The Right Plays The Race Card

Red States USA ^ | 3/1/2006 | Michelle Malkin

[FerdieMurphy]

Last week, I skewered Democrat opportunists who have turned into tough-sounding profiling advocates to exploit the White House ports debacle.

Today, I must express bottomless disgust with those on the Right who have turned into mush-mouthed race-card players to shift blame away from President Bush for his miserable mishandling of the situation.

It's one thing for feckless grievance-mongers on the Left to accuse Americans genuinely concerned about national security of Islamophobia. It's quite another for the Right to sink to such a level in accusing all good-faith critics of demagoguery. Reasonable people can disagree on the process pitfalls and security implications of the deal. But the elite Right has simply lost its marbles:

Here's GOP strategist and Muslim voter outreach architect Grover Norquist in the Los Angeles Times dismissing critics of the deal: "The only whiners left by next week will be the registered bigots."

Conservative commentator Larry Kudlow: "This whole brouhaha surrounding the Bush administration's green-light to a United Arab Emirates company slated to manage six major U.S. ports has nothing to do with protecting homeland security. Allow me to give it its proper name: Islamophobia."

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

The UAE is our "friend," we are told, and to question that assertion, we are scolded, is to engage in reckless prejudice and life-threatening insult. Yes, well, some friends are more equal than others. To instinctively trust a longtime, stalwart Western democracy more than an Arab newcomer with a mixed record on combating terror, international crime and Islamic extremism is not "Islamophobia." It's self-preservationism in a time of war.

We are at war, aren't we?

President Bush himself is ultimately responsible for encouraging the race-card players, thanks to his stunning comment that "those who are questioning" the deal need to "step up and explain why all of a sudden a Middle Eastern company is held to a different standard than a Great British company."

Yes, there are countless homegrown terrorists across England, where Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co., the maritime company purchased by state-owned Dubai Ports World, operates. So what? So, now, a peaceful Western democracy that is infiltrated against its will by al Qaeda is on the same plane as an Arab federation whose ruling emiratis ran interference for Osama bin Laden before Sept. 11, which continued to be a logistical hub for al Qaeda for years after, which refuses to recognize the existence of Israel, bans our textbooks as "racist" because they point out Syria's state sponsorship of terrorism, and is boycotting Denmark over the Mohammed Cartoons?

Now, all the proselytizers who tell us to collect the dots and connect the dots want us to throw them all away lest we give offense?

Yes, the UAE has taken steps to cooperate in the War on Terror after the Sept. 11 attacks. Give them a pat on the back. But don't tell me that their actions over the past four years elevate them to the same level of partnership and trustworthiness as Great Britain.

That's offensive.

Perhaps Bush should consult with his own Justice Department, which understood the need for heightened scrutiny of Middle Eastern illegal aliens in the immediate aftermath of Sept. 11, and instituted temporary targeted fingerprinting and registration policies for Middle Eastern tourists, businessmen and students.

Bigots!

Perhaps he should ask his own Border Patrol, which is on heightened alert for illegal Middle Eastern border-crossers.

Bigots!

Perhaps he should ask his own FBI, which is zeroing in on mosques and Muslim charities instead of Lutheran churches and the March of Dimes in the domestic War on Terror.

Bigots!

(But don't bother asking Transportation Department Norm Mineta anything -- well, other than "Why the heck are you still here, Normie?")

The sad lesson of Portgate: Scream "racism" loud enough, and people will blame the messengers and back down. By the Bush standard, we who put American security above Arab sensitivity are all bigots now.

[FerdieMurphy]

FYI

VERY poorly handled.

[Echo Talon]

The UAE is our "friend," we are told, and to question that assertion, we are scolded, is to engage in reckless prejudice and life-threatening insult.

Open your eyes MM how many USN ships use their ports? Do we have access to their airfields for our refueling aircraft? Do they help us with Intel? Are they as great a friend as Israel? NO, but do we want to make them as big of an enemy as say Iran? I don't think so

[Echo Talon]

Yes, the UAE has taken steps to cooperate in the War on Terror after the Sept. 11 attacks. Give them a pat on the back. But don't tell me that their actions over the past four years elevate them to the same level of partnership and trustworthiness as Great Britain.

UAE has helped us more in the WOT than China and they manage a state run company in LA, named COSCO. Maybe we should tell China to do something about Kim Jong IL or were gonna let your lease run out.

[claudiustg]

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

I have to say that David Brooks is right on the money except that instead of mentioning Savage by name, he could have put the blame where it originated, Chucky Schumer, demagogue extrodinaire.

---It's quite another for the Right to sink to such a level in accusing all good-faith critics of demagoguery. Reasonable people can disagree on the process pitfalls and security implications of the deal. But the elite Right has simply lost its marbles:---

So they are "good-faith critics" and we we are elitists that have lost our marbles. Yet another spokesperson on the right that goes on the don't-seriously-listen- to list.

[ClaireSolt]

She jumped in too soon and is in way over her head and should admit it.

[claudiustg]

Somene called into Hannity the other day and said that the UAE had helped us in the WOT more than the Democrats had. :^)

[em2vn]

Should we repeat the COSCO debacle just because we made such a mistake once?

[Rise of South Park Republicans]

Somene called into Hannity the other day and said that the UAE had helped us in the WOT more than the Democrats had. :^)

And the UAE is as anti-Israel as some libs

[indcons]

Ping

[montag813]

Conservative commentator Larry Kudlow: "Allow me to give it its proper name: Islamophobia."

Lost 100% respect for Kudlow after this shameful comment.

[DJ Taylor]

IMHO, all of this debate over who owns the equipment that unloads ships arriving in our ports detracts from the obvious: Once a ship carrying a nuclear device arrives in one of our ports, it is already too late to do anything about it, and it makes no difference who owns the port equipment that will be destroyed along with the port and neighboring city.

Incoming ships must be thoroughly inspected before they enter an American port, or sooner or later a Muslim terrorist organization will detonate a nuclear device in one of our ports. To do this, a port of entry must be established on both the East Coast and on the West Coast where all incoming ships must be cleared before they are permitted to proceed to an American port. A port of entry could be established for the East Coast on the Virgin Islands or in Puerto Rico where incoming ships are cleared and then monitored until they reach their final destination. When I say all incoming ships must be cleared, I mean all ships, and not just container ships. This would also apply to American registered ships as well, as there are Americans who, if the price is right, would deliver a nuke to one of our ports.

This system is, of course, not perfect and a determined terrorist could eventually find a way to subvert it, but at least we can make them work for it. Right now, all a terrorist organization has to do is get their hands on a crude nuke and it will, I say again will, surely arrive in one of our ports in a very short time.

What about a port of entry for the West Coast? Pick a port that the U.S. could lose and not damage the economy too badly, San Diego, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Portland, or Seattle.

I’m sure no one in Homeland Security will ask any of us our opinion on this, as they are the experts in this area.

[Hermann the Cherusker]

To do this, a port of entry must be established on both the East Coast and on the West Coast where all incoming ships must be cleared before they are permitted to proceed to an American port. A port of entry could be established for the East Coast on the Virgin Islands or in Puerto Rico where incoming ships are cleared and then monitored until they reach their final destination.

Are the Virgin Islanders or Puerto Ricans less valuable persons than other East Coast Port city citizens?

Your idea is so totally impractical that it makes the head spin. Double the length of sea voyages and add in a quarantine and search period for all shipments? Are we going to individually break open every overseas container to search it?

Its far easier to control the mining of uranium and its enrichment (which we already do) than is any sort of scheme such as you are proposing.

[Paul Ross]

But don't bother asking Transportation Department Norm Mineta anything -- well, other than "Why the heck are you still here, Normie?"

LOL!

This is really hitting the nail on the head.

His post 9-11 behavior and statements -- beyond disgraceful and foolish.

[Paul Ross]

...do we want to make them as big of an enemy as say Iran? I don't think so

Somebody should have thought of that before it got to this level of "lost face".

As Nancy Reagan said, 'Just say No!'

Let's give them some other less-security-sensitive "plum".

[reelfoot]

Great article. Michelle has it nailed.

People who claim to be conservatives deserve no respect when they label others who are concerned about the Muslim threat as "racists". You expect such race mongering among the Teddy Kennedys of the world, but certainly not from conservatives. (Assuming they are, in fact, conservatives.)

[BeHoldAPaleHorse]

Michelle, don't go to Vegas.

When one has already misplayed a bad hand, one should not double down.

[Paul Ross]

First seized by the radio hatemonger Michael Savage

Hating communists, internal and external, is so terrible.

it's been embraced by reactionaries of left and right

Reactionaries? Isn't that what the MSM used to shriek 24/7 against Ronald Reagan?

Methinks Mr. Brooks doth protest too much, and needs to keep his skirts clean.

[Paul Ross]

She jumped in too soon and is in way over her head and should admit it.

And how do you come to that conclusion?

[Lancey Howard]

It's quite another for the Right to sink to such a level in accusing all good-faith critics of demagoguery.

Sorry, Michelle, but I haven't found any "good faith critics" who are not ignorant go-alongs who can't stop their knees from jerking and who can't admit that they were completely conned by the initial breathless spin put out on this story by the Democrats and their allies in the dinosaur "mainstream" liberal newsrooms.

The facts are widely available to everybody now, so there's no longer any excuse.

[FerdieMurphy]

UAE has helped us more in the WOT than China

Exactly!

China should be too busy running the Panama Canal.

There is absolutely NO reason why contracts should be let to outside sources to manage facilities as important to America as our shipping. This makes about as much sense as putting the security "apparatus" of our nation up for bid!

We can hire and train Americans to do this management. If there aren't enough applicants create a branch of the Merchant Marine or the USCG to do the work. If we can't get the manpower then it would be in the national interest to institute a draft to satisfy the manning requirements.

At any rate, the key words in this entire fiasco are: "Poorly Handled."

Now that the public understands more about COSCO and the management of our ports, perhaps the outcry will accomplish something.

America is looking more like a resort where foreigners run things for us guests until they get ready to cut our throats.