Posted on 02/22/2006 7:49:10 PM PST by eddie2
So, Three Muslims Walk Into a Port
by Ann Coulter Posted Feb 22, 2006
The idea that the Democrats have any meaningful interest in America's national security is a joke, so I'm perfectly willing to believe there's more to this port story.
But President Bush is going to need a better justification for turning over management of our ports to an Arab country than he's come up with so far -- especially now that Jimmy Carter has said it's a good idea. Judging from his life's work to date, Carter's definition of a good idea is "an idea likely to hurt America and/or help its enemies."
Bush's defense of the port deal is to say that "those who are questioning it" need to "step up and explain why all of a sudden a Middle Eastern company is held to a different standard than a Great British company."
First of all, it's not "all of a sudden." The phrase you're searching for, Mr. President, is "ever since the murderous attacks of Sept. 11." The Bush administration's obstinate refusal to profile Middle Easterners has been the one massive gaping hole in national security since the 9/11 attacks -- attacks that received indirect support from the United Arab Emirates.
There are at least 3,000 reasons why a company controlled by a Middle Eastern Muslim emirate should be held to a different standard than a British company. Many of these reasons are now buried under a gaping hole that isn't metaphorical in lower Manhattan.
Even four years after 9/11, I note that we don't hear Tony Blair condemning some cartoons in a Danish newspaper as "a cultural extremism," or saying their publication represents a "dreadful clash of civilizations."
That was U.A.E. Minister of Justice and Islamic Affairs Mohammed Al Dhaheri's recent comment on the great Danish cartoon caper.
So maybe Bush could defend his port deal without insulting our intelligence by asking why anyone might imagine there's any conceivable difference between a British company and a United Arab Emirates company.
Bush has painted himself into a corner on this issue, and he needs a face-saving compromise to get out of it. Here's my proposal: Let Harriet Miers run the ports.
Isn't it enough that we're already patronizing the savages over the cartoons? Do we have to let them operate our ports, too?
The Bush administration defended Muslims rioting over cartoons, saying, "We certainly understand why Muslims would find these images offensive." Hey, while they're at it, why don't they invite some Muslim leaders with well-known ties to terrorism to the White House for a reception? Oh wait, I forgot ... They did that right after 9/11. Yes, now I see why we must turn over our ports to the United Arab Emirates.
The University of Illinois has suspended editors of the student newspaper, The Daily Illini, for republishing the cartoons -- even though the kiss-ass editors ran a column accompanying the cartoons denouncing them as "bigoted and insensitive."
That was still not enough for Richard Herman, the chancellor of the university, who wrote a letter to the editor saying that he was "saddened" by the publication of the cartoons. You want sad? The University of Illinois' sports teams are known as the "Fighting Illini." Now they're going to have to change it to the "Surrendering Illini."
Fox News' Bill O'Reilly refuses to show the cartoons on "The O'Reilly Factor," saying he doesn't want to offend anyone's religion. Someone should tell him those endless interviews with prostitutes from the Bunny Ranch and porn stars aren't high on Christians' list of enjoyable viewing either. (How about adding Prophet Muhammad cartoon T-shirts and fleece tops to his vast collection of "Factor gear"? Isn't Father's Day right around the corner? I'd buy those.)
Needless to say, the Treason Times won't show the cartoons that have incited mass rioting around the globe. At least The New York Times has a good excuse: It's too busy printing national security secrets that will get Americans killed. Its pages are already brimming with classified information about our techniques for spying on terrorists here in America -- no room for newsworthy cartoons! The Pentagon Papers and a top-secret surveillance program are one thing; cartoons that irritate Muslims are quite another.
Two days after the Times editorial page justified its decision not to reprint the cartoons as "a reasonable choice for news organizations that usually refrain from gratuitous assaults on religious symbols, especially since the cartoons are so easy to describe in words," the Times ran a photo of the Virgin Mary covered in cutouts from pornographic magazines and cow dung -- which I seem to have just described using a handful of common words! Gee, that was easy!
Taking to heart the lesson that violence works, I hereby announce to the world: I am offended by hotel windows that don't open, pilots chattering when the passengers are trying to sleep, and Garfield cartoons. Next time my sleep is disturbed by gibberish about our altitude over Kansas, the National Pilots Emirate embassy is going down. And mark my words: One minute after "Garfield II" goes into pre-production, some heads are gonna roll. Oh -- and I'll take the San Diego port, please.
"You make good sense in every one of your points, but it's not appreciated by the rapid-response conclusion-leapers around here."
Perhaps he's making good headway too by not calling them conclusion-leapers and/or other insults?
How the devil do you evict a tenet?
Do you persuade a nonet to chase the tenet away, especially if they're singing in a different key?
Hey, just asking.
"You do not know squat about port security. Federal and state monies are given to the port authroity to conduct security."
I don't know squat about port security either. I was always under the impression that port security falls into the Coast Guard's hands? Is that not true?
Nice try. Mecca isn't anywhere bloody NEAR a body of water. Good luck with Mecca's ''port''.
Oh this is so wrong!!! We are at war with totalitarians who use the pretext of religion! Remember They kill other Muslims. They just killed 20 Muslims today in Iraq and bombed their mosque!! No we are not at war with a religion. We are at war with homicidal maniacs who use religion to their own ends. Like the Taliban took away the rights of their fellow Muslims. They killed other Muslims, whipped them, took away their rights. Was that about religion? No it was about using religion as a whip to dominate and control and have power and money.
'I don't think she would get elected to a public position unless it was in a militia.',p.
I agree! ;o>
Good post! I wonder why we even needed a British company to manage America's ports? Are there no American companies that qualify to do the job? Or would our government consider that a conflict of interest? /sarc off
Having been in the Middle East. I tend to think we should do no more business with Muslims than absolutely necessary. They may reform, they may not, I have no way of knowing this. Until then I view every single one of them as dangerous, just the smart ones will stay quiet until they can slit our throat.
You can disagree with my assessment, many do. I just observed what I observed.
2 teeny little pics of Ann is not following the rules guys!
Somebody put up a nice pic of Miss Ann! :)
Hahaha! True.
Maybe its because he didn't want to have to explain why, all of a sudden, he was in favor of profiling. I'd love to hear him tell me why OBL is no longer the only threat. But most of all, I would really love to hear his reason why we should isolate portions of this region rather than embrace and co-operate with them.
Some of it does yes but they aren't the ones at the gates to port facilities.
Picture this, muslim believer truck drivers, muslim believers handling freight and muslim believer managers who work for a foreign government company who know the weak points of a security services plan.
Do you not think they couldn't smuggle in a nuclear bomb with the detonators to level NYC or DC?
True.
"In that regard I think her writings pale in comparison to having former Presidents and Vice-Presidents giving treasonous speeches on foreign soils, don't you think?"
Agree.
"You can disagree with my assessment, many do. I just observed what I observed."
Nah, I neither agree or disagree with your assessment at this point. You and a lot of other folks here have more knowledge and experience in these matters than I, just trying to get some learning here! I really meant no offense.
What makes you thin I don't know anything about port "security? "
The fact that you are willing to let a foreign (Muslim) government company operate six of our ports. Yopu are willing to overlook the fact that all terrorists are Muslims. What happens when one of them goes 'religious' on us? KABOOM That's what. Who dies? AMERICANS, THAT'S WHO!
Have to get some sleep. Who knows what tomorrow may bring? :-)
Good night all....
Sounds like she is directly blaming the Govt. UAE for the Attack to me.
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.