Port Authority?

Aside from the usual partisan and not-so-partisan bickering which has accompanied the latest imbroglio Bush has found himself in, another symptom of our lack of coherent dialogue among our leaders has surfaced. The debate surrounding the sale of the six of our nation’s largest seaports to the United Arab Emirates has brought the Straw Man logical fallacy out in full force from those who support Bush and his administration.

For those who do not know or do not remember the logic class everyone should have taken, a logical fallacy is a construction of an argument which does not fall within the parameters of what would be considered logical debate. There are many fallacies to be committed and I plan to commit a large portion of time cataloging them here. However, for the time being, I want to focus specifically on the Straw Man and how it insidiously pervades our political discourse. The Straw Man is a deliberate mischaracterization or distortion of an opposing argument. That distortion is what is then attacked and victory declared when the opponent is unable to refute the points because they were never addressed to the true argument in the first place.

In the case of the port sale to the UAE, Bush and company have done just that. Rather than addressing the true and real concerns not just Democrats but also top ranking Republicans have with turning control of our ports over to a foreign government, Bush has instead characterized opposition to the sale as being based in racism. That talking point has been picked up by every neocon from Ann Coulter down to my brother.

It is a deliberate and calculated misrepresentation of liberal (and not so liberal, in the case of these guys) opposition to this sale. It washes over the fact that the UAE has a mixed history of counter-terrorism efforts and contributions to the stability of the Middle East. Congress’ own research service cites the UAE as being implicated in the transfer of illegal nuclear weapons parts to Iran, North Korea, and Libya. Additionally, the 9/11 Commission reported that an attack on Osama bin Laden was aborted because he was too near the royal family of the UAE, which he often had visits with. There is also the fact that two of the 9/11 hijackers were born there, thus giving real concern about the environment which produced their mentality and hatred of the United States.

Yet, Bush ignored this and stated:

"I want those who are questioning it to step up and explain why all of a sudden a Middle Eastern company is held to a different standard than a Great British company. I am trying to conduct foreign policy now by saying to the people of the world, `We'll treat you fairly.'"

His tacit implication of discrimination was then picked up by neocons and ran with. In speaking with my brother via AIM earlier this evening, he gave the party line with ease:










Now, it’s interesting to keep in mind that no proof of racism has been offered. No one has been quoted as saying we should not sell control of the ports to the UAE because they are Arabic. Well, almost no one.






It appears those who would make this issue about race are getting Bush’s support by allowing such a baseless charge to go unchecked and unchallenged.