Playing The Muslim Card: Malkin Moves The Goal Posts

Evidently somebody’s been providing Michelle Malkin with some facts about seaport operations, port governance, and port security. Either that or it has finally started to dawn on her that her anti-Arab and anti-Muslim bias is a bit too blatant to preserve what is becoming an increasing thin veneer of respectability.

I assume that one or the other has taken place because Malkin has started moving the goal posts in her discussion of Dubai Ports World purchasing Peninsular and Oriental. Here’s what she was saying at the start of the “controversy”:

“Stop The Port Sellout.” – Michelle Malkin, February 16.

[Sorry I can't provide a more detailed quote, but Malkin, like Charles Johnson, tends to let the hate flow by inference...]

On that particular date it was very clear that Malkin didn’t understand that seaports in the United States are governed at the state and/or local level. Nor does she seem to comprehend that such governance comes via government agencies – namely, port authorities. Or that port security is a matter for a variety of federal, state and local agencies. To top it off, she hadn’t enough facts on the sale of P&O to DPW to realize that ports weren’t being sold and that P&O doesn’t manage ports. If you don’t believe me, go to her site and read her posts. She didn’t have a clue.

But now it’s February 24 and despite the best efforts of everyone from E.J. Dionne at the Washington Post to Ed Morrissey at Captain’s Quarters to Hillary Clinton of the U.S. Senate to keep the relevant facts out of the discussion, it seems sanity is starting, at least in part, to prevail. That means, of course, that Malkin has to start moving the goal posts to keep from sounding like a bigot and a fraud.

Here’s a distillation of Malkin’s goal post shift:

Here are two key talking points being pushed by defenders of the operations deal with the UAE:

The Department of Homeland Security Is Always In Charge Of The Nation’s Port Security, Not The Private Company That Operates Facilities Within The Ports.

The Transaction Is Not About Port Security Or Even Port Ownership, But Only About Operations In Port.

Okay, let me repeat again:

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 conflict of interest.

That’s quite a shift over the course of week, isn’t it? First it's a "sellout", now it's not. Now she's calling it "Portgate". Apparently someone passed her the bare facts involved. But consider these facts when trying to judge the merit of Malkin’s concern. Actually, simply consider the merit of one fact that has escaped the attention of everyone involved in this “debate”. Here it is:

At the Port of New York and New Jersey, P&O (with its Danish co-partner) manages exactly one cargo terminal, the Port Newark Container Terminal at the Port Newark/Elizabeth-Port Authority Marine Terminal Complex. Guess who else manages a (larger) cargo terminal at the Port Newark/Elizabeth-Port Authority Marine Terminal Complex at Port Newark? COSCO. That would be the China Ocean Shipping (Group) Company, and it’s the state-owned national flag carrier of the People’s Republic of China.

That’s Communist China to my fellow Conservatives out there.

Communist. China.

It’s the country that you’re all boycotting Google about.

Remember?

So, in Michelle Malkin’s world, the People’s Republic of China doesn’t pose a security risk at our nation’s ports. It’s fine to give them “access to sensitive information and management plans about our key U.S. ports”. Not only at the Port of New York and New Jersey, but ports ranging from Los Angeles to Houston to Seattle. No problem. Evidently Michelle Malkin has found the People’s Republic of China is demonstrably reliable when it comes to the security of the United State of America.

I know I feel better.

I could go on about the fact that Malkin clearly doesn’t have the faintest notion of what “sensitive information and management plans” might actually be in relation to ports operation or security, but there isn’t really point in doing so. For all intents it doesn’t matter to her whether either Peninsular and Orient or Dubai Ports World have been certified as ISPS (International Ship and Port Facility Security) Code compliant. And it certainly doesn’t matter to her that the ISPS Code addresses exactly those sorts of concerns. This isn’t really about port security or national security.

Malkin is on equally firm ground is claiming she knows anything about the United Arab Emirates. From what I can find, her contention that the U.A.E. is “demonstrably unreliable” is based entirely on the word of some D-list talk show host’s indictment of a single Dubai sheik and some random factoids Ed Morrissey dug out the 9/11 Commission’s final report. That’s an impressive amount of research for such a sweeping claim, don’t you think? More stellar work from the "Army of Davids" of New Media, right?

Anyway, here are a few real world facts about the relationship our nation has with this “demonstrably unreliable” nation:

• The U.A.E. has allowed the deployment of military aircraft at Al Dhafra. From there the 763rd Expeditionary Air Refueling Squadron conducts in-flight refueling operations throughout Southwest Asia in support of Operation Southern Watch.
• The U.A.E. allows U-2 and Global Hawk operations from Al Dhafra.
• The U.A.E. allowed the 10th Tactical Fighter Squadron to operate from Al Dhafra during both Desert Shield and Desert Storm.
• The U.A.E. has cooperated in the development of the Fujairah to Jebel Ali land link. This land link would serve as the U.S. Navy’s primary logistics/supply route in the case of any closure of the Straights of Hormuz. In other words, this link would allow the Navy to remain in the Arabian Gulf whether the Straits of Hormuz were remined or otherwise closed.

There’s more, but I cannot see the need to provide much else. The United States has had friendly relations with the U.A.E. since 1971. Those relations have grown closer and more interconnected over the past 35 years with the full blessings of every President – Republican or Democrat – and without any murmur of dissent from Congress.

What do I need to say about the People’s Republic of China other than they have vigorously opposed our attempts to contain Saddam Hussein or prosecute the Iraq War, and they are the patron of a member of President Bush’s “Axis of Evil”? Would any of Malkin’s supporters like to take a crack at justifying this bit of nonsense? Can anyone name any of the U.S. military bases we are presently running in territories controlled by Communist China?

What about you, Charles Johnson? Ed Morrissey? Roger Simon?

You tell me: How can anyone take Michelle Malkin’s objections to having Dubai Ports World as anything other than anti-Arab, anti-Muslim bigotry until she can justify why she feels Communist China poses less of a security risk at Port Newark than DPW and the U.A.E.?

Comments

[John-Paul Pagano]

Malkin, like Charles Johnson, tends to let the hate flow by inference...

Indeed. And if you call them on it, it's painful to watch their childish evasions, i.e. "I didn't say that..." -- the most callow defense possible.

UAE...

I haven't really followed the UAE port kerfuffle, but I will say that Al-Khaleej, the UAE's leading newspaper (not sure if it's state-run), embarked in 1998 on a crusade to defend the Holocaust-denier Roger Garaudy when he was prosecuted for speech-code violations in France. (The point was to defend Garaudy, not the oppose the silly European speech laws.) The way in which this was done clearly showed that Islamist insanity is alive, well and prevalent in the UAE. (Can you imagine the Chicago Tribune dedicating its front page to the defense of a French holocaust-denier?) Does this mean that Malkin and kin are right about the port controversy? Hardly. But it's not like their concern about the UAE is totally out of left field.

[John-Paul Pagano]

Sorry, "not to oppose...", and I should have cited the NYT, not the Chicago Tribune.

[elemental]

Al-Khaleej isn't state run and I'm not sure how it's a "leading newspaper" since it is published out of the Sharjah emirate,
http://www.uaeinteract.com/uaeint_misc/pdf_2006/English_2006/eyb9.pdf
, which is like saying the Columbus Disaptch is America's leading newspaper.

Using one newspaper's defense of a holocaust denier as a clear sign of rampant islamofacism is utterly ridiculous to the point where I'm not even sure why I'm addressing this.

I think the non-reactions over the Chinese and the hysteria over the Emiratis shows just how scared people are of terrorism. With the Chinese people feel protected by the concept of mutual destruction. Most people don't think in these terms about Islamic terrorists since they usually kill themselves in most of their attacks. I would say though that the Emirates is a place where fear of mutual destruction would be applicable and its clear that the Emiratis do whatever they can to ensure the American military remians firmly on their side.

I wonder how the Emiratis feel about us using their country as a major supply point for the war in Iraq yet while at the same time backbiting them over their untrustworthiness - nice.

These are the sorts of insults and slights that I always hear people complain about when travelling through Muslim countries.

They don't talk about Abu Graib or bombed wedding parties, they complain about the hypocrisy of allowing some countries to have nukes and others not. And its not even a defense issue - they complain because its insulting.

[John-Paul Pagano]

Elemental,

You're right, I made a mistake: I was confusing Al Khaleej with Khaleej Times, which as far as I know is the leading English-language newspaper in the UAE.

Let's not pretend, however, that "one newspaper" in an Arab/Muslim country providing a "defense" of a Holocaust-denier would be a statistical outlier. Nor should we pretend that if the paper in question were the UAE 'paper of record', rather than simply the main paper of the third largest emirate, with a population of 636,000, that this would reflect nothing meaningful about culture in the UAE.

[Terrye]

John Paul, no doubt there is truth in that but if we allowed rampant anti semitism to be the basis for not allowing people to do business here we would have to send a lot more folks than Dubai packing.

[John-Paul Pagano]

Terrye,

Yes, my point is not to defend Malkin et al.

[elemental]

John-Paul, I would like to see an end to anti-semitism in the Arab world but this isn't a one sided issue. Anti-Arab sentiment exists in Israel as well, though its rare that anyone condemns it. Israeli leaders frequently compare Arabs to various non-human animals and speak of them as a "problem" for which they need a "solution," which is an interesting choice of words. Until responsibility for good behavior is shared equally there is little hope of clearing the problem all together. I also believe that much of the anti-semitism in the region, while distinctly present is often over-amplified by groups like memri whose sole purpose is to point out every instance of Muslims behaving badly.

[FabioC.]

The U.A.E. has cooperated in the development of the Fujairah to Jebel Ali land link. This land link would serve as the U.S. Navy’s primary logistics/supply route in the case of any closure of the Straights of Hormuz.

This may seem a secondary thing, but in terms of strategical logistics is a huge asset.

I wish that people on all sides understood that nuclear weapons and the like are not a matter of rights (as people from all sides, sadly, intend) but a matter of intentions and capabilities. In other words, countries acquire nukes if they want and can; it's that simple.

[Luther McLeod]

"like memri whose sole purpose is to point out every instance of Muslims behaving badly"

And your problem with this is...?

[DennisThePeasant]

The problem, Luther, is that it doesn't educate and it doesn't assist one in dealing with difficult and complex problems dealing with or involving Muslims...

Issues like port security.

[Luther McLeod]

Well Dennis I think it does educate, just perhaps not in a way that you find productive. Not knowing any Middle Eastern languages myself, I find it useful to know what is being said and talked about in that part of the world. Now, obviously, if they are lying in their translations or just "making stuff up" that would be another story. But if the information presented is factual then I fail to see how one can simply ignore it or dismiss it out of hand.

Does it make the task more difficult for those working in educating the masses toward having a better understanding and more empathy for the muslim world, yes, I suppose it does. Truly, I wish there were no need for such as memri, but until the situation we are in sorts itself out, I would prefer to have as much information as possible about those who would harm me and mine. I will never forget 9/11.

[elemental]

Yes Luthor, its about as useful to education as an organization dedicating itself to defining America by the comments at Little Green Footballs.

The "situation we're in" is not going to sort itself out by continuing to dehumanize Muslims while at the same time ignoring, or worse and more typical, twisting, their most rational voices.

[dsquared]

"Government owned" is quite scary for a Chinese company (and I would be very surprised indeed if there were no spies at all working in a Chinese ports company), but surely government-owned companies from the UAE are the very best kind, since (as Dennis voluminously points out), the government of the UAE are very much against Islamism, for the fairly simple reason that they would be first up against the wall if it took over. Some private citizens of the UAE are Islamists, but that would be a reason to worry about private UAE companies, not government ones.

[Luther McLeod]

Twisting, such as you twisted my name?

Is Memri twisting that which they translate? Is it Memri who dehumanizes, or those they translate who dehumanize themselves?

And by the way, I have no problem with DPW's business deal. Though I would subject their workers (as I would all port workers) to extensive and thorough background validation checks.

[elemental]

uh boy, sorry about the name thing, Luther.

Anyhow, not all that memri does is twisted, but yes, some of it is and much of it is taken out of context and all of it is done with the express purpose to dehumanize.

Charles Johnson, Michelle Malkin, JihadWatch, etc. frequently take mild mannered and polite speeches or public appeals from Muslim leadership and attach their own bigoted connotations to it, turning what should be a rational dialogue into them mocking a well-intentioned Muslim.

In fact if you look at how many people repeatedly ask for apologies from Muslim groups for 9-11 (and still do) its pretty clear that everything the American and world wide Muslim community does or says that is not negative is completely ignored.

Overall though you seem to have missed my point so I think I'll let it drop now.

[Terrye]

I am a redneck from a redneck part of the country and I can promise you that if someone were taking some of the stuff I hear every day and repeating as if it were representative of all of America..there would be Americans who would not believe what they heard.

Memri can be interesting, but it has to be taken in context with the realization that it is not representative of everyone in the Muslim world.

[elemental]

This is an interesting link:

UAE Gave $100 Million for Katrina Relief

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/02/24/ap/national/mainD8FV4SKG5.shtml

bribe, payoff, whatever. . . I'm glad we can repay the generosity with slander.

[Luther McLeod]

"in context with the realization that it is not representative of everyone in the Muslim world"

Which is exactly how I do take it. Just another bit in the data stream. But it does have its usefulness and is a source for information we would not otherwise know.

As for the "express purpose" of Memri being to dehumanize, well..I'll just say you would have to convince me of that.

[Terrye]

I will say this, if the people of the UAE thought that some of the crap they have been hearing from the citizens of the US here of late were actually representative...they might reconsider all that US military presence in their country.

[Dawud]

I seem to remember McCain (and others) saying that if anyone was to listen to what was said in the American Senate, print it up, and show it to other world leaders, it would shame America just as much - he said that when being asked about some idiotic statement of some other world leader.

Racism and bigotry is alive and well in the Middle East, but please people - the rest of the world still remembers what America was doing in the 60s to black people. To pretend that racism is dead when living (if barely) members of the Senate were members of racist organizations... well, you'll have to excuse me if I think that there are some people who've just learned that while you can't "say that" about Blacks and Jews, it's open season on Arabs.

Perhaps you want to study the history of anti-Semitism, and remember that the Holocaust, pogroms, and slaughter of Gypsies all happened in Europe, not in the muslim lands? - oh, and why do Native Americans live on reservations, and there's only several million, not more?

[grognard]

This is not just an issue with terrorist groups, the Iranians and Syrians will have an interest in this also and have a company they can easily infiltrate. If this company is going to get information on how we manage security, there are plenty of people who will be looking in. As for China, you can bet their people have taken notes on what we do.

[Jon H]

The position of the UAE government has little significance, when it only takes one person to cause a whole mess of trouble.

Musharraf is on our side, but who else in Pakistan is? The official stance does little to prevent underlings to, say, go around selling nuclear technology to our enemies.

It's nice that the government of the UAE likes us, but that doesn't mean a whole heck of a lot, frankly, because the issue is individuals who may find employment with DPW.

As for COSCO, I wonder if they unload Chinese faster and hold up ships from other countries.

[Jon H]

"bribe, payoff, whatever. . . I'm glad we can repay the generosity with slander."

Well, that's how some Republicans are responding to Venezuela's cheap (free?) Citgo heating oil for the Americans in the northeast.

[kc5097]

Another great post on the port issue. I am glad to see that sanity is starting to prevail, slowly but surely, on this issue. Dont expect Malkin to admit her mistakes on this one. She showed her true colors months ago when she "called out" Ian Schwartz about his video of the CNN issue with the X over Chenney's face. When he explained the technical aspects of his original post, which showed he had done nothing wrong, she didnt even have the integrity to apologize or put the facts on her main page. She attacked him and let you look for the facts that proved she was wrong if you cared to go to his site. Pathetic. I am sure she will find a way to keep saying she is right on this one, even as it becomes obvious she had no idea what she was talking about. I was glad to see in your post a couple of days ago that other people were beginning to see through her self promotion. Thanks for doing all the research on this one.

[FabioC.]

grognard,

Why exactly P&O would be so much harder to infiltrate? Is it a company with special vetting procedures or what?

Your opinion seems to be based on the assumption that Arabs are all the same. News: Iranians aren't even Arabs, and I bet an UAE person could spot a Syrian just by the accent.

And let's reach a firm point: the problem is that DPW is partially owned by the UAE government and thus following the government line, or that DPW is a partly private company and thus would not follow the government line? I've heard both these statements, but they cannot be both true.