Fuss Over The Ports And The Dog’s Take

I have been thinking about the issue of the sale of port management to a company from Dubai. I indicated in an earlier post that I did not have an opinion on the transaction but that I had some concerns about the sale. My concerns dealt with national security. It was not that I was worried an Arab nation would do business in America, as so many of the people complaining are but that I was unsure who would own the ports. All the early news reports indicated the ports were being sold and that the UAE would own the ports. As it turns out, that is not the case. The company, Dubai Ports World will manage the containers that go through the ports. So I listened to arguments for several days and I was shocked at the number of people who simply believe that under no circumstances should we allow a foreign country to run our ports (most people said own because they got the same impression I did).

It is helpful to lay a few things out when taking a decision. The ports are, at the present time, run by a company from a foreign nation. They are being managed by London-based Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company. So this pretty much negates the argument that we can not let a foreign country run it because they already are. So then we ask what is different from one country to another. The UK is our ally and so is Dubai as well though they have not been one for anywhere as long as the UK. But allies nonetheless so that is kind of negated. Terrorists went through Dubai on the way to the horror of 9/11. Terrorists went through Logan airport (in Boston) on their way to the horror of 9/11 so if we do not hold Boston or the state of Massachusetts as terrorist supporters, we can not do that to Dubai. They will not provide as good a security as we do. No, they are not providing security because that job will remain with the various US agencies that already perform that function. But to elaborate, The ports run by Dubai Ports World are more secure than ours and they scan nearly all their containers so they would probably do a better job than we do since we scan about 6%. What is left? They are Arabs, people with darker skin and the people from the UK are pasty white Europeans. Since we have eliminated the other reasons based upon our previous actions one must conclude that those who oppose this do so because they base their opinion on their bigotry. Because the folks from the UAE look different and are darker we are discriminating under the guise of national security, which I will touch on later. Imagine if an African nation was going through this very thing. Jackson, Sharpton and the rest of the race baiters would be all over the place.

Another thing that I hear is that the opposition is worried about national security. There are a number of Democrats talking about national security, our enemy (which is strangely enough, Dubai), and how our ports will be more vulnerable if a nation that has a questionable record on terrorism owns them (once again the words being used indicate possession). There are Democrats and Republicans attacking the port issue and we would do well to keep in mind that most, if not all of them are running for reelection this year. I would find it easier to believe that the Republicans are more interested in national security because they have a track record where as the Democrats have been weak on it and tend not to do well with it when charged with its care. However, I am sure that the Republicans are basing their concerns on election polls just like the Democrats are. The left looks at this as a chance to look tough on national security and the right looks at it as a chance to get farther away from a President who is not liked by 50% of the country. Additionally, the labor unions oppose this move and if you look you will see that many of the Democrats opposing this received a lot of money from the very unions involved. Clinton and Schumer have both received money from the unions, the unions oppose it, and now those two are giving the appearance that they are echoing the unions because they were paid to do so.

The left is trying to make this a national security issue. I am glad they did because now they have finally admitted that we need to be tough when it comes to security so they can no longer oppose anything we are doing in the name of security. I have heard so many of them say that this is about national security and we can not cut corners when it comes to national security. We need to do whatever it takes, as I heard a few of them including Congressman Ben Cardin from Maryland. Yes we do and our President has realized that all along while you guys were fighting him every step of the way. Whatever it takes includes electronic surveillance of suspected terrorists. The left has admitted that the President was right all along. They claimed that Bush was using the war on terror to scare people and that we were in little danger. It was all trumped up and when we have an issue Bush jacks up the terror alert level to take everyone’s mind off it. The left has taken all that away by admitting there is a problem and we should do what ever it takes thereby confirming that Bush has been doing the right thing.

Dubai has never attacked us and yet the opposition is trying to deny them this business because a few terrorists went through there and they have not been very tough on terrorism. The left is denying them (or waging war against them) because of what a few bad people did. These are the same people who claim we had no right to mess with Iraq despite the links between Hussein and the terror network of OBL. You see, the preemptive strikes in Iraq were illegal but the preemptive strikes on Dubai are warranted. The left has just told us that we need to make sure we take action BEFORE we are attacked. Their fear is that Dubai can cause some kind of national security problems so they want to nix this before it ever happens. This is the same rationale we have used to fight the terrorists in Iraq instead of here and the left has called it illegal, go figure. It would appear that because the folks from Dubai are Arabs and Arabs attacked us on 9/11 then we need to deny them anything to do with us. Seems to me that was the kind of thinking that landed a bunch of Japanese in detention centers during WW II.

Dubai already has manages ports around the world and they run them better than we do (probably union related). They can come to work for us in an area of national security risk. Companies from foreign countries are already a part of our defense system and an Israeli company is responsible for airport security in some of our nation’s airports. Given that they have not had a hijacking in a very long time, they probably know what they are doing.

I have pointed out many reasons why this might not be a bad idea and I left the obvious one out. If the left is strongly against it then it can’t be all bad. Then Jimmy Carter came out in support and screwed up the works and that thought process. The issue, as I see the opposition present it (though I am sure it is not their real issue), keeps coming back to expressed concerns about having a foreign country with so much access to our ports. Since a foreign country is already there let’s write what they really mean. They do not want an Arab country to make the deal because almost all the terrorists are Arabs from Arab countries. The claim is “putting the fox in the hen house” and other ideas that we are making it easier, or giving them easier access to our ports and that makes us vulnerable. We can not sell the business to them because we will become more vulnerable.

Ladies and gentlemen. The terrorists did not buy the train station in Spain before they blew it up, they did not buy the London subway before they blew it up, they did not buy the pentagon before they crashed planes into it and they damn sure did not buy the twin towers before they flew planes into them. If they want to attack us they do not need to buy something here to make the attack. There are terrorists living here already and they can strike us regardless of who owns the businesses.

I am tired of hearing people say Bush did not even know about this like it is a big deal. This was a decision that is usually made at a level lower than his. I also point out that this company has gone through every check required by Congress. They have been put through the very rigors that Congress said any business must go through in this kind of situation, in order to prove they are worthy. Congress needs to stop saying that it was not adequate. If they made the law it was adequate at the time or they passed rules that were inadequate. They should be careful what they say. People already distrust the lot of them and now they are giving us reason to question whether the rules they made were adequate. If Congress says they weren’t, I say why not? Are they that inept?

After careful consideration, as outlined above, I think, barring any surprises, that the ports will be no less safe than they are now. In all likeliness, they might actually become a bit safer.

I welcome your comments and opinions so please feel free to comment.

Small Town Veteran

Print This Post

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.

7 Responses to “Fuss Over The Ports And The Dog’s Take”

  1. Damned if we do and damned if we don’t? — Updated: Move me to the Pro column…

    Color me more confused as time goes on. Has White House bungling and Democratic misdirection created a major kerfuffle where there’s no need for one? From the New York Sun: On the Waterfront Somehow, it doesn’t add up. Senators Menendez,…

  2. Freedom 7 says:

    An interesting angle I hadn’t thought of – the involvement of Boston and the State of Massachussetts in the support of terror (never mind trying to use the law to force all pharmacists – regardless of religious beliefs – to distribute abortion-causing drugs). And what about Virginia? Certainly a state that gives fake IDs to terrorists can’t be left out of this conspiracy. And California and New York (any states with those senators has to be suspect!)

  3. Rosemary says:

    A man after my own heart! I had no decision one or the other because I did not have the evidence. Then I listened. It has become apparent that this transaction began, to the best of my knowledge, on October 30, 2005. That is when it was in the NEWSPAPERS. Anyone bother to read them? Oops. I forgot. Circullation must be down. lol.

    The law requires that any contract that may have nat’l security concerns, must be reviewed for at least 45 days. This was reviewed for 90 days. Double the time. About GWB not knowing? He knew of the investion into the company. He did not know they had finalized it. D’oh. They got it wrong again.

    Now to the fact of racial profiling. Are the Rats saying they do not like Arabs? By fighting one of our allies in the ME (which is what they clamoured for), they are sending the message, “No Arabs need apply.” Does anyone remember signs like this? Hint: “No Irish need apply.”

    I am sick to death of these backstabbing weinees. Do they not realize this is their message to Arabs all over the world? If this is so, we had better round up all the Arabs here and send them away! NOT!

    They would not be willing to do this. I would be against it with a passion. So I ask you who do not want this to happen, please think of the consequences of your quick-to-judgment responses.

    Search for facts BEFORE you open your mouth. Some words cannot be taken back, especially when they are hurtful. Thank you, Big Dog, for bringing this to their attention. I was starting feeling all alone.

  4. The Ports…

    I had no decision one or the other on this issue, because I did not have the information. Then I listened. It has become apparent that this transaction began, to the best of my knowledge, on October 30, 2005….

  5. N. Mallory says:

    Couple pieces of trivia:

    The terrorist pilots trained in Florida so add them to your list of States that are banned from doing business with the rest of the country. ;)

    Two of the terrorists started in Portland, ME and shopped in a Wal-mart prior to getting on the plane — in fact, they were almost late because of it. So mark off Maine and Wal-mart too.


  6. Big Dog says:

    So it is obvious that making a big deal out of where terrorists were or what they were doing is a pretty lame reason for denying an entity the right to do business.

  7. Echo9er says:

    The Monday after the Week Before…

    News and Views from last weeks Blogs and News
    — Is our Mission in Iraq a Failure? William F. Buckley thinks it is in this article at National Review Online. More at Wizbang.
    Our mission has failed because Iraqi animosities have proved uncontai…