Posted on 02/25/2006 10:03:22 AM PST by ncountylee
Saturday, February 25, 2006 12:01 a.m. EST
"I also believe that winning the war on terror will not happen by military strength alone. This is fundamentally about America's values and leadership. . . . The idea of winning hearts and minds has been derided by some. But I don't think that we can overlook its singular importance. . ."--Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, February 25, 2004 In Mrs. Clinton's "hearts and minds" crusade, this will not go down as a good week. A United Arab Emirates government allied with America, that provides a Persian Gulf base for U.S. military operations, and that was the first Middle Eastern country to join the U.S. Container Security Initiative, has been rewarded with Congressional demagoguery that a company it owns can't be trusted to manage commercial operations in U.S. ports. With Mrs. Clinton herself leading the jeers.
And why? For no other reason than that it would be an Arab-owned company. If it is "foreign" ownership that's alarming, the same politicians would also be denouncing the Chinese, Singaporean and British companies that already manage some U.S. port operations. So the message that all Arabs need not apply comes through loud and clear.
By the way, to make this argument does not mean we are accusing critics of racism. We are accusing them of error, not to rule out stupidity. These columns have long supported profiling young Middle Eastern-looking men in airport screening, for example, as a way of reducing the odds of another 9/11.
(Excerpt) Read more at opinionjournal.com ...
Fighting International Terrorism With Isolationist Policies
Hillary Clinton has taken a position in the ports controversy that manages to drive a wedge between potential partners who are also fighting Islamofascists and Al Qaeda. The Junior Senator has suggested that the United States kick out foreign operators in all American ports regardless of their competence and prior alliance with US interests vis-a-vis Muslim terrorists.
Step 1: Load gun. Step 2: Shoot foot.
Instead of finding a position that brings our security needs and potential allies security needs together, she has -- in a perverted triangulation with unions and Bush-haters -- managed to separate us from the obvious common interests of Arab nations and companies. Why not seek a position that merges our common interests?
Fighting international terrorists with isolationist policies has great risks.
The recent bombing attempt on the Saudi refinery and the bombing of the Shiite Shrine suggests there is an historic opportunity to fight Al Qaeda with Arab countries and companies who are just as vulnerable to attack as the United States. Al Qaeda and other Islamofascists can be isolated with a little help from our friends. Why create new enemies when we've got our hands full with Al Qaeda? Hillary is no international uniter. She's a jingoist divider-- at a time when it is obvious the Arab community is under attack by a common enemy: Al Qaeda and other Islamofascists.
Senator Clinton is trying to separate the US from the UAE as an ally against terrorists through isolationist practices, policies and attitudes. The US should be bringing together parties of differing nationalities with shared interests in keeping international commerce strong. We have to stand together and in opposition to international terrorists. We have been handed an opportunity and it is being wasted. Hillary proposes fighting international terrorists with a purely self-defeating, jingoist policy.
The free-flow of international goods is in the best interests of the unions backing Hillary in her misguided attempt to appear to be tough on terrorism. But if we do not successfully merge our common interests in fighting Al Qaeda (which Hillary and other Democrats have said is Job One) with all those who stand in opposition to the Islamofascist movement, then we will have to fight them alone and risk the permanent disruption of international commerce that pays the bills at our ports. The union workers with have nothing to unload if we do not fight an international war -- and that war cannot be fought without the help of Muslims who share our desire to keep commerce thriving despite the best efforts of terrorists to destroy it.
The Saudi refinery attack was an attack on commerce and on everyone's economies. If it had been successful, how many union members would have been laid off due to the economic consequences of shutting down 2/3 of Saudi Arabia's oil production?
Nailed it. We tell the Arab Countries "You are either with us or you are with the terrorists." Then the Democrat Party leadership, dancing to their Union boss paymasters tune, do everything they can to make sure the Arab Countries see no benefit from siding WITH us.
There's nothing wrong with some protectionsm.
Michael Savage said last night that "You globalist free-traders will be the death of us all! You'd all sell out your mothers for a nickel."
I somewhat agree, to a point. I fear the havoc that will result and the devastation that will be wrought upon our nation's sovreignity if we continue to globalize what should rightfully be the NATIONAL economy.
Regardless, national security trumps all other considerations, no matter who's pocketbook it hurts.
The UAE has done more for the US in the War on Terror than the Democrats in Congress.
Who is our real friend and who is the real problem?
The sniveling fools who are sneaking bigotry under the "national defense" rubric are giving the elections to the Dems.
Well I didn't know that Hastert, Coleman, Frist, Kean, Sessions, Shelby, Coburn, Peter King and dozens of others that I thought were Republicans and are opposed to the deal were in fact unionist democrats. Thanks for that info, you learn something new everyday.
"The UAE has done more for the US in the War on Terror than the Democrats in Congress."
And you just put it into perfect perspective, thankyewverymuch...
"By the way, to make this argument does not mean we are accusing critics of racism."
"Of course you are."
Nope. The Democrats are not racists, they are simply amoral political opportunists and hypocrites who will sell out any principle and even our own national interest for the sake of their own political power.
If they were mere racists, they wouldnt be as dangerous!
Every time the old media dreams up another "crisis" we go through this.The agenda driven and the easily frightend, be they the political class or the punditry will once again have thier noses wiped, be given their blankies, and reminded that it's once again time to quit throwing up all over themseves.
Even if it was addressed we would have heard the classic talking points: it's hysteria and knee-jerk. I can't help but notice those so easily dismissive to the objections of this raw deal don't live within a 100 miles of the affected ports.
"By the way, to make this argument does not mean we are accusing critics of racism. We are accusing them of error, not to rule out stupidity. These columns have long supported profiling young Middle Eastern-looking men in airport screening, for example, as a way of reducing the odds of another 9/11."
And another way to reduce the odds of another 9/11 is to prevent young middle eastern-looking men from operating our strategic ports.
Well I swan. With such powerful intellectual logic -- "You're a bigot!" -- how can we "protectionists" ever win.
Bill O'Reilly uses this superior "logic" also.
By the way, to make this argument does not mean we are accusing critics of racism.
Yes after decades of liberals screaming "Racist!" "Bigot!" at everything that moves I'd be making excuses too if my "logic" was race-based.
UAE don't worry none about friendship when they vote agin' us in the U.N. most of the time.
Plus during the late 1990s the UAE "[a]rguing that a 'militarily strong and united Iraq' is needed to balance Iranian power the Ruler of Abu Dhabi, Shaykh Zayid al-Nahyan, and the federation's president reportedly wanted to break from the United States over Iraq."
Furthermore "[a]t the same time the UAE press charged that the UN weapons inspectors in Iraq are American 'stooges' and Washington wanted to 'blackmail' the Arabs into exhausting their resources so that Israel can take over the Middle East."
Don't sound like friends to me.
The UAE needs our military power for protection. Period. They make tons of money doing business with us. Period again.
Fine.
They got national interest. We got national interest.
Why do the Jimmy Carters of world have such a hard time understanding that?
Arabs own lots of stuff here, fine (most of the time) -- but right now and for the duration -- National Security is Number One. Sorry, friend.
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.