![[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.
no subject
On the other hand, the Bush Administration defined the terms (decided that having a terrorist travel through your country counted as "ties to" terrorism, that Arabs are Scary People, and that we should all be terrified in general), so it's hard for me to be too sympathetic that they're now getting bitten by them.
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
He lost that when it turned out he'd been riding herd on FEMA being gutted, and then his administration turned around and blamed LA Democrats for the whole thing.
Sen.Clinton is calling for an investigation. Bush does not want one. His decisions are not to be questioned. Ever.
no subject
no subject
Will it make port security worse than it is? I don't know, but considering which ports are involved and the importance of those ports to the whole infrastructure of the country, I'd worry in this instance.
The main republican complaints seem to be not so much as the choice as the process involved and the secrecy that basically kept the majority of the senate and the house out of having a say on the contract. Maybe they are getting tired of the rubber stamp 'Top Secret' that the folks at the top are using to keep even them from knowing what is going on.
no subject
6 commercial ports...
and
TWO MILITARY PORTS IN TEXAS...
we also should get our texas highways back from the Spanish, and get LA ports back from the chinese...
oh... and that guy... ( crap! I wish I was better with names ) who is gong to be the maritime comissioner... and is also on the payroll of... dubais ports.
That leads me to believe that pResident whatsisname is full of shit when he says he knew nothing about the deal.
It's not about racism. It's about sensibility.
And the general population's sensibility is prepared to err on the side of caution.
Of course we have an out of control government, and have for 17 years... giving away our infrastructure, exporting jobs, opening our borders during a time of war ( we ARE at war ya know!), cutting back on border patrol, installing transponders and cameras on every highway and pole... curtailing our fourth amendment rights ( yes, that's what they did )...
this link should lead to Alex JOnes' website... he HAS done the research.
I don't care what you believe... there is some very solid evidence presented that points to something very wrong happening...
And if Resident butch isn't concerned about terrorism in this instance, he simply isn't paying attention....
after all, the Iraqi security forces are chronically infiltrated by enemy combatants, whose sole purpose is to one day blow up!
Do we really want that kind of logistical problem at the military port of Corpu Christi?
no subject
I don't know what to think. NPR and Daniel Shore were defending Bush yesterday. Democrats and McCain are supporting what amounts to profiling on an international level and now Xiphias is typing without the least irony: 'Bush is Right'.
Up is down. Black is White. Bill Bennett and Alan Dershowitz are agreeing about the media. Cats and Dogs will be lying down together soon.
no subject
no subject
I've been critical of Bush where I think he deserves it. But I tend to agree on this one; it's not a big deal. Staying away from the mazey hazey paths of potential political wrangling, and focusing on the issue, the only concern I have is that there are some...ephemeral links between the UAE and terrorists. The big example being that the 9/11 Project was funded primarily by a state-owned bank.
But, with the huge amounts of oil we're purchasing in the region from other more clearly involved in financially supporting the islamofascists (Saudi Arabia and the Wahhabists who literally want to return everything to the 7th century, anyone?), this is tiny, tiny beans. And the damage it could do to the idea of trying to encourage Westernization and cooperation far outweighs that tiny bit of support.
no subject
no subject
2) Again, sorta. They talk a good game, but don't look so good in practice.
3) When Britain adopt the shi'a, then you've got a point. Until then, not so much.
Mostly, though, you're right. There's no real reason to prevent the deal from going through. The fun from the Leftie front is, after years of listening to Bush shout "Terrorism! Terrorism! We have to invade Iraq because they're all in this together! Don't complain about civil rights! Nothing matters but Terrorism!" now we get to see him look puzzled as he wonders "Why is everyone yelling about terrorism? Why do they think that UAE are terrorists?"
It's a classic story: the great man bought low by hubris. When he said something, people believed him, no matter how far from the truth he was. Now, he's telling the truth. But this truth contradicts what he said before, so no one believes him.
no subject
Given how much container traffic comes in to the US, and given how little of it is checked, the question of who is in control of the recieving ports is the least of our problems.
Unless the possibility being raised is that the port operator will deliberately sabotague the ports themselves, and damage the US by damaging the ports, it's all nonsense. We're exactly as vulnerable to a nuclear/biological/chemical attack in a cargo container if the ports are being managed by a company owned by the Emirates, by the Chinese government, or by Elliot Ness, Crimebuster.
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
I imagine mid-term elections have a thing or two to do with the Congressional uproar as well.
no subject
NOT ONE.
And this is the one bill that he says he will veto. Something stinks, something like how this contract is going to make some of his buddies richer.
no subject
But, you know, that doesn't actually change the fact that he's right about the message that this will send to the part of the Arab world that doesn't actually hate us.
no subject
I don't think he is. See, I'm not crazy about the fact that any of our ports, crappy security and all, are being controlled by foreign companies. I'm also very concerned by the fact that this deal didn't go through the standard review process. It looks like it's all about Shrub trying to do an end-run around Congress so he can make some of his buddies richer--I don't care what color those buddies are; it's still wrong.
no subject
no subject
Ian, Bush has had a shifting story on this.
First, it was a good idea and he would veto any bill opposing the deal.
Then, he didn't know much about the deal despite the fact that he's supposed to sign off on such deals and despite the fact that there's supposed to be a review period - also the fact that this is, y'know, Congress' bailiwick to approve of in a Constitutional sense.
Then, he didn't know *anything* about the deal until he heard about it from the news, and ditto.
Most recently, he's decided that Congress can have some oversight.
This stinks of backroom deals and wasn't done properly. In fact, it's been done illegally.
no subject
The argument that we shouldn't complain about the arabs more than any other foreign interests is a good one (although I'll admit that Bush is, to some extent, hoist by his own petard, and so has less reason to complain than he might otherwise).
But, if this hoopla results in people paying more attention to who owns our infra-structure, that's a good thing. In other words, the people who are complaining about the deal are right, even if they are right for the wrong reasons.
Kiralee