George W. Bush has succeeded at uniting political enemies from both sides of the aisle in opposition to his plan to let a company owned by the United Arab Emirates control security for some of America’s largest ports.Â
In what may yet prove to be George W. Bush's Waterloo, our fearless leader has succeeded at uniting political enemies from both sides of the aisle in opposition to his plan to let a company owned by the United Arab Emirates control security for some of America’s largest ports.
The UAE, as President Bush has pointed out, is an important ally. On Thursday, he observed sarcastically that he finds it "interesting" that people who had no objection to port security being run by a British firm (as was until now the case), object to an Arab firm.
Let me explain it to you, Mr. President: The British are British, and the Arabs are … ARAB!
(Truth be told, I think it is preferable to limit control of American port security to American firms, although I suppose we’ll have to congressionally codify controls by, say, passing a law that American firms may not subcontract port security to foreign firms or foreign subsidiaries, or bring in cheap, foreign H-1B or J-1 or L-1 — or whatever — workers to replace Americans. Don’t you just love those patriotic, American businessmen?)
Mr. Bush is trying to race-bait the American people. But there's a little problem with his strategy: Americans who might bend over when the same routine is used to provide cover for something insignificant like hiring unqualified minority candidates to be police officers, stand up, when it is used on behalf of Arabs who are a threat to our very existence. Recall that two of the 911 terrorists were from the UAE, UAE banks served as conduits to finance the 911 attacks, and the UAE is lousy with bin Laden supporters at the highest reaches of government. Not good.
Now, if the American people had, following 911, in a case of contemplation of collective suicide or of Stockholm syndrome, said that "Islam is a religion of peace," President Bush might be able to accuse us of hypocrisy. (In which case I’d say, “So sue us.”) But the American people never went along with that nonsense. It was wholly Mr. Bush's idea. Even most people who, like yours truly, supported him for other reasons (because he was our commander-in-chief and we were at war; because we thought, mistakenly, that he supported the U.S. Constitution, etc.), thought his support of Islam was ludicrous, and could only be justified, as I argued at the time, because we needed to avoid a direct confrontation with over one billion Moslems, and needed to get some Moslems to help us beat the other Moslems.
But don't try and humiliate the American people into going along with your lunacy, Mr. Bush. Where is that famous "common touch" of yours, when you most need it?
But George W. Bush is not utterly alone. He still enjoys the support of the sort of folks whom H.L. Mencken surely was thinking of, when he coined the term "the Stupid Party" to describe the GOP.
My inbox has been overflowing the last couple of days with e-mails from a Stupid Party mailing list, whose members are outraged that anyone would criticize the President over the Dubai Deal. The following missive arrived Thursday night.
"MSM [mainstream media] and FNC [Fox News Channel] is full of idiots. (Period)
"There is NO SALE OF PORTS!!! It's a lease of some shipping terminals and berths.
"Over and over the idiots in the media including FNC keep saying 'selling ports'. ????….
"The New Media needs to expose this BS!
"Rush has examined and detailed the facts since last Friday, over and over …
"There is NO SALE OF PORTS!!! It's a lease of some shipping terminals and berths.
"There is NO SALE OF PORTS!!! It's a lease of some shipping terminals and berths.
"There is NO SALE OF PORTS!!! It's a lease of some shipping terminals and berths."
At least someone still loves you, Dubya.
Add1dda@aol.com
http://www.thecriticalcritic.blogspot.com/
Read more articles by Nicholas Stix
I guess the American people are not as stupid as our leader and his handlers think. We got the same speech after the British terror attacks last summer; our intrepid leaders are at the G8 summit they both come out decrying the murderous attacks and telling us how "terrorism will not win the day," and in the very same breath, Blair and Bush tell us how great they are in giving the PLO 50 million plus of our tax dollars in aid. Boy some things just don't change. Until our leaders have the guts to hold all Muslims accountable much like all Germans were held accountable for Nazi policies we will continue to suffer terrorism from Islam.
Comment by Dean | February 24, 2006
Here's another issue: I don't remember our WWII leaders telling the Nazi/Germans they were great people along with their belief system, maybe its just my poor reading of history but the thought of: "its just a few of you Nazis we have a problem with…" line just didn't fit then and it shouldn't now. Did you notice how since Germany got its collective rearend kicked its remained pretty docile and civilized since then along with the Japs? We may not have agreed with a lot of their socio/economic policies but hey along with the Japs we've all come a long way. But our President and his idiotic advisors continue to call what in reality are a bunch of Nazi like thugs 'great people with a great belief system." Go to Afghanistan or any other ME country including the UAE and see how women and religious minorities are really treated. But no, Bush to inform the world's newest Nazi's how great and wonderful they and their beliefs are and the world continues to suffer becuase of it. Well the American people are getting fed up with the BS Bush!
Comment by Dean | February 24, 2006
One last thing, as a military guy I can tell you now, its no surprise to those in the know; history is not going to be too kind to America's Army and Marine leaders nor to the man in charge of hiring and firing…
Comment by Dean | February 24, 2006
Some say cutting aid to Palestine will only make the children suffer.
And I say Nazis had children too!
If we never do anything in case someone's children suffers, we are doomed.
Ever since Vietnam, America has been fighting a boxing match with it's hands tied behind it's back and who ever our ennemy is, he gives himself permission to hit the US below the belt…
Fighting in a "politically correct way" an ennemy that respects no rules is suicide.
…
And what if along the years
- slowly - that Dubai company replaces the shore men with Muslims?
And what if they then start demanding all female employee dress in a way that muslim men approve?
And they constantly have all sorts of demands " in respect of Islam"?
And American workers find the place more and more hostile so they quit one after the other?
And so on, and so forth…
Maybe the real treath here is not a terrorist attack but the "cultural invasion" of Islam?
Why isn't there an american company interested in those six ports?
What is next?
Selling GM to Arabs?
Selling Walmart to Arabs?
What the hell is going on?
Is this a slow suicide or what?
Comment by Anonymous256 | February 24, 2006
I don't believe that anyone is suggesting a "plan to let a company owned by the United Arab
Emirates control security for some of America's largest ports". Perhaps we should explore what
the scope of responsibilities are re: this deal, before we start hitting the panic button.
Comment by JFS | February 24, 2006
I have yet to see any documentation whatsoever that indicates the UAE companies will have any say over security. While Iprobably wouldn't have let this company do business in the ports, the situation is way over blown. We have a lot of military personnel in the UAE and we get along with them at least as well as we do with the French, eh? They would only get to unload boxes that still have to go through the same screening as before. Since shipments already came from the UAE and entered the country throught the same security screenings, the only extra opportunity a terrorist would have would be to sneak materials between unloading and screening. What are they going to do? Pocket a few nukes and a couple hundred pounds of C4? Here we conservatives are focusing on the ports when we should be expending our energy exposing what hypocritical morons the liberals are acting like right now. Instead, we'll just let another opportunity go.
Comment by Shane Atwood | February 24, 2006
Besides, most of the materials terrorists need are readily available right here in the U.S.. If I were a terrorist, why would I add another risk of being caught before carrying out my mission when I could accomplish what
I want to with supplies in the U.S.? As long as we continue reasonable security screenings, our biggest fear shouldn't be material smuggled through the ports. (But we should be concerned about the Mexican border.)
Comment by Shane Atwood | February 24, 2006
Terrorists are crazy scumbags, but I don't think that all of them are stupid, especially the ones with the capacity to organize a multi-plane simultaneous assault coming from different airports in different cities. I really don't think they'll risk trying to smuggle through a major port.
Comment by Shane Atwood | February 24, 2006
White House and Congress Trade Away American Security
The United Arab Emirates ports management deal finally exposes our economic and trade policies for what they are: a government's pursuit of money (for a select few) over the interests of most Americans.
The ports management deal is not an isolated mistake. Far worse has happened, but perhaps nothing as nakedly blatant. For example, how does it benefit Americans when:
Drug companies are allowed to write a new Medicare prescription drug benefit that keeps prices artificially high for seniors by forbidding government-negotiated prices based on volume?
The American-funded Import/Export Bank subsidizes Chinese nuclear power development? Is it possible we are not sending enough money to Communist China?
Congress has repeatedly neglected our national and economic security:
The majority of our oil comes from abroad, much of that from countries with unstable, unfriendly populations
The majority of our computer equipment is manufactured overseas
The majority of our food in imported from foreign countries
Over two-thirds of the products sold in major retailers is imported from countries like Communist China and Mexico
Our soaring budget deficit leaves deeply indebted to foreign countries like Communist China, to whom we owe $1 trillion
Illegal immigration is accepted—and legal immigration is abused—to secure cheap labor (exposing us to unknown security risks)
Congress sees the results of these unhealthy dependencies (declining American wages, record trade and budget deficits, national security vulnerabilities) and just pours fuel on the fire. It passed CAFTA after NAFTA. It refused to crack down on widespread illegal Chinese trade practices by threatening to withdraw from the World Trade Organization (WTO).
Most in Congress have demonstrated that they will not change course; they are simply too indebted to big-money campaign donors and lobbyists. We must replace them.
Comment by johnkonop | February 24, 2006
Not all Muslims are terrorists, but nearly all terrorists are Muslim.
The deal stinks and I told my Congressman and Senators.
Comment by The Plumber | February 24, 2006
The United States is being bought, piece by piece by our enemies.
The UAE's top 3 investing nations are: #1 USA, #2 Iran, #3 China.
This explains why the Neo-Cons say "deficits don't matter;" our infrastructure is being put up as collateral.
We are not becoming an Empire. We are being Re-Colonized, under the flag of Free Trade and Capitalism.
The UAE is the finest example of what the Middle East has.
They have so much power and money because of their oil that when they have decent leadership they can overpower any company and make a huge profit.
They are the Netherlands of this generation.
A small country that gains immense power.
The UAE is a Corporate Nation.
It is not a Nation State.
It is a Nation Corporation
It should be called UAE Inc.
This is the most outrageous thing in American history since slavery, and its being downplayed.
Tie this to the push for a Service Economy - and it is anew form of slavery, or at least indentured servitude.
The UAE is the real-life incarnation of SPECTRE.
Comment by FreeRepublicans.com | February 25, 2006
I usually enjoy the articles posted on this website. However, Mr. Stix needs to do some research. Security for our ports is maintained by DHS and the USCG. The "deal" in question has nothing to do with security.
Comment by brentferns | February 26, 2006
FreeRepublican,
What is your take on this ie security.
QAEDA CLAIM: WE 'INFILTRATED' UAE GOV'T
By NILES LATHEM
——————————————————————————–
February 25, 2006 — WASHINGTON — Al Qaeda warned the government of the United Arab Emirates more than three years ago that it "infiltrated" key government agencies, according to a disturbing document released by the U.S. military.
The warning was contained in a June 2002 message to UAE rulers, in which the terror network demanded the release of an unknown number of "mujahedeen detainees," who it said had been arrested during a government crackdown in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks.
The explosive document is certain to become ammunition for critics of the controversial UAE port…
Comment by johnkonop | February 26, 2006
"They have so much power and money because of their oil that when they have decent leadership they can overpower any company and make a huge profit."
FR - you do know that the UAE, and specifically Dubai is a mostly trading based economy, right? They have little or no oil, and they run ports in dozens of nations around the world. Kind of like Hong Kong.
Comment by Chris | February 27, 2006
no facts please, we're…FR's.
Comment by JFS | February 27, 2006