Left-handed compliment
I’ve been kind of reserving judgment on this story until the dust settled somewhat and I could make a more-informed call, but this tells me all I really need to know:
WASHINGTON — Senate Republican Leader Bill Frist called Tuesday for the Bush administration to stop a deal permitting a United Arab Emirates company to take over six major U.S. seaports, upping the ante on a fight that several congressmen, governors and mayors are waging with the White House.
Critics have noted that some of the 9/11 hijackers used the UAE as an operational and financial base. In addition, they contend the UAE was an important transfer point for shipments of smuggled nuclear components sent to Iran, North Korea and Libya by a Pakistani scientist.
The Bush administration got support Monday from former President Carter, a Democrat and frequent critic of the administration.
“My presumption is, and my belief is, that the president and his secretary of state and the Defense Department and others have adequately cleared the Dubai government organization to manage these ports,” Carter told CNN. “I don’t think there’s any particular threat to our security.”
Well, that clinches it. If the single worst President in the last century — a man who has been wrong more than most, whose monstrous egotistical delusions have led him to say all sorts of incredibly stupid and anti-American things lately, who has lowered the national IQ just by his very existence — the miserable failure most directly responsible for the rise of Islamic terrorism in my lifetime because of his inept boobery and gutless typical-Democrat refusal to act in the nation’s best interests, preferring instead to wring his hands and “feel” his way through a crisis that demanded a swift and violent response — thinks everything is hunky-dunky with this deal, there simply has to be a very serious problem with it.
What the hell is Bush thinking these days, anyway?
Update! The first Bush veto ever — and it’s for this? There’s a distinct reek to this whole deal, and it smells a lot like RINO.
Updated update! A perfectly reasonable take that differs from my own rather flippant reaction above can be found here. I remain uncertain on the port deal itself for now, but the point about the political foozle this represents, especially in the wake of the admin’s unacceptably tepid response to the Great Cartoon Jihad, stands. I’m still baffled by the veto threat too; after all, he didn’t veto the CFR bill, something he himself thought was unconstitutional at the time. I repeat: what the hell is he thinking here?
- Entries
I really think the Dims saw ARAB in the name and saw a chance to score political points. Now the righties don't want to be out hawked. Personally, I don't see where this makes one whit of difference. The vessels coming IN to our ports are already foreign crewed, and loaded in foreign ports most likely leased by this very same company. Tempest in a very small teapot. The "port Authorities" will still be responsible for the ports, and, along with the Coast Gaurd, port security.
I suspect there's less to the story than we're hearing; that this is an attractive place for the Dems to attack because for once they can get to the right of the Administration on national security policy; and that if this port deal has been properly vetted, that the Dems opportunism (and now Hastert/Frist's backside-covering me-too-ism) will be a major setback to our anti-radicalization efforts in the middle east. Bin Laden's refrain: "See? Even their supposed liberals hate Muslims." The Dems, for all their supposed nuance, are coming across here like George Wallace on the warpath.
On the other hand, assuming the port operation agreement was put together properly and does not endanger security, Bush can turn this into a success in the Arab world. He's got to get the deal done, and explain it the right way... "Me & the American people are interested in doing business with our friends, the Arabs."
Yeah, it's a line. That's for sure. But when you are talking about splitting up the Islamist coalition and convincing others not to join, you have to at least try to help the people who help you, and based on what I've read, the UAE has helped us a lot in the last three or four years. Between picking up (and paying back) a steady ally in that troubled region, or getting Denny Hastert re-elected, I'd rather pick up the ally...
I never really bought into that crap. GWB has out nuanced em at every turn of late. Even the cold hard facts are turning against the Dims now.
I smell diplomacy. I scent a blind eye being turned to any activities of ours basing on the UAE and aiming at the Iranian Republic. A few deals made and "You didn't see nuthin', unnerstan'?"
I could be wrong, but maybe this means we're getting our chits together and are going to do something very violent.
Loud, obvious, and violent or quiet, unobtrusive, and violent - don't know which, don't care.
It sounds like they mostly deal with freight handling issues - loading and unloading. In itself that is troubling, but I don't know enough yet to really be sure. I don't know Customs procedures for unloading cargo and passing it out of the port and into the general stream of domestic commerce.
Geopolitically I can see why the Bush Administration didn't want to rattle the cages at the UAE. They have a very valuable location. Politically, someone should have flagged this earlier and noted the potential political firestorm. At the very least, Congress should have been informed, the relevant committees. That would provide sufficient cover in the old "We did inform you, we told the committee members who oversee this stuff. Why didn't they inform you?"
Perhaps in the near future we will find out that Congress - both parties - were fully informed and saw nothing improper with this deal. If so, watch this one flame out like NScAm did, with a lot of grandstanding and public flaggelation but nothing substantive done because there was nothing substantive to begin with.
But then again, I could be wrong. Watch this space (so to speak) for further updates.