BCT Editorial – 3/2/06

This page was last updated on March 4, 2006.

The high road; Editorial; Beaver County Times; March 2, 2006.

Please don’t be confused by the critique. There’s so much misinformation flying around it’s hard to tell who regardless of party is taking a principled stand on this issue and who is not. Given their recent history, however, I’m disinclined to listen to arguments from Democrats because their platform is simply to oppose anything proposed by President Bush or Republicans. Remember, these are the guys who cheered that Congress had done nothing to address Socialist Security’s financial problems.

We all need to note some opponents are trying to muddy the waters. For example, one conservative talk show host believes the deal should be squashed because the UAE and Israel aren’t friends. If we used that logic for all decisions like this, we’d have very little foreign trade. Why? We need to remember that while we recognize Taiwan independence from Red China, most countries don’t. Should we not do business with these countries? What about Cuba? To the best of my knowledge, the U.S. is the only country that has a trade embargo against Cuba. Should we stop trade with Canada, the U.K, et cetera?

What’s my position? While I probably would never be a “supporter” of such a deal, the more I hear of the details the less likely it becomes I would oppose it.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

“At some point, the good of the nation must take precedence over politics as usual in the nation’s capital.

“Since the Bush-led Republicans won’t or can’t make that transition, Democrats must. And if they do, the American people should give them the credit they deserve for putting national security ahead of politics.”

[RWC] Note the author didn’t provide evidence to support his contention that for Republicans, politics take precedence over national security.

Democrats are “putting national security ahead of politics?” What a fantasy! Let’s recap Democrat commitment to national security with a few examples.

· Democrat leadership has discussed impeaching President Bush because of the NSA terrorist surveillance program and they want the plan’s details made public.

· Democrats object when security personnel “profile” Arab airline passengers for more scrutiny. Don’t get me wrong; I don’t believe all Arabs are terrorists. It would be foolish, however, to ignore the fact that most of the terrorists who have attacked us have been Arabs or of Arab descent. For example, if you were told a white male robbed a bank, would you stop a black woman for questioning?

· In a speech in Saudi Arabia during February 2006, former VP Al Gore claimed the U.S. “indiscriminately rounded up, often on minor charges of overstaying a visa or not having a green card in proper order, and held in conditions that were just unforgivable.” Lest we forget, lax enforcement of visas helped the 9/11 terrorists and 15 of the 19 were Saudis. I’m sure that lying about “conditions that were just unforgivable” also helped our national security.

· Democrats kept holding up the bill forming the Homeland Security Department while they tried to force unionization of the department.

I’d be willing to bet Democrats would be bashing President Bush if the panel had not approved the deal. They would have accused the Bush administration of ethnic profiling. After all, when was the last time Democrats agreed with something President Bush did or proposed?

I’m also not sure this isn’t yet another example of Democrats bashing an ally. Lest we forget, in 2004 Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) referred to our allies as a “trumped-up, so-called coalition of the bribed, the coerced, the bought, and the extorted.”

“The possible danger posed by having a Middle Eastern, state-owned company manage six major U.S. ports has erupted into a huge controversy. For Democrats, it was political manna from heaven. Finally, they could turn the table and accuse the Bush administration of being soft on terrorism.”

[RWC] I’m impressed, not. It took the editorial three paragraphs before we got to the first lie. I believe it tells us a lot when someone feels he has to lie to win us over.

The deal in question does not allow Dubai Ports World to “manage six major U.S. ports.” The buyout of U.K.-based P&O by DP World would allow DP World to operate some cargo terminals in some U.S. ports. A terminal in a port is where cargo/passengers coming to or leaving the U.S. is/are loaded/unloaded. The number of terminals in a port depends on the size and/or throughput of the port. Management of and security for the ports would remain with government agencies.

Here’s a press release issued by DHS regarding port security and the DP World transaction.

There’s one other point regarding our trust of the UAE. The U.S. military operates from a UAE airbase and UAE ports service more U.S. Navy vessels than any other port outside the U.S. We also had no problem selling the UAE 80 F-16s.

“After being beaten up on this matter since the 9/11 attacks on America, it’s hard not to blame the Democrats for taking advantage of the opening. After all, they are only giving Bush a much-deserved taste of his own medicine.”

[RWC] Democrats “are only giving Bush a much-deserved taste of his own medicine?” What does this mean?

“But this controversy has brought to the public’s attention a real problem - the security laxness on the waterfront.

“The Wall Street Journal reported the Coast Guard and Department of Homeland Security identified 66 of the nation’s 359 ports as being especially vulnerable to a terrorist attack, and Philadelphia Inquirer columnist Trudy Rubin reported that only around 6 percent of the six million shipping containers that arrive in the United States annually are inspected.”

[RWC] I could not find the cited study so I don’t know what is meant by “especially vulnerable” or even if it’s an accurate representation of what the alleged study says.

“Our ports are a terrorist disaster waiting to happen. Instead of relishing the Bush administration’s political gift to them, Democrats need to take the high road and address security at U.S. ports.”

[RWC] “Our ports are a terrorist disaster waiting to happen?” Just a few days ago an editorial accused Republicans of fearmongering. If this sentence isn’t employing a scare tactic, what is?

Here’s a portion of the WSJ article the editorial failed to include. “Customs is in charge of two major programs designed to prevent terrorists from smuggling weapons of mass destruction or operatives into the U.S.: the Container Security Initiative, or CSI, and the Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism, known as C-TPAT. Under CSI, U.S. customs inspectors are stationed in dozens of ports around the world to review cargo manifests sent before a ship leaves port to try to flag suspect cargo for inspection overseas. Under C-TPAT, international-shipping companies voluntarily implement security measures in exchange for faster clearance through customs. The aim of the program is to secure containers before they even arrive in the United States.” I should note a congressional investigation found some problems with these programs.

Regarding “Democrats need to take the high road,” when was the last time we saw Dems take the high road when Dems thought they had a chance to bash President Bush?