Any Storm In A Port

Rush Limbaugh: It's more about Hillary! and Chuck Schumer doing favors for the Longshoreman's Union (who fear Dubai will be a tough negotiator) than homeland security. He also notes that OBL didn't have to pay $8 billion to buy a piece of the Port Authority in order to destroy the World Trade Center.

Jim Geraghty recants his previous opposition, and says "we've been snookered" by the liberal media. He underlines what you already know: the ports aren't being "sold," the Dubai company will take over operations at the ports because they're buying out the contracts of the previous operator (British company P&O), and all security will still be conducted by the Coast Guard.

Instapundit seems to be climbing down from his initial opposition, based upon the opinions he quotes.

To me, this now turns on whether the UAE has really been the "very, very solid" ally (according to Don Rumsfeld) we're now hearing it is. If that's true, then I suppose it is wise to reward your allies.

It also occurs to me that terrorists will probably not send WMD materials through our ports. Why would they? If I were trying to smuggle in some bioweapon or nuke component, I wouldn't take the risk that our 1-in-20 container inspection system would catch it. I would just arrange for an ocean-capable boat -- not an ocean-crosser, but a yacht or something -- to meet a vessel twenty miles off the coast of the US. I'd just off-load the stuff the yacht and dock it at a private dock, where there are no inspections at all.

Pot and heroin and coke come in the US on speedboats, completely avoiding ports and port security. Why wouldn't a nuclear terrorist be as sophisticated as a Mexican pot-runner?

I guess I'm climbing down now too, though I still need to know more.

posted by Ace at 12:08 PM

| Access Comments