Didn't the left berate us for profiling in the years following 9/11? Aren't they now doing the same thing?

Regardless, I have to disagree with the Bush administration here. I hope that the congress has enough Thrasos to override the veto.

I've been highly disappointed with Bush's stance on illegal immigration as well. Even drastically increasing the number of immigrants allowed in the country would be a good move, but to turn a blind eye just irks me. They global thirst for cheap labor has personally hurt me and my carreer as an IT professional. As it stands now, cheap exploited labor and companies being able to underbid the ones who follow the law. Sickening.

And yes, I also agree that Kerry would have been orders of magnitude worse.

Good post, Darrell.
 

My company does alot of business with UAE and my impression is that they are very unlike the other Arab countries that we have reservations about.

I think that Florida senator must have some other unknown agenda. I believe (but cannot verify) that there are many other ports other than Dubai that would be willing to allow transfer of North Korean or Iranian nuclear goods. Reminds me of our relationship with Cuba...can't fly there from here but there is easy access from many other countries considered friendly to the US.
I also remember a few years ago we stopped a ship from carrying North Korean missiles to Yemen, and finally had to just let the ship go because we couldn't nail them for breaking any international agreements. Dubai, I'm guessing, is one of the best ports in the Middle East and thus the reason this stuff gets done there.

Not sure why UAE recognized the Taliban as the gov't of Afghanistan. According to the website below, only three countries did this: UAE, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan, and this was done before extradition of Osama bin Ladin (pre-9/11) ever became an issue.

Personally, I think the ports will be fine with the new owners, and I trust our business relationship with UAE 50 times more than our very extensive relationship with China (I acknowledge that's not saying alot though).

Still an interesting post, though. Keep up the good work!

Sincerely,
the Governor

http://www.institute-for-afghan-studies.org/AFGHAN%20CONFLICT/TALIBAN/intro_kakar.htm
 

My question is, "How come our ports were being operated by ANY FOREIGN nation in the first place?"
I am still gathering info on the matter and have not made a decision as to how I feel about it.
For some reason, a British company was operating these ports. I don't know why that was acceptable either.
Should US ports be operated by ANY foregin companies at all?
 

I am still looking for anything anywhere where any politician of either party EVER made a statement of concern about those ports being under the management of a British company.
Also, there are many other vital US interests that are managed & operated by foreign companies.
Where have our politicians been on this matter? Why are they all rising up NOW?
Why? Because it is politically advantageous for them to do so, and if the tide turns in support of the deal for some reason, they will jump ship and support it stating that their questions have been resolved.
Hillary Clinton said what I said here yesterday, that NONE of our ports should be managed by foreign companies. I fully agree, but WHY has she NEVER made this statement before?
She knew those ports were managed by a British company, and she knows of other American interests that are owned/operated/managed by foreign companies, so why has she never come out with this statement before? If she felt so strongly about ALL ports not being managed by foreign companies, then why was she silent previously?
Here's my problem with all of this. All the politicians from BOTH sides failed to raise ANY red flags about those ports being operated by a British company, or any other foregin companies that are managing American interests. They didn't seem to have any problem with it before, and they should have.
They all need to come out & say that their only problem with this deal is that it is being made with Arabs. It is the truth, and they should just say it.
In the future, these same politicians can no longer whine about Arabs being mistreated or not having representation or having their feelings hurt or being the victims of racial profiling, because if they reject this deal solely because the company is owned by Arabs (which is what they are doing, since they had no problem with the previous foreign company managing those ports), then they will be doing the ultimate in racial profiling.

Here's my stand on the matter. I don't want these ports, or any other US ports or vital interests, under the management of ANY foreign company... period.
BUT, if we are going to allow such deals with other foreign companies, then I see no reason not to see this deal through. Making hay over this ONE deal simply because they are Arabs just does not pass the smell test. Hay should have been made a long time ago, and it wasn't.

This all smells of politics to me more than anything else.
 

I have some qualms about this deal, but the UAE is a faithful ally and to pull our support now is to appear abjectly hypocritical solely so a few Congressional leaders can whore for votes. The owner, regardless of nationality, must yield to governmental agencies conducting port security. Thus it is hardly the crisis we esteem it to be. It will undercut any PR successes we have had in the Arab world and reinforce everything Al Gore was kind enough to say in Jeddah. It is a lose-lose situation now.