A Port in the Storm (Opposes Bush's Port Deal with UAE)

World Net Daily ^ | 02/24/2006 | Melanie Morgan

[Impeach98]

.....

Posted: February 24, 2006 1:00 a.m. Eastern

© 2006 WorldNetDaily.com

The Bush administration is once again caught in the middle of a media frenzy, and ironically it seeks to find a safe port in the stormy controversy surrounding the handover of American ports to a nation that is a hotbed for terrorism.

As my grandmother used to tell me: "Don't invite trouble and trouble won't invite you." And, oh, does the president have his hands full of trouble right now. It's been a news story you can't ignore: Six of America's ports are scheduled to be handed over to a state-owned company from the United Arab Emirates.

It's unsettling enough for American's concerned with national sovereignty issues to see American assets bought up left and right by foreign entities and governments. It's particularly disturbing, though, when the government that is buying America's ports is a hotbed for anti-American terrorism.

And that's not just my opinion. The official 9-11 report on terrorism warned that the United States had previously raised concerns about ties between officials of the UAE government and Osama bin Laden. Bin Laden routinely met with individuals from the United Arab Emirates who sympathized with al-Qaida's anti-American position.

It should come as no surprise, then, that two of the 9-11 hijackers were United Arab Emirate citizens. And the plague of terrorism continues on within the UAE's borders. The Australian government issued this official warning to anyone thinking of traveling to the UAE:

We advise you to exercise a high degree of caution in the United Arab Emirates because of the high threat of terrorist attack.

We continue to receive reports that terrorists are planning attacks against Western interests in the United Arab Emirates. Commercial and public areas frequented by foreigners are possible terrorist targets.

And this is who the Bush administration thinks should be at the controls of computer keyboards that could sabotage cargo-container manifests at America's ports?

Here's a scary scenario to consider: How hard would it be for someone with the right security profile in the UAE to switch out a container with spare car parts bound for New York, with another container that has enriched uranium bound for Miami? Experts I've spoken with tell me it's not that hard at all. In fact, something similar already happened in Singapore with a load of fireworks.

However, what puzzles me most are the political miscalculations by Bush and his advisers.

I've been a big supporter of President Bush and many of his policies (save his position on immigration reform and refusal to lead the charge against excessive federal spending). But, in this instance, I have to urge the Bush White House to act quickly to undo the public-relations damage they've done on this issue and reconnect with Middle America.

President Bush has defended himself by pointing out that he has received the backing of a number of individuals who feel the administration is right to back the transfer of ownership of the ports. Among them are Rush Limbaugh, Sen. John McCain and former-President Jimmy Carter.

Excuse me, did someone say Jimmy Carter? The same Jimmy Carter whose decision to give up American control of the Panama Canal that helped electrify the conservative movement that elected Ronald Reagan president?

The Bush administration has made the largely accurate point that the current regime in Dubai has been cooperative with U.S. efforts to fight terrorism. However, this ignores the obvious point that many Emiratis don't share their government's desire to combat Islamic terrorism.

It seems awfully simple-minded to turn over operational control of America's ports to a nation that could very easily have a government sympathetic to the terrorists' cause within the next few years or so.

The issues surrounding the sale of American ports to a Middle Eastern government in the middle of a war against Islamic terrorism seem not only to be a bad idea from a national security standpoint, but also one politically. The political tone deafness of the Bush administration on this issue reminds me of their reaction to the Harriet Miers' debacle, when they angered conservative activists across the nation.

This time, they're causing frustration in the populist wing of the conservative movement and among plenty of "regular folks" in Middle America. These are people who admire Mr. Bush and already trust him on the issue of national security. They've now launched a website to fight back.

But for politicians willing to take on this issue, we now have the likes of Democrat Sen. Hillary Clinton, speaking out and speaking up for American sovereignty. Just when was it that Republicans let the "Blame America First" Democrats get ahold of this issue?

If the GOP isn't careful, we're all soon going to be using the title "House Speaker" to identify Nancy Pelosi. I don't know about you, but that's a scary thought.

Now is the time for someone like Karen Hughes or someone else who the president trusts, to step in and help President Bush navigate back to a safe port in this political storm.

-------------------------------------------------------

Melanie Morgan [email] is chairman of the conservative, pro-troop non-profit organization Move America Forward and is co-host of the "Lee Rodgers & Melanie Morgan Show" on KSFO 560 AM in San Francisco.

[My2Cents]

The UAE a "hotbed for terrorism"? Who knew?

[Impeach98]

It's a shocker :) - I thought they were right up there with Iowa for safe streets and good schools.

[SerpentDove]

Ping

[Ogallala]

"It's a shocker :) - I thought they were right up there with Iowa for safe streets and good schools".

[Ogallala]

"It's a shocker :) - I thought they were right up there with Iowa for safe streets and good schools".