Posted on 02/21/2006 9:22:01 PM PST by nickcarraway
Apparently I'm dead.
There can be no other explanation; I have always maintained that I would never live long enough to agree with Charles Schumer about anything. Still, it is ironic that my first posthumous column has to be in support of his position. He is in favor of chucking the recently announced dubious Dubai-U.S. deal to have that Arab emirate operate our major ports in New York and Miami. To be more precise, a quote-company-unquote quote-based-unquote in Dubai.
Okay, enough Schumer for one lifetime. Let me rather align myself with Republican Congressman Vito Fossella, who did hie to seize this matter of political piracy on the high seas, jumping on it early last week (although, in a dirty-pool bank-shot, Peter King's office stole the weekend New York newspaper coverage for their guy). Fossella is a favorite of mine, because I was there in 1996 when Guy Molinari, the cigar-chomping godfather of Staten Island politics, anointed Vito as the presumptive successor for daughter Nancy's Congressional seat.
We were at a rally for Republican foot-soldiers in a "club" on the Brooklyn side of the Verazzano Bridge. I was there flacking for a Republican Congressional candidate amid a gaggle of the mousy bespectacled reporters that New York seems to spawn in such profusion. As I circulated among the buzzing crowd, I heard two responses repeated everywhere. "He looks like a jock, but he was Fordham Law." "Doesn't his wife look exactly like Marisa Tomei?" Than which, in Big Apple parlance, no more vociferous approbation is imaginable.
Vito is concerned that the United Arab Emirates, which has a history of terrorist citizens and princes who go hunting with Bin-Laden, not to mention being officially sworn to destroy Israel, is hardly the sort of entity to manage secure ports on our shores. How well can we possibly have vetted the employees of such an outfit? And how do you pronounce Umm al-Qaiwain (one of the emirates) anyway? But President Bush has an answer for Vito -- a veto! If Congress legislates the transaction into oblivion, the President threatens to break out the veto pen. Bad move, Mr. Prez: you are ignoring some overriding concerns.
He defends the transaction on the basis of the fact that the UAE has been an ally in the War on Terror, is currently managing ports in other countries from which we receive a great deal of shipping, and it would send the wrong signal to black-list, or red-line, certain parts of the world as ineligible for significant roles in our economy. It seems obvious to me that most Americans believe that this would be precisely the right signal to send: we are not going to trust you guys until you show many, many years of incredibly clean security records. This is a flash of the famous Bush obstinacy, but for my money he's fighting a sure-lose battle.
In truth, my concern differs from Vito's a whit. I am the proud coiner of the maxim: "Matters of the moment are rarely matters of moment." The actual fear of a killer, or explosive cargo, osmosing through the Dubai port guys into our cities is slim indeed. It is remote that they would lose control over the screening. Their interest in making the job work for them would supersede any ideological predispositions. They may harbor grudges, but not on our harbors.
My concern is the opposite. Sure Dubai can purge their terrorists. They do it by making them take a long walk off a short pier. They do "mean" well, in fact they do it very well. Brutally, autocratically, repressively, they will out-terrorize the terrorists. Which means, in essence, that we are submitting to a protection racket. Because we fear the terrorists which those leaders allow to breed, the leaders can force us to hire them as the "experts" at cleaning up their own mess.
The War on Terror cannot be limited to fighting terrorists and preventing their achieving political ends through terrorism, nor is it sufficient to trounce the sovereigns that openly assist them. It must also prevent those nasty neighboring autarkies from making a cottage industry out of offering "protection" from the thugs. Look, I know how it works; in Mexico City I had to pay a kid to protect my car in a mall parking lot. Is it acceptable for us to be held hostage to the political version of that reality?
Using the same logic, Hamas should be the ideal party to govern the Palestinian Authority. After all, they have been the most effective at stopping terrorism. When they declare a truce, the bombings magically stop. Indeed the Emirates used to be known as the Trucial States, because their existence was founded on a truce they engineered in the battle of local Arabs against the British. If we want to defeat terror, we must prevent it from becoming a basis for any profiteering. Then we may return to our way of life (or Vito).
That is a sign that you need to rethink your position.
One more thing:
I doubt very much if these US ports were the cherry that Dubai was after when they bought P&O anyway.
If I were Dubai, I'd tell P&O they ought to sell of these operations elsewhere. Port operations in the US are probably not that profitable in the first place. If they were, we'd see at least an atoms worth of interest in bidding on the operations from one or more US companies. As it is the American interest expressed in operating these facilities is: Yes! you guessed it ZERO.
If we don't want foreigners operating ports, and we make it illegal for them to do so, we'd better find some American willing to take on the job.
Anybody got some cash to invest? We ought either put up or shut up if we're serious, and not just running our mouths, Democrat style.
You remind me of a whiny Democrat.
Why don't you get some friends together, borrow some money, form a company, and bid on the work yourself instead of echoing Chckie Schumer's insane rant?
You are a very wise man..
Bush is having another "Harriet Miers" moment.
I doubt that we would see this reaction if Bush had been responsive on the border and if three months ago when the deal came before the Treasury Department for review, he had announced it and suggested that if the American people approve, this might be a good opportunity to strengthen an alliance with a new ally. Instead, in his politically brain dead manner, it was sprung on the American people two weeks before the deadline.
Since Bush is tone deaf and unresponsive on the border issue I'll enjoy watching him get slapped down again.
As for American Arabs decrying the "racist rejection" of the DP World deal; have any of them been as vocal in decrying the Islamofascists?
You seem to think that it isn't acceptable to say "No Arabs" when no Arab states are our allies in stopping Islamism and spreading democracy, even our 'allies' like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. Is there no difference between Britain and the UAE, then, for us to even consider? I think it's about time we compelled the Arab states, especially the autocratic ones--hey, look, that's damn near all of them!--to take a stand for our side before we admit them into our markets. But then, I think the same thing about Red China and Cuba not having access to our markets for being Communist autocracies. I guess I'm an old John Bircher fuddy-duddy that way.
"I agree with you about the Panama Canal, by the way, but these are two very different issues. Nobody is talking about selling our ports, or turning security over to foreigners. And Dubai already knows about out port security measures anyway as they need to follow our regulations. They welcome our homeland Security Inspectors at Jebel Ali for inspection of containers leaving there bound for the US."
Look, I'm not sure what you consider qualifies as "turning security over to foreigners," but to me, if operations are in their hands, they could not know BETTER how to cause trouble in those ports. Are you telling me that you'd let known Islamists do this? If not, why should we take the chance on these possible risks, instead of simply excluding them? That they know about port security measures to follow our regs and allow pre-inspections in Dubai is the equivalent of telling me that Kofi Annan is okay to run security in American airports because he's been through security in LaGuardia. I know there are differences between the Panama Canal and the Port of Miami, but the fundamental similarity is that both are darn important to our national security. And we shouldn't be giving up control or even "just operations" of either of them to potential enemies. I'm sure Panama can make the same case for having China run the canal, but a Chinese company still shouldn't be running operations there. And no matter how many times the globoGOP waves the banner of free trade and pretends the Arab nations are our pals, it's hard to ignore the fact that the 9/11 hijackers were traveling on UAE passports, spending money sent from the UAE, the UAE gave us a hassle figuring that out, and the UAE is not exactly a shining model of democracy.
"Once again, I say, the Democrats are miscasting this issue, lying about it in fact, and are driving a wedge into their opposition. And we're falling for it."
Once again, I do not doubt that Democrats are casting this in the WORST possible light. But Bush and the globalist wing of the GOP play into it by approving this kind of thing in the first place. The wedge was already there, not at the hands of the MSM, but at the hands of the president, because the globalist wing refuses to adhere to the law in other areas, such as basic enforcement of immigration law. Those of us who do not consider promoting-free-trade-and-international-business-uber-alles the primary purpose of the American government, certainly don't trust the President to oversee American security interests in this arena, because he has shown little enthusiasm for the fundamental, Constitutional role of government of protecting American security interests NEAR the U.S., especially when it comes to his blind spots of the border and the ports. Sure, this is a wedge issue. Why? Because the President and GOP Congress let it be by paying lip service to the America-first/Reagan Democrat crowd that is in the middle, the voter crowd that is the U.S. swing vote. Read this and tell me again why the President should persist in this folly, why this is going to be such an easy sale, when most of this swing vote abhors the presence of this international business in our ports to begin with, national security issues or not.
Maybe there is some Rovian purpose I've missed. Maybe he figures to swing the isolationist middle COMPLETELY to the fringe, and the convince-able mushy middle entirely to the right somehow. But I don't think even O'Reilly's going to sell the swing voters on this after the Bush administration talking heads and O'Reilly himself have demonized Islamists so well.
The Coast Guard will still guard these ports, the same rules and regulations will remain; but hopefully security can now be updated. The names of the CEO, CFO and top execs will change. Most underlings will remain the same There has been and will continue to be research to whether this is a good deal to both the buyers and sellers..is all about the Money. I would only wonder why there are no US public offered or private corporations in the business of owning ports of call..China, Japan etc are into that mix, so why no competition from the US? This is all about politics and money. Remember we have some pretty stupid people (Republicans as well) that are stalled under the old Peter Principle in Washington. Those same have never "held a real job"! The socialist libs, on the other hand, are just trying to figure out how not to appear as hypocrits. Would love to hear a response from the Arab's best friend- Al Gore!
And the "talking heads" spin as intended..
If the argument is that it will be bad for us economically to stop this deal, that we'll have to pay more to the WTO or for an American company to handle this, well, shucks. We're spending how much on national security in Iraq? I think the American people are plenty willing to spend a few extra bucks on this. Just ask them. And if the WTO wants us gone as a result, I bet the American people are willing to suck that up, too.
It's gonna be a very hard sell to after saying that we invaded Iraq for purposes of national security on the basis of a reasonable suspicion, then saying 'but we can't send the wrong signal with a reasonable suspicion here.' Give the Rats credit--they caught Bush with his pants down. And he has to fight on the side the American people loathe, the side of business that isn't America first.
Compare apples to oranges, it's all fruit. Sour grapes bla bla bla
None of the elitist front runners excite me nor appear capable of changing anything.
Look at how little Bush has accomplished with the backing of conservatives. Same would go for a liberal president.
Their prioritys are 1. Foreign relations 2. Corporate relations 3. social services 4. public relations.
Public relations are at the bottom because nobody really listens to polls or public opinion contrary to what they lead us to believe. If government actually listened to the people we would see great progress because the private sector has too many good ideas. But since government can't take credit for great private sector ideas, they don't act. They talk the same talk.
We're not debating. You disagreed with me, and called me a leftist instead of debating. Therefore, we're name calling, not debating. Just giving you what you asked for smeghead.
When some freepers can't say anything else, they sling epithets.
You should know better.
I'm sure it's a bit more complex than that. Also, if there was a fire in a movie theatre, and Charles Schumer was in there, and he yelled "Fire!", I don't think it would be sucking up to say that I'd agree with Schumer. If Schumer said we need to lock down our borders, I'd agree with him, too. Not that I'm holding my breath for him to say it, but if he did, I'd agree.
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.