Disinformation campaign on the UAE port deal?

Posted by: ST on February 27, 2006 at 11:19 am

Without question, news of the UAE port deal has generated a firestorm of criticism on both sides of the aisle. I came out last week in favor of the deal, after initially not supporting it. I know there are other conservatives who initially were against the deal who changed their minds as well as more information came out about it. Others are sticking by their initial position on the issue, and I can respect that, even though I disagree with them.

However, what I don’t respect is what seems to be a deliberate, ongoing misinformation campaign on this issue, with most of the (deliberate) misleading coming from liberals like Sen. Hillary Clinton. This morning, Jim Geraghty at NRO’s “The Kerry Spot” reports on what the left hand side of the aisle in DC has had to say on this issue over the course of the last several days – statements from them which, unfortunately, cloud a topic worthy of serious in-depth discusssion based on the facts. Regardless of what one thinks about this deal, it’s important that all facts are put on the table in a way that fosters and encourages that debate. When misinformation is spread, it becomes nearly impossible to separate the truth from fiction – but Geraghty does a good job of it here.

Others blogging about this: Glenn Reynolds, Amy Proctor, Roger L. Simon, Sweetness and Light, INDC Journal, Gateway Pundit

PM Update: Make sure to check out what John at Powerline has to say on the UAE port deal.

Related Toldjah So posts:

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Trackbacks

  • Leaning Straight Up trackbacked with The New Bush Defenders: the LA Times?
  • 13 Responses to “Disinformation campaign on the UAE port deal?”

    Comments

    1. andrew says:

      “However, what I don’t respect is what seems to be a deliberate, ongoing misinformation campaign on this issue, with most of the (deliberate) misleading coming from liberals like Sen. Hillary Clinton.

      Its shocking that people are using inaccurate generalizations to beat up on their opponents in a security issue. Just shocking!

    2. David Foster says:

      There has certainly been much irresponsible ranting on the part of port deal opponents; however, there has also been too much glibness on the part of port deal supporters. It’s repeated, over and over again like a mantra, that “the port operator isn’t responsible for security.” However, in real life the port operator has physical custody of the containers. It seems unlikely that the entity which actually unloads and moves the boxes has *no imaginable way* of bypassing security.

      I’d like to hear less political posturing and more substantive information from people who actually know something about shipping and port operations.

    3. Mwalimu Daudi says:

      I’m shocked – shocked – to hear that the Democrats and the MSM have lied on this issue. Who would have thunk it?

    4. Baklava says:

      Just to let you know ST, I’ve changed my mind on the issue. But it wasn’t anything you wrote, [-( it was an interview between Hugh Hewitt and Robert Kaplan.

      In which the following exchange took place:

      HH: When you get back, expect a phone call from the administration asking you to appear, because you just did in seven minutes a lot more than they have in seven days.

      RK: Yeah, I know.

    5. omapian says:

      We must be careful when we let our prejudices rule our conduct. Port Security? -The only way to completely protect the ports would be to seal them up and not allow any shipping to enter the country.
      It does little good to examine a shipment AFTER IT ENTERS THE PORT. The containers, and any threatening material, will come from outside the US and should be intercepted BEFORE entering the harbor.
      Is there reason to believe operators from France, Germany, or Russia, (knowing their participation in the UN oil for food program)would do things better and/or safer?
      Would we be safer if we used the security forces in place at airports and randomly searched cargo?
      Or perhaps we could ask the swing vote of the Supreme court to prepare a warrant to search items addressed to citizens or residents in the United States.
      Like it or not, the ports are big business. People invest in that business and have turned profits for years. They know how to run the ports and stand to loose big time in any terrorist attack. Politicians may be clueless about running a port, but that doesn’t keep them from running their mouths.
      The best way to protect our ports is to collect, analyze, and share information concerning cargo. When, where, who, and what created the shipment is more important than how the shipment is processed.
      We need more latitude in gathering intelligence and the port issue is just another diversion.

    6. steve says:

      The bottom line: Until the UAE recognizes Israel’s right to exist America should not do business with them. Don’t the Republicans support Israel’s right to exist? Democrats do, which is why they oppose this deal. Peace

    7. Mwalimu Daudi says:

      Until the UAE recognizes Israel’s right to exist America should not do business with them. Don’t the Republicans support Israel’s right to exist? Democrats do, which is why they oppose this deal.

      Say, isn’t Jimmy Carter trying to prop up the Hamas government in Palestine? You know, the same Hamas that wants to push Israel into the sea? The same Hamas that is butchering Jews? The same Hamas that straps bombs to its own children and blows them up? Or is there another Hamas operating in Palestine that I am not aware of?

    8. sanity says:

      Democrats support Israel? Really?
      That is laughable.

      If anything this whole debacle has shed light on port security, something that has been over looked for a long time.

      Just one of many things we need to look carefully at.

    9. Mwalimu Daudi says:

      Here is a link from al-CNN (The Official Station of the Democratic National Committee)

      Jimmy Carter: Give Hamas a chance

      To think this man once had his finger on the nuclear button!

    10. CavalierX says:

      >Until the UAE recognizes Israel’s right
      >to exist America should not do business
      >with them.

      Say, that’s a novel way to defeat the image Muslims have of a US controlled by Israel. Is that how we base business decisions now?

    11. Earnest Thompson says:

      The UAE funds Palestine / Hamas? and builds its assets with U.S. money via shady deals, while “The People in U.S.” lose jobs, health care, pensions, etc. Doesn’t sound like good news. Think the U.S. should use the money from any resource to help it’s own people. Regards.