Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Should we discriminate on ports deal? You bet! [Buchanan is right for America]
World Net Daily ^ | 2 -25-06 | Pat Buchanan

Posted on 02/27/2006 11:47:46 AM PST by ex-snook

Saturday, February 25, 2006

Should we discriminate on ports deal? You bet!

Posted: February 25, 2006
1:00 a.m. Eastern


By Patrick J. Buchanan

© 2006 Creators Syndicate Inc.

"This Dubai port deal has unleashed a kind of collective mania we haven't seen in decades ... a xenophobic tsunami," wails a keening David Brooks. "A nativist, isolationist mass hysteria is ... here."

The New York Times columnist obviously regards the nation's splenetic response to news that control of our East Coast ports had been sold to Arab sheiks as wildly irrational. In witness whereof, he quotes Philip Damas of Drewry Shipping Consultants: "The location of a company in the age of globalism is irrelevant."

But irrelevant to whom?

Why is it irrelevant, in a war against Arab and Islamic terrorists, to question the transfer of control of our East Coast ports from Great Britain to the United Arab Emirates?

Our cosmopolitan Brooks lives in another country. He has left the America of blood and soil, shaken the dust from his sandals, to enter the new Davos world of the Global Economy, where nationality does not matter, and where fundamentalists and flag-wavers of all faiths are the real enemies of progress toward the wonderful future these globalists have in store for us.

"God must love Hamas and Moktada Al-Sadr," snorts Brooks. "He has given them the America First brigades of Capitol Hill."

To Brooks, there is little distinction between Islamic mobs burning Danish consulates and America First patriots protesting some insider's deal to surrender control of American ports to Arab sheiks.

But the reflexive recoil to this transaction between transnationals is a manifestation of national mental health. The American people have not yet been over-educated into the higher stupidity. Common sense still trumps ideology here. Globalism has not yet triumphed over patriotism. Rather than take risks with national security, Americans will accept a pinch of racial profiling. Yep, the old America lives.

Like alley cats, Americans yet retain an IFF – Identify-Friend-or-Foe – radar that instinctively alerts them to keep a warier eye on some folks than on others.

But in rejecting a deal transferring control of our ports to Arabs, are Americans not engaging in discrimination? Are they not engaging in prejudice?

Of course they are. But not all discrimination is irrational, nor is all prejudice wrong. To discriminate is but to choose. We all discriminate in our choice of friends and associates. Prejudice means prejudgment. And a prejudgment in favor of Brits in matters touching on national security is rooted in history.

In the 20th century (if not the 19th), the Brits have been with us in almost every fight. It was not Brits who struck us on 9-11, who rejoiced in the death of 3,000 Americans, who daily threaten us from the mosques of East and West, who behead our aid workers, bomb our soldiers and call for "Death to America!" in a thousand demonstrations across the Middle East. And while not all Muslims are terrorists, almost all terrorists appear to be Muslim.

As Mother Church has a "preferential option" for the poor, there is nothing wrong with America's preferential option for the cousins.

Does this mean all Arabs should be considered enemies? Of course not. The folks from Dubai may detest the 9-11 murderers as much as we do, for those killers shamed their faith, disgraced their people, and bred a distrust and fear of Arabs and Muslims that had never before existed here.

Yet, just as sky marshals seat themselves behind young Arab males, not grannies taking the tots to Disney World, so Americans, in deciding who operates their ports, naturally prefer ourselves, or old friends.

Why take an unnecessary risk? Just to get an A for global maturity on our next report card from the WTO?

The real question this deal raises is what happened to the political antenna at the White House. Did it fall off the roof about the time President Bush named Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court?

Anyone in touch with Middle America, especially after 9-11 and endless warnings of imminent attacks on U.S. soil, would know this country is acutely sensitive to terror threats. Surely, before approving this deal with Dubai Ports World, someone should have asked:

"How do you think Bubba will react when he's told sheiks will take over the port of Baltimore, where in Tom Clancy's 'Sum of All Fears,' Arab terrorists smuggle in an A-bomb and detonate it?"

Apparently, no one bothered to ask, or the question was brushed off in the interests of hastily greasing the deal.

Now, this episode is going to end badly. Bush, who has denied advance knowledge of the deal, is being ripped by liberals for living in a pre-9/11 world and being out of touch with his government.

As for our remaining friends in the Middle East, they have been given another reason to regard Americans as fickle friends who, down deep, don't like Arabs.

Unquestionably, this will result in a victory for those who wish to sever America's friendships in the Arab world. But it is Bush and his unthinking globalists, not the American Firsters whom Brooks cannot abide, who are responsible for this debacle.


TOPICS: Government
KEYWORDS: 911; antisemite; bucantwinan; buchanan; congress; jooooooos; journalist; loser; patbuchanan; portdeal; ports; thirdpartyloser
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 121-123 next last
Hijackers - the subject is dock deal discrimination.
1 posted on 02/27/2006 11:47:49 AM PST by ex-snook
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: ex-snook


2 posted on 02/27/2006 11:49:17 AM PST by Dante3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ex-snook

Now here's a surprise...not.

3 posted on 02/27/2006 11:49:52 AM PST by CWOJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ex-snook

I thought Pat Buchanan liked Arabs. He didn't have a problem with Saddam Hussein. I guess if the UAE is such a terrible terrorist supporting nation, we should invade them. But oh wait, Pat isn't willing to go that far with his blind chauvenism.

4 posted on 02/27/2006 11:49:58 AM PST by MikeA (New York owes America an apology for Hillary Clinton and Chuck Schumer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ex-snook
Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

I wouldn't vote for Buchanan if he were running unopposed. I don't pull the lever for raging anti-Semites.

5 posted on 02/27/2006 11:50:02 AM PST by kellynch (I am excessively diverted. ~~Jane Austen)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MikeA
"I thought Pat Buchanan liked Arabs."

The UAE does business with Israel.

6 posted on 02/27/2006 11:50:46 AM PST by CWOJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: ex-snook


My friends, there is an organized disinformation campaign going on in the discussion of the Dubai Ports World deal. Draw whatever conclusions you wish about whether the deal is worthwhile, but please do not buy into these blatant misrepresentations, and please don’t spread them in your discussions.

Clearly, this is a hot-button issue, and there are plenty of reasons for concern in the UAE’s past behavior, particularly before 9/11. Of course, we’re hearing from guys like Ret. Gen. Tommy Franks and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Peter Pace that UAE is “a friend” and “very, very solid partners” in the war on terror. And Sen. John Warner observed that the U.S. military has docked more than 500 ships in the past year in the UAE and uses their airfields to perform support missions for both Afghanistan and Iraq. But some folks still feel as if they can’t trust the UAE, and/or they want a fuller review. Fair enough. I don’t begrudge someone for having concerns about this deal.

However, I do begrudge someone for not having their facts straight. And long after I, and many others, pointed out that this deal is significantly different than what we were initially told, a particular group of people continue to dramatically misrepresent – aw, hell, let’s call it what it is – continue to lie about what it entails.

There are plenty of folks on the GOP side of the aisle repeating and spreading the lies. But check out the comments on the other side of the aisle.

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton:

“Senator Menendez and I don’t think any foreign government company should be running our ports, managing, leasing, owning, operating. It just raises too many red flags. That is the nub of our complaints,” said Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., speaking via teleconference in response to Bush’s announcement.
As reported in USA Today, 80 percent of the terminals in the Port of Los Angeles are run by foreign firms. And the U.S. Department of Transportation says the United Kingdom, Denmark, Hong Kong, Japan, South Korea, Singapore, China and Taiwan have interests in U.S. port terminals. The blogger Sweetness and Light observed that the National Shipping Company of Saudi Arabia, which is partially owned by the government of Saudi Arabia as well as Saudi individuals and establishments, operates berths in the ports of Baltimore, Newport News, Houston, New Orleans, Savannah, Wilmington, N.C., Port Newark, New Jersey, and Brooklyn, New York. (The link has an inadvertently haunting photo, BTW.)

The argument from Democrats now that “foreigners” shouldn’t be operating U.S. ports is either protectionism, xenophobia, or both. And it is at least a decade late.

All over the weekend, Democrats continued to fundamentally misrepresent what the deal entails.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein:

Do we want our national security assets to be sold to foreign powers? … Do we want, let's say, American companies that own nuclear power plants to be bought out by foreign entities?
New Jersey Governor Jon Corzine:

When Americans expressed concern about turning our ports over to the government of this country…

There are those who raise false charges of discrimination when we raise genuine concerns about security — who say that no one cared when a British company ran the ports. But Dubai is not Britain — and the fact of the matter is that port security does not begin and end at the pier in Newark.

The cargo shipped here is part of a global supply chain: a container that is loaded in Malaysia or the Philippines and then makes a stop in Dubai is unloaded in Newark or Baltimore, and eventually gets delivered to Cleveland.

So there is more than just cause for concern.

We cannot afford to let this administration be stubborn in their mistakes and casual about our security. Senators Clinton and Menendez have introduced legislation to prohibit companies owned or controlled by foreign governments from buying U.S. port operations.

That’s not even the worst of Corzine’s comments. Among the reasons that he has concerns about the UAE is that, “eleven of the hijackers involved in the 9/11 attacks traveled to the U.S. through the airport in Dubai.” Got that? A terrorist catching a connecting flight within your country signifies, in Corzine’s mind, a tie to terrorists. By that standard, Portland, Maine, Logan Airport in Boston, Newark International, Dulles International, and Fort Lauderdale in Florida have “ties to terrorists” – after all, the 9/11 hijackers passed through those airports as well.

Of course, New Jersey’s genius Senator, Frank Lautenberg, also thinks that a terrorist passing through an airport within your borders makes you an enemy in the war on terror:

“Dubai has allowed terrorists to pass freely through their own country,” said Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., this week. “Why in the world should we let this rogue government control ports in the United States?”
I take it New Jersey’s state government would qualify as a “rogue government” as well? I eagerly await your call for sanctions against your home state, senator.

Rep. Steve Rothman described the deal as “security contracts.” Wrong, wrong, wrong.

Sherrod Brown, Democratic member of the House, running for Senate in Ohio, Feb. 24:

In response to the proposed outsourcing of America's port security to the United Arab Emirates…
(HT: RCP.)

From the DNC:

This isn't about holding a Middle Eastern company to a different standard, this is about turning over control of six of our nation's major entrances to ANY foreign country… For this, to hand over our port security to a foreign nation, [President Bush] is willing to break out the [veto] pen for the first time.
Elsewhere, the DNC describes the deal as “the transfer of our national security to a foreign government.”

Sad to say, Republicans have joined in what can only be described as a disinformation campaign:

“The security of America is not for sale, and I hope that President Bush will correct this mistake by suspending this deal and investigating the reasoning behind this misguided decision,” Rep. Chris Smith, R-N.J., said.
By the way, on Saturday, the Washington Post reported that the intelligence community strongly supported the deal, a tantalizing bit of information for those of us who strongly suspect there’s an intelligence-sharing aspect of this deal that has not been publicly disclosed.

A former senior CIA official recalled that, although money transfers from Dubai were used by the Sept. 11 hijackers, Dubai's security services "were one of the best in the UAE to work with" after the attacks. He said that once the agency moved against Pakistani nuclear scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan and his black-market sales of nuclear technology, "they helped facilitate the CIA's penetration of Khan's network."

Dubai also assisted in the capture of al-Qaeda terrorists. An al-Qaeda statement released in Arabic in spring 2002 refers to UAE officials as wanting to "appease the Americans' wishes" including detaining "a number of Mujahideen," according to captured documents made available last week by the Combating Terrorism Center at West Point. The al-Qaeda statement threatened the UAE, saying that "you are an easier target than them; your homeland is exposed to us."

One intelligence official pointed out that when the U.S. Navy no longer made regular use of Yemen after the USS Cole was attacked in 2000, it moved its port calls for supplies and repairs to Dubai.

For all we know, this deal may be the quid pro quo for the biggest intelligence-sharing bonanza with an Arab state since the 9/11 attacks. Look at a map of the Middle East. Check out what country is opposite the UAE on the Persian Gulf, and try to imagine why we might want intelligence-sharing or other cooperation with this state.

The UAE is, in its actions right now, an ally. The Democratic party as a whole appears hell-bent on scuttling this deal, and ruining relations with this ally. For all that party’s relentless talk about the U.S. needing allies and strong partnerships, they will urinate all over one of our comrades in order to score points against the president.

However, this is the same party urging us to continue sending aid to the Palestinians, where it can be used by the new government of Hamas.

The Democratic Party would humiliate, alienate, and punish our allies while sending financial aid to terrorists and sucking up to our enemies. Do not buy into the line that they are pushing.

UPDATE: A great, far-ranging discussion over at Winds of Change, a hangout for liberal hawks.

[Posted 02/27 06:16 AM]

7 posted on 02/27/2006 11:50:53 AM PST by MikeA (New York owes America an apology for Hillary Clinton and Chuck Schumer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ex-snook

David Brooks is a country club GOPer. But he's closer to reality on this deal than PJB.

8 posted on 02/27/2006 11:50:55 AM PST by pissant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ex-snook

Buchanan is right, as usual.

9 posted on 02/27/2006 11:51:03 AM PST by Thorin ("I won't be reconstructed, and I do not give a damn.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #10 Removed by Moderator

To: ex-snook
"How do you think Bubba will react when he's told sheiks will take over the port of Baltimore?

Buchanan is Bubba.

11 posted on 02/27/2006 11:54:21 AM PST by plain talk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Soul_of_Chogokin
LOL! Your knowledge of the UAE appears to be limited...or gained from tainted sources. Understandable.

pat buchanan, he's so far right he's now come around to the left.

12 posted on 02/27/2006 11:54:55 AM PST by CWOJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: MikeA
I thought Pat Buchanan liked Arabs

But then Pat would have to support the Port deal, and he would miss out on an opportuinity to bash and take Pot Shots at Bush, and that is his only goal in this article.

13 posted on 02/27/2006 11:55:38 AM PST by commish (Freedom Tastes Sweetest to Those Who Have Fought to Preserve It)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: kellynch

I don't pull the lever for raging anti-Semites.

How about Semites who are anti-semite???

14 posted on 02/27/2006 11:56:38 AM PST by silentreignofheroes (When the Last Two Prophets are taken there will be no Tommorrow!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: commish

I think pat makes exceptions to Arabs who have major business dealings with the UAE. He probably thinks they sold out.

15 posted on 02/27/2006 11:56:54 AM PST by CWOJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: ex-snook
He has left the America of blood and soil

Why does Buchanan now use National Socialist terminology so reflexively?

It's approaching self-parody.

"Blood And Soil" (in German Blut und Boden) was a slogan employed by racialist agitator Walther Darre in the early 1930s and Hitler made it a staple of his speeches, where it was chanted by crowds at the Nuremberg rallies.

Buchanan knows his history, he knows the exact provenance of this phrase. Why does he use it?

16 posted on 02/27/2006 11:57:07 AM PST by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MikeA

Of course, how else would Hillary and the rest of the ravenous socialists seize and nationalize our ports. No other company in the business wants to run our ports and have to deal with the unions, who BTW would love to be members of a union working for the government.

17 posted on 02/27/2006 11:58:13 AM PST by Camel Joe (liberal=socialist=royalist/imperialist pawn=enemy of Freedom)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: ex-snook

Buchanon's off the deep end. Like those NY politicians of both parties, he cares only about the union jobs of people making 6 figures a year. End of story.

18 posted on 02/27/2006 12:00:05 PM PST by narby (Hillary! The Wicked Witch of the Left)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Thorin

Except for saying this: "control of our East Coast ports had been sold to Arab sheiks".

19 posted on 02/27/2006 12:00:20 PM PST by Rte66
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: wideawake
>>>>>>Why does Buchanan now use National Socialist terminology so reflexively?

He doesn't. Many others have used the phrase, apart from the Nazis.

20 posted on 02/27/2006 12:00:48 PM PST by Thorin ("I won't be reconstructed, and I do not give a damn.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 121-123 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson