Are Port Protesters Islamo-phobic?

Michelle Malkin seems a might wound up over some on the right calling conservatives against the port deal Islamophobic. For the record, I haven't been one of them. However, there is reason to wonder about the motivations of some from the right.

Michelle's first post on the matter is here. STOP THE PORT SELLOUT

[LES KINSOLVING]: The government's Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States has approved a deal that will put six major ports in the United States under the control of a state-sponsored company based in Dubai, the United Arab Emirates. And my question: Knowing, as we do, that the Arab Emirate was tied in many ways to the 9/11 hijackers and their deeds, and knowing the critical nature of port security and protecting the nation, will the President step in and stop this deal from going into effect March 2nd?

Michelle: No. The buck stops with the White House. The president has the ultimate authority to stop the deal. And he should.

The fact is, the deal doesn't come close to turning over ports to the UAE, they are leasing terminals, not the damned port. The US retains control of the all of our ports and our security. And see her post of today.

It's one thing for feckless grievance-mongers on the Left to accuse Americans genuinely concerned about national security of Islamophobia. It's quite another for the Right to sink to such a level in accusing all good-faith critics of demagoguery.

The UAE is our "friend," we are told, and to question that assertion, we are scolded, is to engage in reckless prejudice and life-threatening insult. Yes, well, some friends are more equal than others. To instinctively trust a longtime, stalwart Western democracy more than an Arab newcomer with a mixed record on combating terror, international crime, and Islamic extremism is not "Islamophobia." It's self-preservationist in a time of war.

... Yes, there are countless homegrown terrorists across England, where Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co., the maritime company purchased by state-owned Dubai Ports World, operates. So what? So, now, a peaceful Western democracy that is infiltrated against its will by al Qaeda is on the same plane as an Arab federation whose ruling emiratis ran interference for Osama bin Laden before Sept. 11, which continued to be a logistical hub for al Qaeda for years after, which refuses to recognize the existence of Israel, bans our textbooks as "racist" because they point out Syria's state sponsorship of terrorism, and is boycotting Denmark over the Mohammed Cartoons?

Arab newcomer? mixed record on fighting international crime? The only reason al Qaeda money flowed through Dubai is because it happens to be the banking capital of the Middle East. And as I understand it, post 9/11 the UAE has offered significant cooperation to the US on the issue of international banking linked to terrorism. And many on the right against the deal are still reporting the facts wrong as regards the UAE leasing terminals, which is quite different than a port. Indeed, Malkin still calls it the port controversy.

Isn't it true that Saudi Arabia could fit just about every template now surfacing as a reason to nix this deal? I believe it is. I don't hear anyone on the right suggesting we should stop buying Saudi oil based on the principles they now seem to wish to invoke to stop the port terminal deal. And the facts is, in all the protestations, not one pundit has put forth one argument which goes to the heart of national security.

I'm not going to stoop to the level of calling anyone Islamophobic - in fact, I believe there is good reason to fear certain influences within the Arab world. But stripped of all the hyperbole, I don't see this as one.

And when you parse someones argument and find their principles are not being trumpeted universally, and the information and terminology they are using isn't accurate or truly informed, it becomes difficult to conclude that their arguments have a sound basis in reason, as opposed to emotion, which is the residence of most phobias, after all.

Look at this also from Michelle today.

Perhaps Bush should consult with his own Justice Department, which understood the need for heightened scrutiny of Middle Eastern illegal aliens in the immediate aftermath of Sept. 11, and instituted temporary targeted fingerprinting and registration policies for Middle Eastern tourists, businessmen, and students.

Bigots!

Perhaps he should ask his own Border Patrol, which is on heightened alert for illegal Middle Eastern border-crossers.

Bigots!

Perhaps he should ask his own FBI, which is zeroing in on mosques and Muslim charities instead of Lutheran churches and the March of Dimes in the domestic War on Terror.

Bigots!

(But don't bother asking Transportation Department Norm Mineta anything — well, other, than "Why the heck are you still here, Normie?")

The sad lesson of Portgate: Scream "racism" loud enough, and people will blame the messengers and back down. By the Bush standard, we who put American security above Arab sensitivity are all bigots now.

All of the above examples have nothing to do with a perfectly legal business arrangement for someone to lease several terminals. They deal with seeking out illegal activity within our borders, which I believe, as I assume Michelle does, they are things we should absolutely do. But invoking them to counter the port terminal deal simply doesn't add up. Can one read those examples, none of which address the issues at hand, and not wonder if it isn't, in this case, demagogy? IMO, it's hard to see it as anything else.

Using demagogy to purportedly illuminate discussion around something one is calling port-gate, when it has nothing to do with a port? That may get into a column at Townhall, but it's actually in the town square that such punditry does the most harm.

It may not be Islamophobia, however, I think it unfortunate, at best.

Comments

[jkatl]

Ex gov Tom Kean ran the 9/11 commission report, he's adamantly opposed to the deal. That's guite enough for me. Managers of the "terminal" have access to blueprints, every aspect of port logistics and operations, and access to all security plans and procedures. I heard today that the "terminal operator" has discretion on which containers are and are not inspected. They have access to all the mainfests in and out of the port and they decide which manifests are inspection candidates. Seems to me the U.S Coast Guard knew what they were saying when they declared this deal was full of security gaps. You are delusional if you think DPW is simply "leasing terminals" they will be running the Port, and it is fraught with security risks. Al Qaeda could infiltrate DPW management tomorrow if it hasn't already. Clinton and Carter are for this deal what more do you need to be against?

[Dan]

How's the kool-aide? ; )

[jkatl]

Pretty tasty, I'm not just drinking the Kool-aide I'm hooked up to an I.V

[splashtc]

Bush has just redeemed himself with the India trip today/thurs. How about we let India a known long term functioning democracy get in on the port deal. I'd much rather support them and their economic growth.