I've been spluttering sentence fragments for the past hour or so after reading this story on CNN.com. Call me crazy, but it seems that the comments that:
"People don't need to worry about security."
AND
"This deal wouldn't go forward if we were concerned about the security for the United States of America."
don't exactly jive with the comment, made on February 1st of this year, that:
"My job as your President is to look at the world the way it is. And I clearly see the threats to America. My job is to worry about those threats."
Granted, I don't know any more about the international business relationships America has with other countries than the average-to-well-informed-American, but this one really seems...OFF. I certainly don't want to make unfounded judgments on the United Arab Emirates, but it seems to me that the widely accepted facts are that 2 of the September 11th hijackers as well as some of the funding for the terrorist attacks came from the UAE, not to mention that it was one of the countries in the world who claimed legitimacy for the Taliban regime. Additionally, I've read that Dubai was an important transshipment point for the smuggling network of Abdul Qadeer Khan, the Pakistani scientist who supplied Libya, Iran and North Korea with equipment for making nuclear weapons.
So...we give the managment responsibilities for 6 major U.S. ports over to a country with factual ties to international terrorism, and we preemptively go to war with a country we assumed had weapons of mass destruction because of the supposed threat to the safety of our country?!?!?! Of course, I didn't sail through Harvard with a C average, so I'm not one to question the intricacies of the logic Dubya may have learned in those hallowed halls.
And, of course, I get my information from those leftist pinko communist crazies we call the media (meaning any news source except for the fair and balanced folks at FOX News), so maybe those facts are wrong. I guess my true problem comes in with the abrupt about-face that the Bush administration is pulling, switching from the policies of the fear of threats to America from Iraq (which we used as basis for going to freakin' war) to the seemingly nonchalant "no worries" policy governing this port deal.
I'll tell you what, I've got a port deal of my own. Let's drink it. Lots of it. How does 20 gallons sound? Anyone want to join me?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Couldn't agree more on this issue (though probably not on many other political matters), and count me in on your plan! Is 20 Gals enough?
Monk
I had problems with this on the surface. However, when it gets down to it, I am less upset about the possibility of a UAE company providing security than I am at the reaction from the Dems. I find their disapproval a bit disingenuous. These are the same structures and groups that have been opposed to racial profiling for the past five years.
My thought is that a company based in UAE would be held to a pretty high standard of accountability.
Of course, his comments were stupid. What else do we expect? This really shows that he is not a very good politician. The biggest reason they were stupid is because he went totally "off message" with them. For the past five years, we have been told that we are not safe. What changed, Mr. President? Aren't we still living in a "post 9/11 world?"
sorry for the rant
No, no apologies! Blogs are for ranting! My entire post was a rant! :) You actually said what I was trying to say, probably better.
I don't know enough about our actual relationship with the UAE to say "Let's not put our ports in their hands." It makes me wary, of course, but most decisions Bush makes make me wary (and that's putting it kindly). The bigger problem I have is the instantaneous change in rhetoric. At the beginning of the month, he was talking about the threats he sees to America. Now he's saying we don't need to worry about threats to America. You're absolutely right to ask - What has changed? And how has it changed in the past 20 days?
And, come to think of it, 20 gallons may not be enough...
mmmm...Port...
hey Brian, don't forget that the Repub's are jumping on this too, not just the Dem's.
A couple of things that make this issue tough for me to figure out:
1. The "racial-profiling" thing - Are we or aren't we profiling this country? I'm open to an argument that we are, but considering the 9/11 facts, perhaps we're not.
2. The fact that Bush didn't even know about the deal until a couple of days before the story broke. That is troublesome. You would think, no matter where he comes down on it in the end, that the proposal would have gotten someone to think, "you know, the pres might be interested in this."
A comment about the news. No one is unbiased and gives us the pure news of the day--if for no other reason than someone has to decide what is important enough to include and what may be excluded from reporting. I don't have the exact solution except that we have to think whether we're listening to NPR, ABC, NBC, CNN, or Fox. Unless you've got the time to watch gobs of C-span coverage of the House and Senate.
Post a Comment