[A]s usual, the Known Facts™ were wrong
SO THE UAE DOESN'T HAVE ANY SAY IN PORT SECURITY?
WHAT'S THE BIG DEAL THEN?
jim geraghty reporting
TKS
My fellow bloggers… we’ve been snookered.
(I apologize in advance for the length of this; it's required to get the facts out and to show how this meme spread like wildfire.)
The controversy over this port sale have been driven by a great deal of vague, ominous and sloppy language thrown around by lawmakers, the media and bloggers. Had this discussion been marked by precision and a focus on just what was at stake, this would not have turned into the brouhaha it did. One almost wonders if the misleading language was deliberate.
Sad to say, some of my favorite bloggers used language that was vague, unclear, and helped foster misconceptions. For example, back on February 12, Instapundit observed the sale, and declared that it, “doesn’t sound like much of a Homeland Security triumph”, referring to this New York Post story:
<<< The city's ports, considered a major target of terrorists, are about to be taken over by a firm based in the United Arab Emirates, a country with financial links to the Sept. 11 hijackers.
Dubai Ports World is set to complete a $6.8 billion deal to purchase Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co., a London company that already runs commercial port operations in New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans and Miami.
If shareholders approve the deal tomorrow, it will give control of various dock operations at some of the country's busiest points of entry to UAE-headquartered DP World.
The FBI has said most of the money for the 2001 terror attacks was funneled to hijackers through UAE banks, and much of the planning took place in the small but rich nation east of Saudi Arabia…
Democratic Sen. Charles Schumer urged the Bush administration to reconsider the sale.
"We should be very careful before we outsource such sensitive homeland security duties," Schumer said. >>>
I’m generally a big fan of the New York Post, but the way this story arranges the facts appears to be some pretty blatant scaremongering.
Declaring that the UAE “has financial links to the 9/11 hijackers” makes it sound like the country’s government itself backed the attacks instead of some of its citizens; if that were the case, we would have invaded them.
Just what does it take for a country to have, as a New York Post editorial put it, “ties to the Sept. 11 hijackers?” The editorial observes that
<<< the country’s “banking system - considered the commercial center of the Arab world - provided most of the cash for the 9/11 hijackers.” >>>
Terrorists look to financing in Dubai for the same reason Billy the Kid robbed banks; that’s where the money is. I’m sure terror financing runs through Dubai; financing for just about every economic activity in the region runs through Dubai.
<<< “Much of the operational planning for the World Trade Center attacks took place inside the UAE.”
Well, the Hamburg cell planned a lot in Germany. Are we to distrust German companies? Does this fact outweigh the fact that our military leaders credit the UAE for cooperation and help in the war on terror, and call them “very, very solid partners”? Do we suspect that Donald Rumsfeld and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Peter Pace are lying, and putting American lives at risk because they really want to see this deal go through?
The Post editorial continues,
<<< “The new leader of Dubai, one of the seven small countries that make up the UAE, has said all the right things about fighting radical Islam since 9/11. But this remains very much an Islamist nation, where preaching any religion other than Islam is prohibited.” >>>
This is the case in quite a few Muslim countries. Do we wish to cut off business ties with all of those countries?
If you look carefully, you can see the goalposts shifting here. First it was that we couldn’t trust this state-owned company, then it was that we couldn’t trust the company’s home country to be an ally in the war on terror, and now it’s that the country doesn’t tolerate freedom of religion. The idea that religious plurality is now a prerequisite for working with U.S. businesses will come as surprising news to the Saudis.
As Instapundit’s reader observed, the UAE provided supplies for our troops in Afghanistan. Should we refuse that cooperation? If we don’t trust them to manage the non-security aspects of a port, why should we trust their drinking water? Why do we trust them enough to use Al Dhafra Air Base and other facilities on their soil?
We now know that nothing is set to change on how security at these ports would change under the deal – it would still all be managed by the Coast Guard.
Schumer is… what’s the word I’m looking for here… strongly misleading us. There is no “outsourcing of homeland security duties.” We’ve been snookered, folks. Schumer should put up some evidence to support his charge. As of now, there is nothing to indicate that the UAE or Dubai Ports World would have any control over security procedures at any of these facilities.
Anyway, shortly after the Post put the spotlight on Schumer’s charges, the blogosphere took the ball and ran with it. Little Green Footballs declared it “great, just great” and posters there began comparing it to putting Hamas in charge of airport security or the Medellin drug cartel in charge of the U.S. Border Patrol. Roger Simon declared, “I'm with Chuck on this one.”
The New York Times reported that the Department of Homeland Security had found no derogatory information about the company, and DHS had credited Dubai Ports World for cooperating “with the department in its efforts to secure American ports and ships in foreign ports.” So naturally, the Daily Kos headline was,
<<< “Bush Administration Sells Port Security To Highest Foreign Bidder”. >>>
Over on Crooks and Liars, there was a lament that
<<< “Dubai Company Will Help Run Ports in New York” >>>
while the very next post declared,
<<< “The so-called "War On Terror" seems to be about War On People With Middle-Eastern Names.” >>>
Apparently it is wrong to profile a person based on their name, but it is perfectly okay to veto a company’s management of U.S. ports because they’re from Dubai.
The hyperbole continued. BlondeSense suggested,
<<< “Maybe They Will Hire Osama to Guard Our Ports.” >>>
Debbie Schlussel wrote that the America was “relinquishing six major ports” to a Dubaian company. This wording makes it sound like the U.S. is handing over territory.
One of the bloggers leading the charge on this issue is Michelle Malkin, of whom I am a big fan of and consider a blogging-friend. She described the deal as a “port sellout” and “giv[es] United Arab Emirates-owned Dubai Ports World control over significant operations at six major American ports.”
To her credit, Michelle posted an e-mail from a reader spelling out just what this deal covers:
DWI is not "buying the American ports" as I see frequently
misrepresented in articles about this in the MSM. American
ports cannot be bought.
They are buying the port operating division of a London-
based, British-owned Peninsular and Oriental Steam
Navigation Co. That purchase will include current
contracts that P&O ports has with the various ports listed
in the stories. There are other port operation companies
out there. The port in New York or any of the other ports
mentioned could choose to contract with some other company
if they do not want DWI being responsible for operating
terminals in these ports. As we understand it the same
employees who work for P&O currently will still be the
employees that work there after the purchase goes through.
I don't think there are suddenly going to be Arabs running
all over the ports. Anymore so than there already are.
Actually because of regulations and unions, more and more
of ocean shipping, port operations and terminal operations
in America are being run by non-American companies. Just
a heads up...as we read the stories the information is so
fact challenged.
Very quickly, this issue turned into a prism to vent other complaints with the administration’s policies. Bill Quick observed:
<<< Somebody needs to rip the lid off this stinking mess of garbage. The mainstream media seems to have small interest in doing so - they'd rather worry about hunting accidents. But then they - and apparently George W. Bush, as well - seem to have small interest in actually protecting their own country from terrorism. Bush promulgates an open borders policy that will make it easy for Islamist terrorists as well as illegal Mexican immigrants to enter our country without hindrance, and he hands the keys to our ports to Arab governments with terrorist connections.
But you can bet that white-haired granny Johannsen from Wisconsin will be strip searched for nail clippers, and it will be necessary to listen in on her conversations, nor will it ever be permissible to single out young adult male members of Bush's "religion of peace" for extra scrutiny.
And we on the right call the moonbats crazy, while doing nothing about the insanity being practiced at the highest levels of our own government? >>>
Open borders, annoying and futile TSA policies, a lack of racial profiling, wiretapping… those who disagreed with the administration on these issues were quick to believe that this port sale was akin to these policy decisions.
Finally, yesterday some dumb schmuck wrote,
<<< “This is an odd policy: “They buy our seaports, we build…”… >>>
oh, wait, wait! That was me. All right, so obviously, it’s easy to read a few unclear news stories and get the wrong idea about the deal.
When the President came out and made his vehement defense yesterday, many of us thought he had gone crazy – the policy he supported could not possibly match the Known Facts™ (to use a RedState phrase).
Well, as usual, the Known Facts™ were wrong.
UPDATE: If you think I'm wrong, you'll appreciate Michelle Malkin, who's sticking to her guns. Here's the nub of her argument:
<<< Missing. The. Point. The issue is not whether day-to-day, on-the-ground conditions at the ports would change. They presumably wouldn't. The issues are whether we should grant the demonstrably unreliable UAE access to sensitive information and management plans about our key U.S ports, which are plenty insecure enough without adding new risks, and whether the decision process was thorough and free from conflicts of interest.
The Journal and the Bush administration make no persuasive case that it was.
(The Washington Times adds that "company officials would be briefed on security procedures and countermeasures that, if compromised, could allow foreign terrorists to get through various screening procedures." Moreover, while the Coast Guard is responsible for port security, tracking ships, crews and cargo and search vessels based on intelligence, "there is no cohesive hiring or screening process for port workers.") >>>
I guess the issue comes down to whether one concludes that the UAE is "demonstrably unreliable" as Michelle puts it, or whether they are "very, very solid partners" as the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs says. I can see how smart folks can disagree.
tks.nationalreview.com
instapundit.com
nypost.com
news.yahoo.com
defenselink.mil
instapundit.com
globalsecurity.org
littlegreenfootballs.com
rogerlsimon.com
nytimes.com
dailykos.com
crooksandliars.com
blondesense.blogspot.com
debbieschlussel.com
michellemalkin.com
dailypundit.com
tks.nationalreview.com
michellemalkin.com |
