The other side of the argument
Well, I'm still not quite sure where I stand on the Arab port issue. On one hand, a couple of the hijackers came from the UAE. But on the other hand, you have the Bush administration saying that they have been valuable allies in the war on terror, helping us catch many members of al quada. I just think we don't have enough information to make a sound decision yet.
Congressional Republicans are scared. They're afraid they're going to lose ground on the national security issue, which has been their stronghold for four years. I think that's why you see such a divide between the republicans and bush over this issue. In fact, a recent poll shows that the american public believes congressional democrats are stronger on national security than President Bush (43% to 41%). Wow, what a surprising finding. I think that's somewhat temporary though, the democrats being pushed up by the port deal controversy.
Do you realize how few US ports are controlled by American companies? I'll give you a hint, not many (the number I've heard is around is 8 out of 100). Why should we punish a country just because they happen to be Arab? Does that mean we're just going to issolate ourselves from the Arab world? We certainly have spent a lot of time and money trying to befriend the Arab world.
I don't know what to think about all this. Many republicans are saying that Bush should back down, but deep down I think he's probably doing the right thing. We can not alienate our allies. I say this with caution though, as I believe we need to be given more information before we can make a decision.
Tags: Bush, UAE, Port, terrorism
posted by David @ 3:39 PM
4 comments
4 Comments:
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
After some negotiations and possible modifications of this deal I believe it can and should go through. If proper oversight is applied, coupled with the obvious flexibility that the company itself is exhibiting in order to allay the American population's security concerns, then this economic deal will go forward.
Does everyone not see that it makes us look terrible in the eyes of the Arab world to abide another foreign country running the ports, namely England, and have a huge problem with an Arab country doing the same function? It makes it look as though we don't practice the free market principles that we preach and that we are unable to discern between friendly Arabs and those who would seek to kill us. And believe me, Osama Bin Laden would love for us to cancel this contract and thereby give him additional fuel to fan the flames of Anti-American sentiment in the Arab world. And so, Republicans are going to have to figure out a logically consistent position on this matter that fits within the framework of not alienating the Arab world.
At this point, clear thinking individuals on both sides of the aisle actually agree with the President that this deal should be allowed to go forward. Just watch, everyone who raced to judgment on this matter is going to be proven wrong. Democrats saw an opportunity to appear "tough" on national security by hastily moving to right of Bush on this issue and Republicans in congress, also jockeying for election year positions, were worried about being "outflanked" by Democrats. Uniformly, all who raced to denounce this deal were doing so for political reasons not security ones. Others, who did not have to decide one way or the other immediately, have pointed to valid security concerns and concluded that the deal should not go forward, but I submit that they too, are mistaken.
By now, the issue has become so public that it would be a blatant slap in the face to a nation that actually has been helpful in the war on terror of late. Perhaps in the future more scrutiny should be paid to this type of issue in order that a debacle like this not occur, but for now in terms of moving forward, one way or another we should allow this deal to go through.
President Bush is taking a principled stance on this issue. He is considering the broader Geo-political implications of sending a message to the Arab world which would suggest that America considers all Arabs, even those who help us in the war on terror, our enemy. I agree with the President in that, sending such a message would be a grave error and therefore we should allow this economic deal to go forward.
bushtheidiot:
"would this deal have flown 3 months after 9/11?" WOW! A democrat using 9/11 as a justification for something?? I never thought I'd see the day. Every time Bush says something about "My ideas changed on 9/11" everyone gets pissed off because he's supposedly using 9/11 as an reason for his actions.
The problem is the democrats have already forgotten how they and the country felt shortly after 9/11. The President has not. He realizes that we cannot alienate and isolate ourselves from the Arab world.
All your justification from the commission report is from BEFORE 9/11. Don't forget how much different the world was before that day. Many things have changed since then.
Ahh …“bushtheidiot”, apparently your new at this, so let me be the first to destroy you.
You say, “…The UAE continues to support terrorist and terrorist organizations.” Do you care to provide so much as shred of evidence to back up this assertion?
Because you are so agenda driven you are apparently unaware that most clear thinking individuals consider the UAE an ally to America in the war on terror. What part of my sentence, “It makes it look as though we don't practice the free market principles that we preach and that we are unable to discern between friendly Arabs and those who would seek to kill us.” Do you not understand?
You say: “I can't believe I'm sitting here reading 2 republicans sitting around talking about how they don't want to piss off Arabs.”
Of course here you are, intentionally or unintentionally I don’t care which, mischaracterizing what David and I believe. To be clear: It is not in the best interests of America’s international relations and therefore overall global security to send such a blatantly adversarial message to an Arab nation that has actually been helpful to us of late. I’m not simply worried about “pissing off Arabs” as you so artfully put it. I am however a proponent of whatever policy has the most beneficial results for America in a real-politique and practical sense.
Your alarmist comment that a nuke will be smuggled in is so rookie-ish that is abundantly clear that you have not read the fine print of this port business proposal. Most security occurs at the point of debarkation. It doesn't matter who is charge of whatever terminals at which cargo arrives. If a nuclear bomb were smuggled into a freight ship it could be detonated upon arrival into the harbor before any officials of any kind would have anything to do with it.
To address your final paragraph:
Okay, we’ll abandon the charge that democrats are being hypocritically discriminatory and anti Arab if you admit that democrats are against this deal for political reasons not security ones. Democrats are acting so transparently political at this point that I’m amazed that anyone would even want to be associated with such demagoguery. Really, no one’s buying it anyway. Just face it, Democrats are weak on defense and no amount of opportunist piling on President Bush will change that.
Post a Comment
<< Home