An unseemly alliance

The political storm of the week is swirling around attempts by a company owned by the government of Dubai to operate the ports in New York, Baltimore and other cities.

(Dubai is the richest of seven fairly autonomous emirates that comprise the country called The United Arab Emirates)

The deal has come under attack from both the left and the right. Liberals and leftists see this as a golden opportunity not only to bash Bush, but also to purport to bolster their national security credentials by pandering to nativism. They think they can use this to trump the Republicans on the fear-mongering scene. Those on the far right see this as a further example of the Bush administration selling out this country's security to foreigners, the alleged invasion of the country by Mexicans being another. They're sick of what they see as Bush being soft on foreigners. 'Send em all to Gitmo,' you can almost hear them chanting.

Progressives have been leading the way in fighting the anti-Muslim and anti-Arab sentiment that has been stoked by some since 9/11. Frankly, it's detestable that many on the left have decided to engage in an unholy alliance with the isolationists and xenophobes just because they see it as a convenient way to pile it on the president.

Throwing your principles of tolerance and fair-mindedness out the window just to take a few cheap shots at Bush. Bravo!

By all accounts, actual security of the ports would remain in the hands of the US Coast Guard and the US customs.

Let me repeat that: actual security of the ports would remain in the hands of the US Coast Guard and the US customs.

Now, this deal was badly handled by the administration. The president claims he didn't know of the deal until after it was approved. It demonstrates how tone-deaf his entourage is that they didn't think there might be any reason to brief the president of such a deal. The flap may be tawdry but it was hardly unforseable.

And when pressured, the president resorted to his usual line of 'I know what I'm doing. Just trust me.'

The problem is that he's given Americans more than ample reason to not trust his judgement. Even Republicans realize that line has become a loser.

Some charge that al-Qaeda money has been funnelled through UAE financial institutions; no precisions have been made if the banks were based in Dubai or other parts of the UAE. Regardless, Swiss banks have been infamous for holding money from various dictators, crooks and thugs, yet no one has proposed banning Swiss companies from doing business with the US. Why the different standard between white, Christian Switzerland and swarthy, Muslim Dubai?

Presumably the 9/11 hijackers who lived in the US kept some of their money in American banks while residing here. Should be ban American companies from running the ports?

Some have argued that the real problem with the deal is cronyism. I don't know if it's true or not but it seems like a criticism more worth examining than one that panders to our most base instincts.

Many of the left have rightly argued that all Muslims or Arabs should not be tarred with the same brush just because a few extremists happened to share their faith. They are right. According to this doctrine of fairness, the Dubai company should be accepted or rejected on its merits. In rejecting this company simply because of the coincidence of geography, liberal critics of the deal are adopting the very same type of 'profiling' they would scream bloody murder about if Republicans had done.

An editorial in The Washington Post rightly points out:

If members of Congress really want to burnish their "tough on terrorism" credentials, they should start by focusing on real presidential lapses, which are sufficient, and forget about the phony ones.

As [Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon] England said yesterday, the war on terrorism demands that the United States "strengthen the bonds of friendship and security . . . especially with our friends and allies in the Arab world." That means allies should be treated "equally and fairly around the world and without discrimination," he said.

Besides, as this article in The New York Times pointed out, ports' security faces far big problems than the nationality of the company is operating them.