Brooks, Limbaugh falsely suggested Schumer, Corzine, and Clinton ignored port security before Dubai deal controversy
SUMMARY: On the February 22 edition of PBS' The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, David Brooks claimed that "a week ago," Sen. Chuck Schumer and Gov. Jon Corzine did not "kn[ow] a thing" or "care" about port security. Similarly, on the same day, Rush Limbaugh suggested that Schumer and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton had only recently emphasized port security. In fact, Schumer, Corzine, and Clinton have all sponsored or co-sponsored port security legislation and have also frequently spoken out on the subject.
On the February 22 edition of PBS' The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, New York Times columnist David Brooks claimed that "a week ago," Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Gov. Jon Corzine (D-NJ) did not "kn[ow] a thing" or "care" about port security. Similarly, on the February 22 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, Rush Limbaugh suggested that Schumer and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) had only recently emphasized port security. In fact, while Brooks and Limbaugh attributed pure political motives to the Democrats' criticism of an agreement in which the Bush administration permitted a company owned by the government of Dubai, a member state of the United Arab Emirates (UAE), to manage port terminals in six major U.S. cities, they ignored the fact that Schumer, Corzine, and Clinton have all sponsored or co-sponsored port security legislation and have also frequently spoken out on the subject.
After NewsHour aired a segment in which Schumer and Corzine, among others, criticized the Bush administration's deal with UAE-owned Dubai Ports World, Brooks baselessly accused Schumer and Corzine of "political pandering" by falsely claiming that "a week ago, none of the people we just saw in that report knew a thing about port security or cared anything about port security."
From the February 22 edition of PBS' The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, which featured host Jim Lehrer and congressional correspondent Kwame Holman:
HOLMAN: Several governors of states with affected ports said the deal would raise the risk of terrorism. New Jersey's Jon Corzine is a Democrat.
CORZINE [clip]: It's just incomprehensible to those of us who are concerned for the safety and security of -- of our community.
[...]
HOLMAN: New York Senator Chuck Schumer, a Democrat, said he would introduce legislation at least to suspend the transaction.
SCHUMER [clip]: Our legislation will go to the floor, House, Senate, next week, and it's going to pass like a hot knife through butter, I dare say. I can't imagine there being a single vote against it.
[...]
BROOKS: I think it's mass hysteria.
LEHRER: Mass hysteria.
BROOKS: I think a week ago, none of the people we just saw in that report knew a thing about port security or cared anything about port security.
LEHRER: Including the president.
BROOKS: Including the president. Listen, this was a thing for experts. And I think what's happened, we've had some nativism, some isolationism, and just mass hysteria and a lot of political pandering.
Similarly, while purporting to identify the "Democrat political scene" on The Rush Limbaugh Show, Limbaugh claimed that "the real reason" Schumer and Clinton oppose the port deal is because "they know the last four years they've done a lousy job of making the American people think they have any interest in our national security."
From the February 22 broadcast of The Rush Limbaugh Show:
LIMBAUGH: And I'm also going to tell you the real reason that Chucky Schumer and Hillary Clinton oppose the deal and it isn't national security. They're simply trying to get themselves established as caring about it because they know the last four years they've done a lousy job of making the American people think they have any interest in our national security.
[...]
LIMBAUGH: But let me -- let me give you some political -- I've already given you the Democrat political scene on this, and I think they're missing it. I think -- I think, you know, they're -- they're sitting there flexing their muscles saying, "Look at us. We're the ones that care about national security on this issue! We've taken this issue away from President Bush! Why, President Bush has given up on national security. It's our issue now." That's what they think.
But, contrary to Brooks's and Limbaugh's suggestions, the Democrats they cited have a long track record of promoting port security.
As Media Matters for America has documented, Schumer proposed an amendment to the 2004 Department of Homeland Security Appropriations bill, which would have provided $70 million for research and development to stop nuclear materials from entering U.S. ports. The measure was defeated by a 51-45 near-party-line vote.
As New Jersey senator, Corzine co-sponsored two successful amendments involving port security in 2005: One that provided $150 million for port security grants, and a second requiring the inspector general of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to report to Congress on improvements in the port security grant program, which Corzine described as "an important first step toward safeguarding America's ports." Corzine also emphasized the importance of the 9-11 Commission comprehensively assessing port security when he testified before the Commission in 2003.
In addition to also co-sponsoring the 2005 amendment providing $150 million for port security grants, Clinton co-sponsored an amendment by Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA) that provided an additional $450 million for such grants, which Clinton and Murray touted in a June 29, 2004, news conference. In a July 12, 2005, news conference, held as the Senate began considering the Homeland Security Appropriations bill, Clinton emphasized that the "President and the Republican leadership have consistently underfunded" port security.
Hillary and Schumer don't have to convince "the American people" about anything. They only have to convince the citizens of New York. And the citizens of the state that was actually attacked on 9/11 seem to think they're doing a pretty good job.
The United Arab Emirates has long-standing ties to the Bush family. Records show the UAE and one of its sheikhs contributed at least $1 million before 1995 to the Bush Library Foundation, which established the George Bush Presidential Library in College Station, Texas.
Another frequent tactic in the conservative use of the news-like cycle.
Whenever potentially bad news breaks about alleged conservative missteps;
1. Be sure to point out that Democrats have previously done something similar. (It doesn't matter if they really haven't done anything similar or if the thing you point out isn't even similar to the current issue.) Just type the search terms into Lexis/Nexis and go with the first hit. The only thing that matters is the confusion it will create in the minds of your enemies and the pretense at debate it will create in your rabid God-fearing supporters.
2. Rely on general positive stereotypes (even if false) and repeat them over and over. Republicans are strong on national defense! Go with it!
3. Question the patriotism of any opponents to quiet serious questioning.
4. Complain that the media are biased. That one is the easiest because we can get conservatives on every show quite easily to spread this complaint. Complain especially loud if ratio of current program dips below 3 conservatives to 1 iffy liberal.
I dare say Brooksie has never ceased to amaze, he has the appearance at times of seeing rational thought and even accepting it, almost to the point that would contradict Neo-Con Policy blunders, and then placates the event as Democrats going off the metaphoric deep end. This is the worm that made many references to Al Gore’s speech on MLK as being “way out there,” but, as usual has little to offer as evidence, just innuendo.
The way a reasonable mind sorts through these punditries is to begin to keep track of specifics used to substantiate their arguments or the lack of specifics. The idea that Brooksie would know the goings on at a port terminal is at best third or fourth source misinformation.
I worked on ships military and maritime for the first decade of my teen & adult life. I have worked with longshoremen in off loading of cargo in many ports on both shores. I am not an expert on port security, yet, the origin of cargo from a port the likes of Dubai is beyond the pale of national security sanity. Having Dubai as a begining manifest of cargo, is like trusting the demons from hell will do no evil should we just let them amoung us.
A smugglers & terrorist paradise at this point, that operates under the protection of American Naval Security, trades in un-traceable gold, while laundering money for many illegal enterprises in the world. A nation notorious for Slave Trading, Indentured Servitude, and is such a corrupt society that most of it’s actual residents don’t come from their country, or even the Arab Pennisula. The overwhelming number of residents, whom are not citizens, and have little more rights than a disposable beer can, live in a repressive, cruel servitude that gives slavery a bad name. They trade in humans like they trade in camels, and value camels far more than the foriegnors they rely on for just about every chore, service, and function of their society. These are our loyal allies in the War on Terror??
Do we need the U.A.E to consent to letting us use their ports? Do we need their money so bad we’ll sell them anything to apease them?? I want to know how a Dubai own cargo ship, of oil tanker may sail unmolested throughout the world without American Naval protection?? Why do we need to placate to these people at all??
The thing we need to be afraid of most is the policies, and consequences of the Neo-Con agenda whom disregards with what their skeems for power has and will cost our nation for generations to come.
Forgetting the USS Cole, and 18 dead sailors, anybody whom ever had the displeasure, of visiting the Yemeni’s, or the U.A.E. ports realize there is an insanity to the idea our security will be assured by a cruel, backward, and criminal state. A country found of stupid oil-rich emir’s with strong sympathies with the Taliban, and Osama Bin Laden, as well as fielding two of the the 19 highjackers while funding the attack should own the operations of 6 of our eastern shipping ports. If that doesn’t sizzle your mustache, tell me why the President thinks nuclear proliferation around the world is the greatest threat, while facilitating the very country caught red handed smuggling nuclear technology and components for A.Q. Khan?
This in the face the ‘Pre vs Post 9-11’ campaign rolled out by Turd Blossom. When did Karl become a geopolitical strategist? Why should Karl have any credentials on the subject at all?? His military experience?? His intelligence community experience?? His many years in the foreign service?? What?? His expertise in winning elections should keep us secure???
Wake up Republicans, if you believe in a strong, proud, honorable, and secure American Democracy, and free enterprise, how on earth could you in good conscience vote for a Republican being lead by the nose by a Turd Blossum???
DO THE RIGHT THING, BE A GOOD REPUBLICAN, SAVE AMERICAN DEMOCRACY, AND VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT IN ’06!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
...the democrats have been the ones proposing funding for port security, while america's own taliban, the republican party, have been the ones who defeated it. and bush of course is lying when he says the uae has cooperated. the justice dept said they did not cooperate with tracing money trails after 9-11. do people like brooks have some defect that permits them to lie like this and still look in the mirror. mr. brooks, you have sold your soul for the comfortable life of a right wing shill. don't wonder why this country is in the trouble it's in, when a major newspaper employs such a liar.
Using his title as New York Times Columnist - no small thing - as a tool to get on these show and spout whatever garbage is necessary to support Bush?
I think so.
I agree with everyone else!Brooksie canbe rational alright.AT least, he's not againt gays.
Sometimes I can't tell if a poster is being genuinely conservative or just sarcastic, but you don't know Brooks if you think he supports gay rights. He doesn't. He's argued continuously against same-sex marriage. Another poster got it right, he's the Ward Cleaver of blathering twits.
If you've ever read and of Brook's OP/ED in the NY Times, you'd notice that at times he tries to conjure up scenes of an America where mom is always in the kitchen (wearing pearls, too) baking pies, and waiting for Ward to return from work. Wallace and Theodore are always in their room talking about girls and stuff. He really sees this us as a pre 1968 country. It's all tree lined streets and dogs chasing cars.
I live in the NY Metro area. I don't see it this way. What I have noticed over the years is that our local political leaders have been on all of the local news stations and in all of the papers standing at the Port of Newark/Elizabeth complaining about lax port security. They've been doing a great job of keeping this in the minds of the voters. They've also been pointing out that there seems to be even less security at all of the chemical plants along the New Jersey Turnpike. This is the most densely populated area in the US and also one of the most vulnerable areas in the country.
Increased security for the ports and chemical factories has been proposed for years. Lobbyists for the Chemical and Shipping Industry have fought the security increase because the Chemical and Shipping companies would have to pay for part of the costs. The lobbyists dollars fall into the pockets of the people in charge in Washington, but the peoples fears fall on their deaf ears.
If you've ever read and of Brook's OP/ED in the NY Times, you'd notice that at times he tries to conjure up scenes of an America where mom is always in the kitchen (wearing pearls, too) baking pies, and waiting for Ward to return from work. Wallace and Theodore are always in their room talking about girls and stuff. He really sees this us as a pre 1968 country. It's all tree lined streets and dogs chasing cars.
In other words, Brooks is guilty of...pre-9/11 thinking? Gasp! He'd better prepare for some vilification from the Rove shock troops!
once again, this is not just Democrats objecting... like it wasn't just Dems objecting to the NSA's illegal spying... all the spin in the world won't change that...
Yes, like a fox. He has long reminded me of the automotive repair shop managers who smile as they tell me there is really nothing wrong with my car and lowball a couple of minor repair estimates to gain my confidence so I won’t bother with a second opinion (with the second and third opinions to the contra being obtained anyway and the car handling another 20k before trade in). Taking a “centrist” position from time to time on minor issues makes him appear to be a palatable pundit whose opinion should be respected when his true colors show on more important conflicts.
We could all benefit from a rerun of Palast’s “Bush Family Fortunes” (which I erroneously attributed to Moore in another post a couple of days ago - both of them are courageous journalists who don’t care what labels are affixed to them as they try to expose corruption, so I hope no offense would have been taken by either of them).
Brooks was Colbert's guest last night and I have to say that it was the first interview I've seen on his how where Steven did not look like he was enjoying himself.
The other night Olbermann had his MSNBC terrorism expert on and the guy agreed with Bush, though he usually does not agree with Bush's policies. He said that the ownership deal doesn't affect security but that security of our ports is woefully underfunded. Of course several prominent Democrats have introduced bills for more funding for port security but the Republicans vetoed them all. Now we get Republicans all up in arms about the deal when they have consistently ignored port security funding measures. Could they be distancing themselves from Bush for the coming elections while still trying to position themselves as tougher than Democrats on national security? Nevertheless, the deal seems too racked with cronyism and it just looks bad to give the greenlight to the government-owned Dubai company with its terrible human rights record and ties to terrorists. Isn't it true that the Saudi's own 11% of the US gdp?
What sucks is seeing huge chunks of America being sold to the highest foreign bidders.
"sources estimate Saudi holdings in the United States at $400 billion to $800 billion"
from an interesting article i found:
Saudi interest in America TODAY'S COLUMNIST By Rachel Ehrenfeld January 16, 2006
[link to www.washtimes.com]
"Under the "International Investment & Trade in Services Survey Act," the U.S. Treasury Department tracks foreign portfolio, and Commerce tracks direct investments. This information is unavailable for Saudi Arabia or the Gulf States, following their request that the details be suppressed "to avoid disclosure of data of individual companies." For example, under the heading "Foreign holdings of U.S. long-term securities, by country," Treasury aggregates all eight "Middle East oil exporters." A Treasury Department official said that this aggregation is a "Treasury policy," and justifies the non-disclosure on grounds that this information could "harm national security and foreign relations." "
"Hillary and Schumer don't have to convince "the American people" about anything. They only have to convince the citizens of New York. And the citizens of the state that was actually attacked on 9/11 seem to think they're doing a pretty good job."
Nice point, Rusty...I live in that state, and that city. I often send e-mails to Lush Rumball, and point out a simple fact...Chuck and Hillary both put their names on the ballot, and people voted them into office. They chose to use their time that way, instead of sitting behind a microphone, on a piloidal cyst (Does Rush use a big pillow?), and spewing hate, lies, and twisted thoughts out on the airwaves.
The FACT (and this is the one thought I love to send Rush over and over) that Hillary put her name on the ballot (and was elected) means she has more balls than Rush will ever have. And speaking of cojones, she is the first New Yorker ever to serve on the Senate Armed Services Committee.
So while Rush, terrified of women, cowers down in his Florida bunker, with his 'femi-nazis' and other name calling, Hillary is actually doing something about Port Security, and the security of this country in general.