BCT Editorial – 3/12/06

This page was last updated on March 12, 2006.

Selling fear; Editorial; Beaver County Times; March 12, 2006.

As you will read, the u-turns and hypocrisy in this editorial are stunning.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

“House Republicans may be running scared, but they can’t run from their past.”

[RWC] The reason for this editorial is that an anti-Republican claim/prediction made in a previous editorial turned out to be wrong. As a result, the editorial board felt compelled to “move the goalpost.”

“In an election-year panic, House Republicans have come out against a deal that would give a company owned by Dubai, one of the United Arab Emirates, control of six U.S. ports.”

[RWC] The editorial fails to note congressional Democrats did exactly the same thing. The behavior by both Democrats and Republicans was reprehensible.

Also, the Times continues to misreport the port deal. In no way did the deal give Dubai “control of six U.S. ports.” See this fact sheet on the Department of Homeland Security website. Quoting from the fact sheet, “DP World will not, nor will any other terminal operator, control, operate or manage any United States port. DP World will only operate and manage specific, individual terminals located within six ports.” Further, foreign companies have been operating cargo terminals in U.S. ports for years. For example, a company owned by Red China operates some West Coast cargo terminals and has since the Clinton administration. All of this information has been available for at least three weeks, so the Times has no excuse for its continued misreporting.

“Although the deal is not as scary as it sounds - port security would still be in U.S. hands - it has caused consternation in Congress and across the country because of the Bush White House’s shameless exploitation of Arab terrorist/9-11 scare tactics for political purposes. After being spooked time and time again by this administration, it’s hard to imagine any other reaction.”

[RWC] “The deal is not as scary as it sounds?” That sure wasn’t the tone of a previous editorial.

This appears to be a trend. Many of the media outlets that said nothing or at least implied a security issue while the deal was still alive now are saying it was no big deal. This is an example of what I meant when I once wrote that in the eyes of the mainstream media, President Bush is wrong by definition regardless of what he does.

“However, congressional Republicans aren’t innocent virgins. They willingly and enthusiastically aided and abetted the president in his use of this tactic, and they benefited from it enormously in the 2004 and 2006 elections.”

[RWC] You’ll note none of the editorials in which the Times alleges the Bush administration and/or Republicans bashed Arabs provides even one example. Haven’t most Bush bashers for the last five years claimed the White House was too easy on Arabs? Which is it guys?

While we’re on the subject of terrorists, weren’t all of the 9/11 hijackers Arab and haven’t the vast majority of terrorist plotters caught on U.S. soil been of Arab descent? Oh, and let’s not forget the guys who carried out the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, the bombing of the USS Cole, et cetera. Is it now a “scare tactic” to point out the obvious?

On a side note, some in the mainstream media believe it is wrong to include politically incorrect facts. For example, when a Pittsburgh outlet recently gave the description of a wanted robber, it refused to include the man’s race (black)? Why? The outlet said it didn’t want black men unfairly targeted. These are the same folks who want our security personnel to ignore the demographics of most of the terrorists who have attacked us or plotted to kill us. That’s why we have reports of 90 year-old grandmas getting frisked in airports while nervous-looking 30 year-old Mohammed walks by. Don’t get me wrong. All Arabs are no more terrorists than are all Irish Catholics members of the IRA. All I’m saying is we can’t ignore a trend.

“Don’t let them off the hook. They are as responsible for the exploitation of the terrorism issue, too. They were selling fear for their own political gain and must be held accountable for it.”

[RWC] This is a repeated claim from at least one previous editorial and appears to be a popular talking point in liberal outlets. Apparently, we were supposed to ignore the threat of terrorism even after 9/11 and the foiled plots since then.

Regarding “selling fear,” this is exactly the tactic employed the editorial “The high road.” What chutzpah!