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).
Simply put.....AMERICA HAS HAD ENOUGH OF ARABS & MUSLIMS.....Political correctness has its limits and they have arrived.......lets hope that La Raza et al reach this zenith SOON!
His daughter's name is Susan.
I have reluctantly come to the conclusion: George Bush is not our friend.
ping
I have reluctantly come to the conclusion: George Bush is not our friend.
Sorry, Bush won the second he mentioned a veto. There is no way that Congress, up for election this year, will shun their single best campaigner--that's Bush--over a change of OWNERSHIP (not staffing or administration) at six ports. It ain't happening.
I don't know what Congress can do anyway. If they passed a law, what would it say?
This guy sure is impressed with his writing skills.
BINGO! Why should we trust them??
"Sorry, Bush won the second he mentioned a veto."
You may indeed be right about that, in which case we may be exchanging the phrase "Pyrrhic victory" for the much easier to spell "Bush defeat". (and yes, I had to look it up)
RUN RUDY RUN!
The Bush administration has done little to control the borders either. Although they say they are making progress.
Wheres the evidence? Wheres the truth?
I am beginning to believe that homeland security is intended to protect the ruling class from the citizens, rather than the world.
His inconsistency doesn't end there - he is currently out arguing that Americans need to reduce their dependency on middle eastern oil on one hand while creating dependency on middle eastern management of our ports.
It would all be very confusing, but knowing that Bush's allegiance is to globalism, not America, he's being consistent after all.
If McCain or Rudy win the Republican nomination, Hillary will win in ''08.
Put your mind at ease, Jay. Schumer is opposing this deal simply because he smells political blood and thinks the Dems have a decent shot to make big inroads into the GOP's monopoly with the electorate on national security issues, not because he's taking a principled stand.
The Rudy comment was just a NY thing, but I will vote for him if he runs. At least in the primary. For the record I will not vote for McCain, at least not in the primary. If the pubbies wind up with Donald Duck running on election day I'll crawl on my hands and knees to vote for him.
I'm so disgusted with Bush today, I cannot tell you. If there was some great case to be made for this port deal it should have been made before. "Vigilante" "Veto", Bush gets all the "V" words in the wrong places. That is bad.
As someone said re something else, sure it's all bad politics, but whose fault is that?
>>>There is no way that Congress, up for election this year, will shun their single best campaigner (Bush)
Having Bush "help" you on a campaign may be the last thing you'd want.
Right now all liberals hate Bush with great passion. And an increasing amount of middle-of-the-roaders and conservatives have become disillusioned with Bush over his love of illegals and... now this. This leads to dispondency.
No, I think Bush might not be a help to many campaigns at the rate he's throwing away his political capital.
The Harriet Myers affair was bad, but this is a spoiler for the next elections. Bush is certainly out of touch with the people that elected him. It will show in the next election. Hopefully this will be our last Yale president. I don't think our country can take too many more.
Reluctantly? That implies you supported Dubya at one time was that 2004 when you said...
Everytime I turn around Bush is doing something to help out the Mexicans. What is with this guy? What does Fox have on him? I wish he would work half as hard for the American Taxpayer as he does for the Mexican crowd.
or 2003 when you said...
Don't think that things would be much better if the Republicans were in charge. I haven't seen Bush do much to solve the problems with illegals.
or maybe in 2002 when you said...
There is not much to say....with so much opportunity for Bush to do the right thing and enforce our immigration laws....then to watch him act as though he is Bill Clinton or some other "progressive". What a wasted presidency so far.(Bush) Administration Weighs Giving Mexicans SS Benefits
Relunctant to bad mouth Dubya?!? Relunctant like Ted Kennedy!
Stop jerking us around. Your posts are easily accessable to all.
Bro, that's the most insightful commentary I've read on this whole issue. Why bother with the Patriot Act if we're gonna hand the keys to the entire East Coast to the UAE? The govt obviously isn't going to be paying much attention to phone or net traffic between shipping industry types here and in the Middle East, after all, they'are on the "Friends and Family" plan! What's the point of this, to give the Arab world something else to hold over us when we start buying less oil? What is the point of all this?
"Bush's allegiance is to globalism,"
Not only Bush, but also corporate America. It's changing our country drastically.
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.