Brooks ignores UAE connection to bin Laden in favor of accusing people of "racism"
| By August J. Pollak - Feb 23rd, 2006 at 11:41 am EST |
| Also listed in: Campus Progress Blog |
David Brooks joined the chorus this morning in defending Bush's dangerous deal to turn America ports over to state-owned companies for the United Arab Emirates with an old conservative standby: if you're against us, you're a racist.
For Brooks to suggest this vile line of reasoning is, if anything, laughable in the face of Michelle Malkin's years-long racist crusade against anything Arab, and Ann Coulter's remarks made only two weeks ago at CPAC where she called Arabs "ragheads." Brooks has offered little space to condemn the racist, anti-Arab and anti-Muslim rhetoric of his fellow conservative pundits yet finds it necessary to hide behind a faulty race card in defense of the UAE port deal.
The reality of the anger many have at this deal, however, is much more dangerous.
Liberal blogger and cartoonist Tom Tomorrow has been focusing today on a few old articles written shortly after the 9/11 attacks that cast a light on just how "unrelated" the UAE is to Osama bin Laden and the then-ruling Taliban:
Another relevant connection emerges from a late-2001 article in the L.A. Times. Tom excerpts more of the article, about the Taliban's numerous hospitality services provided to various Middle East state officials, including a significant guest on a few hunting trips:
At one point, bin Laden was hosting the UAE royal family. At another, a key minister in the UAE's cabinet was on a hunting trip with the Taliban, possibly with prominent al-Qaeda leaders by his side.
As Tom notes, and to which I fully concur, this has nothing to do with Arabs being in charge of our ports. It has nothing to do with Malkin-style indiscriminate racial profiling. It has to do with a deal being made contrary to standard procedure, without any explanation, giving access to America ports to a company controlled by a government and royal family that was having lunch and field trips with the Taliban.
This isn't any act of jingoism or racism: it's an analysis of actual facts. There is a proven connection between the government of the UAE and Osama bin Laden, and it's the duty of every American citizen, especially its journalists and pundits, to investigate it.
To quote Tom once more:
For Brooks to suggest this vile line of reasoning is, if anything, laughable in the face of Michelle Malkin's years-long racist crusade against anything Arab, and Ann Coulter's remarks made only two weeks ago at CPAC where she called Arabs "ragheads." Brooks has offered little space to condemn the racist, anti-Arab and anti-Muslim rhetoric of his fellow conservative pundits yet finds it necessary to hide behind a faulty race card in defense of the UAE port deal.
The reality of the anger many have at this deal, however, is much more dangerous.
Liberal blogger and cartoonist Tom Tomorrow has been focusing today on a few old articles written shortly after the 9/11 attacks that cast a light on just how "unrelated" the UAE is to Osama bin Laden and the then-ruling Taliban:
The Central Intelligence Agency did not target Al Qaeda chief Osama bin laden once as he had the royal family of the United Arab Emirates with him in Afghanistan, the agency's director, George Tenet, told the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks on the United States on Thursday.
Another relevant connection emerges from a late-2001 article in the L.A. Times. Tom excerpts more of the article, about the Taliban's numerous hospitality services provided to various Middle East state officials, including a significant guest on a few hunting trips:
For days at a time, the hunters would roam the hills, releasing falcons trained to catch the bustards. Some satisfied hunters heaped donations on their Taliban hosts, officials said-and on Al Qaeda leaders who occasionally joined them.
Among the reported visitors were high-ranking UAE and Saudi government ministers. According to U.S. and former Afghan civil air officials, the hunters included Prince Turki al Faisal, son of the late Saudi King Faisal. He headed that nation's intelligence service until late August, maintaining close ties with Bin Laden and the Taliban. Another visitor, officials said, was Sheik Mohammed ibn Rashid al Maktum, the Dubai crown prince and Emirates defense minister.
At one point, bin Laden was hosting the UAE royal family. At another, a key minister in the UAE's cabinet was on a hunting trip with the Taliban, possibly with prominent al-Qaeda leaders by his side.
As Tom notes, and to which I fully concur, this has nothing to do with Arabs being in charge of our ports. It has nothing to do with Malkin-style indiscriminate racial profiling. It has to do with a deal being made contrary to standard procedure, without any explanation, giving access to America ports to a company controlled by a government and royal family that was having lunch and field trips with the Taliban.
This isn't any act of jingoism or racism: it's an analysis of actual facts. There is a proven connection between the government of the UAE and Osama bin Laden, and it's the duty of every American citizen, especially its journalists and pundits, to investigate it.
To quote Tom once more:
The Bush Administration wants to hand over control of vital ports to a state-run company controlled by an oligarchy whose ruling family used to go on hunting trips with their Taliban buddies, apparently including Osama himself.This isn't what should pass for national security.
And if this doesn't seem quite right to you, according to David Brooks you are a racist and a xenophobe.
!
Comments are closed for this post.
Port security is not handled by the private firms that own them. That's still the job of American authorities. Besides, if anything, this deal gives the UAE an added incentive to prevent terrorist attacks, because if the UAE is implicated in any future terrorist attack, not only will they lose a bunch of ports, they'll have to deal with a bunch of pissed off American soldiers in their own country.
Basing this entirely off allegations of pre-9/11 hunting trips and former family ties is also silly. Rumsfeld was once Saddam's buddy -- look how quickly he turned on him.
Ultimately, the only thing that will stop terrorism is to have a more interconnected society. This backlash is not helping.
You are aware bin Laden was a known international terrorist well before the 9/11 attacks, correct?
Fact is, the UAE has done a better job cooperating with us than almost any other naiton in the Middle East, and right now, the impression in the Middle East is that even IF you cooperate with the US, you still get shafted. That impression will get more Americans killed than allowing Dubai to manage some ports.
The whole "hunting trip" logic is the same sort of logic that connected Iraq to 9/11 and look where that got us.
The impression among the kingdoms of the oil-rich states like the UAE and Saudi Arabia is probably that they have the most friendly administration in DC that they've ever had. Brooks fails to point out that people are not criticizing the Arab people in the Middle East but rather their leaders. People are troubled by the power of these leaders--whose goal is to maintain their power by fomenting terrorist efforts against the U.S. and Israel to distract their people from their own atrocities--vis-a-vis the current US administration. The fact that these are the people we are contracting our ports to is naturally disturbing.
This is a substantiated link. There's a bit of a difference.
Second, I'd hestiate that either the UAE or the Saudis really like Bush at the moment. Iraq caused a lot of social tensions that they'd really like not to deal with.
Third, the evidence is very much of the Iraq-al Qaeda variety, that is, the extrapolation of relatively minor events into some vast conspiracy. Al-Qaeda and Iraq did have some low level contacts, but then again, so did every country in the Middle East, and low-level contacts is a long ways from active cooperation on proliferating WMDs. Likewise, a hunting trip does not imply active cooperation in terrorism. I'd wager it was a discusison of the UAE funding economic development in Afghanistan.
The point is though, after Bush asked everyone to stop working with al-Qaeda, the UAE has become an increasingly active supporter of anti-terrorism. Extrapolating from the hunting trip is akin to saying Osama and America are best friends because the CIA sold him weapons to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan.
More frankly, this sweetheart deal ensures that no business related documents will be on American soil, which protects it from American subpoenas, along with no American counterpart acting as a liason between the company and the US too. These are routine conditions for contracts that were dismissed for a "cheaper rate." Business took precedent over national security. Link
It just flat isn't worth the risk, not when you are dealing with major trade routes, not when you are dealing with the security of our country, and not when you are dealing with a country with well documented ties to terrorism. Three strikes, you are out!
My main argument is not an instantaneous dismissal of the UAE, or any nation, from trade deals with the United States. (Hell, we gave aid to the Taliban pre-9/11)
But Bush's insistense that there is no problem with the UAE's takeover of the port contracts, given examples of their lackluster security measures in the past, merits at a MINIMUM the same scrutinty and investigation as any other international contracting deal. This has been bypassed.
Instead, Bush and right-wing pundits defending him have resorted to Brooks' pathetic calls of racism and speeches akin to the corrupt Senator in "The Godfather pt. II" praising the overall greatness of the Italian people while refusing to address the issue of the specific Italian in the chamber being accused of criminal activity.
I am very dismayed by being forced onto the same side of this issue as folks like Malkin, who's legitimate racism as alluded to by ACDC is likely the driving force for her stance. However I am much more dismayed by the idea that progressives, liberals, and even Republicans questioning this deal are somehow allowed to be equallly accused of racism by people like Brooks simply for demanding an explanation from the President.
Contra Todd, I am not dismissing the UAE's involvement merely as "not worth the risk." I am demanding legitimate reasoning that there IS no risk, other than a canned speech about how nice everyone in the UAE is.
I also don't buy, and certainly the Middle East won't buy, that this is "standard procedure." Would France be subjected to the same requirements? Probably not--Britain's claim wasn't, and the UAE has done more for the "War on Terror" than France has.
From the Federation of American Scientists:
"The UAE record on assisting U.S. anti-proliferation efforts may be of somewhatgreater concern. In connection with recent revelations of illicit sales of nuclear technology to Iran, Libya, and North Korea by Pakistan’s nuclear scientist A.Q. Khan, Dubai was named as a key transfer point for shipments of nuclear components sold by Khan." -Link
Then clearly you're unfamiliar with the operations of CFIUS and haven't read today's AP piece on the subject. Link
As for the Khan network, point taken. However, that occurred prior to 9/11. Since then, the UAE has been listed as an active ally in anti-terrorism and became part of the Container Security Initiative that lets Americans inspect their cargo. It's also irrelevant, because the people in charge of port security in Dubai won't be in charge of port security in the US. That's still the Coast Guard.
The only part of the deal that is indicated to be standard practice is to keep the actual terms of sale confidential.
The national security implications of this however aren't all that high -- more like a shoddy paperwork thing that's easily remedied.
The link to the site is
Link
Tom