Friday, March 10, 2006

Bye Bye, Miss American Dubai

I respectfully disagree with President Bush on the Dubai port deal. So, I am glad at least one of us is being respectful. I know that the President, Rush, the WSJ, and many individuals and institutions I respect a great deal, are arguing in defense of the UAE. What really bothers me, is that the debate is being framed in an ad hominem fashion, by calling conservative individuals, who reject the deal, as racists. This weak and frankly disappointing slander is what is absurd and insulting. I deploy a Rush strategy here. I reject the premise.

I certainly remember 911

With regards to the president's nephew, and his comments, he is just like any other young college punk, still green between the ears.

Roosevelt ordered the internment of American Japanese for a reason. There were naturalized American citizens, who emigrated back to Japan, and repatriated, when the WWII broke out. There was genuine concern that U.S. security was at risk. Whether you agree with it or not, even the Supreme court upheld the practice, in Korematsu vs. The United States, as a right of the executive granted by the conditions of a wartime emergency. I am not going to speculate on whether we went too far in this circumstance, but national security war powers carry great weight.

So, we are not at war with Dubai. It's not the same, is it?

This is true. It is not same. It is actually worse. The terror war's combatants are religious fanatics. They have no national pride. They do not respect Geneva. They do not respect borders. They use our own media and economic trade fluidity against us. They are every bit as dangerous as the suicidal kamikaze, willing to exploit any venue, including corporate international trade infrastructure and bureaucracy.

This is not a racist argument. It is profiling an enemy, which matches a known profile.

This Open Door was used Before

How many of the fifteen hijackers used our open door, fast track entry policy, from Saudi Arabia, to gain access to U.S. soil and attack us on 9/11? I don't even need to answer this question.

Government bureaucrats and international trade partners argued that Saudi Arabia was a great friend and ally in the Mideast. They were our close trading partners. That may be true, at the high level of international diplomacy. It did not stop that fateful infiltration, that resulted in the fall of those towers, thousands dead and trillions spent in retribution.

We are now being given the very same line of reasoning, regarding the UAE. They are our trade partners. They are our friends an allies in the Mideast. They are partners in the war on terror. That may be true. I choose not to carry that risk burden again, under the same conditions. It is about access and security. The safety of Americans is the first Constitutional priority, for all of our government officials, over and above all trade considerations.

This is not a racial argument. It is an argument framed in political circumstances, observed in the recent past.

This sends a bad message to the Mideast

Pardon my French, but tough $hit, Mr. President. The Mideast has been sending thousands of bad messages to Israel, the United States, the UK, the Philippines, China, India, Spain, France, Africa, Russia, Denmark, Holland etc. for decades. We finally got those messages, Mr. President. The terrorists made sure we got them, loud and clear. Forgive us if we are not quite ready to break bread with another 'respectable' Mideast partner, give them the keys to our house, our car and the leash to the family dog.

Don't forget what Ronald Reagan said.

Trust but verify.

Ronald Reagan felt is was fine to do business with this new man, Mikhail Gorbachev. It did not stop him from railing against the evil empire. He kept his country's security first and foremost in his mind. Remember how many exuberant investors lost their shirts in the great Russian Glasnost experiment, because they had a reckless freewheeling attitude?

I know the Dubai government is not an evil communist empire, but the existence of evil terrorists, using moderate Arab governments and businesses to facilitate their funding and dissemination is undeniable and verifyable.

This is not racism. It is motivated self interest and self defense. I have the right to be suspicious. I have the right to defend myself, at least in words.

All the Bureaucrats need is another excuse

What happens when the inevitable lousy border security policy results in a smuggled WMD, and the death of thousands more American citizens? Without the Dubai port straw man, government bureaucrats will have nobody to blame but themselves. This is a position they do not want to be in. It is brutal irony. They would love to hold that Dubai race card, close to their chest, for quick emergency deployment. It would allow them to continue the covert public sector money grab, while delivering that world famous government issued incompetence, for which they are so famous. This is fine as long as our brave soldiers are killing terrorists left and right overseas. Engaging the infidel, for a quick express ticket to Allah, is just a short hop to Iraq; at least for now.

This is not a racist argument. We all know nobody in government ever takes the blame for their failures. I do not want them to have another vehicle.

Straight from the Jimmy Carter Playbook

Finally, Mr. President and company, you should all know that throwing a tantrum over the impressed will of the American people, then implying they are engaging in ignorant racism, is straight from the Jimmy Carter general malaise playbook. It is politically foolish. This folly separated Carter from his base, and invigorated his enemies. I see that familiar pattern here.

It is no wonder Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter are standing shoulder to shoulder with you on this one.



Peakah said...

I noticed the same thing, and having been a nationalist as far as control of our ports go, I've finally breathed a sigh of relief seeing a potential end to this disasterous decision.

Just because they fly Dubai Airlines into our airports (and assuming that their pilots under go some extreme scrutiny by our intelligence agencies) it alone is not justification to hand over any administration whatsoever of our ports over to a region/ideology of the World that we're at War with. (WWIV anybody?)

It would be like the Italians running the ports of New England during WWII... wait a second... now that I think about it, they probably did in a large part. At least the Mafia was somewhat loyal to America, I guess.

Your analysis comparing similar contexts during the WWII era and the Cold War Era are right on the money. Too bad those contexts seem to dissolve in the collective consciousness of the aging mind. Especially that mind that is so constantly distracted by shiny objects.

Those who don't know their history... you know the rest.

You peel back the multiple layers of this stinky onion brilliantly...

Good to see ya bounce back from a tough week... kick back tomorrow, it's Saturday and there's Conference Tourney finals on... have you figured out yet that I'm a 'Cuse fan yet?

*highfive* Nice work Brah.

Dr. Phat Tony said...

I was checking out what the State department had on the UAE. Even if every UAE citizen was an American lover, most of the UAE is populated with non-citizens.

FIAR said...

Call me crazy, but I file this under the "Why are we giving away all our interests" category. I realize the Brits had control prior to the propsed sale to the UAE company. Why? Why do we depend on the Brits for steel, and the Middle east for oil? Wy do we feel the need to let other countries control valuable assets that we could control on our own? I'm all for capitalism, and all that, but it seems stupid to me to create dependency where it need not be.

And THAT line of reasoning has zero to do with the UAE being A-rab.

The Conservative UAW Guy said...

Well done, as always.

It really raise my hackles when Bush threatened a veto on this b.s., when he hasn't vetoed on freakin' thing his whole presidency!
I do remember he said he would sign that ridiculous, feel-good, worthless "assault" weapons ban, several years ago.
Where are the real Republicans...?

The Conservative UAW Guy said...

I'm not spelling well tonight.

Many apologies.

Anonymous said...

Brilliant post. I've believed for some time now that Bush is a globalist, not really having the interests of his country at heart.
As for Islam, I've checked them out for some time now, including what the Koran says on how they should act, and I'm satisfied that anything with Islamic strings attached can *not* be trusted. Ever. People don't want to know that we are in a war of survival against Islam as an ideology, like it or not.

Damian G. said...

Regardless of one's position on the wisdom of the deal, this was a politically tone-deaf move by the President that only served to exacerbate our relations with a key Middle Eastern ally.

Good points, all around, fellows.

fmragtops said...

Now if we could just get the Chi-Coms to relenquish their control of our ports on the west coast.

I'm with Fitch, we should not let other countries control things we could just as easily control ourselves.

Insolublog said...

Peakah – One thing you could say about the Italians is that they were enthusiastic, in-your-face patriots during WWII. Wholehearted domestic support, was complemented by half-hearted support of Benito Mussolini. Where are the Muslim patriots? There are some, and some who have spoken out, but nothing that compares to the Italian patriotism.

dpt – Yeah. One child-molester comes to mind. Too bad he made the mistake of entering the Women’s room, in a nation of tolerant, misunderstood, culturally flexible Arabs.

Fiar – On many issues, I am a free market economist, who believes in fair competition. But sometimes that field of play isn’t fair and isn’t likely to be fair in the near future. Take for instance, China, which can compete unfairly, because they can ignore things like the environment. If someone complains about a sudden rise in childhood Leukemia, due to PCBs in the water supply, that person gets chucked into a gulag, and business continues unabated. Here in the US, we play by the rules. I guess we also pay by the rules. National port security should be a domestic business, controlled domestically. Those ports are here, under our laws. There is no efficiency excuse, which convinces me others will do it better.

CUG – Here here, JimmyB. The ‘guest worker’ program raises my hackles to high heaven.

Morris – Sigh. We should have seen this, from his father, founder of the ‘new world order’ phrase. Seeing the aging Bush 41 hanging out with the likes of Carter and Clinton makes me squirm. I have been reading John Spencer’s book, ‘Politically incorrect Guide to Islam’. Very well researched, and I must admit, pretty damn frightening.

DamianG – Ditto. I don’t think he was paying much attention to it. He did not realize the firestorm it would ignite. Déjà vu, avec Harriet Miers.

Fmragtops - Are you not glad that Jimmy Carter gave the Panama Canal back to the Panamanians? See how the Panamanians are making great use of that resource? See what we achieved, by spending all that blood, sweat and gold? It is so nice to see China controlling the main conduit between the seas, dividing our Naval strength. Maybe we should give Jimmy a Nobel lease prize. TR’s corpse must be spinning on its axis right now.

The Conservative UAW Guy said...

Uhh..ready when you are, Insol!! ;)