Arab owned American ports

Should the UAE own American ports?


As anyone who reads my columns with any regularity knows, I cannot be readily classified as a Bush critic. I believe in what we are doing in the war on terror and I believe in and support the majority of his domestic agenda. Many things he has done lately though just boggles the mind. For instance, why doesn't the administration spearhead the investigation into the fact that WMDs were moved from Iraq to Syria by Russia? Why is the invasion of illegal immigrants not important enough to them to put a stop to it? Why, when we were faced with the challenge in the Supreme Court, did he nominate someone like Harriet Miers? It is however, his stance on the deal that would put six major US ports in the hands of a company owned by the United Arab Emirates (UAE) that has really upset many of Bush's loyal supporters.

Some supporters of the deal have said that this company has contracts with ports in China, Japan and other non Arab nations and they have a good track record so far. Is that so? Well, was it not the UAE that provided funds for the 911 attacks and is it not true that they used their port deals to ship nuclear components to Iran, Libya, and North Korea from Pakistan? It does not seem as if their track record is quite so good when you look at it in that light does it?

Today, when he returned to the White House from Colorado, Bush said to cameras on the South Lawn, "This is a company that has played by the rules, has been cooperative with the United States, from a country that's an ally on the war on terror, and it would send a terrible signal to friends and allies not to let this transaction go through," I cannot believe he is so misguided on this issue. However, I know why he is so misguided. It is because of his misunderstanding of the history of the war between Islam and Christianity. Note I did not say 'radical Islam'. I will explain why such a distinction was not made, later on in this post.
Liberals and Conservatives unite?

"I can understand why some in Congress have raised questions about whether or not our country will be less secure as a result of this transaction," said Bush. "But they need to know that our government has looked at this issue and looked at it carefully." Should we take him at his word? I am the first one to say that we should let the President lead and trust him to investigate this thoroughly.
I, however, am not the only one who is worried about this deal. It seems a swell of bi-partisan dissention currently presses Bush to reconsider. Believe it or not this issue has made for some pretty strange alliances. All week Liberals have called into radio programs such as O'Riley, Limbaugh, Hannity and Levin to agree with the hosts! Even extreme right wing ultra conservative Michael Savage went as far as to have Chuck Schumer on his program and the two of them found common ground on the issue. We have seen the likes of Dennis Hastert, Bill Frist, George Pataki, Susan Collins, and Peter King (the congressman) agree with people like Bill and Hillary Clinton, Schumer, Lehey, Jane Harman and even the flip flop king Kerry. With such a coalition in opposition to this deal, I am confident it will not go through. Senate Leader Bill Frist and House speaker Dennis Hastert have plans to introduce a bill to block or at least delay the transaction next week. Today Senate leader Bill Frist said,"The decision to finalize this deal should be put on hold until the administration conducts a more extensive review of this matter," "If the administration cannot delay this process, I plan on introducing legislation to ensure that the deal is placed on hold until this decision gets a more thorough review."
I believe they will be successful in quashing this, despite this statement from Bush today,"They ought to listen to what I have to say about this. They'll look at the facts and understand the consequences of what they're going to do, but if they pass a law, I'll deal with it with a veto." Hmmm, he'll veto a bill to give more time for a thorough investigation into a potential threat to our national security but not veto any of the nonsense that has come across his desk in the five years since he was elected? Doesn't this raise your eyebrows?

Before we get too cozy with the Libs here, I just want to ask the lefties, why they have all of a sudden decided that Arabs are our enemy? Before when we have singled out Arab nations as "the Axis of evil" and when we have recently said that we must stop Iran from going Nuclear, you have called us hate mongers and racists. Why do you see this as a threat? If Iran should be allowed to go forward with their nuclear programs and we should have stayed out of Iraq, why the change here? I just thought I'd ask.

Islam; A religion of peace?

The problem I have with the Bush Administration is that they have made such an effort to cauterize the diplomatic wounds left open by the war on terror and 'make nice' with many members of enemy nations by making claims that Islam is a 'religion of peace' and that Islam is not our enemy but they are only being hijacked by a radical arm of Moslem extremists. I am sorry President Bush, but you are very misguided. This line of thinking ignores the fact of incipient Islamic dhimmitude we know exists and replenishes the terrorist ranks! We are a Christian nation and we have an ally named Israel. As long as this remains, we will be a target of the 'True' followers of Islam. To call those who follow the tenants of the Qur'an 'Extremists' or 'Radical is a kin to calling Billy Graham and Mother Theresa radical extremists. That is absurd! They are simply followers of their religion. The Jewish and Christian religions call on their followers to ' Love thy neighbor' and 'Do not murder'. Yet The Islamic religion calls on it's followers to, "Fight and slay the unbelievers where ever ye find them. Seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem of war." Qur'an, Sura 9:5 It is for this reason that Christians have been at war with Islam since Cain slew Able and Ishmael taunted Isaac. Followers of both religions know that this war will only intensify and culminate with the return of Christ. So no amount of 'Peace talk' will thwart the threat we face from the followers of Islam.

How can you look at the tenants of Islam and believe that it is a religion of peace? If you are honest enough to admit that Islam calls for the murder of innocent people who do not believe as they do, and that almost 5,000 deadly attacks by Islamic Terrorists have been carried out since 911, you must admit that they who hold dear the teachings of Islam pose a threat to all people who do not hold to such beliefs.
I understand that Bush does not want to alienate peaceful well meaning Muslim people and seeks to foster an alliance with non threatening Muslim nations (few as they are). I believe that is a noble cause, certainly we should work to eradicate xenophobic thinking among American people. However there is nothing phobic about threat awareness and the assurance of national security! Are there peaceful Muslims? YES !
We should stand hand in hand with those who believe in Allah but denounce the teachings that invoke violence and world domination. The problem is that there are very few if any of them who stand strongly against such belief. A vast majority of Iraqi civilians have joined with America to thwart the terrorist invasion, and I am not shy about praising them and counting them among America's closest friends, but sadly they are not the Muslim majority. Unfortunately they never will be, so as Americans, we must not allow a fear of being labeled racists or bigots keep us from making decisions that protect our homeland.

"It sends a terrible signal to friends around the world that it's OK for a company from one country to manage the port, but not a country that plays by the rules and has got a good track record from another part of the world," This absurd comment by Bush illustrates just how much of a Neo-Con Bush is, (yes, he is a Neo-Con, which means he is a left of center Conservative, not an ultra Conservative which most people wrongly attribute the title) The 'one country' he refers to as having managed the ports is Great Britain, our ally! The other one once supported our enemy. How can he make such a comparison.

Rush to support GW

According to Rush Limbaugh, I and those whom I am in agreement with are being swept up in a tsunami of irrational suspicion toward this deal. " If the United Arab Emirates wanted to sneak a nuclear bomb into one of the containers that they ship from some other port into this country they could have done it by now!" Said The Maha Rushie on his radio show today. He does not believe that the port deal is a bad one, instead he as does Bush, sees Dubai and the UAE as an ally. An ally that got on board during the US led reformation of port security and he cites them as being on board with thwarting terror by signing the 2004 US container security initiative to scan all packages that are shipped from other country's ports to ours. This is all well and good and I usually agree with America's anchor man, but you cannot deny that this deal does open up our ports to attacks more than when it has been handled by the UK! I agree that we are not as secure at our ports now as we need to be, but this is not a deal that will increase our security. On the contrary, when the six ports in Baltimore, Miami, New Jersey, New Orleans, New York and Philadelphia are turned over to the UAE we face the risk of inviting a 'Trojan Horse' into our home that could bring us to our knees in a way we never faced before. My primary question is, when the UAE owns the ports, a suitcase nuke comes through and we lose thousands of lives, how do we deal with the UAE? Do we then go to war with ALL Arab nations? If, however, the UK or some other true ally owns the ports and the same nuke sneaks through, we will at least know it was a true accident that it got through in a way I don't think we would if a 'former' supporter of terror owned it. What do you think? Is my suspicion misplaced? Just remember, the security will still be handled by America, the employees will still be American. As for those who disagree with the deal based solely on the fact that it is going to be owned by a foreign country, just remember, 30% of our ports are run by foreign companies. The difference here is that this company is state owned by a Muslim nation that neighbors Iran.