Wash. Post's Cohen repeated Bush falsehood in alleging ports deal xenophobia
SUMMARY: In his column about the Dubai Ports World deal, in which the company is set to assume control of six major U.S. ports, Richard Cohen quoted President Bush making the false characterization of opposition to the deal: "[I]t's OK for a British company to manage some ports, but not OK for a company from a country that is a valuable ally in the war on terror." By quoting Bush without challenge, Cohen adopted the false premise at its heart: that the only difference between the British company and DPW is country of origin. In fact, DPW is owned by the government of Dubai, while the previous owner is not government-owned, a critical distinction as a matter of law.
In his February 28 column, Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen claimed that the controversy over the Bush administration's approval of a deal that will allow Dubai Ports World (DPW) -- a company owned by the government of Dubai -- to assume control of six major U.S. ports "is really about security anxiety and a dislike of things and people Arab." In supporting his claim, Cohen praised President Bush for "refus[ing] to indulge anti-Arab sentiment over the Dubai ports deal," and quoted Bush saying: "What I find interesting is that it's OK for a British company to manage some ports, but not OK for a company from a country that is a valuable ally in the war on terror."
But in simply quoting Bush's statement, Cohen repeated its false premise: that there is no difference as a matter of law between DPW and the British company currently controlling the ports, Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation Co. (P&O), and therefore criticism of the administration's approval of the deal necessarily rests solely on DPW's country of origin. In fact, DPW is owned by the government of Dubai, a member state of the United Arab Emirates, whereas P&O, whose operations would be taken over by DPW, is not government-owned or -controlled. The distinction is critical as a matter of law, as Media Matters for America has noted.
In his February 28 column, Cohen wrote:
There are times when George Bush sorely disappoints. Just when you might expect him to issue a malapropian explanation, pander to his base or simply not have a clue about what he is talking about, he does something so right, so honest and, yes, so commendable, that -- as Arthur Miller put it in "Death of a Salesman" -- "attention must be paid." Pay attention to how he has refused to indulge anti-Arab sentiment over the Dubai ports deal.
[...]
To overlook the xenophobic element in this controversy is to overlook the obvious. It is what propelled the squabble and what sustains it. Bush put his finger on it right away. "What I find interesting is that it's okay for a British company to manage some ports, but not okay for a company from a country that is a valuable ally in the war on terror," he said last week. "The UAE has been a valuable partner in fighting the war on terror." It is a long way from a terrorist haven.
[...]
We are in an odd era of symbolic news events. The Dick Cheney shooting was treated as if it were of cosmic political importance. Some pundits even called on the vice president to resign, while others merely saw everything the Bush administration had gotten wrong -- an almost inexhaustible list -- as distilled in a single bad shot and the resultant pout. Now it is the port controversy. But if the Cheney story was about everything else -- including, of course, the taciturn and slippery Cheney himself -- then this port controversy is really about security anxiety and a dislike of things and people Arab. The deal may not be perfect, but it is a long way from a Page One story.
Cohen quoted Bush speaking to reporters at a short February 23 press briefing. As Media Matters has noted, the distinction between companies owned or controlled by foreign governments and those that are not government-owned or -controlled has legal significance. A provision of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1993 requires an additional 45-day investigation of foreign direct investment in the United States if "the acquirer is controlled by or acting on behalf of a foreign government" and the acquisition "could result in control of a person engaged in interstate commerce in the U.S. that could affect the national security of the U.S." As critics of the deal have noted, the UAE was one of just three countries to recognize the Taliban-led government in Afghanistan prior to the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Also, U.S. investigators have found that more than $120,000 was funneled through UAE bank accounts to the 9-11 hijackers, and the 9-11 Commission found that the UAE "ignored American pressure to clamp down on terror financing until after the attacks." Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) and Robert Menendez (D-NJ) have proposed legislation to "prohibit companies owned or controlled by foreign governments" -- not just companies controlled by Middle Eastern or Arab governments -- from operating U.S. ports.
So we are now equating UAE to our oldest ally? Of course not. Nobody believes that the group described as follows by the Human Rights Watch is entitled to the same degree of deference as a private company organized under English Auspices:
"...The president and vice president are elected by the Federal Supreme Council, which is composed of the rulers of each emirate. The UAE has experienced rapid economic development and growth during the past several decades, but it lags in the development of its civil society: the country does not hold elections for any public office, and political participation is limited to the ruling family in each emirate. The government has not signed most international human rights and labor rights treaties. Migrant workers, comprising nearly 90 percent of the workforce in the private sector, are particularly vulnerable to serious human rights violations." [link to hrw.org]
But what is more likely the real source of neocon approval for shelling out who knows how many millions of dollars to this foreign power is revealed a little further down in the HRW summary (right after summarizing their deplorable history of human trafficking for child labor as camel jockeys):
"Key International Actors ... The UAE has emerged as a major business and trading hub in the Middle East, attracting substantial foreign investments. The U.S., Japan, and the European Union are among the UAE’s main trading partners. In April 2004 the UAE signed a Trade and Investment Framework Agreement (TIFA) with the U.S., and the two countries in November 2004 began negotiations toward a Free Trade Agreement (FTA). "
Sound familiar? More selling out of the middle class and labor to further enrich the top ten percent who want to see our ports run by a foreign government (see yesterday's MediaMatters.org for the new statistics).
Why is no one questioning why a British company was running our ports instead of, for example, an organization like the Fed or TVA? It has gone from outsourcing government to make the people at the top of giant domestic corporations richer to making whoever is richest in the world still richer, wherever they may live. Is this what Clinton and Carter had in mind when they thought NAFTA and similar trade arrangements were going to bring up the standard of living for the rest of the world?
And these same hypocrites that kowtow to China and the UAE claim we shouldn't recognize Cuba because of human rights issues. What hogwash. Yeah, I guess I am getting a little xenophobic about the sale of our economy at this point.
May I suggest that France, not Great Britian, is "our oldest allay" - by approximately 40 years...
for the spelling errors. "Bad English is forgivable; but never poor Scotch."
"One of" would have been a better description, though if we go back to origins we sort of popped back and forth between which one was an ally and which was not. If you deal with the colonial period, their status as an ally probably turned on whether one was a Native American and from which tribe or which colony was one's home; they sure helped the colonies after 1776, were on the outs with us during the French Revolution and were in an actual undeclared shooting war from 1798-1800 (my son lives a few blocks from where the USS Constellation is displayed in Baltimore, the last survivor of those wars). We were hardly their allies (passing embargo acts against trade with all European nations and Jefferson labelling both of them "tyrannies"), but were fighting the common foe in the War of 1812. The Union disliked both the English and the French during our Civil War, fearing the support of both leaning toward the Confederacy, and both were our allies in WWI. It's pretty messy, all in all, these foreign entanglements, hence the xenophobia.
Again, I used to read the Post and found it informative. Now, though, its reporting is severly lacking in honest, well... reporting! How an editor can let Cohen publish an article that doesn't even have the FACTS about the United States LAWS regarding foreign countries controlling services related to national security is beyond me...
And, '... an odd era of symbolic news events'?!? What is he talking about? Gee, the vice president imbibes alcohol, shoots someone in the face, doesn't contact the police, or any authorities, for 14 hours, and lets other pundits blame the victim for THREE days before talking publicy! Cohen, please share your view as to how this is a symbolic news event. What Jungian archetype is present here? As I see it, this matter should continue to be explored and Cheney's personnel should be brought in for questioning.
As for equating the naval security being handed over to Dubai as something of little importance.., Cohen, get a freakin' grip! Seriously, what is the Post thinking?!?
"Now, though, its reporting is severly lacking in honest, well... reporting!"
-----
Richard Cohen isn't a reporter, he's an op-ed columnist. He's paid for his opinion. Granted, he pulls a lot of his opinions right out of his backside, but he's allowed more leeway than a news reporter gets, and with good reason.
The Post has a lot to answer for with respect to its sloppy news reportiong and its uncritical stenography of White House press releases. But the criticism needs to fall on its reporters, not its opinion columnists. Charles Krauthammer is a buffoon, but he's also an op-ed columnist whose work appears in the Post, and even though his columns are less acquainted with reality than Cohen's, they don't count as "reporting," either.
Take note: Cohen's email address is listed in the NY Daily News as cohenr@ washpost.com try that one too.
supported the invasion of iraq, and he tried to soft pedal the outing of valerie plame as politics as usual. anyone who can find no difference beteen the british and the uae is pronouncing themselves uninformed. and the right wingers call guys like cohen and tom friedman "liberals" when they support bush a good deal of the time. bush can invade a country by trying to make a phony connection between them and 9-11. meanwhile a country that did have actual ties to it is defended to the hilt.
First, Chris Matthews compares Bush to Atticus Finch. Now Cohen compares him to Willy Loman.
Attention must be paid, indeed. Not to Bush's "sunny nobility" or bogus righteousness, but to his administration's incompetence, corruption, and power grab.
Bush's approval rating with the public is 34 percent. Why are so many pundits so enamored with him?
I'm not really all that bothered by comparing Dubya to literary characters but what does it say about the man's capabilities when the only people to whom Dubya is compared are, in fact, works of fiction? Literary/fictional characters have only the qualities their creators imbue, so does this imply that Dubya is nothing more than a "creation"?
"long way from a terrorist haven"...
Which was one of 3 countries to recognize the Taliban as a legit gov't.
And a part not shown about W always being against intolerance. If I had been drinking something at that point, I would've spit it out.
Who supplied Tommy Franks with the maps and coordinates on the first bombing raid on the Taliban in Afghanistan?
I LLIKE COHEN AND FRIEDMAN, WHO ARE INDEED LIBERAL. LIBERALS CAN BE WRONG , TOO. THEY DIDN'T REALIZE CHENEY - BUSH WERE SO INCOMPETENT.
and doesn't that lessen their credibility. as for being liberal, that's a tag. what's important is what you say. cohen and friedman frequently defend bush.