Blogger
Glenn Reynolds wrote in the Wall Street Journal that the
debate over the acquisition of American port operations by
an Arab state-owned firm provided "an object lesson in the
blogosphere's strengths and weaknesses…" He singled out himself
for criticism, saying that while his own initial reaction
to the deal was negative, he turned around after talking
to a few people and became a supporter of it. He appeared
on CNN's Reliable Sources show to say that he was "now reasonably
comfortable with it." He said in his Journal piece that he
had changed his mind because "gut reactions can be overcome
by evidence."
With the
collapse of the deal, because of overwhelming public opposition,
Reynolds should take another look at the "strengths and weaknesses" of
the blogosphere. He should have stayed with his gut reactions.
A gut reaction in this case wasn't anti-Arab bias or racism
but natural revulsion at the idea of foreigners with suspicious
connections and shady backgrounds operating U.S. terminals.
The idea of an Arab firm assuming such a role, after 9/11,
made no sense, especially because some of the 9/11 hijackers
came from the UAE.
AIM congratulates
conservative talk radio, led by Michael Savage, and elements
of the blogosphere, for demonstrating independence of thought
and action in this case and attacking the deal.
Even at
this late date, after the deal has been derailed, aspects
of the story still don't make any sense. Could it really
be, for instance, that not one person of Cabinet level or
higher in the executive branch knew this deal was coming? But
if over 80% (or is it 90% as some reports say) of the terminals
at the nation's ports are already controlled by foreign entities,
including those run by Communist China, Singapore and Saudi
Arabia, maybe the United Arab Emirates shouldn't have been
considered by the bureaucrats to be anything unusual.
And was
it just a coincidence that David Sanborn, a top executive
with DP World, was appointed to head up the Maritime Administration
of the Department of Transportation on the same day the deal
was approved?
Then there's
the question of the number of ports affected. The first reports
were that it was six ports that were involved. Then, after
visiting DPW's website, WorldNetDaily
reported that no, it was not six ports, but 22 that were
involved. The same day, Pam Hess of UPI reported that
no, it was 21 ports. But oddly, the rest of the media
continued reporting it as six ports.
There was
also a great deal of confusion about what DP World was actually
doing. Were they buying ports, leasing ports, running terminals,
or what? A DHS spokesperson said that in Baltimore, for example,
DPW would actually have the lease to operate just two out
of 14 terminals at that port.
Audrey
Hudson of the Washington Times had an excellent
piece explaining that over the period that this story
has been reported, DHS has gone from saying that there are
850 terminals nationwide, to now saying there are 3,200, "80
percent of which are operated by foreign companies and countries." But
all this time later, the government agencies involved have
not yet been able to consolidate their lists to be able to
show what countries and companies control each terminal ONE
Early
Warning System?
