be fair. I have been looking at this for the last several days and I still don't have an opinion one way or another other than to say that it's not clear that they are one hundred percent an enemy or that they are so porous in terms of their security net that they are allowing terrorists to operate all the time. They have done some very pro-American things. On the other hand, there still is a problem in terms of their policies of allowing some Hamas networks to survive or to flourish, to allow themselves to be bank couriers, and they are not cracking down a hundred percent in terms of the money laundering that is suspected to go to Islamic militants.

Posted by Andrew Cochran at 04:15 PM

 

[theim]

This is my least favorite issue to debate, honestly. Because I have to side with either Up-Chuck Schumer or Jimmeh Carter. On the other hand I did get a few laughs with my "Ted Kennedy wants tighter security on his supply of port...er wait" joke today.

From what I have read I see little wrong with the deal just looking at the facts. The security will still be in US hands, it's not as if the kaffiya-wearing Religious Police are gonna be the ones checking the containers.

Now even though I always avoid flinging around words like "racist" and "xenophobe" (they are so overused, the fall-back position of people who have already lost an argument is always to yell RACIST!!!!), there is clearly a (understadable) knee-jerk reaction to the idea of Arabs having anything to do with ports. But just look at this objectively.

And of course...the Democrats. Duplicitous as always. This port issue is in my opinion the next issue that the DUmmies and Kos Kidz will use to IMPEACH BUSH...SERIOUSLY THIS TIME. Plamegate: failed. Cindy Sheehan: failed. Missing weapons cache ('04): failed. Schiavo: failed. Rove: failed. NSA "spying": failed. Abramoff: failing.

The Dems are as usual resorting to rank hypocrisy. How many times have we listened to their bleating that "we need more friends in the ME". And now some A-Rabs are gonna run the economic functions of some ports and they don't want anything to do with them.

Also as usual: Republicans falling over themselves to brandish their Objectivity Credentials by siding with the rabid Dems, in the futile and frankly infantile hope that the Dems will one day reciprocate.

My prediction: The deal goes through after about a week more of huffing and puffing, until the next "scandal' of the week rolls along. Everyone forgets about it within a few months.