Dennis the Peasant

It's Going To Be A Very Long Week...

Leonard Pinth-Garnell here...

It isn't even 9:30 A.M. on Monday morning...

I already have eight (count 'em, eight!) nominations for this week's This Week's Amanda Sentence.

And to top it off...

She's in San Francisco at a "Sex Tech" conference.

It is going to be a very, very, very long week...

"Mmm... sex tech..."

This Week's Amanda Sentence, Part Two...

Leonard Pinth-Garnell here... But just barely. She managed to churn out 23 sentences this week, so either someone needs to hide her energy drinks, or I'm going to have to start buying energy drinks.

Sentence #17:

If you were writing fiction, you wouldn’t be so bold as to suggest that the American people almost elected a presidential administration that blatantly lied to get us into war with Iraq after stealing the election in a manuever that had echoes of proto-fascist coups of the sort neocons love to fund in other countries, pretended they didn’t tell the lies that got us there, got re-elected in another race that’s a bit too close to call, and then, when his adventure was was going south, tried to provoke another adventure war that was even more likely to be lost.

101 words, including "manuever" and "was was". Neocons may be awful, and Bush may be scary, but proofreading really is the enemy. And if you were writing fiction, you wouldn't be so bold as to suggest that a presidential campaign almost hired the woman who wrote the above sentence to be their blogger. Nobody'd believe it.

Sentence #18:

If a war was started in a few months, you hold hang the exploding disaster over to the Democrat who wins in a country that’s sick to the teeth of putting up with war-mongering panty-sniffing Republicans.

Somewhere in the neighborhood of 37 words. "… hold hang…"? "…sick to the teeth…?" "… war-mongering panty-sniffing Republicans…"? It appears Amanda's getting really wound up…

Sentence #19:

Leave them with a disaster that they’ll have to clean up—maybe even the hope is that if the federal government can be crippled enough, the Democrats won’t be able to institute some of the social spending that improves people’s lives and could make them really popular.

47 words. Yes, Amanda is officially wound up. Being that she's so astute politically, you'd think she'd know that we Republicans wrote the necessity of a completely unnecessary war with Iran into the 2006 party platform. Wasn’t she paying attention?

Sentence #20:

I was even more firmly decided last night that the soundbite culture has to go (and blogs, with our abilities to speak in entire paragraphs, can help fight it).

29 words. "… our abilities to speak in entire paragraphs…"? Abilities? Do we have more than one ability to speak in "entire paragraphs"? And while I have no doubt Amanda can speak in entire paragraphs, I'd be happier knowing she could actually write in complete sentences.

Sentence #21: (Nominated for the Idi Amin Memorial Maternal Instincts Award for 2008)

"Shades of gray” only comes into the equation for me when actual, feeling beings are killed or forced to suffer for reasons that are understandable,* but as fetuses are unfeeling balls of flesh that have brain activity far below the sort of animals we thoughtlessly kill in animal shelters and farms every day, I find there to be no complexity.
*Examples of shades of gray: Morally defensible wars (such as those against genocide), meat-eating, the drug war (which does admittedly have a moral defense in that addiction is so destructive), animal testing, killing in self-defense, etc.

97 words, including the gratuitous end note. Fetuses are "…unfeeling balls of flesh that have brain activity far below the sort of animals we thoughtlessly kill in animal shelters and farms every day…"? Sensitivity out the blow hole… That's our Amanda. On a completely unrelated note, Amanda still doesn't understand why she isn't blogging up a storm for the Edwards Campaign.

Sentence #22:

But when I listened to Keenan elaborate on “moral complexity”, I realized she wasn’t conceding that anti-choicers had a point. She was saying more that the people in the mushy middle feel like they’re in a moral quandary about abortion, because it’s all mixed up with various other issues about sex, commitment, self-image, family, ickiness, and other touchy subjects and thus most people refuse to really think the issue through and come to the correct conclusion: Anything so complex and personal should be a matter of personal conscience.

89 words. Oh great, now we find out that "ickiness" is one of the variables determining moral complexity… I read all that Kant for nothing.

Sentence #23:

I honestly think the issue has become more religious over time, because hiding behind religion is the only way that anti-choice arguments have any traction, now that mandating the patriarchy is off the table as the official reason to ban abortion.

41 or so words. Either some unseen force is "mandating the patriarchy" or Amanda forgot to put "by" in between "mandating" and "the". Remember, proofreading is the enemy.

If you aren't too exhausted, vote at least once.

"Me tired... need energy drink..."

Move Over Glenn Beck, It's Time For This Week's Amanda Sentence…

Sentence #1:

I wish I had Hanne Blank’s book here, because she describes the script perfectly, about how female sexuality is about pain and sacrifice.

23 words. But trooper that she is, Amanda shoulders the burden and has sex anyway. A regular Joan of Arc, our Amanda is…

Sentence #2:

Anything unpleasant, from childbirth pains to medical treatments like this vaccine to the objectifications and humiliations for women in so much porn, gets put into a cultural narrative about how women’s very biology speaks to our rightful position in society as lesser to men, and how our sexuality is about pleasure and use for them, and pain and sacrifice for us.

61 words. Here's the part I don't get: Amanda has this idea that the Patriarchy is so terrified of Female Sexuality that WE MEN want to make it all about unpleasantness (pain and sacrifice and whatnot). Yet at the same time she supports the notion of 16 year old females having sex and violently opposes the idea of abstinence-based sex education. Maybe I'm wrong, but it appears to me she's saying, in effect, "Sex is nothing more than a never-ending source of suffering, degradation and pain... Now get out there and get you some, girls!" Given the effect of her writing, I'd always assumed Amanda to be into dominance in a big way (to say nothing of sadism)… Maybe our Amanda is a masochist instead?

[Note: I asked Muffy if she considered sex to be all about pain and sacrifice. She said, "Yes", but also mentioned that she appreciated the fact that I'd never subjected her to that sort of pain and sacrifice for more than three minutes at a stretch.]

Sentence #3:

Back home from Colorado and still reeling from Glenn Greenwald’s post where he demonstrated that conservative writers are leaping into race-baiting motion at the sign of Barack Obama’s awe-inspiring performance in Iowa, with claims that the youthful, multi-racial supporters of Obama’s will riot if he doesn’t win, an assertion that requires the audience to believe that young liberals who go knocking on doors to garner support for wonkish lawyers are just one bad day away from looting and raping.

82 words. This is the same Glenn Greenwald, mind you, who didn't have any problems picking up Pat Buchanan's money. Go look at the cover of this month's The American Conservative and you'll see Glenn's name, Big As Hell. Before we all begin boviating about the Right Wing getting all racist about Obama, let's note that the messenger of this particular apocalypse apparently doesn't have any problems accepting cash from the Republican Party's most consistent, vocal and unapologetic quasi-racist. That such an arrangement might cast some doubt upon Greenwald's integrity in such matters is, no doubt, a point too fine for our Amanda to grasp.

Sentence #4:

One reason that religion has to be separate from church is that religion deliberately peddles in the irrational and that which is argued on faith.

25 words. I'll just bet she meant "state" rather than "church". Not that it makes the sentence any more sensible, mind you. Remember Amanda Rule #1: Proofreading is the enemy.

Sentence #5:

The motivator of the Bible-thumpers is not so much love of some 2,000-year-old Jewish carpenter living under Roman rule, but the need to have the bitches at home under the thumb, and religion, because of the inarguable irrationality aspect, is the perfect disguise.

46 words. Why isn't this woman blogging up a storm for the Edwards Campaign? How could they have seen her as anything other than an asset?

Sentence #6:

Sometimes I read something that makes me question my commitment to liberty and instead reconsider an outright ban on heterosexuality until the human race can grow the fuck up.

29 words. The world would be much better place if we were all as mature as Amanda, don't you think?

Sentence #7:

But opposition about abortion is about “babies”, not about male dominance, or the belief that women’s bodies and sexuality are the rightful property of society, specifically a male-controlled society.

30 words. "But opposition about abortion is about "babies"…"? I'll just bet that first "about" was supposed to be a "to". Remember: Proofreading is the enemy.

Sentence #8:

Personally, I just aim my writing more towards feminist thought because that’s what I’m good at, not because it’s somehow more or less important than any other issue.

28 words. My hysterical laughter was cut short when I realized that Amanda had - yet again - broken my extremely expensive Irony Meter.

Sentence #9:

But even allowing, and I do allow this, that people are more willing to speak sexism in public than racism, that doesn’t mean that you can make sweeping generalizations.

29 words. Speaking generally, Amanda thinks we really shouldn't be making sweeping generalizations. This from the Queen of Sweeping Generalizations herself.

Sentence #10:

And most people who don’t have a political party are ill-informed or suffer from that severe case of douchebaggery that causes people to making sweeping generalizations mocking people for the crime of giving a shit.

36 words. Again with the sweeping generalizations. On a completely unrelated topic: Always remember - "…causes people to making sweeping generalizations…" - proofreading is the enemy.

Sentence #11:

I’d like to excuse people’s defensiveness on this as a matter of overreaction to the hippie P.C. patrol that does in fact exist, and is perfectly willing to pull out every guilt trip and patronizing tone in order to make you feel like a terrible person for something that didn’t actually hurt anyone and you can’t take back anyway.

60 words. "…that didn't actually hurt anyone and you can't take back anyway…" … and still seems like the correct decision based on the information you had at the time and you talked it over with a lot of knowledgeable people anyway and so the idea of second-guessing yourself seems counter-productive and by the way where were these hippy P.C. types when you were making the decision in the first place? Come on, Amanda, if you're gonna write a sentence, then finish it!

Sentence #12: (Nominated for the 2008 Amanda Marcotte Sentence of the Year)

This cult was described well in the book Mistakes Were Made (But Not by Me), where they argued that Americans are rather absolutist in our thinking, and thus we have a real hard problem writing off past imperfections as mistakes or even just errors of the “if I knew then what I know now” type, without casting suspicion on the person who has the imperfection.

64 words. [Insert hysterical laughter here]. Goddamn it, she broke the Irony Meter again!

Sentence #13:

Quiet vegetarians know what I’m talking about—those people who find out that you’re a vegetarian and start to berate you as a preemptive strike against their own weirdness that they aren’t vegetarians.

32 words. OK, let me get this straight: "Quiet vegetarians" go around berating vegetarians as a preemptive strike against their own weirdness for not being vegetarians? I'll just bet if Amanda had said "Quiet vegetarians know who I'm talking about…", we'd have a better idea of what she's talking about. And while I'm sure Amanda's a vegetarian, I have my doubts about her being "quiet" about anything…

As always, we'll update this post as necessary... After all, it's only Thursday.

UPDATE: Amanda managed to slip a couple more into the contest on Thursday evening...

Sentence #14:

On one hand, I feel proud to have made the list of top seven “Christian-bashers” of 2007, especially considering that the remarks in question were made in 2006.

29 words. On a completely unrelated topic, Amanda is still wondering why the Edwards campaign dropped her.

Sentence #15:

On the other hand, could it have hurt them to use my actual name, instead of a job title I held for a couple of weeks, due to the easily pseudo-hurt feelings of people who’d like to oppress women without meeting any resistance?

44 words. Just what was "...due to the easily pseudo-hurt feelings of people who'd like to oppress women without meeting any resistence?" A classic Amanda non-sentence.

Remember this: Vote early and often for your favorite Amanda sentence.

This week's winner will receive a life-size copy of the Pandagon Venus Fly Trap of Death. Everyone else will receive two copies of the Pandagon Venus Fly Trap of Death.

"Mmm... Juicy flies..."

Malkin’s Phantoms: Part 2,359

This is just too stupid to be believed.

Michelle Malkin, the Last of the Great Lost Tribe of Aryan Filipino-Americans and founding member of the League of True Defenders of Whiteness™, gets her undies in a bunch because the Texas Rangers wore uniforms reading “Los Rangers” during a game last Friday. Evidently it was part of the celebration of a Mexican holiday commemorating some Mexican guys beating up some French guys back in 1862.

Personally, I don’t have a problem with any peoples or nation throwing a party commemorating Frenchman being beaten up, but Michelle being Michelle, she sees it as part of the Grand Evil Mexican Scheme to sneak California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas across the border while the rest of us aren’t looking.

Anyway, here's the deep waters of Ilsa, She-Wolf of Fox News:

LOS RANGERS

By Michelle Malkin  ·   May 06, 2006 10:44 AM

I'm not a baseball fan, but several readers wrote in about the Yankees-Rangers game last night. A sample:

Reader K...

Michelle, did you happen to see last night's Texas Rangers NY Yankees baseball game? The Rangers uniforms were changed to read "LOS Rangers." I guess this was done for that great American holiday, 5th of May. What an insult to the Texas Rangers.

Reader Steve...

I'm watching the Yankees-Rangers game tonight. I watch sports incessantly, and I can't recognize who the Yankees are playing. Wooops, the "Los Rangers" painted on the front of their jersey. I had to work for three innings to figure that out because it was nothing but "neck-up" or wide angle shots. Don't try checking ESPN.com ("CNN of sports") or any other major sports website, it's not even mentioned or advertised...Google searches will reveal obscure articles attributing the uniform to a Cinco de Mayo celebration. Certainly not a coincidental political statement, right? The hell with the MLB, I'm not watching another game.

The Mexican consul approved of the jerseys:

The Consul of Mexico, Sr. Carlos Garcia de Alba, shared his support of the special jerseys in saying, "The Consulate of Mexico congratulates the Texas Rangers for this initiative and thanks them for the support that they are continually giving to the Hispanic community."

I understand the Rangers wanted to do something innocuous to recognize a holiday celebrating historical and cultural pride. But the politically correct selectivity here is telling. While it's considered a celebration of "diversity" to acknowledge the military sacrifices of another nation's heroes, it's considered racist to acknowledge the military sacrifices of one's own.

Case in point: Can you imagine if someone proposed changing the Rangers' jerseys to "Confederate Rangers" to celebrate Confederate Heroes' Day?

Oh, and I'm sure I'll be labeled a racist for pointing out the double standard.

Like that's anything new...

***

Reader Bill writes:

If the Rangers organization REALLY wanted to kowtow to their Mexican-American and Mexican illegal audience, they should have put “Los Rinches” on their uniforms. That is the Mexican slang used to put down the Texas Rangers, sort of like calling them "pigs".

Blogger Rick M. quips:

I understand that just for last night's game, stolen bases were known as "undocumented bases", and no one was allowed to be thrown out.

LOL.

Whatever, Michelle.

What a happy place the Malkin household must be... Jesse, Michelle and the kids sitting around the hearth spinning vast conspiracy theories and telling wetback jokes.

There is something genuinely pathetic about Malkin's mindset, but what continually shocks me is the depth of her ignorance on virtually every topic she touches.

For example, it's clear from the above post that Malkin thinks Cinco de Mayo is the Mexican equivalent to Independence Day. It isn't. Never has been. Never will be. It's the celebration of the Mexican victory over the French at the Battle of Puebla on May 5, 1862. And had Michelle done a minimum amount of homework and, say, talked to a Mexican-American or two, she'd know that.

In addition, were Malkin's mind filled with more real-world knowledge and less paranoid fantasy, she'd understand that the "Los Rangers" uniform is more a sign of marketing and good old American Capitalism than of Political Correctness or the Ever-Present Threat to the American Way of Life. The simple fact of the matter is that Major League Baseball is preparing to expand to the South.

And the fact that Major League Baseball is preparing to expand into South America isn't exactly (a) breaking news, or (b) a closely guarded secret. Were Michelle Malkin to read, say, Forbes or Business Week once in awhile, she'd know that MLB's owners - white, Christian and U.S. citizens to a man - decided a decade and a half ago that the Lands of the Latinos is where future prosperity lay.

The bottom line is this, and it has nothing to do with Open Borders, Illegal Immigration, Reconquista or Political Correctness...

The U.S. market is saturated. Cities the size of Bayonne, Lompoc and French Lick can't support MLB, and they're about all that is left. Canada can barely support the teams they have now. Japan has a well-developed baseball industry: MLB can't prosper there - too much competition. Everyone in Europe either throws like a girl or has a sperm count in the teens: MLB can't prosper there - not enough interest. Beyond that, there are the simple logistics of flying teams to and from Asia or Europe.

So where do you look to expand?

Well, if you haven't noticed already, Latin America is seriously baseball mad. There are lots of guys named Fernandez, Hernandez, Lima and Rodriquez playing in the majors these days. And there are lots of Spanish-speaking types South of the Border watching Fernandez, Hernandez, Lima and Rodriquez on TV. This puts money in the pockets of team owners...

And being good Capitalists, they want more of those South of the Border pesos. So how does a good, old fashioned American Capitalist extract wealth from the toiling masses?

Marketing.

Which is why The Rangers, who are in Texas, which is next to Mexico, which watches Texas Rangers baseball on television, whipped out the "Los Rangers" uniforms. It is also why the Rangers, as well as teams like the Dodgers, have been very careful to ensure that they stock their teams with at least a couple of Latino baseball stars no matter how bad their teams are.

Duh.

Major League Baseball is getting ready to put a franchise in Mexico City soon. They want all those cash-paying Mexican individuals and advertisers to be as happy as can be. That's were the growth is. So how do you do that? Well, making concessions to the realities of the markets you are entering is a start. Or is Malkin now of the opinion that U.S. industry is a bunch of cultural dhimmis for packaging their products to meet the needs of Spanish-speaking peoples in their own countries?

Oy.

It's Marketing, Michelle.

Honest.

Playing the Muslim Card: Malkin Lets the Hate Flow

The Malkin Meltdown continues. From her post of March 1:

WE ARE ALL BIGOTS NOW

Last week, I wrote "They are all profilers now"--mocking Democrats for their expedient embrace of profiling to exploit the ports fiasco. This week, I'm sick of conservatives playing the race card to attack skeptics of the ports deal. From my syndicated column 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. Reasonable people can disagree on the process pitfalls and security implications of the deal. But the elite Right, has simply lost its marbles:

Here's GOP strategist and Muslim voter outreach architect Grover Norquist in the Los Angeles Times dismissing critics of the deal: "The only whiners left by next week will be the registered bigots."

Conservative commentator Larry Kudlow: "This whole brouhaha surrounding the Bush administration's green-light to a United Arab Emirates company slated to manage six major U.S. ports has nothing to do with protecting homeland security. Allow me to give it its proper name: Islamophobia."

New York Times columnist David Brooks: "This Dubai port deal has unleashed a kind of collective mania we haven't seen in decades. First seized by the radio hatemonger Michael Savage, it's been embraced by reactionaries of left and right, exploited by Empire State panderers, and enabled by a bipartisan horde of politicians who don't have the guts to stand in front of a xenophobic tsunami."

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.

We are at war, aren't we?

President Bush himself is ultimately responsible for encouraging the race-card players, thanks to his stunning comment that "those who are questioning" the deal need to "step up and explain why all of a sudden a Middle Eastern company is held to a different standard than a Great British company."

... 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?

Now, all the proselytizers who tell us to collect the dots and connect the dots want us to throw them all away lest we give offense?

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.

That’s some pretty serious hate Malkin’s got going there: For Bush, for the pundits who dare cross her... for everyone, in fact, who disagrees with her “vision” of what National Security should actually entail. Notice anything else about that post? In both the intellectual sophistication of the content and her tone in presenting it, she reads like a KOS diary. Note the borderline hysteria, the chest-thumping machismo, the lack of logic and fact, and the lack of any meaningful refutation – by way of substantive discussion of the issues – of the charges she takes to be leveled at her.

Poor Michelle. When you reread her posts from last week, you could just tell she thought she’d latched onto the Big One™; the issue that was going to allow her to claim a spot amongst the big-time influencers in Old Media. Now that the facts of the matter have started to emerge, and the full cynicism of Senator Schumer’s ploy (and that of those who embraced it) is becoming more apparent, Michelle Malkin finds herself on the wrong side of the Big One™. It’s something she can’t see to live with...

Which, in fact, explains a lot of the rage and bitterness in her post. Certainly the issue in and of itself has little meaning to Malkin. She has never been serious about the national security implications of Dubai Ports World purchasing Peninsular and Orient. That is apparent from her lack of any grounding in facts of the issue itself: Her first instinct was not to raise questions about “process pitfalls” or “security implications”, it was to scream “Stop the Ports Sellout” to a “demonstrably unreliable” Arab nation. She still refers to the issue as “Portgate”... as if trying to draw equivalence between this issue and Watergate had some sort of intellectual merit here. Or is Michelle now embracing the idea that DPW/P&O boils down to George W. Bush jeopardizing national security to help some Arab buddies get even richer?

What all this does do, however, is demonstrate just now unserious and limited Michelle Malkin is. When faced with the facts of port governance, operations and security – and being unable or unwilling to refute those facts – she simply decides to play... the race card: The specter of the Arab boogie-man. And now that the adults in the room, which includes such noted softies as Gen. Peter Pace of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to Gen. Tommy Franks, have made it clear that the United Arab Emirates are as far from being “demonstrably unreliable”, Malkin – left with nothing more than a few quotes from fellows pundits and a D-list talk show host for use in refutation – has descended into little more than a child’s tantrum.

And ironically enough, she herself has decided it best to play the race card for one more hand: This time as the martyr to a politically-correct Republican elite who refuse to see The Obvious about Those Arabs. Such a gambit may work, but I doubt it. What has become clear – painfully clear – over the past two weeks is that Michelle Malkin is little more than Ann Coulter with an overbite. The woman has nothing of substance to offer. No doubt she will continue with what she does, and no doubt she will continue to make a living from it, but I suspect her days of being taken seriously are largely over.

Playing the Muslim Card: Malkin Decides It Isn’t About National Security After All

Note: I was going to save this post for use tomorrow, but given the fact that Malkin is becoming genuinely unhinged by this issue (in “We Are All Bigots Now”), I’m going to put it up today.

....................

Poor Michelle.

It seems she’s hitched herself to the wrong wagon. Here she was thinking the Dubai Ports World deal would give her an issue to prove she’s got big-league punditry chops. But as many of you have no doubt noticed, DPW and the Arab Threat to National Security™ has started to recede as the news cycle moves us all onto other important issues... You know... things like who’s the new editor at The New Republic and the CBS lawsuit against Howard Stern.

She’s starting to sound like Oliver Willis demanding Fox News fire Brit Hume...

Actually, she may have been able to wring another week or so out of the issue had she put forth either the intellect or effort to research the issue, but research is both time-consuming and difficult - which are two no-no’s for Michelle Malkin’s sort of punditry. So it comes as no surprise that as the facts of port security, DPW and the United Arab Emirates are becoming more widely known, she’s busy changing the subject.

Remember what this was originally about? Per Malkin, it was only about National Security. National Security and nothing else. Nothing.

But go to her post on DPW and the UAE from yesterday ("Banned In The UAE, Part III") and you find between little and nothing about National Security. Instead you get the following justifications for refusing to allow DPW and the UAE access to our ports:

1. The United Arab Emirates has not recognized the existence of the state of Israel.
2. The UAE, via DPW, is boycotting Israel.
3. The UAE has condemned the publishing of the ‘Mohammed’ cartoons.
4. The UAE has some narco-terrorists within its borders at times.
5. The UAE has banned some blogs.

Excuse me for pointing out the obvious, but absolutely none of these concerns are remotely related to whether Dubai Ports World assuming the U.S. assets of Peninsular and Orient poses an increased risk to the National Security of the United States. But assuming that Malkin is in this for the long haul, let’s take a look at some of her newest ‘concerns’ about the United Arab Emirates.

Yes, it is regrettable that the United Arab Emirates hasn’t recognized Israel, and it is just as regrettable that the UAE (via DPW) boycotts Israeli goods, but neither actions impact port security in our country, does it? That was the original issue here, wasn’t it? No and yes are the answers to those questions, but raising the issue of Israel does shift the ‘debate’ from national security (where Malkin loses) into the realm of something emotional (where she might just win), doesn’t it?

And if you read the article about the UAE condemning the ‘Mohammed’ cartoons, what you find is that the government has issued a statement denouncing them. That’s it. Some citizens are organizing a boycott of Danish goods – citizens, not the government – and, horror of horrors, 50 UAE women staged a peaceful protest. Savages.

Similarly, if you bother to read the article on port security and narco-terrorists by Clinton W. Taylor, you get this as an opening paragraph:

“In theory, I don't have a problem with the United Arab Emirates managing our ports. I'd rather an American firm had stepped up to the challenge but I guess this is one of those jobs which President Bush says that Americans "just won't do." So I'll trust the Emirates to do the job as soon as they sort out one small matter for me.”

Notice anything about that paragraph? Like the fact that Clinton W. Taylor doesn’t have the faintest idea that port management is not, and never has been, the issue? In other words, Clinton W. Taylor doesn’t know his forearm from his fanny when it comes to ports governance, ports management, port security or the difference between a port and a cargo terminal. Other than that, he’s a man to be reckoned with on the issue.

Malkin also links to an article by a B. Raman of the South Asia Analysis Group (no, I’ve never of him or them either) that is downright bizarre. Here’s the final paragraph:

“There is so far no evidence to suspect that the DPW may have links with criminal and terrorist elements. Presumably, for its commercial operations in the US ports, it would be deputing staff recruited in the UAE, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and other countries. In view of the past tainted record of the intelligence and security agencies of the UAE, would the US authorities like to depend on their security vetting to prevent the penetration of its staff deployed in the US by Al Qaeda and the IIF? If not, would it be feasible for the American authorities to impose a condition that all the staff of the DPW deployed on its US operations would be recruited only in the US after security vetting by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)?”

Note the logical sequence following the admission that he has no evidence that DPW has links to either criminal or terrorist organizations:

1. UAE will hire people from the UAE, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia (i.e., Muslims).
2. The UAE’s intelligence and security agencies are “tainted” (whatever that means...).
3. Terrorists will naturally infiltrate DPW and the U.S. ports were it does business.

Makes perfect sense, doesn’t it? We don’t have any hard evidence of a security risk, but hey, they’re Arabs. Note the fact that the ISPS code deals with just those specifics... Something B. Raman doesn’t seem to be aware of. And the fact that Customs (via the CSI) has procedures in place to deal with just those specifics... Something else B. Raman doesn’t seem to be aware of. It’s also worth noting that B. Raman never actually provides any sort of meaningful risk analysis of DPW taking over P&O, which one would thing might be useful within the context of, um, trying to assess the risk involved!

Actually, it’s pretty clear what is going on here: Michelle Malkin is using the Noam Chomsky technique of argumentation. That is, she’ll happily and quite uncritically quote any source, not matter how un- or misinformed, as long as it is in agreement with her preconceived notions. Here it happens to be two men, Taylor and Raman, who haven’t a clue as to what port security actually entails. But in Malkin’s world, since they’re on her side, they’re worth the link and the quote.

For all that, though, this is what really stopped me cold in Malkin’s post:

“Forbes magazine notes:

‘Dubai, in the final analysis, is still very much a part of the Middle East and Islamic world, where it finds itself geographically, politically and culturally. Its remarkable success--steering a delicate middle course between currents of Islamic extremism that are found as near as its much larger, though scarcely as prosperous, neighbor, Saudi Arabia, and the tolerant moderation valued so deeply by the West--has insulated it from terrorism and lets the sheikh's palace sit with its gates all but unguarded deep into the night.

Yet Dubai, the single most prosperous of the seven emirates, is still very much a part of the Arab world.’

Go ahead. Yell "Islamophobia!"

This is just a guess on my part, but if you really wanted to convince anyone you weren’t an anti-Arab bigot, wouldn’t you try to choose a quote that doesn’t – after offering effusive praise – state that all such success and moderation is invalidated because the UAE is “still very much a part of the Arab world”? They may be moderate, successful and our ally, but hey, they’re Arabs!

You’re really not helping yourself here, Michelle. Honest.

But in the final analysis, it doesn’t really matter. Malkin was never serious about the national security issues surrounding port security, the UAE and DPW. She couldn’t stay on that track for more than a week... And the minute people started to examine the facts, she could do little than to drag out a series of red herrings designed to do nothing more than sow hatred and distrust.

Expect that to continue.

Playing the Muslim Card: Malkin's 'Demonstrably Unreliable' U.A.E.

From the White House fact sheet on the DPW-P&O "controversy":

MYTH: UAE is a haven for terrorists and allowing a UAE-owned company to control our ports will endanger our national security.

FACT: UAE is a friend and ally of the United States, a partner in the Global War on Terror, and a strong partner in global port security. Partners like the UAE are siding with the international community in the fight against terror. The UAE has been very helpful in the fight against terrorism, especially intelligence sharing and cutting off terrorist financing. The UAE has worked with us to stop terrorist financing and money laundering, including by freezing accounts, enacting aggressive anti-money-laundering and counter-terrorist-financing laws and regulations, and exchanging information on people and entities suspected of being involved in these activities. The UAE has a world class carrier port, and we have more U.S. Navy ships in UAE ports than in any other port outside the United States. The UAE services our ships while in port, refueling them, providing them with food and water, and doing small repairs, among other services. Dubai was the first Middle Eastern entity to join the Container Security Initiative - a multinational program to protect global trade from terrorism.

General Peter Pace, Chairman Of The Joint Chiefs of Staff: "[T]he military-to-military relationship with the United Arab Emirates is superb. ... They've got airfields that they allow us to use, and their airspace, their logistics support. They've got a world-class air-to-air training facility that they let us use and cooperate with them in the training of our pilots. In everything that we have asked and work with them on, they have proven to be very, very solid partners." (U.S. Department Of Defense, Press Briefing, 2/21/06)

General Tommy Franks, Former CENTCOM Commander: "I personally believe that we have had no greater ally in seeking a resolution of problems in the Middle East, the Palestinian issue, the Israeli issue, than we have found in the United Arab Emirates." (Fox News' "Hannity & Colmes," 2/22/06)

Any bets on how soon Michelle Malkin will explain why she's right and Generals Pace and Franks aren't?

Update: Here's Markos Moulitsas' analysis of the matter:

I know the Bushbot and their GOP allies are now falling in line behind their president, eager to let the supremely undemocratic (and terrorist sympathizing) UAE have access to major gateways into our nation.

You see, while we're supposed to invade countries without cause, torture prisoners, surrender civil liberties, get spied on by our government -- all in the name of "national security", pesky things such as "national security" shouldn't get in the way of commerce. Especially with some of Bush's best Middle Eastern pals who are also big Osama Bin Laden pals. (Is that one or two degrees of separation?)

Maybe he'll let Michelle borrow that bit of analysis... It's sophisticated enough for her.

Playing the Muslim Card: Michelle Malkin Attempts To Rewrite History... Hers.

Having gleefully played the Muslim Card for all it was worth all of last week, Michelle Malkin now wants to retire the “race card”. Not that she wants to stop hating Arabs and Muslims, mind you. She just wants people like me to stop calling her a racist.

Michelle’s delicate like that.

So, much of her posting on February 27 was dedicated to the proposition that she’s not an uninformed, reflexively anti-Arab/Muslim bigot, but actually a thoughtful, responsible citizen who’s concerned with national security above all else. And Michelle being Michelle, she’s willing to be as dishonest as need be to prove it. Here’s a perfect example:

IS THE COAST GUARD "ISLAMOPHOBIC?"

If you were paying attention over the weekend, you saw this:

Stewart Baker, a senior Homeland Security official, said he was the sole representative on the panel who objected to the ports deal. Baker said he later changed his vote after Dubai Ports World agreed to the security conditions. Others confirmed his account.

"We were not prepared to sign off on the deal without the successful negotiation of the assurances," Baker said.

Baker acknowledged that a government audit of security practices at the U.S. ports in the takeover has not been completed as part of the deal.

The audit will help evaluate Dubai Port World's security programs to stop smuggling and detect illegal shipments of nuclear materials at the six U.S. ports.

Now, we learn:

The U.S. Coast Guard said questions about foreign influence, employees and operations made it impossible to assess the threat posed by a state-owned Dubai company's purchase of a firm that manages some terminal operations at six U.S. seaports.

``There are many intelligence gaps concerning the potential'' for assets owned by DP World or London-based Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation Co. ``to support terrorist operations,'' says an undated intelligence assessment by the Coast Guard that was released at a hearing today of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee.

The document wasn't given to an administration panel assessing the national security risks of the acquisition, but its concerns ``were addressed and resolved,'' Stewart Baker, an assistant secretary at the Homeland Security Department, said.

Committee Chairwoman Susan Collins was skeptical. ``I don't see how you were able to close those gaps so quickly,'' she told Baker and Admiral Thomas Gilmore, an assistant commandant with the Coast Guard.

Via AP:

The document raised questions about the security of the companies' operations, the backgrounds of all personnel working for the companies, and whether other foreign countries influenced operations that affect security.

"This report suggests there were significant and troubling intelligence gaps," said Collins, R-Maine. "That language is very troubling to me."

Administration officials defended their decision not to trigger a 45-day review of national security implications of such a deal.

Let's retire the race card now, shall we?

I don't think so.

It is worth noting, first and foremost, that Michelle Malkin is indulging in a shameless exercise of ex post facto self-justification here. She adopted her position on this matter without the above information. In fact, she adopted her stance of opposition to the DPW deal without any information. Period.

Had Malkin been able to put forth any sort of meaningful factual information to support her contention that a DPW takeover of P&O was a threat to national security, or the contention that UAE was “demonstrably unreliable” as an ally, she would not be facing accusations of racism in the first place. Beyond that, if one actually takes the time to read each of the three news reports, a much different picture of the Coast Guard report than Malkin wishes to paint.

For example, Malkin fails include the following from the AP report:

“In this case, the concerns that you’re [Rep. Collins] citing were addressed and resolved,” Clay Lowery, the Treasury Department’s assistant secretary for international affairs, told lawmakers.”

She also fails to include this:

“The Coast Guard indicated to Associated Press that it did not have serious reservations about the ports deal on Feb. 10, when the news organization first inquired about potential security concerns.

“Any time there’s a new operator in a port our concern would be that the operator has complied with the (International Ship and Port Facility Security) ISPS code overseas and we just want to take a look at their track record,” Cmdr. Jeff Carter, Coast Guard spokesman, said at the time. “And then we would look forward to working with them in the future ensuring they complied with all applicable regulations and international agreement,” he added.

It is worth noting here, because Malkin doesn’t, that both Dubai Ports World and Peninsular and Orient are ISPS certified. Given that Malkin has not once mentioned the existence of the ISPS code, I have my doubts that she either knows or understands what certification would mean in terms of maritime, port or national security.

Here’s a significant bit of the Bloomberg report she forgot to include:

Committee Chairwoman Susan Collins was skeptical. ``I don't see how you were able to close those gaps so quickly,'' she told Baker and Admiral Thomas Gilmore, an assistant commandant with the Coast Guard.

Gilmore said he'd have to discuss classified information to respond. Collins, a Maine Republican, recessed the public hearing to convene a closed session where Gilmore and other Bush administration witnesses could more fully describe why they thought the DP deal didn't pose a threat.

In other words, Rep. Collins is now in possession of the information needed to understand the Coast Guard was able to “close those gaps so quickly”. Interestingly, none of the reports cited in Malkin’s post mention Rep. Collins expressing dissatisfaction with the quality of the information provided. Malkin somehow overlooks that. Somehow.

The final, and strangest, part of Malkin’s pseudo-justification is the quote she uses from the Coast Guard intelligence report:

``There are many intelligence gaps concerning the potential'' for assets owned by DP World or London-based Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation Co. ``to support terrorist operations,'' says an undated intelligence assessment by the Coast Guard that was released at a hearing today of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee.

What that quote says is that the Coast Guard cannot assess the risk posed by either company. In other words, it cannot determine to what extent Peninsular and Orient – under British, not Arab, ownership – could present to U.S. ports. Rather than retiring the race card, this fact alone highlights just how patently dishonest those citing “national security concerns” for use against DPW. I am willing to bet that those same gaps in intelligence also would preclude the Coast Guard from assessing the terrorist risk presented within the operations of other foreign-owned and operated maritime companies. Why Malkin is unconcerned about those particular potential threats is something of a mystery, is it not?

Malkin seems to want us to believe that swapping one unassessable threat for another unassessable threat jeopardizes our national security and has no racial implications. Really? Well, not when DPW has already announced it is retaining P&O management and staff at all ports, has the same international security certification as P&O, and has managed to conform with all U.S. maritime, port and national security laws and regulations to date. The more one looks at facts, the clearer it becomes that Malkin’s initial concern wasn’t about the adequacy of the review or national security, it was that the assets of a Western, Christian and white company were being sold to a non-Western, Muslim and non-white company... P&O was going to become a part of the ‘Other’.

That's what bothered Michelle Malkin. Nothing more.

And Michell Malkin cannot link herself to the Coast Guard to justify her actions, either. The Coast Guard cannot be accused of Playing the Muslim Card in this case simply because it had a responsibility to review the facts of the matter and express an opinion, and did both to the best of its abilities. Unlike Michelle Malkin, the Coast Guard discharged its duties in a responsible manner.

But Michelle Malkin’s race card is not so easily unplayed... Her ignorance, all of last week, of the basic facts surrounding DPW, P&O, port operations and port security were obvious to all that cared to notice. As was her failure to provide the slightest factual evidence of the U.A.E.’s unreliability as an ally. That is precisely why she is being accused of being Islamophobic and the Coast Guard is not.

Michelle Malkin may, now that tempers have cooled and facts are more widely known, wish to rewrite her own sordid part in this whole sordid affair, but I doubt she will have any more success at it than, say, Ann Coulter would... If Ann Coulter was dishonest enough to bother rewriting history, that is.

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.?

Playing The Muslim Card: Dubai Ports World, Pt. 2

Note: I was going to put this up tomorrow morning, but I see no real reason to wait until then.

In response to the criticism I leveled at him in yesterday’s post (Playing The Muslim Card: Dubai Ports World), Duncan Black (Atrios) left the following comment:

To me the issue isn't that it's a foreign company or an Arab company, but a foreign state owned company.

State owned companies have different interests and pressure, potentially, than do private companies.
It's similar to objecting to having so much US debt being bought by "the Chinese." The issue isn't that Chinese people are buying hundreds of billions of t-bills, it's that the Chinese government is, and the Chinese government isn't a player motivated purely by economic incentives.

I don't want the French government having significant involvement in our port security either.

Fair enough.

The points Duncan raises are thoughtful and therefore deserve consideration in any discussion of the issue(s) at hand. They echo the thoughts and sentiments of a number of people who have emailed me today about the Dubai Ports World controversy.

I guess I would start by asking a simple question that no one, at least no one to my knowledge, has bothered to ask:

Is there really a direct correlation between the effectiveness of port security and either the nationality or the ownership of the company managing the port?

I ask that question because I think the obvious answer might not necessarily be the correct answer. Why are we to assume, sans concrete evidence, that our ports would be less secure under the management of a foreign-owned company that a domestic one. Is Senator Boxer prepared to argue that we would be safer, and our ports more secure, under the management and oversight of Halliburton? And will Senator Santorum’s concerns be satisfied upon learning that a company owned and operated by, say, the ex-wunderkind of FEMA, Michael Brown, is now overseeing the guarding our ports?

Am I arguing to extremes? Yes. But the point is obvious: We cannot assume that domestic control of the corporations managing our ports will provide security that meets or exceeds that provided by a foreign-owned company. At this moment there are exactly three pieces of information missing from the DPW debate in Congress and the blogosphere:

1) A working knowledge of the present security arrangements at the ports in question,
2) A working knowledge of any changes in security arrangements being contemplated by DPW, and,
3) Any knowledge of the review process used by the Committee on Foreign Investments in the United States to evaluate security concerns of the transferring the port management leases from P&O to DPW.

Without that information, the idea that we can appropriately evaluate any possible changes in the effectiveness of port security at any of the ports affected by the DPW purchase of P&O is absolute nonsense. The suggestion that domestic ownership would address, in any meaningful way, the fundamental issues of port security is a suggestion that obscures, rather an illuminates, the key point of the debate.

The second question I would ask is as follows:

Is it really true that state owned companies face different interests and pressures than private companies?

I would suggest that any private company owned and operated out of a country that lacks a tradition of the primacy of law and an independent judiciary is largely at the mercy of the government. Even in the United States, would one care to argue that pressure cannot be exerted on private companies via regulation, taxation or litigation to influence behavior? Look what that noted moral philosopher, Roger L. Simon, wishes the government to do with Google, Yahoo and Microsoft for transgressing the bounds of commercial propriety...

It would seem more to the point, at least to me, that our government and the regulatory and oversight bodies charged with the responsibility of ensuring port security have the resources and motivation to monitor the relationship of any foreign government with companies that do business in the United States in areas with potential national security consequences. There may be scenarios were it would be preferable to keep state-owned companies out of sectors of our economy, but to be meaningful in terms of protecting our security interests, it will take both knowledge and expertise to correctly identify which scenarios pose a potential security risk that is truly unacceptable.

Besides, as an accountant, I can tell you with confidence that it isn’t terribly difficult for governments (or individuals, for that matter) to conceal either their influence or ownership in a private company. Nor is it unheard of for a third party to represent themselves in order to hide true ownership interests. One need go no farther than the United Nations Oil-For-Food scandal to see either the mechanics of how such schemes work or how effective they can be.

I would suggest that the argument that state-owned and privately-owned companies offer, in and of them, differing potential security threats to be a false one. It seems to be a distinction without a difference. The only way to ensure that a particular government is not using its position in the U.S. economy to undermine our national security is to identify those portions of the economy that could present problems and to monitor them closely, irrespective of form or nationality of ownership.

Finally, irrespective of the merit of the arguments, neither the tone nor the tenor of the debate lends much credence to the proposition that this is about national security for most of those involved.

Given the level of ignorance of the basic facts, as well as the – how shall I say this – lack of appropriate focus of those driving the issue adds to the impression that the last thing the vast majority of those involving themselves in this controversy are truly concerned about is national security. In my humble opinion, the two necessary questions – the only two appropriate questions – that needed to be asked last week were the following:

1. What was the review process used by the Committee on Foreign Investments in the United States in evaluating the security implications of a purchase of Peninsular and Oriental by Dubai Ports World?
2. What the review process appropriate and adequate in evaluating all identifiable security concerns?

The answers to those two question would, quite frankly, render the concerns voiced by Duncan Black (and others) moot... Because the answers would either demonstrate an adequate review or otherwise. The answers to those two questions will tell us everything we need to know about the actors in this drama – the U.A.E. and the Bush Administration – and the state of security at our ports. Unfortunately, I haven’t seen anyone other than my own true self ask those two questions. So I have to ask myself just what is driving this controversy, if not a genuine concern for our nation’s welfare?

Senator Schumer first raised the issue without even possessing a level of knowledge allowing him to understand that Peninsular and Oriental was foreign owned and port security therefore already “outsourced”. In the blogosphere, “georgia10” over at Daily KOS claimed, bizarrely, that a state-owned U.A.E. company purchasing a publicly held British company was a matter of the Bush Administration selling “...Port Security To Highest Foreign Bidder”. Ed Morrissey at Captain’s Quarters baldly stated – and was parroted by Michelle Malkin in the process – that such a transaction represents a “surrender” of our ports to “Arab-based firms”.

If, upon reflection, the worst I am prepared to accuse Duncan Black of is a poor choice of words in his post on Friday (and it is), I cannot pass over the comments and conduct of Senators Schumer, Clinton, Boxer or Santorum without noting that a poor choice of words is most certainly not their primary offense. The same goes with any number of mentioned (and unmentioned) “prominent” bloggers who have contributed nothing to the discussion other than an airing of their own personal manias.

The fact of the matter is this: The government of the United Arab Emirates, as well as the “Arab moderates” we supposedly cherish so, will forever remember the rhetoric of contempt and distrust as well as the legislation introduced to harm and punish them.

And given the circumstances, I would be the last person on Earth to criticize them for that.