The American Spectator

home
ADVERTISEMENT
Reader Mail
Print Email
Text Size

Reader Mail

Dueling Over Dubai

Is it conservative to support or oppose the Ports deal? Plus: Health care accounting. Bulger Boston. Iran, anyone? More on Ben Stein. And much else.

(Page 3 of 17)

p> I am much more concerned with our lack of border control than with Dubai Ports World buying into our ports. And the thought of allowing illegals to buy their way into amnesty just turns my stomach. I know they don’t want it called amnesty, but just watch the flood coming across our borders if this is passed. It is a signal to COME ON OVER and in a few years there will be another “guest worker” program and you can get in on that one. br> — Elaine Kyle /p>

It’s astounding how many conservatives are falling for the Administration arguments on the UAE ports deal. What the Bushies are essentially saying is that we are better (yes, BETTER) off with Dubai Ports World managing operations than with a British company doing so. And having an American company take over is entirely ignored.

Let us attempt to set up a balance sheet. If the UAE takes over we gain… OK, I’m waiting — what is it we gain? Ah, here we go: if the UAE company takes over we won’t be accused of being “racists” or “Islamophobes.” That’s it! There is no other advantage, since all of the other arguments simply state that port security will be no worse than it is at present.

Now for the other side. What is it we lose if the UAE takes over? Well, there is no active harm — the UAE is not presently, insofar as we know, encouraging terrorism — but there are significant potential harms. The possibility exists that UAE ownership might increase the ease with which weapons may be smuggled, that terrorists or their allies could be infiltrated by posing as DPW employees, and that monetary transfers to terrorists could be facilitated.

So there we have it. On balance there is no positive but several negatives. This looks to me like just another attempt to buy friendship with those who have chosen to make themselves our enemies. In effect, it is a form of Danegeld — and as Kipling reminds us, paying Danegeld simply earns one more raids from the Vikings.

p>And let’s always remember the signal this deal sends to the American people: that George W. Bush isn’t all that serious about the War on Terror, that it’s business as usual with the Middle East, that the Saudis and other Gulf powers are more than fair weather friends, never mind what they say about us or do to us. br> — Richard Donley br> New Lyme, Ohio /p> p> It appears all this excitement was over a normal activity of our government. With the Republicans in the Congress (our unskilled practitioners) what do you expect? Rather than jump, the President they should have known the process and been the first to point this out to the Dems. And the press. They will never learn. br> —
Page:   1 23 4 5   Last ›

topics:
Education, Trade, Health Care, Economics, Business, Religion, Islam, Hollywood, Constitution, Law, Iraq, Iran, Israel, Pakistan, Oil, Unions

Letter to the Editor

Related Articles

More Articles From Reader Mail

http://spectator.org/archives/2006/02/27/dueling-over-dubai

ADVERTISEMENT

SPONSORED LINKS

FLASHBACK TO: 1995

Clip of the Day

Most Popular Articles

Obama and the IRS: The Smoking Gun?

Jeffrey Lord | 5.20.13

Time to Go for the Kill

Peter Ferrara | 5.22.13

From the Obama Ministry of Truth

Ben Stein | 5.21.13

IRS Union Chief Stonewalls

Jeffrey Lord | 5.21.13

Wimps Versus Barbarians

Thomas Sowell | 5.21.13

Damage Control for Dummies

Matt Purple | 5.22.13

Anyone Still Believe Me?

Aaron Goldstein | 5.21.13

ADVERTISEMENT