Brian in MA Said:
February 22, 2006

My question is:

Where does the Witch Hunt end?

Think about it for a moment:

A British company “controlled our ports� before potentially selling it off to the UAE. That’s funny because I distinctly remember the Coast Guard and National Guard being the defenders of our ports during this time, not the British Royal Navy. Its not like we’re going to have UAE ships guarding the harbor, everything still has to get through the US Coast Guard and any other American import/export authorities.

Second, we can’t all jump the gun and say “Arab = EVIL!� We’ve been doing that for quite some time and it’d be nice if for once we showed a gesture of some minute level of trust to the Arab world.

Look at Iraq, last I checked, just because we kicked Saddam out Iraq didn’t suddenly become “not Arab� or “not Muslim�. If we can foster some semblance of trust from the Iraqi’s, why not try it with the UAE?

I have posted at The American Moderate Party about my belief that Congress should use their oversight obligation to review this action. The President should not be given a carte blanc pass on this.

We worry about being dependant on the Middle East for our oil, and it’s virtually a unanimous agreement there, that we should be less dependant. Largely because our own money is effectively funding terror and instability indirectly. UAE control of our ports is, while not exactly the same, very similar. We say that we must remain objective, and not prevent a sale simply because it originated in that corner of the world. But how on earth does that jive with our policy to reduce our dependance on Middle Eastern oil? We’re about to entrust critical infrastructure into the hands of people who are very possibly going to end up being much more willing to consort with, fund, or aid terrorists, simply by virtue of sharing a common culture and/or religion. Part of the problem is simply that we just plain don’t know, and for all the assurances that may be made, there’s no way to guarantee it. The best thing we can do is reduce the risks to an acceptable level. The switch to UAE control of our ports may very well keep the risks at an acceptable level, however, there is absolutely no way that you could convince me that UAE control represents a reduction in risk or even a maintenance of the status quo.

And when you consider that the risks are already probably too high right now…

Yeah, I just don’t see any reason why a veto should be used here.

However, it is exceptionally instructive to see what Bush cares enough about to use his veto power on… Think about it… Bush vows to keep us safe, stomps all over our civil liberties to do it, invades another country or two, and generally proclaims (with his actions, if not his words) that sometimes you have to give a few things up in the name of security? But give up the right to profit and capitalism? Heck no! Can’t tread on that, the most holy of all our freedoms.