Seizing the port

February 24, 2006

Call it opportunism, exploitation, or just common-sense politics in an election year, but the Dem campaign committees are milking the Dubai Ports World controversy for all it’s worth.

Turning the Republicans’ mantra from the 2002 and 2004 campaign cycles on its head, the DCCC Wednesday blasted Republicans for being held to a “pre-9/11” mindset while Democrats have developed a “post-9/11” worldview in which security issues are a top priority.

“Democrats have a post-9/11 worldview and many Republicans have a pre-9/11 worldview,” DCCC communications director Bill Burton said in a statement. “Democrats think it is wrong to trust a state that recognized the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan, Republicans think it’s right. That doesn’t make them unpatriotic, but it does make them wrong — deeply and profoundly and consistently wrong.”

The DCCC also released summaries of several roll call votes over the last five years that they say show Republicans have consistently voted against port security upgrades and funding increases.

Republican campaign officials dismissed the attacks as crass partisanship.

Well, maybe so. But as Kevin noted the other day, “Given the Republican Party’s five-year effort to caricature liberals as panty-waisted Osama lovers for doing nothing more than holding positions startlingly similar to Bush’s on the Dubai port deal, we would need to be veritable saints not to get a frisson of pleasure from holding their feet to the fire over this. It’s time for the modern GOP to get a taste of its own dog food.”

And so, we’re not saints. We’re a minority party in an election year that has been unfairly smeared, is genuinely less-than-pleased about a controversial port deal, and which sees an opportunity to remind voters that the GOP caricature of the Dems is absurd. Isn’t this what Dems should do? Just as importantly, isn’t this what Republicans would do if President Kerry or President Gore offered them a similar scenario?

One order of Alpo, coming up.

Actually, as I have pointed out before, the Democratic (or at least Clinton) pre-9/11 mindset was that Osama bin Laden and Al Quiada and terrorism were the most immediate threat to America.

But Condi Rice and Paul Wolfowitz knew better. They knew that the most immediate threat to America was North Korea, Iran and Iraq with nuclear tipped ballastic missiles.

So we got hit on 9/11 by a bunch a Wahabists from Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emerites and Egypt (all supposedly our allies) and lost over 3000 Americans.

And Bush still couldn’t wait to invade Iraq and revenge the attempted assasination of his father, rather then stick it out in the hills of Afghanistan and catch Osama bin Laden.

The Bush administration still has the same pre 9/11 mindset they had before.

And the Democrats pre-9/11 mindset is nothing to apologize for.

  • i don’t think the port thing is a big deal. but in any case, can we please leave the ‘pre-9/11’ and ‘post 9/11 mindset’ horseshit to the republicans? that’s their line of crap.

    your pal,
    blake

  • Kevin Drum is full of sh__. His use of the “liberals shouldn’t espouse bigotry against Arabs argument” is bogus.

    Just look at the recent history of the UAE. We’re talking about a state-owned company from a monarchy whose royals spent time hanging out with Osama bin Laden before 9/11 and laundered money for al Qaeda. 80 percent of the population of the UAE is foreign workers who are generally treated badly. The UAE trafficks in children.

    What a great boss to have. What a great teammate in port security. We’re not talking about Arab people in general. We’re talking about very specific, very rich monarchs who clearly have views inimical to our interests and our ideals.

    Being unhappy with helping them build a maritime empire to supplement their oil wealth and potentially turn weaken our already laughable port security is a very real issue of real concern. It does matter who’s in charge and the deal as specified doesn’t even mandate that their records be maintained on US soil where they’re accessible by US courts. Given their lack of cooperation with tracking terrorist financing, we’re looking at also making it difficult to track terrorist shipping?

    The UAE is not the UK. Bush’s stance on this issue is a total contradiction of everything he’s said since 9/11. Even he doesn’t believe his rhetoric.

    I have no problem with people making hay out of this. It’s another example of what incompetent, lying SOBs BushCo’s administration is. I’m not eating no freakin’ Alpo. I’ll have the steak, please.

  • Why is the port deal unsafe.

    At first I tended to agree with Kevin on this but yesterday on NPR they had an interview with an english guy that described business in UAI something like this. I rent an appartment with a great view for $1 million dollars then one day without warning the landlord comes up and shows my apprtment to a Russian business man who on the spot offered $2 million dollars and I had to move out that day. This is the way they do business in UAE.

    Does that sound like a formula for security?

  • More of this Mr. Burton. More of this every freakin’ day until November 2006. Then everyday until November 2008.

    The GOP is more interested in money than they are homeland security. The simple way to ensure that point is rammed home is to present a straightforward bill: “tax on millionaires for port security” You can guess what the details are.

    The GOP would howl. We could then point to FDR raising taxes to support WWII. Then we ask why millionaires shouldn’t have to pay a little extra tax to ensure that our ports are safe. And we ask it over and over again, with everyone using the same talking points.

    Is it good policy? I don’t know. Is it good politics? Sure seems like it to me. Heck if we wanted to get really cynical, we could make it the “tax on hunters who hunt on private land with animals that are caged and released on demand for port security” That should shore up the blue-collar hunting bloc. Heh.

  • “The UAE is not the UK. Bush’s stance on this issue is a total contradiction of everything he’s said since 9/11. Even he doesn’t believe his rhetoric.” – Dr Laniac

    But, but 😉

    They both have United in their names (just like the United States)…

    They are both monarchies…

    I betcha there are about as many muslims living in the U.K. as live in the UAE…

    So how is George W. Bush supposed to tell the difference?

  • “So how is George W. Bush supposed to tell the difference?” — me

    I hope everybody caught that was totally tongue in cheek.

    The six ports in the United States are only a part of the deal, as there are 21 ports total. Probably a big part of the deal, but just part.

    Congress should just pony up some money to buy out Dubai and set up a semi-public corporation to run these ports, and put in the law that once other port operations contracts come due for renegoitation the corporation takes over the contract.

  • sees an opportunity to remind voters that the GOP caricature of the Dems is absurd…

    Rather, remind voters that the GOP caricature of the GOP is absurd!

  • “I betcha there are about as many muslims living in the U.K. as live in the UAE…” – me

    Close

    2001 Census of United Kingdom
    Population: 13,626,299
    Muslim: 1,591,126
    Muslim: 12%

    United Arab Emirates
    Population: 2,195,600
    Muslim: 2,107,776
    Muslim: 96%

    So you see, there are almost as many Muslims in the United Kingdom as in the United Arab Emirates 😉

  • “It’s time for the modern GOP to get a taste of its own dog food.”

    The tyranny of an oversimplified attack image endlessly repeated.
    Mix it with water and it makes its own gravy.

  • I should point out, in case it hasn’t been mentioned before, that Burton’s statement is based word-for-word on a speech Karl Rove made about Democrats a couple of months ago. He just changed “Democrats have a pre-9/11 view of the world” to “Republicans.” So it’s not only true, it’s a great snarky comeback to the Rovester.

    • Comments are closed.