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.
Unless and until Bush does something about the Borders, he is not serious about security. Lazmataz nailed it earlier today, The Bush administration is the Clinton administration with slightly cleaner carpets.
Do you know if any other companies put in a bid for the ports?
Well tell that to the US Navy. We use the port in Dubai to keep Navy ships....Ann. Tell Tommy Franks he's wrong to be FOR the deal...Ann. Tell Tommy Franks he has no common sense...Ann.
Ann Coulter is not as smart as she likes to think she is. And she's certainly not smarter or more informed than Tommy Franks.
I feel the very same way.
That makes me and you both, Bushbots.
I'm ok with that.
Absurd. I think he's wrong with the border, but to say that a failure in one element of national security is the same as the president not being serious about national security is erroneous. What happened in Afghanistan and Iraq? Why are we holding people at Gitmo? What about the three guys arrested in Ohio day before yesterday? What are the wiretaps all about?
We've had repeated and continuing successes in killing and locking up terrorists before they've struck.
I agree that on the border Bush has dropped the ball on security, but that doesn't negate all the proof that he is serious about national security.
He was a muslim.
Bush's fault.
Why you're so bright and clever! And original too!
I know. I'm not OK with it, because there are so many things he does that make me want to give him an economics lesson, but ever since the election you're tagged with the "bushbot" label if you ever dare to defend the president's position.
Used to be everyone trusted him on national security.
Read my post on up to this one then ask any questions you might have. OK ?
"Reducing the number of personnel doing security work and most certainly reduce the necessary qualifications for security personnel because all of these things which cost money will be their goals. Cut down the overhead costs will be a continual rant of the CFO's and lower executive managers. Let's increase annual bonuses by cutting overhead costs 10%. On and on."
Dude! They will have no say in security. Security, such as it is, will remain the same.
So you are for isolationism? Or just complete opposition to anything Muslim and/or Middle Eastern? What are you saying?
You do not know squat about port security. Federal and state monies are given to the port authroity to conduct security. Most of what they have to do is mandated by law, but anything extra that is not mandated will only occur if the company decides they have the money to do it.
The company will know everything that enters or leaves thru the port. The company will also know the schedule of when security is at its highest, when it is at its lowest, when trackers are down for maintenence, when the CONEX box scanners are down for maintenence. We only check 5% of the CONEX boxes as it is.
That is more info than I want any foreign nation to know about a port that ships our military supplies thru it.
Coulter is really starting to irritate me. One more of her zany miscalculations and it's three-strikes-she's-out with me.
(....not that she cares, LOL)
Leni
"Carter's definition of a good idea is "an idea likely to hurt America and/or help its enemies."
Without all of the other possibilities this opens, this right here would be enough for me to question it.
Well, I'll admit this, he did throw a "basically the Clinton administration" in there. He's nominated to conservative judges, he's been okay in some other areas.
He is not a conservative.
I can go along with this to a point. Still, it is not a good idea for a public figure to inflame the enemy unnecessarily under any circumstances. I can forsee her some day saying something so outrageous and offensive that she destroys her career. She practices almost no self restraint in her commentary and that is risky.
I don't think she would get elected to a public position unless it was in a militia.
Your flaccid argument would indicate that all the pitfalls you describe are occurring now anyway.
Like I said, such as it is, so shall it remain.
What makes you thin I don't know anything about port security?
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.