Any Port In A Storm

It's somewhat amazing to see several conservatives who just finished arguing that the FISA court has no business poking it's nose into issues of National Security, now suggesting there isn't enough poking going on by a government agency when it comes to the port deal.

Michelle Malkin has a round up:

The issue is not whether day-to-day, on-the-ground conditions at the ports would change. They presumably wouldn't. The issues are whether we should grant the demonstrably unreliable UAE access to sensitive information and management plans about our key U.S ports, which are plenty insecure enough without adding new risks, and whether the decision process was thorough and free from conflicts of interest.

Oh, but things will change, which is precisely why the unions and the Dems oppose the deal. The UAE has and is already spending the money for technological advancements which will help to streamline cargo handling, while improving, wait for it, ... security. And they have already upgraded several facilities around the world. For heavens sakes, given our present state of port security, an entirely different issue than this one, a UAE plant could get a dirty container in here from any number of the other overseas operations they lease.

As for the security in the NY area port, it is already outsourced to a, wait for it, ... domestic company and all such companies, their employees and executives, including, say, one from Dubai, require federal background checks if they are going to become aware of sensitive security related information. THAT won't change under this deal because we do control, not only the security, but the bulk of port operations. And an individual from NYC governnemt was on local radio today stating the security company working with the Coast Guard and other government agencies now, would remain the same.

On the Dems:

On the hypocrisy of the Democrats, I completely concur with the Journal. See my column: They are all profilers now. But that's about the only thing I agree with in the piece.

True, but more than that, they are simply paying back the unions first and foremost. Michelle posts: James Lileks speaks for many::

... the specifics don’t matter; arguments about the specific nature of the Dubai Ports World organization’s global reach and responsible track records don’t matter. Because it feels immediately, instinctively wrong ...

I never thought I'd see so many right of center individuals start operating on feelings. LOL He's right. But that's the problem, not the answer. Yes, 9/11 left a scar on our national psyche. Ignoring that by allowing it to turn prudent thinking into prejudicial thinking isn't sound reasoning, just as sound executive decisions are rarely if ever based on feelings.

Rick Moran:

On its surface, there really is little to be upset about with allowing the Dubai based company to handle the management of the ports. DPW has contracts at ports all over the world and has proved itself competent enough. There would be a minimal change in employees at the six ports in question. Ships would still have to be offloaded by the Longshoremen, as patriotic and security conscious bunch as there is in the United States. And as AJ Strata rightly points out, actual security of the ports would still be in the hands of the Coast Guard and the Port Authority.

So what’s the problem? The problem is in the atmospherics of this deal.

The atmospherics? gawd. And, yes, I fully understand what some are saying. But either we went from discussing moving cargo to decorating for a prom with this focus on atmospherics and feelings, or we are simply rationalizing away that, wait for it, we don't like, or trust those freakin' Arabs.

For heavens sake, we pump enough cash their way in exchange for oil. It's about time some more of it came back through investments, which does happen already, by the way. I'm not hearing anyone point out how enabling all that green for black gold we pay them is, should they have evil intent. They don't need to buy these rights if their intention was to facilitate an attack. And if that isn't their intent, then the management in place, multi-national as it is, would be as capable as any other in running an efficient, secure port, to the bare extent that it'll be their responsibility in the first place.

And be sure and read this via Dick Meyer at CBS:

The only problem -- and I admit it's only a teeny-weeny problem -- is that 90 percent of that story is false.

Comments

[TakeMyADVICE]

http://wilsonhellie.typepad.com/for_the_record/pictures/koolaid7.jpg

[Michelle,AFVet]

What I pick up from the White House is, they are injecting "fear" into this deal. For instance, they state we will be opening the door to more horror if we turn our backs on this Arab Nation. That is exactly what they did when we entered this current war, try to scare us. In other words, If we don't support there decision, we will be subject to further terrorism. Maybe we will, maybe not. Either way, Congress and the White House needs to spend more time contemplating and discussing security issues regarding this transaction. I sense pockets are being padded with this deal, just like Irac.

[Sgt. York]

RE: "It's somewhat amazing to see several conservatives who just finished arguing that the FISA court has no business poking it's nose into issues of National Security..."

Yep, it is amazing that 'conservatives' have been transformed into police-state neo-cons and are willing to piss all over the US Constitution and individual liberty. The USA is in no danger of being overthrown by a bunch of wild-eyed Jihadists but a nation is always in danger of governmental abuse of power.

===================

[Phoenix]

"Yes, 9/11 left a scar on our national psyche. Ignoring that by allowing it to turn prudent thinking into prejudicial thinking isn't sound reasoning, just as sound executive decisions are rarely if ever based on feelings."

Exactly. Well said.