even more ports
Let's recognize this port deal controversy for exactly what it is: Politics. The Democrats can't be taken seriously on the issue because it is an election year so it is a given that they are going to take whacks at the Administration on anything and everything.
The Democrats can't be taken seriously on national security because they've attempted to undermine President Bush's counter-terrorism methods in total since shortly after 9/11.
Congressional Republicans can't be taken seriously on the port deal because many of them are in tough re-election battles. They can't afford NOT to break with the President at this point. Some of these same Republicans are considering a run for the Presidency in 08. Perhaps this is an opportunity for people like Bill Frist and George Allen to carve out their own individual political identities.
The fact is that the U.A.E. is an ally with the United States on the War On Terror. Hell, they even caught the perpetrator of the U.S.S. Cole bombing, something that the Clinton Administration didn't even try to do. They've also been extremely helpful in training Iraqi troops. They were one of the earliest countries to join the US container security initiative, which seeks to inspect cargo in foreign ports. U.A.E. leaders have cracked down on terrorist financing and WMD proliferation, making themselves targets for al Qaeda.
The company in question, P&O, under British ownership, has already been operating these same six American ports. Where was the 'concern' for national security then?
Bush isn't just making excuses when he says that prohibiting this port deal to go through would 'send the wrong message to one of our allies.' If this deal is not allowed to go through it will be insulting to the U.A.E. It would be like saying, 'Hey, thanks for your help in combating terror, but because of some Islamophobes in our country, we've gotta kill this deal.' The collective result would be the exact opposite of 'winning hearts and minds' in the Muslim world.
And despite the hysterics of the politicians, nothing will change, in terms of operation, at the ports themselves. From the WSJ:
"Kristie Clemens of U.S. Customs and Border Protection elaborated that "Customs and Border Protection has the sole responsibility for the cargo processing and cargo security, incoming and outgoing. The port authority sets the guidelines for the entire port, and port operators have to follow those guidelines." Again, nothing in the pending deal would affect that arrangement."
After saying all of that we're still left with the fact that the Democrats are playing politics yet again with the national security of the United States.
The Democrats can't be taken seriously on national security because they've attempted to undermine President Bush's counter-terrorism methods in total since shortly after 9/11.
Congressional Republicans can't be taken seriously on the port deal because many of them are in tough re-election battles. They can't afford NOT to break with the President at this point. Some of these same Republicans are considering a run for the Presidency in 08. Perhaps this is an opportunity for people like Bill Frist and George Allen to carve out their own individual political identities.
The fact is that the U.A.E. is an ally with the United States on the War On Terror. Hell, they even caught the perpetrator of the U.S.S. Cole bombing, something that the Clinton Administration didn't even try to do. They've also been extremely helpful in training Iraqi troops. They were one of the earliest countries to join the US container security initiative, which seeks to inspect cargo in foreign ports. U.A.E. leaders have cracked down on terrorist financing and WMD proliferation, making themselves targets for al Qaeda.
The company in question, P&O, under British ownership, has already been operating these same six American ports. Where was the 'concern' for national security then?
Bush isn't just making excuses when he says that prohibiting this port deal to go through would 'send the wrong message to one of our allies.' If this deal is not allowed to go through it will be insulting to the U.A.E. It would be like saying, 'Hey, thanks for your help in combating terror, but because of some Islamophobes in our country, we've gotta kill this deal.' The collective result would be the exact opposite of 'winning hearts and minds' in the Muslim world.
And despite the hysterics of the politicians, nothing will change, in terms of operation, at the ports themselves. From the WSJ:
"Kristie Clemens of U.S. Customs and Border Protection elaborated that "Customs and Border Protection has the sole responsibility for the cargo processing and cargo security, incoming and outgoing. The port authority sets the guidelines for the entire port, and port operators have to follow those guidelines." Again, nothing in the pending deal would affect that arrangement."
After saying all of that we're still left with the fact that the Democrats are playing politics yet again with the national security of the United States.
posted by Kent at 10:41 AM
3 Comments:
Finally some clarity on this issue. Democrats are so transparent on this issue it would disgust me if I wasn’t already use to this “Anti Bush no matter what” behavior that they engage in. If Bush had canceled this contract the Left would attack him for being racist. The really story here is the rank hypocrisy of Democrats. They are for expanding the right of terrorists in Gitmo Bay and overseas. They are against racial profiling and discrimination. But lo and behold as soon as there’s a chance to pile on Bush than all of a sudden they are in favor racial profiling at best, and straight up racism at worst. Do they not see that it makes us look terrible in the eyes of the Arab world to abide another foreign country running the ports, namely England, and have a huge problem with an Arab country doing the same function? Believe me Osama Bin Laden would love for us to cancel this contract thereby giving him additional fuel to fan the flames of Anti-American sentiment in the Arab world.
It is still unclear to me as to whether or not this is a good idea, but racing to judgment for political gain is disgusting and serves to reveal those whose only goal is winning elections as the political whores that they are. Republicans are going to have to figure out a logically consistent position on this matter that fits within the framework of not alienating the Arab world. And Democrats, in their zeal to be anti-Bush have adopted the very principles they are usually against. It just shows that the only principle that liberals believe in is political expediency. Let’s hope the same isn’t true for the Republican body politic.
Excellent points, all.
Kent, I’m officially requesting rhetorical reinforcements again. I’m sorry to bother you like this, but just look at what “MJ” is doing to me. He posted one of my comments as a post (somewhat out of context) and is attempting to paint himself as the high and mighty, holier than thou, “enlightened” lefty that he imagines himself to be. I’ll enjoy battling back all day, but your voice of reason could be helpful in the ocean of lefty vitriol that I have apparently waded into.
I wish I knew how to create a link within a comment like I've seen others do, but until then cutting and pasting will have to suffice:
http://politicalnotio.blogspot.com/2006/02/lazy-politics.html#links
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home