I agree with you. We, a country in wartime, are in a very bad place. Bush, however, is not without blame. It should have been obvious to him that the port deal (among other things) would be a lose-lose politically for the GOP. Common sense and the survival instinct will trump arcane explanations anytime. You don't spend political capital (political capital that you don't even have) on such a loser. And certainly not post-9/11, not in an election year, not when the specter of 'clinton-the sequel' is looming large. You want to 'reward' the UAE? You give them a deal that has no national security consequences-real or apparent. You don't relinquish your only strong suit to the democrats. What could he have been thinking? Was he thinking at all?--Mia T
Buying shares in gantry cranes is one of those "no national security involved", win-win things. Another investment opportunity for those with the big bucks are construction cranes used to erect highrise buildings. Each one you see on the horizon is on top a project of one-half billion dollars or more. Buying into Islamofascist and DNC talking points designed to sew enmity between the US and a major Middle-Eastern military staging area (for us) is not really all that good an investment.--muawiyah
Funny you would mention gantry cranes. A rather ironic suggestion, given the context. Investing in national-security-vacant hoisting devices has been a long-standing strategy of missus clinton. For her entire adult (such as it is) life, zipper-hoisting has been missus clinton's principal means of upward mobility. Zipper-hoisting has proved to be a sticky wicket for missus clinton, owing not to antithetical feminist ideology, as one would expect -- feminists willingly sacrificed feminism on the altar of clintonism -- but to zipper choice, her rather injudicious attachment early on to a certain zipper habitually on the downslide. As for the larger cranes, with highrise buildings becoming juicy 'military' targets, with engineering and material failures implicated in the WTC collapse, perhaps whooping cranes would be a more national-security-neutral choice, (avian flu notwithstanding).... The strategic importance of Dubai as a staging area is precisely the point. (My point, BTW.) Because of its importance, Bush should never have allowed this issue to develop in the first place. I say this for three reasons:
- The public cannot be moved on this one. The reaction is at gut level. Instinctive. When the survival mechanism kicks in, no amount of reasoned argument will work. It is a lose-lose for the GOP.
- Bush is spending political capital he doesn't even have on a sure loser even as he bets the farm. His only remaining strong suit is now in play.
- Because American reaction was predictable to a certainty, the situation should have been avoided even if minds could be changed because once America reacts this way in front of the world, Dubai loses face irrespective of the final outcome.
|