To my read, Michelle Malkin’s providing the best coverage as to Portgate…
…and, it’s unproductive to reitierate all that information otherwise, so I’m not going to. BUT, I agree to-date with most the rest of us Ameicans and that is that there is too much concern-like-smoke here to be certain there’s no fire down below. And that Congress needs to be involved in a thorough review of this Port Deal, and us American citizens along with that, and, that the March 02, 2006 impending date of completion for this Port Deal as it stands today should be postponed accordingly or rescinded if necessary to provide that additional time for greater insight or even another “deal” altogether.
I devoted the past two days to reading a huge amount of information about this issue, including federal regulations, and then discovered that Malkin’s got much of the overview concepts and concerns already organized and published on her website, so, just read what she’s published and add my voice to the many who share in them.
As to statements from the White House about the Port Deal — Press Secretary Scott McClellan saying yesterday in a White House Press Conference that “we shouldn’t be holding a Middle Eastern company to a different standard than a British company” — no, I ardently disagree, and believe that, yes, we should be holding this UAE, state-owned organization from Dubai to a far higher standard that we have held the existing British company for most of the reasons shared by most of us Ameicans: because of UAE’s relationships and involvement with terrorism, because of their ideologies in practice and in goals, and, because the Port Deal would be, in fact, a deal with the UAE (in fact, that the U.S. would be “nationalizing” our ports but just doing so by way of another country)…and, with the possibility by way of obvious loopholes as to compliance with terms, which is another way of saying, as possible but not necessarily, another nation under certain circumstances might opt to chose differently than we expect:
“Under the deal, the government asked Dubai Ports to operate American seaports with existing U.S. managers ‘to the extent possible.’ It promised to take ‘all reasonable steps’ to assist the Homeland Security Department, and it pledged to continue participating in security programs to stop smuggling and detect illegal shipments of nuclear materials…”
All things considered, from what I’ve read in the past two days (I appreciate some in the Republican Congress and a few Governor’s who have also expressed these same concerns, and I wish more would), most people recognize potential for great harms by an ideology that intends our demise. Not necessarily by the UAE but it’s certainly possible, despite anyone’s best hopes and expectations otherwise. The Port Deal provides access to issues and information that affects our national security and all things considered, the entire issue needs a finer, more lengthy review.
As to the political, it’s my opinion that serious damage has been done by how this Port Deal has been sprung on us by President Bush and Cabinet, combined with growing perceptions that the Bush Administration and the Party are going one way while us voters anticipate another direction altogether.
We’d like to believe the President about this Port Deal, about his dedication to security, but unfortunately, what he’s saying about this Port Deal does not counter the degree of concern about it — and, the suggestions that there’s some degree of untoward “racial discrimination” about “Arabs” is serving to lessen his credibility even moreso. If “Arabs” are going to be offput and so easily now, at this stage of inquiry, imagine their degree of “upset” at some future time or with some future issue of even greater importance related to the Port Deal, to operations. Is there, in fact, some necessity for Americans to subjugate our concerns to those of “Arabs”? No, no there is not. We need to, instead, look out for our own concerns at this point, and if at all possible, make it possible for more Americans and American business to do whatever it takes to maintain our national security.
I’m disappointed with the direction our current Republican Party machinations are headed, and at worst, are ridiculing and even maligning Republican voters when there is the slightest indication that support for a Party and/or an Administration position is not iron clad. It’s human to question but monstrous to suppress questioning — many of us conservative voters view the RNC moored so far away from where we are, and so unwilling to recognize what it is we ask when we are even heard at all. The issues of national security start right here at home and when it’s rocky and rough here, it’s worse elsewhere. But, the dilemma worsens for us conservatives because if not the Republican Party, then what? There are few to no options otherwise.
If I had the tide, I’d sail away from all this or swim under it. And, what that is, is that not all captains chart a good course and not all courses are good. And, that it is important to take care in chosing one’s shipmates but especially in chosing one’s craft. Nothing worse than discovering the problems after sail.