Skip to main content

More Port "Absurdity"

***Updates below***

Well, the bloviating and grandstanding over the port deal is beginning to swell like my waistline since giving up the evil tobacco weed.

Again genuine concerns notwithstanding, most of the commentary comes from a hysteria, i.e; "Arab Emigrates" = "Al Qaeda", position. Which isn't - to borrow from Rumsfeld "helpful" in the debate, and is on it's merits far from the truth. As I said do agree about having an intelligent and informed debate. Unfortunately that's not taking place.

The last time I saw a brouhaha like this was over the Panama Canal. While the act of turning over the canal was detestable to some, others found the 1977 treatise strategically necessary. Although as you know NOT a Jimmy Carter fan, I did support this action.

"At the beginning, the United States needed to control the canal to secure it; at the end, we understand that the best defense of the canal required that we transform a resentful neighbor into a partner.

With the help of Panamanian, Caribbean and Chinese labor, Americans built a canal through the middle of Panama. We protected it with a 10-mile wide Canal Zone. During the two world wars, the canal was a vital strategic artery for the United States and our allies. By the Korean War, however, the canal's width could not accommodate the huge aircraft carriers that had become the centerpieces of our fleets in both oceans. Still, the canal remains very important economically as a transportation route.

Panama's pride eventually became resentment

The Panamanians were proud of their greatest resource but increasingly resentful over what they viewed as a colonial presence that divided their country in half. In 1964, a fight over a flag in the Canal Zone between Panamanian and American students left 23 Panamanians and four U.S. Marines dead. Panama insisted on new treaties, and most Latin American leader...

The debate on the treaties was intense and politically controversial. Many felt a sentimental attachment to this great achievement. One senator joked that "we should keep it because we stole it, fair and square."

President Jimmy Carter, with the support of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Republican Senate Minority Leader Howard Baker, former President Gerald Ford and Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, argued that the 1903 treaties actually endangered the canal by enraging Panamanian and Latin American nationalism. The best defense of the canal, they said, would be to become a partner with Panama. The treaties passed by a single vote in the Senate."


Ok, I hear you. "This is about OUR ports!". Yes it is, but as this article states, the UAE IS a Strategic partner - not enemy - on the war on terrorism.

However as noted here, the war of words (semantics) has begun. Again, concerns aside, the fact is that this is not the "boogie man" that people are making it out to be - not even close.


UPDATE: Yeah, I know... "That 70s President likes the plan". Again, let's look at all the positions. But I reject outright the simplistic argument that we should be careful just because an Arab company is at the helm. That's utter nonsense.

UPDATE II: Here we go. The calls of "Cronyism" have begun.

UPDATE III; Once again Lori over at Polipundit provides need balance.

UPDATE IV: Welcome Polipundit readers, take a look around. President Bush responds with at least a justification why the deal should go through. All I've seen from the detractors is like an Ann Coulter objection, "Well..they're ragheads aren't they?"

I've been looking over the response of the Democrats on this deal and (when I can stop laughing), I ponder their words and can take a educated guess at their motives.

For instance, this statement from the Senator (the fake one) from NY, Hillary Clinton:

"The US senator for New York claims the deal poses a threat to national security because it would place operations at six major US ports under the control of the government of the United Arab Emirates, which owns Dubai Ports World.

"Our port security is too important to place in the hands of foreign governments," said Mrs Clinton."


Is she kidding me? "Foreign governments" Hello? Who are the Brits? Melba Toast? Truth is that Hillary goes the way the wind blows and her poll numbers are starting to show it.

Folks, we need to chill. There IS a reason for this deal and I agree with it. There is a stratergery.

Rush Limbaugh on his show today said:

"However, recently the United Arab Emirates have become a partner of "ours," quote, unquote -- just hear me out on this -- in the war on terror. Now, I have read the book The Art of War by Sun Tzu. Have you read that book, Brian? I didn't think so. You know what? The theory in reading Sun Tzu in defeating this enemy, you can't defeat them totally with military means alone, and one of Sun Tzu's theories is the best way to beat your enemy is to make your enemy your friend. Now, we have spent I don't know how many years and gazillions of dollars trying to export capitalism to China, export capitalism to Russia. The Cold War took 70 years to win, folks. We're expecting overnight success in this thing, and we have pretty much the same scenario and circumstances that we have with the war on terror as we had with the Cold War."

I studied "The Art of War" and I agree. There are many ways to win the battle. I like kicking their ass - but there are other ways too. However, the first thing we have to have is the eradication of this idiotic hysteria that is going on. The first of which is correct information. Remember, in getting a contract to operate the ports, it's not the same as controlling the ports - that's the misinformation being protrayed in this discussion.

UPDATE V: More 'comparisons' with Jpod at NRO's the Corner who thinks Dubai is Bush's Bitberg. Oye! What's next? Waterloo?

UPDATE VI: Not everyone at NRO is hysterical. James S. Robbins with a more "calm" and informed approach.

UPDATE VII: More medicine to help "Knee Jerk" disease.





Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Calling Mr. Fitzgerald?

**UPDATED AND BUMPED****

As I told you about in this post yesterday as a source confirmed to me that the Justice Department has launched a probe into the NSA leak. Mr. Risen, you are in trouble - prepare your defense. I told you so.

The White House will be announcing the probe at about 12:30pm. My source tells me that this probe will most likely result in another prosecutor being assigned as of course Fitzgerald is still busy/dizzy on the Plame/Game No-Leak. Additionally, other probes into other recent leaks such as the CIA 'prisons'leak is in the works as well. As I said, this is the NEW Bush - on the attack - it's no more Mr. Nice Guy!

About time! Also covering Michelle Malkin

*****End Update*********

UPDATE II: Looks like I owe my source big time as yet another tip comes true as the Washington Post is on the target list as well for the CIA Prison leak.

****End Update II*************************************

Update III: Via Fox: "The government has no legal right to…

Is the lid about to be blown off Able Danger?

Those who have been wishing for a full blown Able Danger investigation are about to get their wish. The "gate" has been unlocked.

9/11 Iraqi Connection

With Democrats calling for yet more investigations into pre-war intelligence, and Republicans like myself pushing back to help their 'sudden amnesia”, the growing stories of Able Danger and even China Gate, are beginning to make news.

The three main theories about why Able Danger hasn't gotten out of the "blog stage", are 1) To hide Clinton era responsibility for stopping the 9/11 attacks, and/or 2) To hide the truth behind China-Gate, or 3) The facts show that there in fact was a direct link between Iraq and 9/11.

Taking either one you can see why the Clinton worshipping MSM for the most part hasn't touched the story. Of the later point, Democrats, the MSM and even some of our investigations state that there was no 'direct' link between Iraq and 9/11. Say otherwise and the MSM will slice and di…

Able Danger - Pulling Back the Covers of the real Clinton Legacy

First, let's dispense with the bull crap. The meeting between Mohammed Atta and Iraqi Intelligence officer Al-Ani, on April 8th, 2001 happened.

Yet, just don't mention it to the MSM, becaue since May of 2002, the MSM declared an all out assault on the story. A meeting incidently, that the Czech government has to this date stood by.

Let's review a little history:

October 13, 2001: Story of the meeting is leaked from somewhere in the Czech foreign service.

yet.....

October 20, 2001: Ny Times, John Tagliabue writes a story citing other Czech officials said the meeting never took place.

so.....

October 26, 2001: Czech Minister of the Interior, Stanislav Gross has a press conference not only confirming the orginal report but giving further details of Atta's other trip to Prague in June 2000.

then.....

October 27, 2001: The NY Times "recants" the October 20th denial.

The story continues it's oddessy of 'back and forth' until May 1st, 2002, when Walter P…