I appreciated what Newt Gingrich said on FOX News‘ O’Reilly Factor earlier this evening.
It would be easy if the UAE Port Deal issue was as merely colorful and succinct as a series of cartoons, but, I realize it is neither. Its up to us Americans whether or not forty-five days make a difference as to a resolution that will be beneficial to our safety and economy, although it often is the case that what Americans want is lost on Washington, as if they represent and legislate other nations instead. Like many other Americans, I question why an American company cannot purchase the “port leasing” contract and why the issue as to foreign governments purchasing/leasing port management is the preferred — or even practiced — course for the United States. And, like many, I conclude that the UAE Port Deal was decided a while ago and it’s another case of the public being told long after the arrangements have been made.
My very first comments about this Port issue, on the very day it was announced, when visiting a public board, was that the immediate shock and gasping going on pervasively throughout nearly all communities and neighborhoods about this was based upon the existing eroding of confidence in President Bush as to his and the RNC’s contrariness as to illegal immigration — even the accurate terms are being denounced and avoided and moderated out and by those acts, many Americans (I know I am) are flabberghasted: don’t write or say, “illegal alien” but instead, say “immigrant” or even more inaccurate, say or write, “migrant or guest worker.”
Americans can’t — most of us won’t — violate the laws of our land and avoid the consequences, so many of us wonder why illegal aliens can and do so with bravado in their violations — without confrontation as to their actions and their responsbilites for those illegal actions, there’s little motivation to answer to a demand that isn’t there. And that goes for those in our country who participate knowingly in commerce involving illegal aliens.
And, thus, hearing and reading more avoidance speech and positioning from elected officials — in this specific case, President Bush and Administration — public confidence is low. Most Americans appreciate and value what President Bush has done on the country’s behalf (and so we hope continues to) as to national security, but the questions persist when our own national borders are what they are (a problem, easily compromised and being compromised daily/nightly) and those who illegally enter the country remain with ongoing helps inorder to remain here. And so, public confidence is low. The Port Deal appears — is not even presented for consideration but announced and even casually by the wire services — and people who questioned it from that very first article forward have been and are being referred to as “racists” and “xenophobes” and all this does not do anything to improve confidence but continues to erode it.
The reason I most enjoyed what Newt Gingrich said on O’Reilly this past evening was that he got the point across loudly and clearly and genuinely that he understands and considers the questions and concerns by Americans, as to the UAE involvement in the Port Deal — as also with China’s involvement in our Western Ports — that he recognizes the potential for harm and understands the concerns. And that he regards the concerns as reasonable, significant, important. I do, too.
It’s at least a considerate and reasonable position to take. No denigrations about the questions, no negative labelling, no threatening stereotyping, no “xenophobia” denouncements, no “racist” labelling. While some of the questions have been based upon inaccurate perceptions abou the Port Deal — not all of us can be expected to share a specialized understanding of an issue this complex and a lot of what’s being expressed among the public is colloquialist shorthand moreso than anything — what should be being taken seriously and with great regard is the level and degree of concern from Americans. Correct the inaccuracies later but feel and acknowledge the perspectives and the motivations as to why they are occuring — that’s what we need and most expect from our representatives in public office and are most concerned about when it fails to be the response.
Foreign and domestic.
Foreign and domestic.
The U.S. Coast Guard gets what others have not: “Paper: Coast Guard (Suggests Possibility of) Intel Gaps.”
That is the same intelligence review the Bush Cabinet gave a go-ahead. This does not engender confidence that forty-five days later there will be anything more sophisticated than my cartoons and bright colors but at least it’s underway. Point is, the terms need to be revised by which the deal — and dealer — are “vetted.”
And, why not apply the word, “xenophobia,” where it realistically and actually belongs:
“DUBAI PORTS FIRM ENFORCES ISRAEL BOYCOTT”
If not “xenophobia,” what’s the problem by the UAE that can be resolved or remedied in a forty-five day window of review that will then include Israel among the UAE’s recognized and acceptable nations, regard them as yet another nation of human beings of equal merit? The answer to that is laden with terrible portent and it is not based upon governments but upon — well, you judge for yourself because I am confident I understand the terms. What’s of key significance is whether or not our elected officials do.