Posted on 02/24/2006 10:18:56 PM PST by Reagan Man
“This Dubai port deal has unleashed a kind of collective mania we haven’t seen in decades ... a xenophobic tsunami,” wails a keening David Brooks, “a nativist, isolationist mass hysteria is ... here.”
The New York Times columnist obviously regards the nation’s splenetic response to news that control of our East Coast ports had been sold to Arab sheiks as wildly irrational. In witness whereof he quotes Philip Damas of Drewry Shipping Consultants, “The location of a company in the age of globalism is irrelevant.”
But irrelevant to whom?
Why is it irrelevant, in a war against Arab and Islamic terrorists, to question the transfer of control of our East Coast ports from Britain to the United Arab Emirates?
Our cosmopolitan Mr. Brooks lives in another country. He has left the America of blood and soil, shaken the dust from his sandals, to enter the Davos world of the Global Economy where nationality does not matter and where fundamentalists and flag-wavers of all faiths are the real enemies of progress toward the wonderful future these globalists have in store for us.
“God must love Hamas and Moktada Al-Sadr,” snorts Brooks, “He has given them the America First brigades of Capitol Hill.”
To Brooks there is little distinction between Islamic mobs burning Danish consulates and America First patriots protesting some insider’s deal to surrender control of American ports to Arab sheiks.
But the reflexive recoil to this transaction between transnationals is a manifestation of national mental health. The American people have not yet been over-educated into the higher stupidity. Common sense still trumps ideology here. Globalism has not yet triumphed over patriotism. Rather than take risks with national security, Americans will accept a pinch of racial profiling.
Yep, the old America lives.
Like alley cats, Americans yet retain an IFF, Identify-Friend-or-Foe radar that instinctively alerts them to keep a warier eye on some folks than on others.
But in rejecting a deal transferring control of our ports to Arabs, are Americans not engaging in discrimination? Are they not engaging in ethnic prejudice?
Of course they are. But not all discrimination is irrational, nor is all prejudice wrong. To discriminate is but to choose. We all discriminate in our choice of friends and associates. Prejudice means prejudgment. And a prejudgment in favor of Brits in matters touching on national security is rooted in history.
In the 20th century (if not the 19th), the Brits have been with us in almost every fight. It was not Brits who struck us on 9/11, who rejoiced in the death of 3,000 Americans, who daily threaten us from the mosques of East and West, who behead our aid workers, bomb our soldiers and call for “Death to America!” in a thousand demonstrations across the Middle East. And while not all Muslims are terrorists, almost all terrorists appear to be Muslim.
As Mother Church has a “preferential option” for the poor, there is nothing wrong with America’s preferential option for the cousins.
Does this mean all Arabs should be considered enemies? Of course not.
The folks from Dubai may detest the 9/11 murderers as much as we do, for those killers shamed their faith, disgraced their people, and bred a distrust and fear of Arabs and Muslims that had never before existed here.
Yet, just as sky marshals seat themselves behind young Arab males, not grannies taking the tots to Disney World, so, Americans, in deciding who operates their ports, naturally prefer ourselves, or old friends.
Why take an unnecessary risk? Just to get an A for global maturity on our next report card from the WTO?
The real question this deal raises is what happened to the political antenna at the White House? Did it fall off the roof about the time President Bush named Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court?
Anyone in touch with Middle America, especially after 9/11 and endless warnings of imminent attacks on U.S. soil, would know this country is acutely sensitive to terror threats. Surely, before approving this deal with Dubai Ports World, someone should have asked:
“How do you think Bubba will react when he’s told sheiks will take over the port of Baltimore where, in Tom Clancy’s ‘Sum of All Fears,’ Arab terrorists smuggle in an a-bomb and detonate it?”
Apparently, no one bothered to ask, or the question was brushed off in the interests of hastily greasing the deal.
Now this episode is going to end badly. Bush, who has denied advance knowledge of the deal, is being ripped by liberals for living in a pre-9/11 world and being out of touch with his government.
As for our remaining friends in the Middle East, they have been given another reason to regard Americans as fickle friends who, down deep. Don’t like Arabs.
Unquestionably, this will result in a victory for those who wish to sever America’s friendships in the Arab world. But it is Bush and his unthinking globalists, not the American Firsters whom Brooks cannot abide who engineered this latest debacle.
Absolutely. I have it in firefox, and it's a great way to learn how something was done, or to copy a table or other odd formatting, html and all, into an FR post.
"I'd rather exercise my right to free speech and engage in some political dissent. One of the main reasons I come to FR is to speak out and dissent on issues where I disagree with my government."
Hello patriot ;)
Correcting 3 Lies about the Port Deal (Vanity)
Febuary 23, 2006
Posted on 02/22/2006 7:34:50 PM EST by johnmecainrino
Bush didn't know because congress mandated for this foreign service group to keep the decisions secret. The group only informs the president if they go to an extended period of review and then reject it. No one on the top white house staff knew. It was done by middle level bueracracy mostly in these agencies. Congress mandated the process by non political and kept secret.
Congress didn't know because it is a federal crime to talk about the specifics of the deal. Again congress mandated it be secret and now they are screaming how bush didn't inform them.
Based on the law congress passed in 1988 Bush couldn't have reversed the deal after it was approved by this committee. The law states that after the deal was approved by the committee bush or the committee can only go back and review the deal if the company lied to them on the application.
On MSNBC right now we are hearing how bush was out of the loop again and all the bs. That was the law. And when I hear congress complaining about the secrecy, damn them they wrote the law that way to protect the propriety of the companies.
Scott McClellan has to be the worst press secretary ever. He didn't even know today that the american unions would still be involved and that homeland security got in the deal to do a background check before anyone can enter the facility that works for the company.
Bush needs to go on national TV primetime to stop the lies. Worst of all a lot of the lies are being spread by peter king who is clueless on the 1988 law that was written. If he is so upset change the law instead of blaming bush for a law congress mandated.
Bingo.
Who would blame them? But people here who are against the deal are not thinking rationally anymore. They don't listen to rational arguments! Look at Sean Hannity. He does nothing but ask questions then when he gets answers that are reasonable and reassuring he ignores them and just keeps on asking the SAME DAMN QUESTIONS LIKE A BROKEN RECORD!!
And I have yet to hear one person who objects to this deal even begin to consider the serious negative consequences of spitting in the UAE's faces. I have yet to hear any of them offer solutions to the problems that will be raised if the deal does not go through. It's time for THEM to come up with some answers.
If its Hillary, expect secrets to go to China, Venezuela and Cuba
Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States "CFIUS" , not CIFIUS.
And, secondly, CFIUS was specifically set up to be bipartisan and NON-POLITICALLY influenced.
That's why it's not a "sweetheat deal."
Yes, but use your discriminatory senses. Otherwise, you run the risk of becoming that which you hate.
" UAE is not Hamas, nor is it particularly interested (as rank and file citizens of a progressive, modern country)"
You have got to be kidding me. "progressive, modern country"?
Is that why they don't recognize Israel? Is that why they recognized the Taliban as the legitimate Gov't of Afghanistan? Is that why they fund Islamists and Hamas? Is that why wmd's have gone through those OH SO SECURE PORTS of theirs? Give me a break.
Well, my dumbass congressman JD Hayworth has been in front of every camera and every microphone in the country to show everyone how macho and how much of a patriot he is (almost to the point of pulling down his pants like LBJ).
Too bad, JD jumped on the heart rather than head bandwagon and damn near got welts from wrapping himself in the flag and in his God bless America rhetoric.
This whole spectacle is silly. Ports are no different than airports, Dubai ain't gonna salt the longshoremen with radical terrorists.
This whole non-event is just a chance for politicians to look macho and strong and for dems to create a whole reason to appear strong.
Its silly.
As much as anti-semite buffoon Buchanan is, he at least OCCASSIONALLY comes out on the right side of an issue (Mexican border, Roe v. Wade's pro-abortion crowd, etc.).
The same can't be said for Jimmah Carter, who stands shoulder-to-shoulder with you on selling our ports to Islamofacists. WHENEVER Jimmah Carter is for something, rest assured, he's wrong.
I know, they are blaming Bush for the structure that they(Congress) created! WTF IS THAT? Totally unfair!
I don't have problems when the Feds deal with foreign govts/entities outside the US homeland, when American interests are involved. I do have serious problems with foreign govts/entities having influence and access to operations that take place on US soil. In all honesty, I didn't know the extent to which our ports of entry were being managed by foreigners. When I found out, I was outraged. Not one American company exists to do that job. That is appalling. IMO, its a serious national security issue. So if we take another 45 days or even another 90-180 days to further vet DPW/UAE, and possibly come up with some additional regulations and/or legislation that gives us better coverage and feedback capabilities, that's okay by me.
So are people on this forum.
"change the law instead of blaming bush for a law congress mandated."
The guidelines of the law specify it is to go to the administration for approval when foreign nations are involved. If you would all just read the darn thing you'd know that Bush has been well aware of this deal.
David Sanborn appointment?
America's interest is exactly what this deal is about...Long term strategic thinking.
Remember, the global war on terror is not about killing all them "A-rabs", but resolving this issue so that a peacfully world will emerge when all is said and done.
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.