WP Editorial: How to Lose Friends (defends Bush on port deal)

[Ancalagon the Black]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/23/AR2006022301949.html

How to Lose Friends

Friday, February 24, 2006; Page A14

AMONG MANY other things, the president's job description requires him to keep abreast of economic and political developments around the world; respond to disasters such as Hurricane Katrina; oversee the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan; appoint people to run embassies and government departments; come up with solutions to the health care crisis, the education crisis, the energy crisis; and represent the United States at major international conferences. When he does any of these tasks poorly, the American people and their politicians are well within their rights to criticize him, as we often do, too.

On the other hand, the president's job description does not include taking a personal interest in decisions about whether foreign companies based in countries that are America's allies should be allowed to purchase other foreign companies that are based in countries that are America's allies. This is particularly the case when such purchases do not have any discernible impact on American security whatsoever.

[Article continues...]

[SkinsHokieFan]

In fact, as administration officials testified yesterday, since Sept. 11 the United Arab Emirates has been a valuable ally. Last year, according to Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon R. England, 56 U.S. warships, 590 U.S. Military Sealift Command ships and 75 allied warships were hosted in the United Arab Emirates -- at a port managed by the very same Dubai Ports World.

That right there is KEY

We have our ships and SOLDIERS at ports operated by THIS COMPANY

The uproar over this is Democrats trying to score political points on security, Republicans being utter boobs, and the media trying to take a cheap shot at the President again, plus a ton of bigotry (yes I am going to call it that) about Muslims owning ****

Bravo Washingtonpost for this editorial

[Winslowalrob]

That right there is KEY

We have our ships and SOLDIERS at ports operated by THIS COMPANY

The uproar over this is Democrats trying to score political points on security, Republicans being utter boobs, and the media trying to take a cheap shot at the President again, plus a ton of bigotry (yes I am going to call it that) about Muslims owning ****

Bravo Washingtonpost for this editorial

You saluted the WASHINGTON POST? Are you mad?

[SkinsHokieFan]

Eh, the Washingtonpost was in favor of the war

[bird_1972]

Eh, the Washingtonpost was in favor of the war

Based on faulty intelligence...

[twa]

How many of these situations are simply being blown out of porportion to make news and score points?

It is being said that the Dubai decision has merely given Democrats a chance to get to the president's right on a terror issue (a week after they dove over the ship of state's port side on wiretapping terrorists). Or that election-needy Republicans are distancing themselves from a president with a 40% approval rating. Possibly so, but I thought the war on terror was about something real, not just this fall's dog-catcher elections.

An alternative way of looking at the Dubai Ports World decision is that it finally binds an Arab nation to our side in the war on terror and that it represents a recognition by some Arab elites that their self-interest coincides with ours. Dubai was already cooperating in tracing and identifying al Qaeda's financial flows. Presumably they are in the port-management business for the money. Now you may disagree with this, but there is at least an upside and downside here worth weighing. No chance of that now. The press yesterday clearly set the chalk lines for public discussion on the ports: The only issue now is whether the White House caves to "bipartisan pressure."

http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/dhenninger/?id=110008012

It has been a truism for a century that press stereotypes set the tone of many public events. We used to call this the conventional wisdom; now it's a "narrative." By and large it's a neutral phenomenon. But in our jacked-up media age, first impressions--false or true--becomes powerful and hard to alter. Surely this is one reason Vice President Cheney's office resisted "releasing" the shooting incident into the media ozone.

Our political elites, rather than recognize they are playing with a new kind of fire, instead have become pyromaniacs, lighting the fires. New Orleans even now can't get out from under the initial crazy statements the pols were hurling over Katrina. Our politicians seem to have arrived at the conclusion that they somehow no longer bear responsibility for what they say, or that there is no consequence to what they say. But they do and there is. Yosemite Sam was a cartoon. The ability of government to function in a dangerous world is not.

[Fred Jones]

What goes around comes around. The President and Republicans criticized the Dems on numerous occasions for non-issues. Payback can sometimes not be pretty, but they brought it upon themselves a long time ago. Stay out of the kitchen if you can’t handle the fire.

[AlexRS]

Yes, this Dubai deal will not make our Ports any less secure. That's because being any less secure if practically impossible

[Art Monk Fan]

This is just another case of members of Congress reacting too quickly with too little information and then looking even dumber as more information comes out. They complained yesterday that a full 45-day investigation needed to be done by law, yet this has been kicking around several agencies for the last 3 months (that's 90 days for you memebers of Congress who may be reading). I said it earlier this week and I'll say it again here, Congress members are often some of the least-informed dumb-assses in America -- if you haven't told them directly (on-the-record and on-camera) they don't know it and can't learn it themselves.

[SkinsHokieFan]

Charles Krauthammer weighs in

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/23/AR2006022301393.html

Congress is up in arms. The Democrats, in particular, are in full cry, gleeful to at last get to the right of George Bush on an issue of national security.

Gleeful, and shamelessly hypocritical. If a citizen of the UAE walked into an airport in full burnoose and flowing robes, speaking only Arabic, Democrats would be deeply offended, and might even sue, if the security people were to give him any more scrutiny than they would to my sweet 84-year-old mother.

Democrats loudly denounce any thought of racial profiling. But when that same Arab, attired in business suit and MBA, and with a good record of running ports in 15 countries, buys P&O, Democrats howl at the very idea of allowing Arabs to run our ports. (Republicans are howling, too, but they don't grandstand on the issue of racial profiling.)

[Midnight Judges]

Eh, the Washingtonpost was in favor of the war

No way dude, the Washington Post is the liberal media and they are Dems just trying to brainwash people.

I know this for a fact because Sean Hannity and Laura Ingram told me so.

[@DCGoldPants]

Nice of Krauthammer to not really pump up that some of the loudest folks against the Ports are supporters of the President.

What a tool.

[Midnight Judges]

So as you can see, any time a Democrat tries to protect his/her country they are automatically a hypocrite.

[Johnny Punani2]

No way dude, the Washington Post is the liberal media and they are Dems just trying to brainwash people.

I know this for a fact because Sean Hannity and Laura Ingram told me so.

Let's not forget it was only an Editorial...

[DjTj]

Nice of Krauthammer to not really pump up that some of the loudest folks against the Ports are supporters of the President.

What a tool.

Yeah, that editorial is pretty bad.

His argument seems to be that since Democrats oppose racial profiling, they can't be racist, but it's perfectly fine for Republicans to be racist.

[The 12th Commandment]

I would argue that the US is the most responsible country in the world. Our citizens are our strength, but even we blow it ocassionaly. Abu Graib. If our superbly trained and disciplined soldiers (no sarcasm) can allow a fiasco of that magnitude to happen, who are we to expect an arab nation that we know has terrorist supporters within it's population to uphold a higher standard. :2cents:

[SkinsHokieFan]

Here is my biggest "gripe" for lack of a better word

If we trust this company to operate a port with US soldiers and ships in the freakin UAE, where it is 100 times easier for a terrorist to strike, why can't we do it here, where US personell will be the ones securing the port, and working at the port? If it took granting out TS clearances to have access to the port what is the big deal?

I am stunned that nobody has any apparent concern for our ships and troops at a port managed by this same company in the UAE

[DjTj]

Here is my biggest "gripe" for lack of a better word

If we trust this company to operate a port with US soldiers and ships in the freakin UAE, where it is 100 times easier for a terrorist to strike, why can't we do it here, where US personell will be the ones securing the port, and working at the port? If it took granting out TS clearances to have access to the port what is the big deal?

I am stunned that nobody has any apparent concern for our ships and troops at a port managed by this same company in the UAE

The point is that we're fighting the terrorists over there. We can let our troops deal with the UAE and the insurgents as long as we don't need to see any Arabs over here.

Here's a whole bunch of threads where the "fight them over there" mantra was used:

http://www.extremeskins.com/forums/search.php?searchid=104360

[stevenaa]

Here is my biggest "gripe" for lack of a better word

If we trust this company to operate a port with US soldiers and ships in the freakin UAE, where it is 100 times easier for a terrorist to strike, why can't we do it here, where US personell will be the ones securing the port, and working at the port? If it took granting out TS clearances to have access to the port what is the big deal?

I am stunned that nobody has any apparent concern for our ships and troops at a port managed by this same company in the UAE

There are trained AMERICAN troops guarding our assests in those ports. Though that is no guarentee, as witnessed by the USS Cole incident.

That is much different than having a stateside port run by the Dubai company.

I don't believe that the Company, or the government of Dubai have any ill intentions. They're are just out to turn a profit. One of the great things about Dubai is that they realize Oil is a short term for them and they have made concerted efforts to branch out their economy. Tourism is a huge focus for them, and it is a place I would like to visit if the current problems ever subside.

The concern is that this becomes a potential conduit for delivering terrorists or a terror device into the country. If sympathizers gain employment at the ports, it gives them an advantage. With the Ports run by a ME country, it becomes "easier" to get a subversive into that environment. The odds are very high that the home company in Dubai has employees sympathetic to the radicals cause. It is a simple matter of location.

If you want to label this bigotry, it is your perogative. But keep in mind that we are not railing against Muslims because they are Muslims. We are against the heinous acts perpetrated by radical nutjobs in the name of Islam. That is an important distinction.

Here is a man made island off the coast of Dubai. I'd love to go there and visit this marvel and the Globe Island that is under construction. You can't appreciate the scale from the picture. It is huge.

[The 12th Commandment]

There are trained AMERICAN troops guarding our assests in those ports. Though that is no guarentee, as witnessed by the USS Cole incident.

That is much different than having a stateside port run by the Dubai company.

I don't believe that the Company, or the government of Dubai have any ill intentions. They're are just out to turn a profit. One of the great things about Dubai is that they realize Oil is a short term for them and they have made concerted efforts to branch out their economy. Tourism is a huge focus for them, and it is a place I would like to visit if the current problems ever subside.

The concern is that this becomes a potential conduit for delivering terrorists or a terror device into the country. If sympathizers gain employment at the ports, it gives them an advantage. With the Ports run by a ME country, it becomes "easier" to get a subversive into that environment. The odds are very high that the home company in Dubai has employees sympathetic to the radicals cause. It is a simple matter of location.

If you want to label this bigotry, it is your perogative. But keep in mind that we are not railing against Muslims because they are Muslims. We are against the heinous acts perpetrated by radical nutjobs in the name of Islam. That is an important distinction.

Mr. hammer meet Mr. head of nail. :applause: