Port Security

Something is Rotten…Somewhere
By Ed Phillips
(originally posted in February 2006)

I’ll be the first to admit that when I heard about the plan for a British company to sell its operational control of some U.S. shipping ports to a company based in the United Arab Emirates, my response was, “What is Bush thinking?” After all, two of the 9-11 terrorists were UAE nationals and reportedly, huge sums of money have been funneled through the UAE to fund Al-Qaida operations, (kind of the way Communist China funneled huge sums of money through Buddhist Temples to fund Clinton/Gore operations). Then I heard there was bipartisan antagonism toward the deal. Ever the skeptic, I thought, “Wait just a minute, Republican and Democrat togetherness? That’s as likely a duet as Pavarotti and Federline, but then who am I to second guess koom-ba-ya bipartisanship?” Then a funny thing happened on the way to celebrating this new political paradigm…

While the initial opposition from Republicans was predictable red-state stuff, there was a quality associated with the Democrats’ bug-eyed opposition to the port deal that didn’t quite pass the smell test. Now, when the likes of Hillary Clinton, Chuck Shumer and Barbara Boxer say “nay” to a proposal, I am compelled as a citizen, a Republican, and scoffer of all things liberal, to reserve judgment until I’ve given the “ayes” the benefit of every doubt. Since there are still things unknown about the deal, I hesitate to choose sides just yet. For now let’s examine a much more interesting dynamic: the reasons driving the Left’s opposition to the port deal.

For years, and especially since 9-11, we’ve been lectured by finger-wagging, self-righteous Lefties about not judging others before we know their motivations (and usually not even then), about equal opportunity, about minority access to markets, and about the unacceptability of ethnic profiling no matter the stakes, even when very bad people fit a very narrow, specific profile.

Allow me to recount a relevant personal anecdote from 2005: In preparation for taking my wife and kids to Mexico for Spring Break, I shared our itinerary with my mom. It turned out that she and some friends (one of whom was in her 70’s and temporarily wheelchair bound) also had travel plans for that weekend which, like ours, included a morning flight from Atlanta. Maybe you’ve heard, Atlanta has sort of a busy airport, so we figured the chances of running into them were slimmer than an Olsen twin on Atkins. Anyway, standing in line at the security gate, we prepared ourselves for the indignity of searches by Homeland Security goons by pre-untying our shoes, checking for clean underwear, and cleverly slipping a set of brass knuckles into the carry-on bag of the French looking gentleman in front of us. Much to our delight, we breezed through security without so much as a glance from authorities, in spite of me appearing very 9-11ish, what with my tanned complexion, short, dark hair, dark, beady eyes, and Death to Infidels T-shirt…obviously I’m kidding...my eyes aren’t beady. Well no sooner had we cleared gate security, respectfully averting our eyes lest we embarrass the French guy receiving an on-the-spot cavity search, than we looked up agape! There was my mom’s traveling party. Her friend was standing spread eagled, arms outstretched next to her wheel-chair receiving the “business” from two Homeland Security types, ever vigilant to protect Americans from shifty, up-to-no-good seniors. What did they think she was going to do, swipe a few extra contraband artificial sweeteners from the airport McDonald’s into her purse? Seriously, if anybody had gotten the “business”, it should have been me.

The purpose of that story was to illustrate the absurdity, when it comes to American air or shipping port security, of the whole ethnic-profiling-equals-violation-of-civil-rights nonsense that the Left preaches. Bearing that in mind, let’s get back on point…

Why would Liberals object so vehemently to the idea of allowing a foreign company, from a very friendly Arab country who, itself is a target of Al-Qaida, and with whom the U.S. is an ally in the Global War on Terror, access to our economic markets? Aren’t folks like Clinton, Shumer and Boxer in favor of equal, if not preferential, opportunity and access for minorities? One expects justifiable, National Security based race objections from conservatives. But coming from Liberals, who believe that evil doesn’t exist in the world (the lone exception being Karl Rove), it seems suspect. Could it be that there are unseen forces at work? Perhaps an ulterior motive compels the Democrats to take such a puzzling and hypocritical position. I’m afraid there is but one conclusion…I’m shocked, shocked I say, to have to tell you that the Democratic leadership in America has profiled the citizens of the UAE and found them to be suspicious and untrustworthy based on their race alone! Why this issue? Why now when we conservatives have been suspecting and distrusting Muslim Arab nationals openly for like five years?

The answer: with moistened fingers held high in the political breeze, Democrats sensed a weakness in George Bush’s right flank. Americans, like me, reflexively and ignorantly asked, “Say what?” when the UAE port deal was announced, and Democrats seized the opportunity to exploit a perceived vulnerability, previously unavailable to them: Bush appearing weak on national security to conservatives. With mid-term elections around the corner, Bush’s approval numbers down around 40%, and polls showing Democrats can’t be trusted with national security, Democrats (and to be fair, Republicans anticipating close re-election races in November) saw the opportunity to get on Bush’s right on Defense, making him look weak by comparison.

“It’s just election year politics”, you say, “All is fair”. Fine, but I would not want to be in the position in the run-up to November, of having to make the following embarrassing rationalization, with a straight face, to the American people: Racial profiling by law enforcement is bad, and equals violation of civil rights, even when the profilee is a carbon copy of known terrorists, however; racial profiling by Democrats is OK because it is a necessary means toward achieving a worthy political end (the re-acquisition of political power).

By presenting manufactured, indignant outrage over the sale of the ports to Muslim Arabs, Democrats appear strong on national defense and in touch with red-state values; values they don’t hold, but have been told by their pollsters are popular among voting Americans. In their minds, the charade will result in Congressional gains in November, foretold by their defeat of George Bush’s UAE port deal.

It’s politics all right; shameless, craven politics! And it stinks!