From the Washington Post:
The United Arab Emirates company that was attempting to take over management operations at six U.S. ports announced today that it will divest itself of all American interests.
The announcement appears to head off a major confrontation that was brewing between Congress and the Bush administration over the controversial deal.
Sen. John Warner (R-Va.) announced on the Senate floor shortly before 2 p.m. that Dubai Ports World would “transfer fully the operations of U.S. ports to a U.S. entity.” Warner, who had been trying to broker a compromise on the issue, said DP World would divest itself of U.S. interests “in an orderly fashion” so as not to suffer “economic loss.”
It was not immediately clear how the divesture would be handled or what U.S. company would take over the operation.
Warner’s announcement came just hours after Republican leaders from the House and Senate met with President Bush to tell him Congress appeared ready to block the deal.
The GOP leaders gave Bush their assessment of where the deal stood at a private meeting at the White House, according to Amy Call, a spokeswoman for Sen. Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) Although the gathering was a regularly scheduled meeting, according to Call, it was significant because it came only one day after lawmakers took their first formal steps toward killing Dubai Ports World’s acquisition of a British-owned company.
The administration had repeatedly said it would veto any attempts to crush the deal, arguing that port security is in the hands of U.S. agencies and would not be put in jeopardy by the takeover. Americans have reacted viscerally to the deal, lawmakers say, driving Congress towards a confrontation with the White House.
“We want to protect the American people,” said House Speaker Sen. J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill). “We’ve been doing it the last four and a half years. We fought a war in Iraq, fought a war in Afghanistan, stood up to the Homeland Security Department. We will continue to do that. We will maybe have our differences, but we think we’re going to continue to” oppose the Dubal deal,” he said Thursday morning.
The House Appropriations Committee Wednesday added a measure to block the deal to a must-pass war-funding bill. The vote on the bill was 62-2. A full House vote on the bill is expected to pass overwhelmingly next week.
The fallout from this, domestically, is that, from the Republican party standpoint, the problem is fixed; on the Democratic side, I suspect that the party leadership will try to wring every last bit of outrage over how close we came to turning over ports to “terrorists” (whose very existence, remember, Republicans overstate at the peril of alienating moderate Muslim countries. Go ahead. Take a dip in THAT irony).
Is this a national security question? My sense is that while it has been hyped as such—and that the majority of congress persons and the American public caved to their fears—it never really was. And from a free market perspective—which, along with the promotion of liberal democracy, is part of the memetic message we are trying to sell abroad—this is a set back.
To win this war, we must insist that our way of life is worth defending. Congress has damaged our relationship with the Gulf states (and with the UAE, we have a very good working relationship), determined our economic policy, and shown us to be unwilling to practice what we preach.
I only hope that the UAE understands the vicissitudes of our political system in advance of elections and is willing to accept that the timing for the deal—moreso than any idea of xenophobia—is ultimately responsible for outcome. Which is strange, feeling like I have to rely on the pragmatism of the UAE in order not to take a giant ideological step backward in the war on terror.
Similarly, we are going to be forced to rely on the pragmatism of the rank and file Muslim who, we must secretly hope, recognizes that we have security concerns that must be dealt with domestically—and so they are able to resist the spin our enemies are likely to put on this: that the US, as Al Gore already told them, is openly hostile to Muslims.
Sadly, had this deal been handled properly, we could have avoided all this grandstanding by politicians (which resulted in unwarranted fears by the public), and the deal would have been a step forward in promoting western ideals of free trade and working coalitions.
All it would have taken were certain quiet domestic assurances to the right people that we would trust but verify, with respect to the UAE’s management over certain ports, and that we would do so covertly. That way, we could have given extra protection to the ports while promoting free trade and offering a hand to an ostensible Arab ally.
A positive outcome from all this might be that we take a closer look at securing points of entry (and resistance to the deal by Democrats could potentially redound on them when it comes to the Mexican border, if certain Republicans play their rhetorical cards right)—but I hope we manage to do so in a way that is consistent with the free market system we profess to promote.
****
update Glenn Reynolds quips, “Stay tuned. If Halliburton gets the deal, will people think the whole thing was a sucker-punch?”
Are they going to kick the Saudis out? Or would that be considered excessive even for a pandering, grandstanding political stooge?
Hmmm.
Funny enough China owns a port management company that controls 7 terminals in the port of Los Angeles and nobody pissed and moaned about that. And I’d rank China a bigger danger than Dubai.
If anyone has shown poise in this situation, it has been the UAE folks. They agreed to a delay, and now they will sheer off a part of their aquisition. You are right, Jeff – why is it we (collectively) who are acting the flighty idiot in this and those people are acting cool and calm?
I am embarrassed for us all.
Hundreds of illegal Mexicans simply walk into this country every day; terrorists wouldn’t need entire ports bought for them to sneak in.
This whole imbroglio is silly. It was simply a business deal, not the Al-Qada master plan to take over…some docks used to load and unload cargo.
I laughed when I saw the Glenn Reynold’s remark as I posted the same thought just moments earlier.
If this really was a bad deal, I’d be on the front lines arguing against it, but to see what happened and know it was all based on ignorance, and let’s face it, the racists of Congress, turns my stomach.
ARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGHHHHHH!
I eagerly await the next poll – how’s Congress’s approval rating now?
This is quite an accomplishment – record pork spending (with our money), ignoring Social Security, ignoring immigration, passing a prescription drug plan that is both incomprehensible and unaffordable, and bloviating endlessly about the rights of people being called by Al Quaida operatives from overseas.
But we kept a British company from selling operating rights to one of our ports to the UAE.
That’s a campaign slogan: Congress, we do nothing about the imprtant things. Which is actually good for you, because look at how we screw up the small stuff.
…continue to fund the “charities” that pay for terrorism, madrassas, etc.
I’m embarrassed too. We talk about how great democracy is, yet act like a bunch of xenophobic children, and then the day is saved by “his Highness the Shaikh Mohammed Al Maktoum” with a flourish of reasonableness and magnanimity. Gad.
It was never a security issue and the idiots in Congress knew it! This is all political. UAE was not going to “run our ports” all they were going to do is “manage” terminals within the ports, sorta like the Saudi’s and Chinese are doing now.
I look forward to Schumer and the rest of the Dems to propose kicking out the Saudi and the Chinese now, so our ports are no longer “run by foreigners”.
Hysterical hipocrites = bad lawmaking.
As a side note, you think Bill Clinton is going to give back the $450,000 he received since he didn’t get the deal done?
And from free market perspectiveâ€â€which, along with the promotion of liberal democracy, is part of the memetic message we are trying to sell abroadâ€â€this is a set back.
I’m sorry… how is a monarchy-run, state-owned company running our ports a free-market issue?
I’m embarrassed too. Even an Israeli shipping company endorsed the deal. Dubai is a good partner and a real up-and-comer in international business. We are stupid to shun them.
Plus, I wanted to have the ports deal go through, and everyone that believes only the US should run US ports threaten to leave the country.
rho —
Huh?
Don’t know what to explain first—how a commitment to free markets is supposed to work, or how the phrase “running our ports” is an exaggeration, and a particularly loaded one at that.
So given the choice, I’d just as soon let somebody else handle it and have myself a snack.
I’m due for a snack myself, but, um, maybe the concept of a free market refers to the fact that participants in that market ought to be “free” to engage in commerce with whomever they want – not whether the entity on the other end of the transaction embraces “freedom” or democracy or whatever.
This was not a national security question. This was a referundum on how the public really feels about the whole “not all Muslims are terrorists” idea that the administration has been at great pains to emphasize since 9/11.
Bottom line? “We don’t trust Muslims. At all.”
Given that the common statement from the congresscritters of both parties was that this was a response to conspicuous constituent involvement, I can’t help but think that this means that the American people won’t need much of a nudge when it’s finally time to declare war on Arabs or Persians instead of an abstraction. One more stateside attack would do it.
Frankly: it’s their own damn fault. The house of Islam is in disarray, and too many of its residents remain silent in the face of their brothers’ murderous rampages.
Geraghty points out what may be the worst aspect of this:
Huzzah.
This is an extremely sad day for the America I love. This is a strategic defeat, possibly a fatal one in the Long War, Ver. 2.0. It reminds me of Soviet Lend/Lease which was the right decision. This decision is wrong and may be paid for in blood and treasure for decades to come.
Saudi Arabia and Dubai have operated marine and air terminals in the US for years. I have a hard time blaming Bush for the “tone deafness” of 3rd tier bureaucrats who obviously, given 15 to 20 years of similar deals, did not foresee the political firestorm.
A tactical win win for xenophobes and the Libs; a potentially catastrophic strategic loss for America and the West.
I don’t think it’s going to be a huge issue in the long run, in fact, maybe the big commercial interests in the less crazy majority Muslim countries will start to flex some of their muscle with the governments of said countries. Lots of money to be lost just because of a few nutcases.
Bonus when the gov’t and commercial interests are one and the same.
We see that the Clintons, in the form of Bill, cashed a large check for lobbying for the deal, and they collected political points for opposing it in the form of Hillary.
Nothing could better illustrate that pair’s characters.
There were so many things that could have been done to make this deal palatable to those that opposed it, yet not one of them were done.
Michael Ledeen suggested just a few weeks ago the establishment of an American holding company, owned by DPW, to actually operate the terminals. Americans would have been responsible for vetting the employees that worked there, DPW would have still received the profits – security concerns greatly alleviated if not eliminated outright. Yet the deal’s defenders never suggested this.
Nor did the deal’s defenders offer any explanation of why the U.S. had no role in vetting the employees of the terminals or the supporting functions. Nor did the deal’s defenders ever offer a good justification for bypassing the normal 45-day review prior to approval for transactions of this type. Nor did the deal’s defenders explain the discrepancy of not requiring DPW to keep business records in the U.S. and subject to a court order, something that is typically standard for this type of arrangement. Nor did the deal’s defenders explain how DPW’s operation of the port terminals would have square with the law prohibiting businesses operating in the U.S. from participating in the boycott of Israel. Nor did they ever explain the administration’s unwillingness to deal with these issues, all of which are legitimate.
Nope, the deal’s defenders did none of that. Instead they chose to engage in ad hominem attacks one after another (racist! xenophobe! protectionist! pitchforks!), while ignoring valid concerns that could have been addressed and could have swayed cooler heads. And in fact, they are still doing it.
And then you wonder why this deal failed?
Duh.
Hey, doubtingthedeal, perhaps the reason the “defenders [DID NOT] offer any explanation of why the U.S. had no role in vetting the employees of the terminals or the supporting functions.” is because they knew that the role of vetting employees falls to those responsible for hiring those employees. In this case, that responsible entity is the very American organization called THE TEAMSTERS and LONGSHOREMAN’S UNION. Terminals are Union run.
doubtingthedeal: The deal’s defenders didn’t do any of that because the deal’s opposers did not argue the U.S. had no role in vetting the employees of the terminals or the supporting functions. Nor did they argue that there was a discrepancy of not requiring DPW to keep business records in the U.S. and subject to a court order. Nor did they argue that DPW’s operation of the port terminals would not have squared with the law prohibiting businesses operating in the U.S. from participating in the boycott of Israel. There may be some valid concerns in there, but those were not the main arguments proferred by the opposition. The only concern you listed that I’ve heard before was the 45 day review, which I believe was adequately explained here.
So how long will it take the Party of Slavery, Secession and Segregation to start condemning the Republicans as racists because they can’t tell one Arab from another.
What a freaking debacle. Can’t wait for my next donor solicitation from the RNC.
dorkafork:
“The deal’s defenders didn’t do any of that because the deal’s opposers did not argue the U.S. had no role in vetting the employees of the terminals or the supporting functions. Nor did they argue that there was a discrepancy of not requiring DPW to keep business records in the U.S. and subject to a court order. Nor did they argue that DPW’s operation of the port terminals would not have squared with the law prohibiting businesses operating in the U.S. from participating in the boycott of Israel.”
Sorry, but that’s simply false. Frank Gaffney, Michelle Malkin, Mark Levin, and others were asking these questions while the media was still having a conniption over Cheney’s hunting accident. Andrew McCarthy and Rich Lowry had a spirited debate over the law regarding boycotts of Israel – and when Andy challenged other Corner posters to defend the deal in light of UAE’s boycott, he was met with deafening (but very revealing) silence.
Yes, those most definitely ARE valid concerns, and what’s even more pathetic than the ad hominem attacks by those in favor of the deal was the administration’s silence in addressing them.
There was a message in the poll numbers. The message was not that congress should have slavishly followed them. Rather, the message was that the American people were looking for some leadership by W. and his cabinet in order to convince them that the deal was really ok and thus change those poll numbers into a positive. That leadeship never came, and in its absence we heard a loud chorus of name-calling and now the deal is off.
Again, duh.
Michelle Malkin wasn’t simply asking questions. She was actively agitating against the deal before she asked questions. Even Glenn Reynolds made negative statements about the deal BEFORE he learned enough to eventually (back? be neutral on?) it. That is their own fault, no one else’s.
I would say most Senators and Congressmen acted the same way. Grandstand first, gather facts later.
One thing I have always admired about Jeff is his desire to gather facts before he goes off on a rant.
MayBee
“Michelle Malkin wasn’t simply asking questions. She was actively agitating against the deal before she asked questions. Even Glenn Reynolds made negative statements about the deal BEFORE he learned enough to eventually (back? be neutral on?) it.”
What about Gaffney? What about Levin? What about McCarthy? And what about many others who asked the same questions? Even if I grant you Malkin (and I don’t, but will play devil’s advocate here), what about the other ones?
And please, pray tell, show me where the WH actually showed LEADERSHIP on this particular issue…
I think that we just lost the war.
President Bush bent over backwards to tell Arabs and Muslims that we weren’t at war with Arabs and Muslims, but only those radicals who had hijacked Islam for political purposes. We were trying to, in effect, ask the mass of Arabs and Muslims not to side with the people who shared their faith and looked like them, but to side with we good, white Christians, who don’t speak their language, who don’t understand their culture, who are very different from them. And in some ways, it was actually working.
Well, with what has happened today, we can kiss all of that good-bye. Why shouldn’t they side with the people who do share their faith, who do look like them, who do speak their languages and understand their cultures, when we good white Christians have, in effect, called them untrustworthy ragheads?
I have no idea who Gaffney is, so I didn’t comment on him. I didn’t include McCarthy and Levin because I don’t feel they treated the situation the same way Malkin did.
I think this issue was a politically-motivated maelstrom, and many of those participating in the blogswarming and microphone-grabbing did it for no other reason than to score cheap political points, not to ask questions or educate Americans about ports or international relations, or Dubai. I don’t think Bush defended himself as strongly as he could have, but I find it distasteful for those who went on the attack to then pretend it was his lack of leadership that made them ill-informed. Or if only he had said the magic words they might have changed their minds.
Please don’t assume I am saying everyone against the port deal was ill-informed or politically motivated.
“I don’t think Bush defended himself as strongly as he could have”
Understatement of the year.
“but I find it distasteful for those who went on the attack to then pretend it was his lack of leadership that made them ill-informed”
Do you find it distasteful that Bush and the WH never made a concerted effort to sway those 70% who opposed this deal? The PR by the WH on this was absolutely atrocious and the leadership vacuum he left on the issue allowed the deal’s critics, both honest and demogogue alike, to control the issue and ultimately prevail.
And speaking of distasteful, I’d love to hear your opinion on the deal’s defenders latching on to the most despicable tactics of the left; i.e. hurling epithets of “racist”, “bigot”, “xenophobe”, et al., instead of making a genuine effort to answer the many valid concerns. That certainly didn’t sway anyone either.
doubtingthedeal  So it was a bad deal and Bush is at fault for not trying harder to tell us different. Got it.
Malkin and Buchanan were identically aligned reactionary idiots on this issue.
And Allahpundit too.
One lie they promulgated was that Dubai did not do business with Israel.
Israel’s Zim lines support for DPW.
GW was trying to infect the ME with the virus of capitalism as part of the Bush Doctrine. Could those bloviating nutjobs have been any less helpful?
I’m disgusted at the way america has totally been suckered in the meme wars. The tipping point, those two silly manifestos…just how will this play to the fundamentalist meme-warriors?
“Look, moderates, the americans despise you and don’t trust you. The Great Satan will always reguard you as inferior and untrustworthy.”
The fundamentalists are totally kicking our asses in the war for hearts and minds, aided by the idealogically impoverished dems, the corrupt media, and superficial hysterics like malkin and buchanan.
“doubtingthedeal  So it was a bad deal and Bush is at fault for not trying harder to tell us different. Got it.”
‘fraid not.
It was a deal where there were legitimate concerns – concerns that the WH couldn’t be bothered to address, a deal where there was an easy compromise staring everybody in the face (see the Ledeen reference in my first post),
and a deal whose defenders substituted ad hominem attacks for serious debate.
Got it now?
I’m trying to understand at what point did we decide the President is responsible for all business decisions within the United States. To give me it’s a national security issue, because that’s plain horshit. Can someone point me to that mandate somewhere, cuz I just can’t seem to find it.
This deal wasn’t going to happen and it’s a shame. Some of you hit it on the head, timing. The timing was all wrong. Election year, Democrats trying to sound big on national security …. to many hurdles to get over. I for one am aware of the working relationship we have with Dubai, especially in regards to our US Naval ships and their ports. Not sure how things will play out, but I wouldn’t be surprised if we see one or two ships not being to land there pretty soon.
Also, for the Arabs it’s all about the appearance of power. How do you think the President looks now? I’ve seen some people talking about this and they’re spot on. In the Arab world, he looks pretty weak at the moment. I’ll be walking around here in Manama today and I’ll drop Jeff an e-mail and give him the Bahraini perspective.
doubtingthedeal
yoyoyo! i gotcherr adhom attacks right here!
here’s an ad-hominim attack.
and another.
How bout chu lookit the dates on those posts.
america got played on this.
Mike-I’m trying to understand at what point did we decide the President is responsible for all business decisions within the United States.
You and me both.
DtD- I think the attempts to paint people opposed to the deal as racist or xenophobic was a terrible strategy.
As for Bush not making a concerted effort, I don’t know if I agree. I saw him, Bartlett, Gonzales, Chertoff,and the Coast Guard pretty vigorously defending the deal and providing facts about the situation. I don’t know how they could compete with 300 stampeding Congress people, 200 of whom most likely imagine themselves being president in ‘08, and none of whom were particularly interested in moving beyond the meme.
I linked from UAE firm to transfer port operations to “U.S. entity”.
The more I think about how this went down the angrier I get.
At least the sharia based hereditary ones.
Sullivan found this little nugget
http://time.blogs.com/daily_dish/2006/03/dubaidubaidoodo.html
Another Dubai contract…Hope the congress is ready to take us all the way back to 1900’s isolationism, because I hate it when people half-ass it.
Just so. And personally, I’m just *delighted* to see that the average Democrat’s idea of a serious winning vote-getting strategy in the red-states (Was Hillary out front and center? Oh, yes–she was!) is to find the nearest entirely inoffensive Arabic-looking guy to bully, hopefully telegraphing to the ‘right’ voting blocs that they, too, really secretly also do hate the brown people. Cause, you know, the war on terror’s all about ‘hatred of the other’ and nothing more–so the thinking seems to be that if the Democrats manage to convince those damn rednecks that they, too, hate all Muslims–well, they’ll probably just forget about the whole ‘war’ thing. If you give the miserable yobs a steady enough diet of pompous ‘yellow peril’-type agitation and old-Europe style irrational xenophobia, what more do they need from you?
The Democrats themselves may or may not be racists–but they are opportunists and ersatz populists of the worst and crudest kind, apparently willing to exploit the worst impulses of the U.S. population just for the sake of votes.
But that’s all the more reason to be angry at the idiot GOP congresscritters, since they (theoretically) should have known better.
I expect bullshit from Clinton and Schumer. I don’t always expect it from the GOP, and when they participate in a sham of these destructive proportions, it breaks my heart.
I opposed this deal for many reasons, not exclusively national security. And its astounding to read some of the comments from my fellow conservatives suggesting we should sell out our souls to get the “moderate” muslims on our side?
Excuse me? moderate muslims? S UAE stands for “moderate muslim”?
Not only is it extremely naive to think there are “moderate” muslims whose hearts and minds are to be won, it is an insulting preposterous attack on the intellect of 70% of Americans who see right through this.
those who are like us do and those who hate us will still hate us. besides, why are we so worked up about being liked or hated? The onus is not on us to win hearts and minds, because we’re a free society and we are who we are. The onus is on middle eastern countries to demonstrate their fitness to have trade ties with the US. If a people think they can burn up buildings because of cartoons and not face any backlash, then they desperately need a cup of coffee.
I this deal because I don’t want closer ties with the mid-east, pure and simple. Its my honest feeling, call me what you want. We should be more worried about getting out of Iraq and out of the arab world and looking for alternative sources of energy.
And finally, this episode demonstrated how aloof my dear president is. I like Bush a lot and worry about him when he travels abroad. But his tone-deafness and blatant lack of flair with public opinion is disgraceful.
We’ve had FTA’s rammed down our throats and seen our trade deficits balloon. Yet this man keeps looking for whomever to sign a free trade agreement.
Americans have seen the economic excuses used to justify this policy fall apart, and these internationalists are now using the “they’re our ally” card. Lets sign the FTA to reward them for their support. What balony? Why should we have to bribe them to do their job, ie prevent terrorism?
This is a warning shot to all incumbents, you better start listening to those who put you in office, or face the shocking consequences in November.
Jim, how about if we just kick all the dad-blamed furinners out of all of our air and sea ports and quit allowing any ship, aircraft or motor vehicle that isn’t owned by an American or an American company to enter the country under any circumstances? Then we can turn all the crops we used to sell overseas into ethanol or some such shit to run our cars and electric generators on and build 50 ft high walls with guard towers on all of our borders and coasts and just forget there’s a world outside the walls. It’ll work till the bombs start falling, anyhow. Is that sorta what you had in mind?
First of all,
Thank you Jeff for this open forum
I hope your readers can bare with me on this rant
It has come to this and it must be said
Part 1 : Iraq & America enacting a Constitution
Part 2 : Anti Americanism
Part 3 : Blocking the UAE Back Stabbing an Allie
Part 4 : Conclusion
Part 1 : Iraq & America enacting a Constitution
Lets start in our own back yard, after the original 13 gave the
King of England to boot in the 1700s our good old congress took “10” years to sign into law our Constitution. During this decade long lack of urgency which not doubt our minute men still fought a small but very real insurgency, still democracy prevailed in spite all the after the fact efforts to stop it.
Lets skip ahead to World War II, after stomping the Axis powers into
the ground and kicking the Nazi storm troopers into history’s unmarked grave of discarded lies the Hitler loyalist “The Nazi Wolf Packs & Brown shirts” fought on for the next “10” years without a leader without out a country and without a home base of military operation, and by “ fought on” let me define it for you, the Hitler/Nazi loyalist attacked the leaders of the new in term government in Germany, through acts of “sabotage” bombed the central in term government buildings raided towns took hostages set up landmines on supply line service roads “ does any of this ring a bell ?” for 10 years the Hitler/Nazi loyalist continued to fight on, does any of this make you understand it is not a weekend in Iraq
Every War is political,
Every War is uncertain,
Every War is fluid and at best always uncertain
Every fight for freedom and security is unpredictable
from minute to minute
the battlefield is only yours only if your adversary
has a change of heart.
Do not expect a man who knows only a tyrant oppression and fear and then
the blitz of wars catastrophe to overnight to become a man of democracy.
Take notice in fact the Iraqi citizens have
embraced democracy and enacted a Constitution in less time than our Continental Congress did, eight years less time… Americans waited for 10 years for a constitution to be fully enacted Iraqi’s executed a working constitution within two years, don’t sell Iraq or the Iraqi people sort
IRAQ
WILL NOT NOW OR EVER
HAVE A CIVIL WAR
Only a fool would expect the total absence of anarchy
in this aftermath Saddam the Tyrant and the outside influence of
Al Qaeda and Iran and Syria sticking their no sense of real cause Insurgency into Iraq. Only a blind uninformed moron would proclaim a military failure based on a small inadequate extraneous insufficient insurgencies inconsequential attempts at defeating histories most capable and no doubt most powerful military juggernaut The American Armed Forces
To those in the bias anti American mass media who think themselves as bigger than the war itself claiming failure of White House policy.. need to understand just because they claim failure day after day does not and will not make it true, their words don’t control the events.
Our congressional leaders who wish, hope and mislead America and the world Iraq has failed need to understand no matter how many time they say it their mere words do not control the reality or the events on the ground
TO ADDRESS THE BIAS MASS MEDIA AND CONGRESS AND THE SENATE EACH OF HEAR THIS –
you only have your pathetic uneducated conjecture and misleading wish for failure, how do you live with your disgusting vile inconsequential self.
Hear this, those who claim they support the troops
but not the war- I say this to you
It is the same to say
I support the egg but not the chicken who laid it,
Part 2 : Anti Americanism
Its not hard to find the true source of ANTI AMERICANISM, it does not come from the disgusting display of a superficial suicide insanity of an inadequate terrorist wanna-be insurgency in Iraq, It is not the random flag burning crowds in the middle east chanting death to America once every 6 months
The very real source of never ending none stop ANTI AMERICANISM is not coming from Al Qaeda or from Osama Bin Laden – who does not have access or the means or the resources to flood the 24 hour news cycle day in and day out, in fact Osama does not have the means or technology to even have his own web Blog, Osama still uses cassette tapes and in at least one report 8-TRACK tape to deliver his anti American messages and it would not surprise me if it was on an 8-TRACK,Osama cant even upgrade the technology at his disposal to burn it on a CD
No other source or government or collective group of suicide terrorist or state sponsored hard line flag burning anti democracy anti freedom thugs have the capacity the technology or the 24 hour 7 days a week mass media machine to flood the world 24 hours a day every day with more anti American false and misleading claims of failure failure failure..
This by itself supports my assertion,
That the most detrimental single source of ANTI AMERICANISM is congress and the senate nothing on earth has more access to the mass media 24 hours a day than they do, they are responsible for Viet Nam and its outcome and by their own hand if “WE” allow them to continue they will no doubt do the same in IRAQ
It is not the scattered flag-burning crowd in some unfamiliar country far off in the middle east, expressing a misguided inner rage at their own government that manifested into hate against America,
It is not Osama Bin Laden with his once a year
8-TRACK recording of Anti American hate from a cave,
It is not the insignificant Insurgency in Iraqi or should I say Iranian insurgency in Iraq attempts to battle The Overwhelming Juggernaut of our mighty American Armed Forces (God Bless every last one of them)
Can you hear me Nancy, Harry, Dick, Chuck, Hillary, Diane, Barbara, and the rest of the Left Wing – yes it is you and only you no one on earth has as much access or the means to define in fact exact 24 hours a day you and only you are the source of the worlds ANTI AMERICANISM
How can I explain an American Congress man willfully trying to block The Patriot Act, this Congressional leader was so thrilled at the mere idea of “killing the Patriot act he proclaimed “we just killed the Patriot act” to the world wide media and our enemies heard it load and clear – thank you Senator Harry Reid but your effort to kill the act failed– is it really because you will stop at nothing including putting Americas in harms way to embarrass the President – yes it is in fact the only logical reason a man would do such things.
Now Senators of the Left wing I got a little something for you and this message you cant spin
A MESSAGE DIRECTLY FROM IRAQ
TO EACH OF YOU IN CONGRESS & THE SENATE
I have a very real first hand message from my Brothers in Iraq verbatim word for word
Part 3 : Blocking the UAE Back Stabbing an Allie
The United Arab Emirates
Killing an Allie – Killing the Port Deal
Source : CentComm
FACT : This very day the UAE Ports host
590 American battleships
56 American aircraft war ships
The Army,
The Navy
The Marines and
[Special ops forces including Delta] are all based on the ground in the UAE The CIA and divisions related to The NSA are based in the UAE
THE UAE – &
HURRICANE KATRINE RELIEF
Source : the Associated Press
The United Arab Emirates donated
let me say it again
The amount the UAE donated is worth the note, considering the White House has only received $126 million from the entire world – as in the entire international aid.
Congress and the Senate today denied the UAE the port deal because everything the UAE has done for America is a true act of a terrorist country, and the UAE is out to get America isn’t it ! or is it that
The left wing in Congress and the Senate will do anything including back stabbing a true allied friend of America, and putting America in harms way just to embarrass and humiliate the President
Lets check with the Big Boys see what they think
CENTCOM COMMANDING GENERAL TOMMY FRANKS
and The Joint Chief of Staff Commander
PETER PACE
said that
General Tommy Franks
The former Iraq war commander explained U.S. reliance on the Dubai port facility by saying,
IN CONCLUSION :
I would like to close with this quote from a great statesman of the 20th century, who said-
I know you wont Sir – you have in fact kept your word and It is an honor to support you and it always will be an honor.
I despise the Left Wing in Congress & Senate so much That I hear and now swear, I will make known to my children and they “shall” pass it from generation to generation that their children’s children’s children, “shall” know the Left Wing in Congress & Senate are the despicable disgusting people that they are
Just one more thought before I go
Highest death rate 84.1 men per 100,000 males serving in Vietnam
The national average 58.9 men for every 100,000 males serving in Vietnam. in 1970.
During the 1968 Tet offensive alone
America lost – 7040
George Bush spent 5 years after 9-11 terrorising americans- color coded alerts (are we at beige or off-white today?), “war on terror”, every speech on any subject refering to ‘terror this’ ‘terror that’…and then after telling americans that they are not safe because of terrorists from the Middle east, they try and sell a bunch of US ports to a middle east company.
lol
We reap what we sow.
Yeah! I mean, everyone knows that the UAE isn’t one of those countries in the middle east that’s helping the US. They’re obviously not what the administration means by good Muslims. They’re obviously terrorists!
Seriously, although I do fault the administration for not doing anything we can see to put pressure to reform on friendly Arab nations such as Saudi Arabia, I understand the point of trying to repeatedly establish that we’re not at war with all of Islam. In part, that has been to counter Democratic claims that the administration and conservatives in general are xenophobic. Then the Democrats can’t make up their minds whether to further distance themselves from the administration’s position to the point where they seem anti-American (Al Gore’s recent speech) or dive into populist demonization of Islam when it might give them a political advantage.
Just make sure you actually find those alternative sources before you burn any bridges.
And good luck with that, by the way.
Actually Steve, President Bush framed the debate as a war against terror (I prefer against Jihad) and not war against Arabs for a reason; America is not a racist country.
In any case, the first clue to undertanding that the American public was once again Oprahfreyed was when Schumer continued forwards with his Bushhate agenda.
President Bush represents America’s shinning light while Schmuer represents her hateful darkness.
Today, I’m sending a donation to the President’s Club in support of President Bush then I’m going to gather all those names in Congress (R) who jumped into the frey to let them know America is better than what they represent.
“590 battleships?”
Ooooookay then.
Glenn Reynolds quips, “Stay tuned. If Halliburton gets the deal, will people think the whole thing was a sucker-punch?â€Â
LOL. Wouldn’t that be ironic?
The first phase after the port announcement, was knee jerk xenophobia (which I admittedly experienced). Honestly, I don’t blame anyone who heard “the UAE will be running out ports” from doing double take and asking questions.
The next stage was the explanation which the White House fumbled and bloggers/talk radio picked up and ran with. My first exposure to a reasonable explanation fo the scope of the port deal was listening to Tony Snow on the day after the announcement. Unfortunately, the MSM failed to do their job and crucified the port deal before most of them had any idea what it meant.
Third stage was the politicians on both side of the aisle realized that the PR job had been botched from the outset and that big political points could be scored here. Whereas we expect our elected officials to have all the facts and make rational decisions, our officials did the polar opposite.
Fourth stage was the administration’s attempt to explain the deal and push it through. Bush’s timing was horrible, as there was no amount of spin control that could push back the tide of sentiment against the deal, primarilyu generated by the media and democrats but helped along by republicans seeking re-election.
Fifth stage was the pressure on the White House by the republicans to find a way out of the deal. I am assuming the “solution” to the problem was written in as a contingency when the deal was brokered.
Sixth stage, the ports are handed over the Haliburton. Ted Kennedy head explodes, showering a three mill radius around him with brain fragments and scotch.
That would be Glenn and Roger?
Paranoia strikes deep
into your life it will creep
Bad decision, badly arrived at.
Your first hint should’ve been when Billary and Chuckles jumped on the “National Security” aspect like rabid wolves.
Suppose Halliburton declines to be voluntreered? Is there another “American” company that does this type of thing? Or do we simply close the ports?
@ Mr. Injustice
Canuparaphrasethatinto20wordsorless?
***********
I am just assuming that no one really understood what the heck was going on with the deal from start to finish since no firm thesis is falling out about it still.
And I doubt that we still do know that much about the deal.
But I do agree that this deal got demagogued to the detriment of really informing anyone about what the hang was going on! Michelle Malkin and others, explain yourselves!
In the smoking rubble of what’s left now, Americans are still stuck with big questions on port and/or terminal security (was that a pun?! hope not!) and we got the UAE probably saying:
“Whew, thank Allah we’re outta that, let somebody else work with these morons.”
I am still stunned, but unfortunately, not surprised, at the Administrations actions in this. First we find that no one thought this a big enough deal to inform everyone up the chain. Then we find that there is not much of a p.r. struggle from the administration, save for some bravado at the start. Last, it will be completely legitimate for the UAE countries to use this in the future as proof of American fear of Islam.
Having said that, it is also clear that politics played the role that politics usually plays. The Democrats used profiling, and did not get called on it, the Republicans thought (correctly, it seems) that their base would never go for it. The Middle East, certainly tied to their own brand of politics, did not help with their standard attitude toward Israel.
Everyone screwed the pooch on this, and she’s gonna be right sore, now.
Here is what the State Department says about the US-UAE relationship:
Another intersting note on the country, also from State:
Now, what State doesn’t bother to tell you.
Source
Also, some more information from State, note under the Human Rights section that they do have sharia court.
To tell you the truth, the denial of visas to those with Israeli stamps in their passports is enough for me to not want them anywhere near this deal. Yes, I know about SA and I am not happy about that either.
Those of you still pissed off about the outcome of this should read the column in today’s NYPost by John Podhoretz.
http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/60733.htm
3 key paragraphs:
“Republicans in Congress did Bush an even bigger favor. The president may have been right on the economic and foreign-policy merits of allowing the government-owned Dubai Ports World to manage stevedore operations inside the United States. But he was clearly wrong when it came not only to the politics of the deal, but also to its symbolic significance in the midst of the War on Terror.
The politics part is simple: No Republican running for re-election in 2006 was going to hand a challenger a stick the size of the Space Needle to bash him over the head with. And there could have been no easier or juicier Space Needle than “My esteemed opponent voted to give an Arab country that has supported terrorism control of our ports.”
Now, Republicans on Capitol Hill owe Bush a lot. Without him, they would almost certainly not control the Senate and might not be the majority party in the House. But that doesn’t mean the president had the right to demand they commit hara-kiri.”
Defense guy-
do you think that it makes more sense to fight the more ingrained forms of anti-semitism in the Arab word by intigrating their countries into the global economy (where they will eventually have to accept being linked to Israel), or to “play keep away” and try to force the sentiments out prior to any such connections?
I mean, that seems to be the choice we have here.
Andrew McCarthy of NRO weighs in.
http://www.nationalreview.com/mccarthy/mccarthy200603100903.asp
Key paragraph:
“So to all the bitter port proponents, spewing all the bile: Once you’re done with the insults, the slanders, the juvenile analogies, the constructive-engagement Kool-Aid, and the rest of your bag of tricks, can you please explain, just one time: Why doesn’t it matter if the UAE provides material support to Hamas?”
doubting-
do you believe the UAE was (prior to breaking off the ports deal) moving towards reform (in the forms of economic connectivity, security transparency, and politcal liberalism) or simply playing us?
If you believe the former, do you believe this failure could weaken momentum in that direction?
If the latter, do you believe that the US should sever relations with the UAE?
Some guy
Good question. I think they should have to earn the right to deal with us and the ‘you can’t come in here because a filthy Jew touched your passport’ is no way to do that.
They are nice to us becaue they feel we will protect them. We have the upper hand.
Although, we do business on a regular basis with China despite their horrible human rights record, so who knows?
There you go the idealist and the pragmatic. I think we can afford the idealist stance on this one. I’m curious how the Isaeli shipping company reconciles it.
Wish to report what I have seen.
Standing in bank queue. CNN playing on televisions. Announce that subject of Lou Dobbs tonight is “DUBAI PORTS DEAL DEAD: BUSH PRESIDENCY SHIPWRECKED???”
Certainly didn’t see THAT coming.
Suspicions of bias reinforced by commercial for DVD of GOOD NIGHT AND GOOD LUCK.
defensguy
the problem is everyone reguards this stuff as engraved in stone. Zim, an israeli company, supported the deal(see my link above)–because it promotes change better than threats and blackballing.
doubting, you have a point.
i think GW truly overestimates everyone’s IQ.
He thinks, of course! This is obvious. And he doesn’t feel the need to expalin.
I think he is basically an idiot savant on foreign policy. Like itinerent streetsweeper Ramanujan was on differential equations.
I want to know why we are stopping with Dubai? How can we allow the Saudis and Chinese to operate port terminals? Should we allow ships that have been loaded by foreigners into our ports? I mean, once the bomb is in the port the game is pretty much over, ain’t it? I think we should insist on American companies loading the ships too.
Some Guy – you go first. Once you answer the question posed by Andrew McCarthy in the quote above, then I’ll answer yours.
playah
OK, I can accept the premise that we use inclusion as a tool to foster change. However, what method do we use then to ensure that change does occur? At some point shouldn’t we require that change occurs rather than hoping it will? If we do not then we are simply saying go ahead and continue to do as you please, there will be no consequence for it.
defensguy, sometimes you just go for raw pragmatism.
which approach do you think would work best?
playah
I suppose there are no easy answers, especially when dealing with a hatred that is passed on from generation to generation like this one is. I do believe that the threats of divestment as well as the actual divestment from South Africa did much to move that country to get rid of apartheid. It is possible that the same could work here.
Ideally, I would require the UAE to start by getting rid of the no Israeli stamps in the passport rule.
Very well- but I think my answer was somewhat implicit in the question I asked.
Of course it matters that the UAE provides support to Hamas. The problem is- if you are going to start cutting ties (or in this case, making reform a preliminary to engagement) with ME nations that have either public or private connetions to Hamas you are going to end up unconnected with the ME. Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt- all have links to Hamas. These links grew because America was willing to let those nations remain disconnected from the rest of the world- only co-mingleing their own philosophies (where militant pan-Arabism and militant Islamisism was able to easily silence its foes) in a cesspool of economic failures and security problems. Furthermore, those links will remain, and strengthen, when America decides to remove its economic,diplomatic, and security presence from the region.
The ports deal isn’t a reward for reform, it’s part of the medicine to bring about reform. Increasing economic connections and technological development in Jordan and Egypt have produced positive results (in terms of their relation to America and Israel)- the port deal supporters believe this could have had a similar effect. Is it the end all? Of course not. But the ports deal represents one of the dozen stepping stones to moving the UAE (and its neighbors) out of the status of “gap” and into the “functioning core”, to steal Thomas Barnett’s terminology.
The Bush doctorine isn’t simply about “sticking” nations that aren’t in line with our notion of proper behavior- that’s a foreign policy doomed to failure. The Bush doctorine, to its credit, also has a genuine side of optimism to it- that it’s cool to be free, and that Americanized development is something everyone wants. Torpedoing the ports deal because of unsuprising connections to Hamas (and no, I wouldn’t be shocked if some of our money goes to Al-Queda) is the international policy equivalent to holding our breath until the world does what we like.
Some Guy:
“Of course it matters that the UAE provides support to Hamas. The problem is- if you are going to start cutting ties (or in this case, making reform a preliminary to engagement) with ME nations that have either public or private connetions to Hamas you are going to end up unconnected with the ME. Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt- all have links to Hamas.â€Â
But the fact is, we weren’t making reform preliminary to engagement, as we were already quite engaged with them. But at least IMO, it would not at all be unreasonable to ask the UAE to drop support of Hamas and the boycott of Israel as a pre-condition of moving to the next level of engagement, which was letting them make an investment in part of our critical infrastructure. And if Bush had pursued that angle, it would have been much, much more difficult to oppose the deal on its merits, as it would have removed a huge strike against it.
“These links grew because America was willing to let those nations remain disconnected from the rest of the world- only co-mingleing their own philosophies (where militant pan-Arabism and militant Islamisism was able to easily silence its foes) in a cesspool of economic failures and security problems. Furthermore, those links will remain, and strengthen, when America decides to remove its economic,diplomatic, and security presence from the region.â€Â
Kind of a straw man there, as we are obviously very deeply engaged in the region and will be for a considerable amount of time after this deal is long forgotten.
“The ports deal isn’t a reward for reform, it’s part of the medicine to bring about reform.â€Â
But what do you do if the medicine fails to bring about such reform? And is it really too much to ask that the mere NOT boycott Israel, NOT deny Visas to anyone with an Israeli stamp in their passport, and NOT provide support for Hamas at least until Hamas stops fomenting terror against Israel? If the UAE is the modern, progressive Arab/Muslim state that the deal’s defenders have portrayed it as, then these preconditions should be easily satisfied.
Perhaps its time for the emirs of the UAE to do a little bit of self-reflection and ponder the cost of their policy of hatred towards all things Israel. Because for all of the epithets of ‘xenophobe’, ‘racist’, etc. etc. hurled by many of the deal’s defenders (not necessarily you, but certainly many others), the UAE’s policy towards Israel represents a textbook example of true racism and xenophobia, and an ugly one at that.
“Increasing economic connections and technological development in Jordan and Egypt have produced positive results (in terms of their relation to America and Israel)- the port deal supporters believe this could have had a similar effect. Is it the end all? Of course not. But the ports deal represents one of the dozen stepping stones to moving the UAE (and its neighbors) out of the status of “gap†and into the “functioning coreâ€Â, to steal Thomas Barnett’s terminology.â€Â
With regard to Egypt, there is also something like $ 300 million per year in foreign aid, which would disappear in a flash if they tried to implement the same policies towards Israel that represent the current position of the UAE. That’s a pretty big stick to keep them in line.
“The Bush doctorine isn’t simply about “sticking†nations that aren’t in line with our notion of proper behavior- that’s a foreign policy doomed to failure. The Bush doctorine, to its credit, also has a genuine side of optimism to it- that it’s cool to be free, and that Americanized development is something everyone wants. Torpedoing the ports deal because of unsuprising connections to Hamas (and no, I wouldn’t be shocked if some of our money goes to Al-Queda) is the international policy equivalent to holding our breath until the world does what we like.â€Â
Well I do remember that the Bush Doctrine was about “you being with us or against usâ€Â, a statement that lacked even a sliver of moral ambiguity. Allowing the UAE to continue to play a duplicitous game of making nice with the U.S. on one hand while funding Hamas and boycotting Israel on the other hand does not square with the “you are with us or against us†part of the Bush Doctrine, and if he doesn’t believe it anymore, then he should say so. If he still does, then he should answer the same questions about the UAE’s position towards Israel that is being addressed here, particularly in light of the fact that he had the U.S. government pull funding from the Palestinians after the recent electoral victory of Hamas.
Now, since fair is fair, I will answer the questions you previously asked me:
“do you believe the UAE was (prior to breaking off the ports deal) moving towards reform (in the forms of economic connectivity, security transparency, and politcal liberalism) or simply playing us? “
While I can’t read their minds, I cannot determine whether they are/were playing us, I don’t see many signs that they were moving towards reform. We’ve already discussed their stance towards Israel and Hamas. I’ve heard of no signs of pending elections, of getting rid of Sharia law throughout the Emirates, of increase rights for women, of religious tolerance, of free speech … in short, I can’t really think of anything I’ve seen that makes me believe they were moving towards reform. Mostly I see some shieks trying to preserve their fortunes by spreading their investments around (which there is nothing necessarily wrong with, but it hardly indicates political reform in the UAE). If they were reforming, they kept awfully quiet about it, as did the deal’s defenders.
“If the latter, do you believe that the US should sever relations with the UAE?â€Â
No, I don’t believe we should sever them. But I strongly believe that we have the right to insist on certain conditions before we strengthen those relations, and this port deal was a golden opportunity to use the carrot and stick to get the UAE to drop its boycott of Israel. Such as stroke would have been appreciated by another ally in the region (one that is demonstrably much more reliable) and would have set a precedent that says rejecting the hatred that the anti-Israel policies represent are a good recipe for engaging the U.S. on terms that are mutually beneficial. And by getting rid of those policies, the idea that the UAE is an unequivocal ally instead of “simply playing us†would have gained a significant amount of credibility, enough to turn many of those who were against this deal in favor thereof … not to mention it would have been a strong demonstration of the UAE as the progressive, moderate, reform-minded country as they have been portrayed as by advocates of the deal.
Talk about a lost opportunity.
grr.
doubting, this wasn’t planned. from what i read, GW didn’t know about it. when he did, the realization that one contract could create a viable stockmarket in Dubai, got him exercised, ergo the veto threat.
It would have been a freebie for the Bush Doctrine. No one else even wanted the company. except for the singapore dudes. no one was poised to buy it.
and it was expensive, ‘specially after the bidding war.
but you are right, after the media, the dems and malkin got thru poisoning the well, the repubs dint have a choice, and neither GW.
Someguy is right.
But the thing everyone ignores is, in mathspeak, the rate of change over time. The ME can’t withstand the osmotic pressure of Western civ for long. we’re already winning.
BUT if the time variable is too small, we’ll wind up in one of Wretchard’s three conjectures.
ouch.
wow- a commentor says I’m right on something and Jeff notes me as a source for one of his random musings in a thread today. Time to quit the day-job and start blogging full time! Everyone ready for an endless supply of thoughts on White Sox Baseball?!
tw: bring….as in bring it on, twinkies!
“doubting, this wasn’t planned. from what i read, GW didn’t know about it.”
And that’s part of the problem. Someone in the Treasury Dept. should have given him (or at least Rove) a heads up when they first started reviewing the deal so that they could have anticipated the possibility of a negative reaction and planned accordingly. Would have saved them a lot of trouble.
It also wouldn’t have hurt the UAE, as an act of good faith once the initial opposition became known, to have dropped their anti-Israel policy. It’s hard for me to see how that could have done anything other than help their cause.
Either way, that’s an issue that, if it had been dealt with, could have led to a different outcome than what eventually resulted. Isn’t that what you wanted in the first place?
I’d be overcome with happiness if the angle taken on the Dubai port deal had been rationally idealistic rather than an irrational play to people’s fears, trying to make a bunch of milksop grandstanding politicians look tough on national security–and meanwhile, giving the broad impression throughout the world that our country’s foreign policy really just boils down to: ‘Look, an Arab! Run away!’
Dear Mr. McCarthy—FRANCE provides material aid to Hamas. I don’t see them being shut out of the US by Congress…