The Port Security Thang
You know what's refreshing? When some poor schlub suggests that maybe we're worried about a foreign government running security on our ports
because we're xenophobes, and a bipartisan consensus immediately says, "Are you NUTS?!"
Huzzah! Bipartisan consensus at last!
Well, okay, except for the prexy and his administration.
Look, I don't think a foreign company
-- let alone one actually owned
by a foreign government
-- should be running security in another nation's ports, period. This goes for Great Britain, even, because national interests differ, dammit. It certainly goes for China...and boy howdy does it go for Dubai, or any nation in as war-torn a region as the middle east (Israel wouldn't reassure me, either) -- particularly since we have one or two itty-bitty dustups of our own there, currently, if memory serves. Ain't nothing xenophobic about any of this; particularly when you consider the UAE backing (and see dailykos.com for a rundown on who the UAE is).
Here's the thing, though:
Yesterday's story was: "Prexy stands firm on Dubai deal 'cause it's good for you 'n' shut up." When his own party's Congressional leadership in both houses (Yes!, Frist and Hastert!, can you believe it?!) says "You have GOT to be kidding us!" -- and NY Gov. George Pataki, also a Republican, says much the same...well, today's
"Prexy really knew nothing about Dubai deal."So, here's the question: Which is scariest?:
1. The president thinks U.S. port security can be handled just fine by foreign governments, backed by known terror sponsors;
2. The whole deal happened without the president knowing a thing about it; or,
3. Both: He didn't know about it, AND instantly insisted it was a great idea and the decision was final?
93 93/93 -- AJ