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.
Ish, Just recently woke up I hope you can decipher that. If no here it is again.
NO, they want to rent it, what does the owner of an apartment complex do to obnoxious tenets? Thats right evict them
When they went to port running school the only class they attended was unloading and getting through customs. Kind of rings a bell.
"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"
How about another gaping hole, umteen hundred miles long, on our southern border, where spies, illegal imigrants, drug smugglers and terrorists can come across with no problem? Not to worry! The TSA is confiscating nail scissors from the ladies and pocket knives from the gents. We are safe!
Muchas gracias!
Anymore, you run the risk of a British company being owned by Muslims anyway.
Security of the ports remains in the hands of the Coast Guard, and the unfortunate truth is, security at our ports is dismal already. This deal won't change that.
I'm also a little concerned over all the conservatives who want the government delaying or stopping private business deals. I prefer a free market, realizing we're a long way from that anyway.
But the thing that really decides this for me is that I believe that the nation's security is the top priority for Bush. There is a lot where I part ways with the President, but when it comes to the nation's security he's the one I trust.
And the fact is, when it comes to the nation's security, I've got to trust someone.
The same working working the docks today will be the same ones that the UAE uses. If you dont think the UAE cares about security and that they arent working with us, read this
INSTANT CLASSIC
Good grief! Does the lady not have a husband to give her some food?
I am glad you posted that picture and quote by Ann Coulter. That quote about invading Muslim countries and converting them to Christianity shows how irresponsible she really is. She needs to develop a little restraint and some judgement.
Perhaps Ann Coulter and Mike Gallagher could get together and have a demagogue contest.
I'm starting a company and I want to run the port in Mecca. Will the Arabs object to this? If we can't have a business in Mecca, then they shouldn't have one in our ports. Treat them like they treat us.
Im callin' "shopped" on that one for two very obvious reasons.
The Red port of San Diego hasnt been being talked about much the last 24 hours. I wonder why not. I was much more out of kilter when the Chinese were moving into southern Kalifornia than most of the anti-UAE folks are now.
....but Im much better now
{: , )
You and I are from the same state, but there are times when I question that.
We're talking bout the Gubment here...and the Prez (I love em too) is known to hold hands with Prince Abdullah.
This President is a good man. But he is a human. His Daddy is very good friends with the Saudi's...and so is he.
I wonder...might there be a blind spot there.
I may be wrong but I believe a certain percentage of Muslims are either jihadis or supporters. The question is what's the percentage? In any event Muslims say Christians can't be their friends and thats good enough for me.
If they send 100 people over some of them are going to be dangerous.
save
Is good one! :^)
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.