Answer: "C" -- the unblinking, Pavlovian defense of same by far too many, on these very boards.
Posted on 02/22/2006 12:43:46 AM PST by goldstategop
I heard Sen. Lindsay Graham, R-S.C., describe Homeland Security Chief Michael Chertoff's defense of turning over managing U.S. port operations to an Arab company as "tone deafness."
That would seem to be a charitable description.
I don't know what's crazier and more politically inept – the original decision to contract the management of six major U.S. ports in New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, Philadelphia, Miami and New Orleans or the White House's continued defense of the idea in the face of overwhelming criticism.
You tell me: Is Bush tone deaf or brain dead?
"We have a very disciplined process, it's a classified process, for reviewing any acquisition by a foreign company of assets that we consider relevant to national security," explained Chertoff.
Disciplined?
Classified?
Does that make you feel any better about this "process?"
Someone needs to tell the Bush administration it's not the process that bothers clear-thinking Americans – it's the decision.
You don't need discipline to determine it's not such a good idea to turn over port security to Dubai Ports World. It's so self-evident even Democrats can see it.
It's insanity. It's political correctness gone mad. Only a suicidal nation, or one that has lost touch with reality, would take such an irresponsible step.
Need I remind the Bush administration of what it already knows? That our port security even now is less than stellar. If terrorists are determined to bring nuclear weapons into this country, and if they don't already have enough of them here to destroy American cities, entry through ports are the most likely means of entry.
Of course, they could also drive them across the unguarded border, more proof – four-and-half years after Sept. 11, 2001 – that the Bush administration is irresponsible, suicidal, insane or incompetent. Politically tone deaf doesn't begin to explain such lapses in judgment.
But you remember, of course, the Bush administration's rationale for keeping the border open? It's because we have too much work in this country that Americans just won't do. We need the cheap labor. Americans won't harvest crops. Americans won't build homes. Americans won't mow lawns. Americans won't flip hamburgers.
I guess Americans also won't run ports.
That would be the only explanation I have for why we would turn over the most sensitive security measures to a company from the United Arab Emirates.
Stunning. I'm practically speechless. Words fail this writer.
"It's unbelievably tone deaf politically at this point in our history," said Graham. "Most Americans are scratching their heads, wondering why this company from this region now."
Yes, Americans are scratching their heads. They're also wondering if the Republicans are still the party of national security. Historically, this has been one reason Americans had for choosing Tweedle Dum from Tweedle Dumber. But this decision has got to give Americans pause to consider if that is still the case.
When Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., and Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., can see this national security issue with clarity and a Republican administration cannot, it's time to question whether it really makes a difference. It's time to wonder if America's political leadership can really protect this country. It's time to wonder whether the federal government has abdicated all responsibility of its constitutionally mandated role of defending the homeland.
Bush has no cover on this.
Even those who would, under other circumstances, say it is "ethnic profiling" to disallow an Arab company from guarding and administering our ports are ready to ride the wave of popular opinion on this one.
And this American of Arabic ancestry is joining them.
It's quite simple.
Would we turn over border patrol operations to an Arab company to supervise?
Would we turn over airline security to an Arab country to supervise?
Then why on earth would we even consider turning over port security to an Arab country?
(Denny Crane: "I Don't Want To Socialize With A Pinko Liberal Democrat Commie. Say What You Like About Republicans. We Stick To Our Convictions. Even When We Know We're Dead Wrong.")
I think he needs to know why its secret, Congress made it secret. People need to settle down.
Answer: "C" -- the unblinking, Pavlovian defense of same by far too many, on these very boards.
Portsgate?
We're really planning to take over the UAE.
Disingenuous. WE didn't turn anything over. They bought the British Company.
Plus these ARE NOT the "most sensitive security measures". For Pete's sake, he acts like Dubai will now take over for Chertoff. It's Chertoff who is in charge of the most sensitive security measures.
i think we are keeping an ally and not turning an ally into an enemy.
Exactly! This company will be loading and unloading conatiners off ships. The security is left up to the Coast Guard, US Customs, and Homeland Security. Sheesh!
ping
So now this business should not be contracted out? He's saying the US Government should run the stevedore business?
from the article:
"Of course, they could also drive them across the unguarded border, more proof – four-and-half years after Sept. 11, 2001 – that the Bush administration is irresponsible, suicidal, insane or incompetent. Politically tone deaf doesn't begin to explain such lapses in judgment."
Americans will only begin to understand their hopeless situation when the first nuclear bomb goes off in the first US city, and suicidal arabs begin to use the arms they have smuggled in to murder innocents like they used to do in Israel.
They are enemies, handing over port security won't change that dear.
I thought the Meiers nomination was stupid, but this is even more stupid than that.
L
Thats just it, they ARE NOT taking over security, and the same people operating the docks today will be the same people operating the docks in a few months.
Some people just will NEVER get that into their heads. It's like they WANT to believe it.
Maybe he's on ecxtasy? (MDA)
Did you read Kathleen Parker's most recent column? you must!
http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/kathleenparker/2006/02/22/187399.html
She really nails it.
Oh my, a knee jerk rant by joe farah, what a surprise.
The dumb ass doesn't know the brits own it ?
Sorry, joe, but I will trust a president who has an unsurpassed record going after islamic terrorists and makes decisions everyday that would probably make you urinate your pants joe.
I guess so.
The Soviet Union was our ally during WWII. That does not mean that Communist Russia was our friend. I believe Bush is mistaking an ally for a friend. Our only true friends are nations that embrace Judaism and Christianity. We're just inviting trouble by treating with an Islamic nation.
We don't need Dubai to accomplish our aims in the Middle East. They are a small, insignificant nation. They and their false prophet will fade back into the sand as soon as we quit buying oil from the middle east.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.