Army of Davids comes to help protest the dangerous giveaway of US seaports
Bush, who is nomally allergic to the use of the veto, is threatening an exception in this case to defeat what he is hinting to be racism. The blogosphere, however, has revealed that the UAE government itself, which owns the ports company, is a financier of the ideological jihad. They are not professional business partners who should be treated with "fairness." Like the rest of the Muslim world, they are largely a combination of openly jihadi Muslims, "moderate" Muslims who do not yet believe the time is ripe for the future jihad that they dream of, and those paralyzed by fear.Michelle Malkin provides more information on the subject, and most interesting here is the report filed by the ultra-leftist AP Wire, saying that Bush "didn't know" about the seaports deal until it was made, which, if you find it confusing, yes, it most certainly does seem so:
President Bush was unaware of the pending sale of shipping operations at six major U.S. seaports to a state-owned business in the United Arab Emirates until the deal already had been approved by his administration, the White House said Wednesday.First, I find it hard to understand how exactly the president, for all the busy jobs he's got, could not know about what business deals his cabinet makes, but even after he does know about it, that does not explain why exactly he's defending it, to the point of threatening to veto Capitol Hill's decision to block the deal.
Defending the deal anew, the administration also said that it should have briefed Congress sooner about the transaction, which has triggered a major political backlash among both Republicans and Democrats...
There is one part here though, where I must disagree with Michelle, and also with Big Lizards, whose quote she features here:
Neither side has noticed that there is a fairly obvious compromise staring us in the face, which Big Lizards believes would resolve the very real security concerns without losing the equally real security benefits from this deal.No, I must dissent here. Dubai should not be allowed to own the ports, and certainly not to run them like an embassy, at all. Period. This is an enemy country we're talking about, and aside from the fact that being able to own the ports is something that could turn out to be advantageous for Dubai, it's possible that, if they did own the ports, American managers would not be allowed to inspect certain deliveries, and might be barred from opening some packages, which, what if they turned out to be containing weapons and other horrible terrorist tools?
Both the actual national-security risk and also the political danger come, not from the ownership of the company, but rather from the day to day management -- the actual control of operations. The emirate wants the profits that accrue from ownership; rational Americans want to see control of the port, even the cargo areas, in friendly hands, preferably American.
This suggests a workable compromise: an American company should be chartered -- American owned and American managed -- that is a wholly owned but independently operated subsidiary of Dubai Ports... call it American Port Services, Inc., or somesuch name that makes clear the nationality; and then let all the actual management of the ports be handled by the American APS, not by Dubai Ports.
Simply put, we can't take risks, not on security or anything else like it.
Others on the subject include Iowa Voice, All Things Beautiful, Debbie Schlussel (plus, here's another one), Gina Cobb, Robert McNickle, Below the Beltway, The Political Pitt Bull, The Anchoress, Independent Christian Voice, Liberty Just in Case, And THAT is MY Opinion, A Blog for All, California Conservative, The Age of Reason, Kim Priestap, HCS's and Gen's Place, ProCynic, A Lady's Ruminations, Small Town Veteran.
Labels: islam, political corruption, United States
Thanks for the link! Great post!
Posted by Lady Jane | 2/25/2006 05:44:00 PM
You're welcome.
Posted by Avi Green | 2/25/2006 08:24:00 PM