Recently in PORTGATE

Category

It would be easy if the UAE Port Deal issue was as merely colorful and succinct as a series of cartoons, but, I realize it is neither. Its up to us Americans whether or not forty-five days make a difference as to a resolution that will be beneficial to our safety and economy, although it often is the case that what Americans want is lost on Washington, as if they represent and legislate other nations instead. Like many other Americans, I question why an American company cannot purchase the "port leasing" contract and why the issue as to foreign governments purchasing/leasing port management is the preferred -- or even practiced -- course for the United States. And, like many, I conclude that the UAE Port Deal was decided a while ago and it's another case of the public being told long after the arrangements have been made.

My very first comments about this Port issue, on the very day it was announced, when visiting a public board, was that the immediate shock and gasping going on pervasively throughout nearly all communities and neighborhoods about this was based upon the existing eroding of confidence in President Bush as to his and the RNC's contrariness as to illegal immigration -- even the accurate terms are being denounced and avoided and moderated out and by those acts, many Americans (I know I am) are flabberghasted: don't write or say, "illegal alien" but instead, say "immigrant" or even more inaccurate, say or write, "migrant or guest worker."

Americans can't -- most of us won't -- violate the laws of our land and avoid the consequences, so many of us wonder why illegal aliens can and do so with bravado in their violations -- without confrontation as to their actions and their responsbilites for those illegal actions, there's little motivation to answer to a demand that isn't there. And that goes for those in our country who participate knowingly in commerce involving illegal aliens.

And, thus, hearing and reading more avoidance speech and positioning from elected officials -- in this specific case, President Bush and Administration -- public confidence is low. Most Americans appreciate and value what President Bush has done on the country's behalf (and so we hope continues to) as to national security, but the questions persist when our own national borders are what they are (a problem, easily compromised and being compromised daily/nightly) and those who illegally enter the country remain with ongoing helps inorder to remain here. And so, public confidence is low. The Port Deal appears -- is not even presented for consideration but announced and even casually by the wire services -- and people who questioned it from that very first article forward have been and are being referred to as "racists" and "xenophobes" and all this does not do anything to improve confidence but continues to erode it.

The reason I most enjoyed what Newt Gingrich said on O'Reilly this past evening was that he got the point across loudly and clearly and genuinely that he understands and considers the questions and concerns by Americans, as to the UAE involvement in the Port Deal -- as also with China's involvement in our Western Ports -- that he recognizes the potential for harm and understands the concerns. And that he regards the concerns as reasonable, significant, important. I do, too.

It's at least a considerate and reasonable position to take. No denigrations about the questions, no negative labelling, no threatening stereotyping, no "xenophobia" denouncements, no "racist" labelling. While some of the questions have been based upon inaccurate perceptions abou the Port Deal -- not all of us can be expected to share a specialized understanding of an issue this complex and a lot of what's being expressed among the public is colloquialist shorthand moreso than anything -- what should be being taken seriously and with great regard is the level and degree of concern from Americans. Correct the inaccuracies later but feel and acknowledge the perspectives and the motivations as to why they are occuring -- that's what we need and most expect from our representatives in public office and are most concerned about when it fails to be the response.

Foreign and domestic.
Foreign and domestic.
Foreign...or...domestic.

The U.S. Coast Guard gets what others have not: "Paper: Coast Guard (Suggests Possibility of) Intel Gaps."

That is the same intelligence review the Bush Cabinet gave a go-ahead. This does not engender confidence that forty-five days later there will be anything more sophisticated than my cartoons and bright colors but at least it's underway. Point is, the terms need to be revised by which the deal -- and dealer -- are "vetted."

And, why not apply the word, "xenophobia," where it realistically and actually belongs:
"DUBAI PORTS FIRM ENFORCES ISRAEL BOYCOTT"
If not "xenophobia," what's the problem by the UAE that can be resolved or remedied in a forty-five day window of review that will then include Israel among the UAE's recognized and acceptable nations, regard them as yet another nation of human beings of equal merit? The answer to that is laden with terrible portent and it is not based upon governments but upon -- well, you judge for yourself because I am confident I understand the terms. What's of key significance is whether or not our elected officials do.

Related:
"Coast Guard's Budget Request Reflects Homeland Security Role"

Previous:
"OLIVER NORTH ON 'MISUNDERESTIMATION'"
"PORT DEAL THOUGHTS FROM THE LITTLE PEOPLE"
"AHOY IN KNOTS / GOODBYE THE TIDE"

Oliver North's latest column is excellent ('MISUNDERESTIMATED DISCONFIRMATION"), although I lack his confident perspective that the UAE would not impact security should the Dubai Port Deal go through. Over a billion dollars buys a lot of information. And access. Which is what concerns many of us Americans, particularly given that there are more dollars in large amounts readily available where the first one billion-plus is coming from.

However, even Oliver North falls victim to using the "racist" reference (as, previously written about here, and related is also the term, "xenophobic") (North writes, "the UAE is much more than just 'an Arab country that has supported terrorism in the past,' as some of the more racially-tinged rhetoric has it..."), which mars my confidence in his confidence and perspective. Proponents of this Port Deal are defeating their goals by considering and then deploying these terms about others who question or even oppose the Dubai Port Deal, and in deploying those terms attempt to counter misinformation -- because, the insinuations themselves apply the actual "phobia" by even perceiving the racial when and as people use terms like "Arab" and "foreign." As long as Port Deal proponents define, by way of these terms, others who doubt and question, they'll lose and lose because it's the language of desperation.

Previous:
"PORT DEAL THOUGHTS FROM THE LITTLE PEOPLE"

If the Bush Administration, in all seriousness, wants to make headway with the public (or begin to, perhaps is closer to the reality of this issue) as to the UAE Port Deal, then they need to stop sending spokespersons to places like FOX News, as they did this morning, who say things like:

"Not ALLLL Arabs are baaaaad."

Particularly when it's said as a closing statement with giant, flashy teeth exposed by a false smile through a passive-aggressive mommy tone.

Where to start with that one, where to start. Firstly, no one's thinking that "all Arabs are bad." Secondly, most reasonably lucid persons know that there's no such thing as cloned characteristics to and among any -- obviously -- non-cloned individual comprising regional cultures (in this case, "Arabs"). Thirdly, this wobbling loftyness, this theatrical piety are more versions of the insulting dismissals based upon underestimating the thinking process and physical efforts and abilities of most everyone else (in this case, the voting American public to include most of Congress) like we've heard before, and unfortunately, still are with mere changes of dates of delivery, and -- wo -- issue.

On the other hand, "all terrorists terrorize" is an accurate statement. Unfortunately, it's not being said in reference to the Port Deal. Nor is the fact that UAE has compliciity with terrorism, if not direct association with it and, also unfortunately, still does. Nor is the fact that the Ports Deal is aimed toward an organization that is a nationalized, commercial group and aspect of the UAE, not mere "foreign business" but a business that is, in effect, a foreign government. The UAE are said to be, by enthusiasts of this UAE Port Deal, "a great ally" but they are also involved by relationship and behavior with terrorists and those who terrorize. The ideology that affects nearly all the populaton of the UAE (among others), however, is mutually shared by terrorists.

So, people over here wonder. It's reasonable. If I hear or read another accusation that those of us who do wonder are "xenophobes" and/or are "xenophobic," I'll be more than convinced that we are neither, because the ongoing negative labelling -- of Americans in search of security and preservation of life and liberty -- is an indication that too soon and already, that degree of besmirching is the smoke about which a fire below is rightfully suspect. Fear spits out the labelling; fear mongers stitch it on.

Read more tiresome intimidation tactics, or, which OpEd can be otherwise summarized as having written...braaaaiiiiinnns.....

I'd like to hear and read that the questions and concerns of us little-people-lone-Americans are worthy of respect and not belittlement. I thought my lone vote was worth something.

Because, and fourthly, as to the political: you are who you say you are only so far as you are believed to be by being believable.

"'The fact that you are putting a company in place that could already be infiltrated by al-Qaida is a silly thing to do,' said Mike Scheuer, who headed the CIA unit until 1999."

From a public display at Ground Zero in New York City, N.Y. on February 01, 2006 by muslim "students" -- see original photo, which is even worse than this attempt at clarity.