What can't this administration get away with in the name of national security?Congress passed the "Patriot Act" in the name of security. When Dubya's domestic-spying program was revealed, Americans were told, once again, that the government did what it had to do to keep us secure.
Hell, Bushites continue to justify the invasion of Iraq -which had nothing to do with September 11th- as part of its war on terrorism.
But now, in an act that would seemingly send the terror alerts off the charts, the White House has approved an almost $7 billion deal that would place the nation's most critical ports in the hands of an Arab state with known ties to the September 11th hijackers. And just today? Today the White House tells us that Dubya had no knowledge of this deal 'till it hit the news. Is that supposed to make us feel better, or worse about our Stammerer in Chief?
Yeah... so much for national security.
For years, security experts have complained that our nation's seaports are the most vulnerable, and yet least protected, areas when it comes to national security. America's ports handle 2 billion tons of freight each year, according to the Investor's Business Daily, but only 5 percent (that's 100,000,000. Thanks Google!) of containers are inspected upon arrival.
But rather than strengthening port security, the Treasury Department's Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (say that five times fast!) has approved a deal that would grant management of the ports in New York, New Jersey, Philadelphia, Miami, Baltimore and New Orleans to Dubai Ports World. Dubai is a small state included in the United Arab Emirates, where much of the operations and finances for al Qaeda were based pre-September 11th.
If Dubya refuses to stop the deal, Congress must step in to ensure that the threat of terrorism that our government has repeatedly warned us about is not something that, in this case, it helped to import. Honestly, when did it become Congress' job to stand by and let the Executive Branch run roughshod over the needs of the nation, and hopes of the world? Why do we tolerate a Chief Executive who clearly sees Congress as "quaint?"
Seems to me, a President truly interested in bipartisan cooperation and the good of the nation would -instead of using his first veto on such a boneheaded cause- make the bill unnecessary by, oh I don't know... acting on his own to undo the ports deal.
Despite what the Hannitys and Coulters will tell you, Congress is right to resist the ports deal. The United Arab Emirates is an ally, sure, but its record in the war on terror is mixed at best. It is not irrational or "politicking" for the United States to resist putting port operations, arguably the most vulnerable part of our security infrastructure, under that country's control. Mary, Mary! Under any other country's control! It's the same reason I don't let my sister warehouse my comics in her garage: they don't mean half as much to her; why would I expect her to take the same care of them that I would?
Finally, what just knocks me on my ass about this situation is that Dubyaco has never hesitated to sacrifice individual rights in favor of "security," but it has been loath to do the same thing when it comes to business interests.
Why do we keep putting up with this? We're smarter than that... right?
(Thnx for the quiz, Scott!)
6 comments:
Excellent straw man! Of course no one outside the fringes thinks Bushco manufactured the terrorist threat or is doing “too much” to protect us, but that certainly is a better ploy than the “people don’t need to worry about security” line the prez is currently sputtering.
And Bubbe? The problem with an Arab nation with a dicey antiterrorist record controlling our port security isn’t the “Arab” part, it’s the “dicey antiterrorist record” part. Duh.
“Bubbe” is a Yiddish term of endearment. I was trying to get the condescension level right to match that in your posts.
I appreciate that you note that I am correct in my assessment of UAE’s antiterrorist record. It is a shame you failed to understand my profound repulsion at racial profiling of any sort, and the fact that race it has nothing to do with my opposition to this Bushco ports deal.
There IS a threat to Western Civilization, of course, from religious totalitarians of every stripe who seek to curtail personal freedoms and do not hesitate to use violence and enslave women in the name of their beliefs.
And as you point out, the people must defend freedom, so you must certainly be anxious to defend it from that very threat by joining me in protesting this president, who has ample opportunity to further dismantle my personal freedoms and the freedoms that this country was founded on in his two and a half more years in office.
I don’t think my president is more of a threat than the mullahs…I believe they are equal threats. Perhaps I am just uppity, but I’m just not good at shutting up and being grateful that the totalitarian christians who run my country are not repressing me more. You don’t seem to grasp that my protest against this president IS protesting the enemy and threat to my country. I am keeping up the good fight and protesting the intolerance of EVERY religion on every front.
It is unlucky for you that the stranger’s blog you happened to pounce on is my husband’s…if you knew either of us, you’d know that my very life was saved by Medicare and the Social Security Administration 15 years ago when I became catastrophically ill. You are face to face with one of the most profound success stories of big government you will ever hear. So, wow, you are seriously barking up the wrong tree.
I wonder if you wouldn’t mind backing up your sweeping cultural jingoism with some facts? Please, compare Western civilization with EVERY OTHER civilization that has ever existed, and don’t forget to show your work.
Wow, I’m not sure anyone’s ever made so many completely blind (and laughably incorrect) assumptions about me—to say nothing of the rest of the world. Three types of people in all of Western Civilization you say? Hilarious! I’m sure it’s very comforting for you to believe though, so I’ll leave you to your reductive fallacy.
Do a quick search of this page and try to find the word “cure.” I still have my catastrophic disease thank you very much, but with the support of the Big Government you so fear, I was able to get medical care and education and training so that I could find employment doing a kind of work that accommodated my physical deficit. Next time you decide to labor some self-serving point, check your reading comprehension levels first.
Again, VERY poor reading comprehension. I've not called you a single name, merely pointed out the flaws in your argument.
I suppose if your definition of “self serving” is accepting medical care and education so I could once again become a productive member of society, then you betcha, I'm self-serving. Most people call that the survial instinct, though. You are certainly free to suffer wordlessly and slowly starve to death if you should become too ill to work, though.
Ok, hon, I'm sorry. I DID get cured of my disease and I said so right on this blog! I just forgot and have been seeing neurologists all these years for no reason! Your reading comprehension is GREAT! I'm just wrong about the state of my health is all! You didn't misread a thing.
And pointing out that you misread what I wrote IS name calling! There's no difference! Plus I was wrong about that in the first place on account of being all cured and stuff! How much dumber could I be? I didn't even know I was cured!
Post a Comment