![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
I think President Bush is doing the right thing with the whole UAE ports issue
Yeah. It pains me to say it. But I think that Bush has the right of it, and all the Democratic and Republican leaders who are against this sale are in the wrong.
So, for those of you not paying attention, here's the issue.
A deal has been brokered that would put the day-to-day operations of six major US ports under the control of a company that is run by the United Arab Emirates.
When this became public, it totally freaked out many, many people.
Bush has been saying that the deal is totally fair, is totally safe, and that he'll veto any legislation brought forth to block the deal.
The more I learn about it, the more I think that Bush is right to do so.
I mean, when we hear "An Arab country is getting control of six ports," it freaks us out. And I understand that. It freaked me out, too, and I thought that Bush was an absolute moron for letting this happen.
I still think Bush is a moron, on general principles, but I think he's a moron who's got the right of it this time.
The Bush administration has finally gotten around to pointing out the following points:
1) Security at the port is not the responsibility of the company they're selling to -- that's still Coast Guard and Homeland Security Administration.
2) Dubai has been a staunch ally of the US.
Those are actually good points. But they've not been hammering on the most important point, as I see it:
3) The company that CURRENTLY has day-to-day operations of the ports is British.
I mean, if this was an issue about turning over control of the ports from a US company to a foreign company, I'd have a problem with it. But it's already controlled by a foreign country. If it was an issue about turning over control of the ports from a country that was friendly to the US to one that was hostile to the US, I'd have a problem with it.
But what this is is turning over control of the ports from a country where most people are white to a country where most people are less white.
Yes, two of the 9/11 hijackers were UAE citizens. But we're also watching a bunch of terrorist agitator-type-people who are British citizens.
Fundamentally, it's not going to be any easier for terrorists to get access to ports run by a company based out of Dubai than a company based out of London. I mean, our port security sucks -- don't get me wrong -- but this isn't going to make it any worse.
Dubya said that being against this deal sends a horrible message to our friends and allies -- and he's right. We keep saying that we're not at war with Islam, or with Arabs, but rather only with Islamofacism and terrorism.
If that's true, then we have no reason NOT to deal with non-Islamofacist countries. But if we scuttle this deal, then it really gives credence to the belief that we're at war with Islam.
Bush is right.
So, for those of you not paying attention, here's the issue.
A deal has been brokered that would put the day-to-day operations of six major US ports under the control of a company that is run by the United Arab Emirates.
When this became public, it totally freaked out many, many people.
Bush has been saying that the deal is totally fair, is totally safe, and that he'll veto any legislation brought forth to block the deal.
The more I learn about it, the more I think that Bush is right to do so.
I mean, when we hear "An Arab country is getting control of six ports," it freaks us out. And I understand that. It freaked me out, too, and I thought that Bush was an absolute moron for letting this happen.
I still think Bush is a moron, on general principles, but I think he's a moron who's got the right of it this time.
The Bush administration has finally gotten around to pointing out the following points:
1) Security at the port is not the responsibility of the company they're selling to -- that's still Coast Guard and Homeland Security Administration.
2) Dubai has been a staunch ally of the US.
Those are actually good points. But they've not been hammering on the most important point, as I see it:
3) The company that CURRENTLY has day-to-day operations of the ports is British.
I mean, if this was an issue about turning over control of the ports from a US company to a foreign company, I'd have a problem with it. But it's already controlled by a foreign country. If it was an issue about turning over control of the ports from a country that was friendly to the US to one that was hostile to the US, I'd have a problem with it.
But what this is is turning over control of the ports from a country where most people are white to a country where most people are less white.
Yes, two of the 9/11 hijackers were UAE citizens. But we're also watching a bunch of terrorist agitator-type-people who are British citizens.
Fundamentally, it's not going to be any easier for terrorists to get access to ports run by a company based out of Dubai than a company based out of London. I mean, our port security sucks -- don't get me wrong -- but this isn't going to make it any worse.
Dubya said that being against this deal sends a horrible message to our friends and allies -- and he's right. We keep saying that we're not at war with Islam, or with Arabs, but rather only with Islamofacism and terrorism.
If that's true, then we have no reason NOT to deal with non-Islamofacist countries. But if we scuttle this deal, then it really gives credence to the belief that we're at war with Islam.
Bush is right.