California Conservative

The U.S. Port Controversy: Good or Bad?

Everyone needs to calm down and take a deep breath.

That’s Squiggler’s advice. And she offers some insight from another credible source.

There might be less to worry about than meets the eye. But that leaves Instapundit asking: “Of course, that makes me wonder why the White House thinks it’s so important.”

SO NOW BUSH IS THREATENING TO VETO any legislation that would block the Dubai ports deal? Either this deal is somehow a lot more important than it seems (a quid pro quo for, well, something . . . ) or Bush is an idiot. Your call.

Wow. Strong tonic from Glenn Reynolds. Is there a third choice?

If nothing else, Bryan Preston notes that “Bush sticks to his guns.” That’s for sure.

ExposeTheLeft weighs in with pragmatism.

Stay tuned.

UPDATE:
Koz and LGF: Strange bedfellows, indeed.

This entry was posted on Tuesday, February 21st, 2006 at 3:58 pm and is filed under Homeland Security, Middle East, Terrorism, W. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

9 Responses to “The U.S. Port Controversy: Good or Bad?”

Matthew Says:
February 21st, 2006 at 4:23 pm
Ã¢â‚¬Å“Of course, that makes me wonder why the White House thinks itÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s so important.Ã¢â‚¬Â

Um, money for somebody or somebody’s friends….that’s why.
Benn Says:
February 21st, 2006 at 4:31 pm
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
John A. Wilson Says:
February 21st, 2006 at 4:50 pm
Does anyone think before polticizing a subject? In the immortal words of Teddy Kennedy, “Hello?” Can we at least wait a minute before making a decision to kill the proposal or to veto any blocking moves?

This sort of thing is getting REALLY old.
Sister Toldjah Says:
February 21st, 2006 at 4:52 pm
Bush veto threat on bill that would stop port sale to UAE company (PM UPDATE)

Via Reuters:
ABOARD AIR FORCE ONE (Reuters) - President George W. Bush said on Tuesday that a deal for a state-owned Dubai company to manage major U.S. ports should go forward and will not jeopardize U.S. security.
Bush told reporters traveling back…
Peter Says:
February 21st, 2006 at 6:21 pm
This selling out the control of our ports and it’s justification feels to us Americans, just like Sweden was doing business with Hitler “as economically justifiable”…
Carlos Says:
February 21st, 2006 at 6:27 pm
O.K. It’s for the money. How much? To whom? Undoubtedly GW’s rich-enough-already cronies.

Get real. Of course it’s for the money. But the UAE is at least a nominal ally in the war on terror, and I doubt seriously they have more terrorists in that country than we do here, given the arrests of the past couple of years here.

If we vet this properly, and if the practices of the company are watched closely enough, what is the problem?

If, on the other hand, we blow the UAE off, then what we are telling them (and all Arab nations) is that we don’t think enough of them as a player in the world community to trust them with anything except exporting widgets and terror. I don’t think that’s a good message to send to too many nations (Iran comes to mind, but that’s another story), let alone a nation that could be of immense help on down the road. It seems to me the deal, closely watched, would be mutually beneficial.

But what do I know? I’m a knuckle-dragging neocon country boy, anyway.
Vent Says:
February 21st, 2006 at 6:59 pm
Hey Benn, throw in a couple more dollar signs. You don’t look quite stupid enough.
Matthew Says:
February 21st, 2006 at 7:22 pm
Could we let the French build and operate us some nuclear reactors then? They seem to know what they’re doing and I’m sure it’d help mend the rift between our two nations. I’m sure if we keep an eye on them, everything will be fine. :humor:
California Conservative » Port Security: We Weren’t Wrong To Question, But We’re Satisfied By The Answers Says:
February 22nd, 2006 at 11:29 am
[...] Port Security: We Weren’t Wrong To Question, But We’re Satisfied By The Answers » “Pussies” At The Gate » That’s Just Brilliant: Google’sPhilanthropy » Thinking of becoming a liberal? » Praising Alan Dershowitz » Hell Hath No Fury: Women, Hatred, and the Middle East » Nabbing Terrorists and Opening the Ports » Port Security Worries » Malik Zulu Shabazz » S.F. Examines Power of Dog Droppings » The U.S. Port Controversy: Good or Bad? » The Professors: The 101 Most Dangerous Academics in America » Oprah To Leave Fortune To African Orphans » California Spending Binge Will Cause Economic Disaster — Soon » Project 21 Chides Gumbel’s Racial Comments » Rainbow Coalition Racism » Death by Machine: IsraelÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s Dangerous Precedent » The Worst President, The Worst Ex-President, Part II » White House Issues New Port Security Guidelines » SeaWorld Supports The Troops List all posts » [...]

The U.S. Port Controversy: Good or Bad?

9 Responses to “The U.S. Port Controversy: Good or Bad?”

Leave a Reply