I am finding myself caught between the proverbial rock and hard place these days in regard to the United arab Emirates shipping terminal deal. On the one hand, I find it unconscionable that the U.S. would allow an arab country free access to shipping terminals, especially in light of the facts that this same country was among only three nations to recognize the Taliban and that this country's banking system is a notorious conduit of terrorist funding.
On the other hand, by adopting this position, I find myself in agreement with the like of Chuck Schumer and Hillary Clinton, which gives me cause to be suspicious about my own motivations, as I am always suspicious of Schumer's and Clinton's motivations. I can't remember the last time I was in agreement with anything that Chuck and Hillary advocated. On the contrary, in delineating some of life's little rules, I believe that if Chuck and Hill are in favor, then it's a safe bet to be opposed.
That's why I'm finding it so difficult to be opposed to the sale of the Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation Company to Dubai Ports World, a company owned by the UaE.
I know that this sale has been vetted through several U.S. security organizations, including the Department of Homeland Security. I also know that Donald Rumsfeld, Condoleeza Rice and George W. Bush are firmly in favor of the deal (as is Jimmy Carter, which might indicate that George W. Bush really is a moron). I have heard the arguments that we need allies in the war on terror and the UaE is considered to be one of america's strongest allies in this conflict. Saudi arabia has long enjoyed a favored position as one of america's closest friends and allies, but that doesn't appear to deter the Saudis from sponsoring Wahabbist Madrassas, where the groundwork for Islamic terror is carefully laid, using cash that the Saudis have earned by selling oil to the West.
I am frankly concerned that if the sale proceeds and Dubai operates the six terminals in question, that fanatical Islamists might infiltrate the company and facilitate the importation of chemical, biological or radiological agents into the U.S, which can then be used in a terrorist attack.
This is by no means about keeping foreign companies out of the U.S. economy, as the terminals in question are already being run by a foreign company (P & O is British). Correct me if I am wrong, but the attack on the World Trade Center was carried out by 19 arabs, 11 of whom were Saudis and two were from the UaE. and I also know that the Dubai company wouldn't be operating a port, but a terminal, which is a big difference, as the security of U.S. ports falls under the purlieu of the Coast Guard and the Department of Homeland Security. But so long as these groups do not inspect each and every container that enters the U.S, having arabs bringing in containers willy-nilly, frankly makes me nervous.
If I take the time to think this through, I will probably arrive at the conclusion that no matter what the President or the Department of Homeland Security offer in terms of assurances, it does not give me a sufficient comfort level to embrace the deal.
To have Chuck and Hillary have the same feelings does not ring true to my less than perfectly pitched ear. Isn't it the Democrats, and specifically Chuck and Hillary, who have essentially been claiming that there was really no terrorist threat and that 9/11 was an anomaly? aren't they the ones who claim that the war on terror is a scam foisted on americans by Bush to divert attention from his ineptitude? Wouldn't restricting the sale of P & O to Dubai amount to (gasp) profiling? I clearly recall both Schumer and Lady Clinton talking about how awful profiling is. as a result, security officials at airports are doing cavity searches on geriatric Scottish grandmothers to ensure they don't sneak in any explosives.
How would Chuckee and Hillaree react upon learning that someone was denied U.S. employment in a sensitive position because he or she was an arab? You're right! They'd go ballistic (pardon the pun). So the only conclusion I can draw from their position is that they are seizing an opportunity to put Bush on the defensive, as he has held the patent on national security throughout his entire administration.
Looking at it in this light, I am beginning to feel slightly more comfortable taking a position similar to Chuck and Hill. That is to say while our position may be similar our motives are vastly different.
Pursuant to Title 17 U.S.C. 107, other copyrighted work is provided for educational purposes, research, critical comment, or debate without profit or payment. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for your own purposes beyond the 'fair use' exception, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. Views are those of authors and not necessarily those of Canada Free Press. Content is Copyright 1997-2024 the individual authors. Site Copyright 1997-2024 Canada Free Press.Com Privacy Statement