Alpine Summit

Tuesday, February 21, 2006

Porting Disaster

Bush now says he wants the UAE/Port deal to go through. Not only that, but he'll apparently veto any attempt to stop this from happening! Unbelievable.

"After careful review by our government, I believe the transaction ought to go forward," Bush told reporters who had traveled with him on Air Force One to Washington. "I want those who are questioning it 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. I am trying to conduct foreign policy now by saying to the people of the world, `We'll treat you fairly.'"

Here's why the UAE shouldn't have control over our ports as opposed to Great Britain, Mr. President (whom I voted for): unlike Great Britain, the UAE has historical ties to terrorism today that should be brought into question as to the motivations behind the country. The UAE was one of only 3 countries to recognize the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan, money used to pay for the 9/11 hijackers went through UAE banks, and a few of the hijackers on 9/11 were FROM the UAE. I realize this hardly condemning evidence, but the question is one of security. The question we have to ask is "does this move make us more vulnerable to terrorist attacks?" Given the dubious record of the UAE, I would have to say the answer is "yes." After all, you wouldn't appoint the chronically late and irresponsible mail room boy as your company's CEO, would you?

Michelle Malkin has (as usual) a good handle on things.

Frist has said he will oppose this deal as far as he can. Clinton, attempting to seem strong on national defense, has joined the fight as well. Whatever her motivations, I think this is an issue where even liberals can agree that this is problem because it doesn't even have the "personal rights" issues usually attached to security questions we Americans usually fight over.

|