Posted on 03/02/2006 9:41:55 AM PST by FerdieMurphy
Okay, so we already knew that George Bush’s declarations about his concerns for America’s security was a bunch of bull due to how he’s ignored our border issues.
But now things are getting really confusing. The Bush Administration gave the go ahead for an Arab owned company in the United Arab Emirates to run six major ports in the U.S. (some claim it actually extends to influencing control of 21 ports), and when Congress and the American people questioned the wisdom of handing over control of these ports to people known to associate with terrorists, Bush gets indignant, as if questioning his actions is somehow unethical.
When the initial outcries over this deal started pouring in, Bush first said, ‘Trust me.’ That didn’t sell, so he then said the government did a careful review of the situation and that security would not be jeopardized. That didn’t sell, so then the White House came out with the claim that Bush didn’t know about the deal until after it was made. Well, which one is it? This sounds an awful lot like the line of explanations we got for invading Iraq: Saddam is in cahoots with the Taliban. Okay, he isn’t, but he has weapons of mass destruction. Okay, we didn’t find any, but we wanted to liberate the oppressed people of Iraq from a brutal dictator (if you are into liberating people from oppressive dictators GWB, North Korea’s still waiting for you). Now we are about spreading democracy throughout the Middle East. Whether it’s war or management of ports, the story keeps changing.
What I find really amazing is Bush’s arrogance concerning people questioning the deal to let Middle Easterners manage major ports of entry into the U.S. GWB was quoted as saying the U.S would be sending mixed signals if they blocked this deal, that no one complained when the ports were managed by a British company, and that Lawmakers had to step up and explain why a Middle Eastern company was being held to a different standard. Allow me to explain things in simple terms so that George Bush can understand.
First, it was George Bush that was all fired up to attack and invade the Middle East, which he declared the hub of world terrorism. Second, it was George Bush that labeled three countries the ‘Axis of Evil,’ two of which, Iraq and Iran, are in the Middle East. Third, Britain has been a long time ally, and went into combat with us in the Middle East, and is still there with us, so there was no reason to question a British company managing our ports (although in truth, any foreign company handling such work is questionable). Not since the War of 1812 has Great Britain been looked at as an adversary. Fourth, outside of Israel, who in the Middle East do we really, truly trust as a staunch ally (and even Israel has proven itself to not be totally trustworthy). Fifth, which Arab countries have not had ties on some level with the Taliban, Bin Laden, the PLO, or other terrorist organizations? (Hint, the answer is ‘none’)
No Mr. President, it isn’t Congress that needs to step up and explain anything. It is you, sir, who needs to step up and explain your contradictory actions. Are we in a war or not? Isn’t the adversary Islamic radicals? Isn’t the Middle East the source of these radicals? Did or did not the federal government, under your administration, point out that the United Arab Emirates has been resistant to working with the U.S. in the ‘War on Terror,’ blocking investigations into the financial dealings of known terrorists and terrorist organizations going on in their country? And you really want this deal with a company that is basically owned by the UAE government to go through?
Ironically, our ‘conservative’ president has gone so far in defending this deal as to threaten to veto any legislation that congress passes to block the UAE company from taking over the management of our ports. I was beginning to thing GWB didn’t know what a veto was, or at the very least never used it because he didn’t know how to spell it. GWB could have whipped out the veto pen to block huge growth in government or to block the outrageous spending that’s been going on the last five years, but only now does he somehow couldn’t find the courage to use this power to protect selling out his country to a people who are living in the heart of the source of terror in the world today.
Obviously this is about politics and money, not security, as far as the Bush Administration is concerned. However, the Bush Administration has handled this mess badly, and Bush’s unbending attitude toward concerns of Congress and the American people is arrogant and out of touch. Why would Bush be so concerned with Congress wanting to hold things up long enough for a review? What’s the rush?
Priority one for any person elected to a federal office is to honor their oath of office, which primarily is to ‘protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.’ The second priority should be, like in the Hippocratic Oath, ‘to do no harm.’ Bush appears to be failing on both these counts. Perception is reality, and refusing to properly address our border issues, and putting our ports into the hands of countries hostile to our culture, our ideals concerning individual rights, and our liberty, Bush appears to be handing America over to foreigners who do not have the best interests of America, or American citizens, at heart. How dumb can you get? I’m not sure, but I have one possible scenario: Watch Congress eventually approve the deal; but only after they’ve squeezed more pork for themselves out of this whole thing.
How can we have a War on Terror when we have TSA inspectors who can barely speak English?
If anyone questions this port action some will jump down our throats!
This isn't Bush bashing (I personally am a member of the VRWC) it's incredulity!
Another utterly ignorant fool blabbing without knowledge.
Percentage of UAE votes AGAINST the US at the UN:
(Israel has voted with us 100 % of the time.)
2004: 87.5%
2003: 100%
2002: 82.4%
2001: 100%
Well just who do you propose run this ship parking business?
How do you propose this be accomplished?
My understanding is that inspectors will be the same as they are now, whether or not they speak English. Boil this article down to its key point and it reads:
"THEY'S A-RABS!!!!"
I prefer their aid in fighting the WOT, in which they've been good allies, probably the best in the region. That's not saying much? Fine--but we live in the real world and have to deal with what we've got.
Well said.
Well, I see the left is now engaging in racial profiling, huh? Maybe this is a hate crime?
Why can't America run its own damned port terminals!
Only an idiot would believe it's a grand idea and would probably think it would likewise be good to have the TSA go out of America for contractual bids.
We don't need no stinking facts!
Interesting. The head of Israel's largest shipping firm just sent a letter to Hillary Clinton expressing his absolute support for DPW. You see, Israeli shipping firms, who are the most security conscious shipping agencies in the world, have been relying on DPW for years without a single problem. He said their security measures are the most comprehensive of any shipping company in the world.
Unless things have changed, fluency was a requirement for the TSA and one of the reasons for replacing the private firms who hired uneducated non-English speakers who sometimes also had questionable criminal record.
The American public griped aobut the quality of passenger and baggage screeners and Congresses answer was the TSA.
Be careful what you ask for, you may get it.
I think any appropriate blame should really fall on #8217.
Which alternate reality are you living in? The first poll on this here had those against the deal in the 60% area. Of course people offer their take on things here--I myself have been called a traitor and an anti-semite here. That's the nature of debate, and frankly, why should you care if someone "jumps down your throat"? That's what happens in debate. Toughen up.
How about the USCG or a branch of the Merchant Marine?
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.