Posted on 02/22/2006 5:14:20 AM PST by governsleastgovernsbest
by Mark Finkelstein
February 22, 2006
When it comes to the controversy surrounding the UAE port operations deal, left is right, right is left and the MSM seems caught somewhere in the middle, trying to balance its cultural instincts against its political interest.
Last night's Scarborough Country thus treated us to the odd spectacle of Barbara Boxer doing her best Tom Tancredo impersonation, opposing the deal because "two of the 9/11 hijackers came from the UAE."
Then, on this morning's Early Show, Dan Bartlett sounded more like a multi-cultural sensitivity trainer than the presidential counselor he is when he declared:
"We shouldn't be setting different types of rules for different types of companies just because they may come from the Middle East . . . What kind of mixed signals are we sending to the world when we say that some companies that play by the rules can have business with America but other companies who play by the rules can't? That's not the way America does business."
On issues from NSA surveillance to the Cheney shooting it was easy for the MSM to know where it stood. It's trickier here. Support the deal out of anti-profiling sentiment, or join with those opposing the deal to skewer the President as Dems try to position themselves to his right on a national security matter?
At the Early Show, host Hannah Storm chose a third way, opting to pour fuel on the political fire: "is the President suggesting those who are opposed to this deal are racially biased against businesses in the Middle East?"
Bartlett: "They have to explain their positions themselves."
When it came to the bottom line, Bartlett wasn't budging.
Storm: "Is the President prepared to delay this deal or not?"
Bartlett: "The President wants this deal to go forward because it was done by the book and we'll meet with the United States Congress till they understand that."
There is a funny side to this............ seeing the odd politicians from directly opposing sides getting together on this one matter. LOL.
There is something seriously wrong when I have to agree with the dimocraps.
You & Barbara Boxer: Same Struggle! ;-)
LOL.
There's definitely something absurd about the administration using the race card in favor of a poor oppressed multi billion dollar company.
GWB should let the pot boil for a few more days, then cancel the deal and give the contract to Halliburton. Game, set, match.
Perhaps it is a lack of understanding. Unlike the politicians, who understand and are grandstanding on an obvious "hot button" issue before the gullible American public.
Run awaaaaaaaaay! The Arabs are obtaining bases at our Eastern ports to take over the United States!
Does Halliburton do ports?
When even one major Democrat currently serving agrees with Bush, then it may be time to get our affairs in order.
Jimmah Carter does not count as "currently serving".
I know they are a great company, but now they have a subsidarary that runs sea port shipping?
I did not know that.
If the President were against this, The Dems would be for it.
That part is easy to understand.
Muleteam1
I still don't get why this is a problem.
1) The operations in question are TERMINALS, not whole PORTS. These terminals already take foreign ships with foreign cargo, and they are currently managed by the British firm P&O. Britain has a lot of Muslims as citizens too.
2) These are generally container terminals. Containers are inspected overseas primarily, and cargo manifests and security are handled by the US Customs Service and the US CG, respectively. Security will not change under the new ownership. Containers are sealed at point of origin and not opened, unless under directive of Security, until they reach their destination.
3) Container terminals use a lot of technology and a lot of local people to operate them. Unless you feel the local hires will be redical Muslims, most likely the same people working at these operations now will continue to work there. The only thing likely to change are the higher muckety-mucks.
4) Cargo manifests, as well as ship crew, are reviewed by Customs well ahead of entry into the US. Contents and owners of containers are all reviewed for security issues.
So I ask, where's the downside ? If the terrorists wanted to invade the US, they can simply walk across the border, or have the Mexican military transport their goods for them, or send their cargo in US Jetliners, which still have much laxer security arrangements than containers. Geez, inspectors at airports don't even have to be US citizens.
That could be the long term strategery. I hear that Karl Rove guy is devilishly three steps ahead of the Democrats sometimes.
=|: ^)
You're right. The Prez sent a fast ball right over the center of Home Plate and the Dims are getting ready to hit it out of the Park.
P.S. They should contract the Management of these Ports to the Port of Houston Authority. (A well run Port)
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.