“The Dems are demagoging this issue for all its worth to show they are not soft on terrorism. They could care less. All they care about is sticking it to Bush.”

Perhaps this was all a plot by our Dark Lord, Karl Rove, Peace (and Power) Be Unto Him, to let the Dems and the media run and make fools of themselves – yet again.

If I were examining a deal (which may be perfectly legitimate and safe) to allow an arab nation to control several US ports, it would likely dawn on me that some of the Presidents enemies and a number of reactionary politicans would probably jump on this and make a big deal about it.

I think I would at least discuss it with the President, provide him a report or something. I don’t mean this as a jab at our C-i-C, its not his fault if his people didn’t keep him informed. However, I am curious to see what others think.

http://in.rediff.com/news/2004/mar/25osama.htm
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/11/12/60minutes/main655407.shtml

But bear with me: who should we fear first – a firm with a serious economic interest in our port operation’s success? or the unidentified Islamist terrorists still working on the docks?

Politics is always about perception, but clearly Bush wants to go to the mat over this sale because it rewards our ally, the UAE. As a growing entrpot of world trade, they need us more than we need them. But can the flatpfooted, ham-fisted Bushies close the sale?

Roger’s very astute to argue this problem. Its like Harriet Myers for Bush, even when the the candidate is better qualified than O’Conner.

From the NYT

“We who were enemies are now friends,” Mr. Reagan told about 5,000 American military personnel, their families and local German residents at the Bitburg Air Base, less than one mile from the cemetery.
“We who were bitter adversaries are now the strongest of allies,” Mr. Reagan said. “In the place of fear we have sown trust, and out of the ruins of war has blossomed an enduring peace.”

One day this war on terror will be over. The price we are prepared to pay should not come at the expense of WHO we are. If (admittedly, its a big if) all the security concerns have been exhaustively vetted, stopping the contract will only fuel our enemies campaign of misinformation against us.

We are not at war against the UAE, Muslims nor Islam. We are at war with those who would have us dead because we are not like them.

One might try and distinguish between a “port authority” and a “freight handling facility” prior to making a ton of assertions.

I don’t think that his will be found to have compromised Homeland Security or Customs or Immigration activities in any manner.

True words. Though I have to agree that I’d like to see that veto pen used more often for pork…

So, I guess we should just say that while we appreciate the fact that certain countries in the ME allow us to put naval and air and army bases on their territory we as Americans do not like or trust Arabs and will never allow an Arab country to come anywhere near our ports. Because they are all potential terrorists. I mean come on, let’s be honest..that is what we are saying.

I just wish they had never started letting foreign companies do this work in the first place.

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/02/21/D8FTOB0G0.html

The conservative blogs are already complaining about Bush using the veto pen for this and not for pork barrel spending. Frankly, I have mixed feelings about this. I know the UAE will not be in charge of port security. However, it is sad that no American company can run our ports.

The Dems are demogoging this issue for all its worth to show they are not soft on terrorism. They could care less. All they care about is sticking it to Bush.