Matt has weighed with his views on the current ports issue, and it has some very good points. I have some additional ones that I want to make separately, as I do not want to take anything away from Matt' great posting.First of all, let me say that I do not know exactly how I feel about whether or not to approve this deal. On the one hand, we are turning over management (NOT SECURITY, FOLKS) of key ports to a firm that is owned by a foreign power. Not only that, but this is a power that has had ties to terror in the past. Notably, this was one of the few governments that recognized the Taliban as an official government. However, this government is one of the few in the MidEast that has even a modicum of real elections, and it has become more of an ally of the West after 9/11, and was an ally before 9/11. In fact, some of those now decrying UAE influence and control of US assets and such were ardent supporters or did nothing to stop the UAE from getting US assets or exerting influence over American interests.
First, let's look at the facts. This is NOT managing the security, but managing the running of the ports to make it more efficient. Secondly, this country has become an ally of the US and has allowed us to keep a major Navy retooling facility there. This nationalized company has a record of increasing efficiency. It also has a record of using non-union labor and opening up the labor pool. Aha! Here might be the real reason for the opposition by the left! The Longshoremen's Union, part of the AFL-CIO has condemned the deal because of the non-union record, but they hide that behind a lot of posturing over national security.
Also, let's look at history. It was only by sending out our prosperity to the enemy (aka the Soviets and the Warsaw pact) that we were able to crumble the Evil Empire from within. By exporting our products of soap operas and McDonalds and TV and movies, we were able to show how good it is here, and to shatter the lie that the Politburos had been spreading about workers paradise in the USSR. It was only through that outreach that people within began to yell and holler in greater numbers for change. Maybe it is Bush's hope that by making a friend out of an enemy (Sun Tzu)that this will lead to more expansion of freedom in the MidEast. I simply don't know.
However, there are some ironies here as it concerns the Democrats and their opposition to this deal. First, what party rallied behind Bill Clinton's attempts to sell nuclear material to North Korea? To sell guidance packages with military value to Chinese "corporations"? Hmm? What party rants and raves about profiling and not picking out Arabs in airport lines, whose own former candidate and vice president just griped about the US mistreating Arabs; and now they won't let this company in because of who owns it? That smacks of racism by association.
If the Democrats were against doing things to help this "enemy" they now see, why did Hillary Clinton, as co-president ("We are the president")stand by and allow her husband to sell F-16's to the Dubai government? Why did she allow Bubba to invite over the leader of the UAE and provide medical treatment? Why did she allow Mr. Clinton to call the founder of the UAE a great champion for freedom?
I want to know where Chuck Schumer and Susan Collins were when the UAE made a 200,000 dollar endowment to fund a professorship in Middle East studies at Columbia University that was filled by a virulently anti-Israel and anti-Bush professor named Rashid Khalidi. That issue was aired by the August 5, 2004, editorial in The New York Sun, 'What the UAE Bought.' Here is the scoop from the New York Sun:
Nor, so far as we can tell, did they protest when, after the death of the president and founder of the UAE, Shaykh Zayid bin Sultan Al Nahayan, Mr. Bush issued a statement on November 4, 2004, mourning the passing of "a great friend of our country," "a close ally," who built the Emirates "into a prosperous, tolerant, and well-governed state."
Nor do we recall any protest from Mrs. Clinton or Mr. Schumer or Ms. Boxer when President Clinton and Vice President Gore announced in May 1998 that America was selling 80 F-16 fighters to the UAE. Nor did these politicians protest back in December 1996, when the Clinton administration's assistant state secretary, Robert Pelletreau, went on UAE television to announce: "On the international stage, the UAE is universally respected for its generosity and commitment to regional security and fair-dealing. These qualities reflect the exceptional character of Shaykh Zayid, who is truly the father of his country, and a respected statesman." Mr. Pelletreau went on, "We were pleased that the U.S. could offer His Highness Shaykh Zayid medical treatment earlier this year while he was here. President Clinton telephoned him to welcome him and placed the White House at his disposal to make his stay comfortable and productive."
I think selling F-16s to a supposed "terror state" (code for: arabic country we can paint that way for political purposes)is just as much of an issue as this port thing. Where was Chuckie and Babs then? What about subverting our college campuses by outsourcing professor salaries? Incubating hate in our young minds? Where was the anguish, the handwringing then? Just wondering...
So, what is the real reason for this Democrat Pumping up of National Security. First, they know it is a weakness going into the elections. They know everyone perceives them as weak and the Republicans as strong on this issue. So, by taking this stance, they are seeking to tear down Republican strength and make themselves look good, simply by doing nothing more than another useless investigational committee that will turn up hogwash and things will go on. They will provide themselves a John Kerry moment to say they opposed the deal before they approved it, or vice versa.
Secondly, the more sinister and typical Democrat reason comes out: shoring, or in this case, longshoring up the base. Again, from the New York Sun:
So what, one wonders, accounts for the sudden turnabout and interest of all these politicians in the UAE as a potential terrorist threat? The answer got a lot clearer yesterday afternoon when the International Longshoremen's Association, the AFL-CIO-affiliated union that represents workers at the six ports that would be affected by the Dubai deal, issued a statement praising the politicians complaining about the deal. The union's statement expressed "great concern" about the transaction. From there, it's easy to just follow the money - documented by The New York Sun's examination of Federal Election Commission records - from the political action committee of the International Longshoremen's Association into the pockets of the protesting politicians.
Mr. Schumer, the first to raise the alarm about the deal? He's collected $4,500 in campaign contributions from the trough of the Longshoremen. Rep. Peter King, the chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, who was one of the first big-name Republicans to break ranks with the administration over the deal? The Longshoremen's political committee donated $5,500 to the King campaign. It turns out that nearly every politician who has been at the forefront of the opposition to the Dubai deal is on the receiving end of some Longshoreman largesse.
Senator Clinton's campaign took $4,500. Senator Dodd, $2,500. Congressman Fossella, $9,500. Senator Boxer, $6,000. Senator Lautenberg, $9,000. Rep. Jerrold Nadler, a Democrat from New York who is another outspoken critic of the Dubai deal, has accepted $22,500 from the Longshoremen since March of 2000. Senator Menendez, a leader of the opposition to the Dubai deal, has taken in fully $39,500 in campaign contributions from the Longshoremen's political action committee. It puts a different spin on the statement yesterday from the president of the International Longshoremen's Association, John Bowers, who said, "We echo United States Senator Robert Menendez who correctly notes that our ports are the front lines of the war on terrorism." It raises the question, for example, of whether the Longshoremen are echoing Mr. Menendez, or whether Mr. Menendez is echoing Mr. Bowers, who has been so generous to his campaign.
Mr. Bowers has been president of the ILA since 1987, having previously served for 24 years as executive vice president of the union, its second highest position. He was charged with racketeering and named as an associate of the Gambino organized crime family in a July 2005 civil complaint filed by federal prosecutors in Brooklyn.
So, the no-scandal or corruption party is taking money from a known and suspected racketeer with ties to the Gambino family? And they are trusting this guy over the President? See, it is not about what is safe for you and me. It is about the money. They want to fly around on their private planes, and they need union money to do it. If they were serious about national security, the wiretap story would have never been leaked, the Patriot Act would have been resoundingly renewed, and they wouldn't be calling our soldiers Pol Pots or Stalins. However, we have to make Bush look weak and at the same time collect big money, so let's pretend to be the friend of Americans. Typical liberal nonsense and lies.
Isn't it ironic that it is a Southern Texas cowpoke who is speaking about tolerance and looking beyond religion and skin color, and it is the liberals who are acting on blind racism and profiling for political gain? This should not surprise you. Liberals are the first to break people down into groups of color or religion, with the supposed goal of 'helping'them. Again, how well has that Great Society worked out? They are the first to point out race, then tell the rest of us to ignore it while they act on it. Hello!
Look, this deal has its issues, but don't buy into the hype that Hillary and Chuck all of a sudden are national security giants, that Chris Dodd and Co. are the key to keeping us safe. These are the same people that castrated the wiretapping program, rendering it useless. These are the same folks who care more about the prisoners in Gitmo than you and I. These are the same people who malign our military while claiming to support the troops. Don't buy into it. Follow the money, people, and you will see why they oppose it. Follow the money.
