I mentioned a couple days ago how the Democrats' proposed "strategic redeployment" plan for Iraq was a basically a gift to the GOP. Today, President Bush returned the favor:
President Bush on Tuesday defended a deal that would let a United Arab Emirates-based company run some key U.S. seaports, telling reporters that he would veto any bill to hold up the agreement.Bush, who has yet to veto a bill during his administration, warned that the United States is sending "mixed signals" by attacking a Middle Eastern company after the ports were run by a British firm for several years.
Lawmakers who have called for the deal to be blocked need to "step up and explain why a Middle Eastern company is held to a different standard," he said.
I'm not sure about lawmakers but I suspect the reason many voters would cite is the fact that unlike Britain, Islamic culture these days seems bent on killing us.
Still, GWB may be right on this one. I certainly don't think he'd risk his hawk rep if there was any question about the UAE company's security credentials. Moreover, the UAE company might actually bring added value to the table; it's possible that an Arab company would have special knowledge about securing ports against Islamic terrorists. At the very least, the company would understand where its bread was buttered and work just as hard to keep things running like their British predecessor.
But the move is still politically tone deaf and is getting magnified by the MSM. It's basically allowing the Democrats to run to the right of the Republicans on their one strong issue going into '06. The Democrats were primed with their strategic redeployment plan to rally the conservative base for the GOP; the White House in turn is giving them another reason to stay home.
Related: The fact that Jimmah is supporting the deal can't be a good sign.
Meanwhile, can't wait for a certain local foreign policy expert to find an open microphone and share his thoughts on the subject.
Posted by JakeM at February 22, 2006 12:44 AM | TrackBack
it's possible that an Arab company would have special knowledge about securing ports against Islamic terrorists
Ha!! If a prominent liberal said this, you guys would tear the poor sap limb from limb. Rush would get four hours out of it.
is getting magnified by the MSM
Do you think the coverage has been biased in any way? Or is the word "magnified" simply a description of what results when reporters cover a story?
Posted by: dan at February 22, 2006 09:53 AMHube,
Last week youz were freaking out 'cuz the muslums were just crazy eyed killahs, commin to git us. Terra, Terra, Terra ! Cartoon fever! Head fer dah hills! Wire taps all around. Pre 9/11 thinking!!
Now, JakeM says, "hey - its cool muslums need love 2."
Which is it?
Posted by: jason at February 22, 2006 03:07 PMThe answer is simple, Scourge: Jake is entitled to his opinion, and I, mine.
If yopu couldn't figure that out, you're worse off than I thought.
(BTW, why would yell the Latin word for "earth"?)
Posted by: Hube at February 22, 2006 03:32 PMSeriously, if you're trying to do Amos & Andy, it should be, "Head fo' da hills," not "fer."
Posted by: G Rex at February 22, 2006 04:34 PMit is brilliant for him to play the race card...only it wont work.
The crony nature of this thing will bite him in the ass. Way to much back slapping going on and now we are supposed to bend over and take a UAE run company because Bush says "trust me" again. The country is getting tired of the trust me routine and his GOP buddies can't run on 2006 based on the Trust Me campaign creedo
You just have to ask a simple question. Do you feel safer knowing that a UAE owned company is in charge of our port security?
Posted by: donviti at February 22, 2006 04:53 PMHa!! If a prominent liberal said this, you guys would tear the poor sap limb from limb. Rush would get four hours out of it.
The difference is that before I said it was conceivable the Arab company might not be all bad, I covered myself by slandering Islamic culture.
Posted by: Jake at February 22, 2006 05:12 PMWell you got your wish yesterday. Biden came out ripping the deal.
As is starting to be noticed, the role Treasury Secretary John Snowe played in this looks real slimy on the surface. A $29 million loan doesn't often get forgiven, and until it happens to me I'm almost certain they're not forgiven with no strings attached later on.
PS-- how is the word u-n-forgiven considered questionable content?
Posted by: Dickie Dunn at February 22, 2006 05:29 PMDickie: I've encountered similar problems. It has to do with the spam blacklist tracking certain keywords. Sorry about the hassle.
Posted by: Hube at February 22, 2006 06:03 PMThe difference is that before I said it was conceivable the Arab company might not be all bad, I covered myself by slandering Islamic culture.
That is a very odd response, and I don't really know where to go with that. But OK.
Posted by: dan at February 22, 2006 10:59 PMOh the knee-jerkiness of this whole issue! Dems and GOPers falling over each other trying to look tough on homeland security, all for political points. Don't do any research, just come out with guns blazing.
Here's the deal: the UAE is the kind of good, modernized Arab state, and the kind of society we'd like to encourage in Iran, Iraq, and the rest of the Middle East. Look at a map of the Red Sea, and you'll also see the strategic importance of keeping close ties with them. We dock US Navy ships there, and base fighter planes there as well, without having to make the proverbial "deal with the devil" with, oh, the Saudis for example. Why do they operate ports? because they've decided to invest their oil money in building a maritime empire for long term prosperity, not dole it out as welfare to keep the peasants happy and dumb, or funding radical madrassas like, oh, the Saudis for example. Are you getting the point?
The only beef we have with the UAE is that they recognized the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan. Maybe that was a survival-instinct thing, but it's troubling.
Posted by: G Rex at February 23, 2006 10:56 AM