THE DEMOCRATS ON PORT DEAL; SHOW ME THE MONEY

I never believed it was about national security, not for a nanosecond. The Dhimmicrats wouldn't give the sweat off their brow for national security - the attacks on the Cole, WTC '93, Chinagate, Khobar - they never batted an eyelash no matter how many Americans died (with apologies to Lieberman, Zell etc.). With the Democratic leadership,  it's always special interest - it's always about the money.
SHOW THEM THE MONEY. John Fund backs up my post in the WSJ Political Diary -paid subscription only

But where are the questions about the unions that are in the front row of the jeering section trying to scotch the deal?

The International Longshoremen's Association, the union that represents workers at the six ports that would be part of the Dubai management contract, have always exercised inordinate power over U.S. ports, as vividly depicted in the 1950s film classic "On the Waterfront" starring Marlon Brando. While not as brutal today, union control remains a fact of life. Just ask the factory owners who had to endure parts shortages in 2002 as ports from Seattle to San Diego were forced to shut after a longshoremen's union slowdown paralyzed operations.

"The wonder is that the Dubai company was willing to take on the hassle of managing U.S. ports for thin profit margins," one maritime expert told me. He noted that Hutchison Whampoa, the Hong Kong-based leader in port operations, refuses to invest in the U.S. because it won't deal with the local unions. A former member of the Federal Maritime Commission told me it is an open secret that the U.S. longshoremen's union prefers U.S. operators "because they can get more patronage and exercise more leverage that way."

Many of the politicians most vocally opposed to the Dubai deal have also received hefty campaign contributions from the longshoremen's union. Perhaps that's one reason none are on record as complaining about the fact that ILA President John Bowers was charged with racketeering and named as an associate of the Gambino organized crime family in a July 2005 civil complaint filed by federal prosecutors in Brooklyn. The New York Sun, which yesterday published an extensive analysis of the ILA's ties to organized crime, concluded: "Mr. Bush's critics would have more credibility in the middle of this war [over the ports] if they hadn't been on the receiving end of lucre from a labor union with a history of corruption and mob ties."

Suddenly, national security? Think about it. They hate the Patriot Act, they hate  Gitmo, they hate military tribunals ................ this deal is not even about security. They talk trash about "building coalitions" and "international cooperation" and defile the "coalition of the willing."  Yet  here they are willing to spit on an Arab country that works with us? This can only hurt us on our war on terror. Economic ties builds  relationships. WAKE UP PEOPLE.

Oh and read Eli Lake in the New York Sun;

Dubai Is Said to Have Long Aided the U.S.

More cluelessness to be had at Carnival of the Clueless here. Now  Allah Snackbar!

UPDATE: More here The facts about the ports deal, from Heritage Organization

Carafano and Kochems explain several important facts in their new paper:

• Outsourcing port operation is nothing new. In fact, the ports in question are currently owned by a British company, and much of our economy depends on foreign companies for transportation.
• Security procedures, based on post-9/11 security changes, will remain unchanged. The Coast Guard and U.S. Customs provide security at American ports—not the port's owners.
• Dubai World Ports does not pose a security risk. It is a holding company only, and its executives would have no access to security information or procedures. Furthermore, since the company wants to make money, it is not in its interests to allow terrorists to use its facilities.
• The UAE is a close ally in the war on terrorism, having turned over several al Qaeda suspects to the United States. It also participates in America's overseas container screening program.

In an interview on NPR's Talk of the Nation yesterday, Carafano elaborated on several of these points. He noted that terrorists, drug smugglers and other criminals already exploit our transportation networks without the complicity of the companies involved. Furthermore, he said such groups would not want to be involved with such companies, since that could attract unwanted attention, just as this deal has.

UPDATE 2/24/06: KRAUTHAMMER!

Harbour exit    Charles Krauthammer
Democrats loudly denounce any thought of racial profiling. But when that same Arab, attired in business suit and MBA, and with a good record running ports in 15 countries, buys P&O, Democrats howl at the very idea of allowing Arabs to run our ports.

GOLDBERG!

Going overboard  Jonah Goldberg
Did you hear the one about Dick Cheney, a priest and a rabbi walking into an Arab-run port?

The Journal Editorial Report
Tune in this weekend for a discussion on ports and Arab management.

Comments

[MarcH]

No time for a long comment right now, but here are two worthwhile articles:

First, a short USNews discussion from 12/2005 on the UAE as a criminal/gangster/smuggler paradise (a kind of Middle Eastern Star Wars cantina) and the UAE establishment’s uneven record since 9-11 in aiding US criminal investigations (http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/051205/5terror.b1.htm).

Second, a colorful article on the quaint customs of our new port operators(http://www.antislavery.org/archive/submission/submission2000-Camel.htm).

On the ports issue I am cautiously opposed, but interested in reading arguments from both sides.

[MarcH]

Pamela,

The NY Sun article to which you linked, "Dubai Is Said to Have Long Aided the U.S." makes me more rather than less concerned about whether UAE/Dubai is a party trustworthy party enough to operate in our ports. The begining of the article has positive statements from two former CIA officers. But, at the end of the article is this,

'One former Bush administration familiar with nonproliferation issues conceded yesterday that UAE in the past has provided access and banking intelligence to America. But this former official was also wary of the cooperation. "Do they let us sneak and peek? Yes. But when its certain Saudis funding terrorists or Iranians we might be interested in the answer is no. They let us look at people who they perceive as a threat to them."

The former official also said that the UAE was not as helpful as it should have been on the proliferation security initiative, a program designed to interdict ships, planes and trucks carrying weapons of mass destruction to rogue states. As a neighbor and banker to Iran, Dubai is of critical importance to stopping nuclear proliferation in Iran.

The freedom chair at the American Enterprise Institute, Michael Ledeen, yesterday said he too was concerned that the deal with Dubai Ports World could end up inadvertently giving the Iranians operational details about American port security. "Dubai cannot totally resist demands from Iran and they cannot totally resist demands from us. So they give us information about Iran, but they give Iran information about us."'

Here is the conclusion of an article in NRO (http://www.nationalreview.com/mccarthy/mccarthy200602231409.asp)on the UAE port deal by Andrew Mccarthy. Mccarthy is a former Assistant US Attorney in NYC, successful prosecutor of the first WTC bombing, fellow of Foundation for Defense of Democracy, supporter of the President on numerous issues (especially NSA surveillance). To my mind Mccarthy is the gold standard on issues related to the nexus of law enforcement and terrorism. It seems that while Mccarty has no patience with apparent political posturing by some opponents of the deal, he also has real reservations.
“SHOULD WE CANCEL THE DEAL?
Does all this mean the port deal ought to be scotched? I think it does, but I have a (slightly) open mind — as do a lot of other people who fret over our security.
The Bush administration contends that the UAE has cleaned up its act since 9/11. There are reasons to be skeptical. The administration, after all, also counts Saudi Arabia and Yemen as cherished friends. It has set a laughably generous grading curve for Islamic regimes (and Islamic leaders) seeking the “moderate” diploma which qualifies them for the status of “ally” in the war on terror. Moreover, while the UAE has plainly taken some steps in the right direction, its facilitation of the enemy prior to 9/11 was substantial. It is not generally our practice to consider hardened criminals redeemed after only four years of good behavior — especially when “good” in this context is, to put it mildly, relative.
On the other hand, port commercial management is not exactly the same as port security. If it really insists on pressing ahead with this deal, the administration should have a chance to demonstrate why, at a time when our homeland is a target and it takes very few operatives to execute a massive attack, we should be comfortable with the UAE in such a prominent role at our borders — even if security remains primarily the task of the Department of Homeland Security.
But the administration should make that case to Congress and the American people, not to a secret tribunal (the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States) which is run by the Treasury Department — rather than the Pentagon or DHS — and for whom the promotion of commerce has pride of place over national security.
Which is all to say: This transaction needs a long, careful look. It doesn’t need stone-throwing from opportunists who would be better advised to check their own glass houses. And it doesn’t need bully-pulpit demagoguery.
You don’t need to be an “Islamophobe” to have doubts here. You just need to have an IQ of about 11.”

[Shawn Stephens]

Don't buy it. This is a dirty globalist deal.
The UAE Royals hunt with bin-laden in Afganistan. Air strike called off.(circa 1999) from George Tenet at congressional hearing.
Brother Neal Bush and Bob Dole lobbying for a year or more. Maybe it's time for another Declaration to sign!