I agree with a large part of President Bush's war on terrorism agenda, but I can't believe he is considering allowing U.S. ports to be sold to a firm owned by the United Arab Emirates government. Despite being a U.S. "ally", the UAE has many proven connections to terrorism, and merely entertaining the thought of hiring them to manage our ports should be out of the question. Even if they passed the administration's stringent background tests, why gamble our security on even the slightest chance? The Washington Times has it entirely right in saying that we shouldn't trust our safety to any foreign government, much less one linked to Al Qaeda.
The White House did have some good news, though, with the Presdient stating today that America is on the verge of some startling energy breakthroughs. I sure hope he's right; the sooner we move away from Middle Eastern oil, the better.
Apparently I'm not the only one criticizing Jimmy Carter's abysmal political actions as of late. Fellow bloggers Ankle Biting Pundits wonder: is Carter on the Hamas payroll? Just what else could possibly explain his outrageous support of the terrorist group? No wonder he was unable to rescue the American hostages held in Iran in 1979 (Ronald Reagan ultimately succeeded); Carter's foreign policy ideas are pure weakness and capitulation to the enemy.
Not an urban legend: Ironing envelopes really does destroy anthrax in contaminated mail.
Esteemed historian Bernard Lewis has written an insighful essay on the roots of anti-Semitism and how it motivates the worst of today's Israel-haters. I disagree somewhat with his historical perspective (here is the view I most agree with), but his indictment of anti-Zionists is entirely on the mark and sadly all too real.
Need any more evidence that Iran's government is evil? The country was called Persia for most of its history, but renamed itself in 1935 as the Persian word for "Aryan" because its leaders supported Hitler. Ahmadinejad and the Mullhas are only the latest inheritors of a deeply troubled regime, and we must support the country's burgeoning freedom movement.
Blog of the Day: Israpundit. Essential pro-Israel advocacy.
Solid Surfer,
I have to admit that I am in the same boat as you. I am a staunch supporter of Bush and of his agenda in regard to the war on terror, however this port deal with UAE does baffle me some. It seems like an extremely risky move in regard to the safety of the US and of the rest of the world. And it seems to somewhat contradict the rest of his national security agenda. I don't know if he is trying to appease UAE and I don't know if UAE provides the U.S. will some sort of aid in the war on terror. Regardless, I think a lot of politicans, including Republicans are a little puzzled by the situation, as I am as well. Hopefully things will be a little bit more clearer in the next few days.
Posted by: Mini Me | February 21, 2006 at 10:25 PM
One of Michelle Malkin's readers gave a few reasons for why the port deal isn't nearly as bad as people think (go to this post and scroll down a bit for the reaser's note: http://michellemalkin.com/archives/004577.htm ). I'm still skeptical though.
Posted by: Solid Surfer | February 21, 2006 at 10:39 PM
Thanks Solid Surfer...After reading that, I am only mildly relieved. If people familiar with the situation, making them more familiar than me, to not view this transaction as a problem at all than that makes me feel better, but like you I am still somewhat skeptical. Do you expect President Bush to speak about this topic? I imagine he has to.
Meanwhile, congrats on making it on RCP's website again! Keep up the good work!
Posted by: Mini Me | February 21, 2006 at 11:00 PM
Thanks! I appreciate all the great comments too; I'm glad there have been so many lively discussions on the site. Look for a big post on the site tomorrow too!
As for President Bush, the Senate and Congress will definitely drill him, and if he can't justify what he's doing, I think there will likely be a huge enough PR backlash that he'll probably change his mind, even if it takes a while. (Kind of like with the Harriet Miers nomination to the Supreme Court - it took some time, but eventually she backed down under similar pressure.)
Posted by: Solid Surfer | February 22, 2006 at 12:29 AM
Just found an article by someone who basically said the same thing as I did in the above comment...thought you might want to see it: http://www.nationalreview.com/gaffney/gaffney200602220830.asp
Posted by: Solid Surfer | February 22, 2006 at 07:10 AM
beamish has opened a can of worms on the uae port issue - interesting, but watch out for bad language - i'm trying to not become too accustomed to it:
http://thecrankfiles.blogspot.com/
first article above wtf3.
Posted by: nanc | February 22, 2006 at 09:54 AM
Hi Nanc,
Thanks for the article. It's definitely interesting, but I disagree with Beamish entirely. I think racism against Arabs has very little to do with it; the problem is that the company buying the ports is owned by a government with proven links to terror. Regardless of ethnicity, it's always trouble when dealing with an unfree government that has ties to Al Qaeda, and we shouldn't even allow the slightest risk to our security by doing so.
Posted by: Solid Surfer | February 22, 2006 at 12:35 PM
I wonder what other countries own U.S. ports? Also, I think the author of Nanc's link actually has a valid argument, and there might be some truth to it. I believe a lot of people aren't familiar with the UAE or their stance in regard to terrorism. Perhaps racism leads to people assuming a country that is predominately Islam is a threat to the U.S.
Solid Surfer, you posted a link to Michelle Malkin's website in which she discusses a NY Post article that states: "much of the operational planning for the World Trade Center attacks took place inside the UAE." While this may be the case, it isn't as if the government is pro-terrorism or anti-American. In fact, the UAE has a strong anti-terrorism stance.
(http://www.uaeinteract.com/news/default.asp?ID=216) From this article, this is evidenced. In fact, one quote I found to emphasize their stance on the topic is: "UAE President H.H. Sheikh Khalifa bin Zayed Al Nahyan and his Turkmen counterpart Saparmurad Niyazov stressed, in a joint communiqué issued simultaneously in Abu Dhabi and Ashgabat at the end of Sheikh Khalifa's visit, the importance of consolidating peace and security in Central Asia and Middle East. They also underlined the need for respect of principles of international law, non-interference into internal affairs of others, settlement of disputes through peaceful means and clearing the Middle East region from weapons of mass destruction."
So, considering the UAE is one of just a few Middle Eastern nations to possess a position in regard to terror and even WMD possession somewhat similar to the United States, I think this port deal might be a good thing, as it strengthens the relationship between the US and the UAE, and also the UAE's outspoken anti-terror stance shows that they aren't really a threat to US national security.
Posted by: Mini Me | February 22, 2006 at 03:11 PM
I had the pleasure of listening to Mr. Lewis deliver a speech on "The New Anti-Semitism" last year at Brandeis University. I haven’t had a chance to read the article, but I agree with your analysis. If anyone is seriously interested in Mid East politics I highly suggest reading his book (I think he might have a condensed article) "What Went Wrong."
With regard to the port issue...I believe that if the if the U.S. is going to auction off its port security, then the U.A.E should be given equal opportunity to get the contract. It is very difficult to find a country that has not at one point supported some kind of terrorist group or activity (I would be very happy if proven wrong). If the U.A.E has shown that it has reformed its policies and policy there is no reason why it shouldn't be given equal opportunity. U Therefore, the question to me is whether or not our national security should be auctioned to the highest bidder. I definitely think it should not.
Posted by: Ian | February 22, 2006 at 05:06 PM
I'm curious why we are bidding out the port operations at all. Other types of sensitive services, like the police department are not outsourced. After 9/11, the port operations took on a particular sensitivity. We should recognize this fact.
Posted by: verdant | February 22, 2006 at 09:18 PM
Verdant, I agree. I don't think any foreigners should be in chage of our ports, no matter what country.
Here's another good article too about why the UAE deal is bad: http://www.debbieschlussel.com/archives/2006/02/somethings_rott.html
Posted by: Solid Surfer | February 22, 2006 at 09:22 PM
Whether or not our ports should be outsourced I am not sure, but if they are I don't have a problem with UAE running a few of them.
Posted by: Mini Me | February 22, 2006 at 09:28 PM
mini me - i posted this at another site regarding this issue:
"one thing for sure - we'd DEFINITELY know WHICH ports to keep our eyes on - ;} - well, of course if we were profiling kind of people - :] - and i'm not saying we do profile certain types of people who are prone to terrorism - ;[ - but we would know where to expend MOST of our energies if we had to - ;)"
there is a saying to keep your friends close and your enemies even closer.
Posted by: nanc | February 23, 2006 at 08:33 PM
HAHAH...but in all seriousness nanc, UAE is not our enemy. There are some countries that view America as the emeny and plenty of countries that don't have the stance on terrorism that the US has...but the UAE isn't one of them. Their views regarding terrorism are similar to the US's.
(http://www.uaeinteract.com/news/default.asp?ID=216)
Posted by: Mini Me | February 23, 2006 at 09:58 PM
Charles Krauthammer has written a very good piece on this: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/Commentary/com-2_24_06_CK.html
Posted by: Solid Surfer | February 23, 2006 at 10:03 PM
don't know if anyone knows this, but the u.a.e. gave the u.s. 150 million dollars for katrina aftermath. heard this on christian talk radio this morning and another tidbit of info - bush has said we (u.s.) will help rebuild the mosque that had the shiite blown out of it - but has said nearly nothing regarding the 10 baptist churches that were set afire in our own country! he is my president - i voted for him and stand behind him, but this takes the cake. he is putting so much distance between himself and his faithful.
Posted by: nanc | February 24, 2006 at 10:37 AM
Hi Nanc,
Tony Blair and Bush both commited funds to rebuild the mosque. I'm guessing the reason is that they feel somewhat responsible for the internecine murders and mosque burnings committed, by militias, insurgents, rebels and Iraqi soldiers. Unfortunatly, this exaggerated political correctness will have no effect on how we are perceived, as perceptions are overwhelmingly tinted toward the tribal, parochial and federialist viewpoints.
Posted by: Verdant | February 25, 2006 at 12:44 PM
well, i pray they take the money out of the oil account the left believes we are taking! - ha-ha!
Posted by: nanc | February 25, 2006 at 07:12 PM