The press tries to stampede conservatives
By Randall H. Nunn
web posted February 27, 2006
I hate to admit that Hillary Clinton ever gave anyone good advice, but once during the Monica Lewinsky scandal (a real scandal and not a press-concocted scandal) she advised people "to be patient, take a deep breath and the truth will come out." Now she didn't really want the truth to come out but, nevertheless, her advice then would be good advice now for conservatives caught up in the manufactured tempest swirling around the port management contracts with the United Arab Emirates company.
I must admit that when I first heard the press reports about the contract, I was disturbed and reacted negatively to the news. The mistake I made was to take the press reports at face value. Unfortunately, in the poisonous atmosphere created by the mainstream media, one can take very little at face value. The media is so biased against the Bush administration and so driven by an irrational hatred that they seize every possible opportunity to turn a low-level story into a major scandal. The frustration of the left and the mainstream media grows with every failure to find and create a devastating scandal that will bring down the Bush administration. They couldn't do it with the Valerie Plame affair, Hurricane Katrina, the Cheney hunting accident or the Supreme Court nominations. But the repetition of the theme begins to subtly affect some people over time and creates a weariness that allows some listeners to lose enthusiasm for the positive happenings (which are seldom reported) and become mired in the negativity and accusations spewing forth from the mainstream media. This is a time to "take a deep breath."
Since when have the liberals and the mainstream media been sincerely interested in our national security? Do you seem them up in arms about illegal immigration from Mexico? Do you see them supporting the use of Guantanamo Bay as a well-run facility outside of the United States that serves a valuable purpose as a detention center for some very bad characters? Do you see them supporting the Patriot Act? The answer is "no" and that should tell us something. This recent frenzy about port security is not at all concerned with security but rather a new way to attack President Bush that they hope can gain traction if they push it hard enough. If we all take a deep breath and look at this more closely, we will see the left's skillful propaganda machine at work here and realize that some of us rushed to judgment too quickly.
The same people (for the most part) who criticized European newspapers for running cartoons that were "insensitive" to Muslims are now jumping on the United Arab Emirates as a threat to our port security. Does this seem consistent? And the same people who see "racism" in those calling for tighter border security with Mexico are now suggesting that we cannot have Arab companies involved in managing port operations. Many of these same people are ardent supporters of multiculturalism and outsourcing of U.S. manufacturing and services. Something is puzzling here because this position with respect to port security doesn't fit with the left's general predisposition not to worry about this country's security at all and to oppose anything that could conceivably be characterized as ethnic profiling. This is just a new stick that the left has picked up, thinking it to be sharper and heavier than the others with which they have tried to bash the Bush administration.
The United States still controls these port properties and still is responsible for security. The same agencies that are responsible for intelligence and security elsewhere have jurisdiction, authority and responsibility for security here. Why not put an extra level of security in place and caution the United Arab Emirates that we are doing so, and allow them to perform the contract under our watchful eyes? The predecessor company was a British company, not an American company. Britain has had some significant intelligence and security failures recently. We didn't hear any concerns when the Brits managed these port contracts but now, all of a sudden, this is a major problem. Could it be that the left realized that the "optics" were not good if they presented this as a threat to our security and that they could finally seize the high ground from the Bush administration in the one area where they have failed so often in the past—national security?
The Bush administration needs to do a better job of explaining the facts here and do it quickly. And Republicans in Congress and conservatives all over the country need to analyze the facts carefully before joining in the braying chorus. The mainstream media has created a climate where there is too often a "presumption of guilt" for anything the Bush administration does that is counter to their politically correct positions. The media is adept at "manufacturing" news and issues. When the mainstream media leads with these biased and hysterical stories for a few days and then takes a poll, it should be no surprise that the poll will reflect what many in the public have been instructed is a "problem" even though it was not immediately prior to the hysteria. We need to consider whether that is exactly what is happening here. Take Hillary's advice this one time and "take a deep breath"—just don't get carried away with the idea of taking her advice too often. 
Randall H. Nunn is a Staff Writer for The New Media Alliance. Columns by this author can be read regularly on TheRealityCheck.org.