Many of you are no doubt befuddled and concerned about the seemingly irrational policy decision by the Bush administration to turn over control and operation of six of the nation's largest and most sensitive ports to a company owned by the United Arab Emirates. Please rest easy. There is a method to the madness and a rational explanation for the Bush support of the transaction. You may not LIKE the rationale, but it does make sense to true Patriots.
Before you get in an uproar, and work yourself into an apoplectic fit over the seeming incongruity, let's review the situation. The President claims that he needs to trample and curtail civil rights and basic Democratic freedoms in the interests of protecting "National Security." He declares that neither the Congress nor the Constitution has the authority to limit his perogatives in his quest, if protecting National Security is his goal. The end justifies any means he may conceive or manufacture. He has established a new Cabinet level Agency for "Homeland Security" to make sure that federal policy and executive initiatives or action are consistent with protecting national security and protecting Americans. Goodness! I almost feel better about giving up my Fourth Amendment and First Amendment rights, knowing that I can go to sleep each night with the comfort that only the FBI, the CIA or some federal agent will storm my bedroom and take me hostage. At least it will not be some foreign "terrorist." Good old GW is at the ready and ever vigilant [except perhaps whenever an emergency like 9/11 or Katrina strikes after the President had significant prior warning, but everybody makes some mistakes, right?]
Now we are told that GW has carefully reviewed the decision to transfer control of major US ports to a company owned by the United Arab Emirates. And some of you question the decision. Perhaps you are just being Arabophobic? After all, the Bush family has had financial dealings and strong financial ties to the UAE for many years and why should we not trust the Bush family to look out for the best interests of the nation? We should not be ready to reject a very profitable deal just because the transaction involves Arabs.
But you argue that your objections really are not based upon the fact that the company is owned by "Arabs," but that it does make a difference that it specifically involves the UAE. You remind us that two of the conspirators who were actually involved in the 9/11 attack on the World Trade Center were directly linked to the UAE. You say that you would rather have a company owned by the government of Iraq purchasing the port operating concern than a company owned by UAE or Saudi Arabia. After all, the record is clear that no one in Iraq had anything to do with the 9/11 attack on the US. There were no weapons of mass destruction or biological weapons in Iraq either. And Saddam Hussein had been successful in stifling any influence by Al Qaida in Iraq prior to the US invasion.
You also argue that if the reason for fighting in Iraq is to engage pockets or terrorist away from US shores in order to prevent having to combat them at home, that it does not make sense to establish organizations in major US ports that are easily subject to infiltration and which allow terrorist cells and organizations to set up convenient beach heads on US soil. I would agree that your argument has some plausible merit.
But it does not out weigh the confidence we should place in our President. After all, would a financial partner who has diverted millions of dollars into the family coffers of the Bush family turn around and double cross his good and faithful partner of many years? That is so unlikely after GW has just expended a large amount of political capital to assure the UAE company nearly monopolistic control over the trade through major ports of this country. GW may talk about saving lives and protecting national interest, but what he clearly worships more than anything is money and loyalty. Just think about it! When people were starving and dying after Katrina struck, who stepped up and awarded millions of dollars in no bid contracts to Halliburton to perform wasteful and useless tasks at extreme profit. That's money and loyalty. And when you consider that Halliburton was under investigation for gross fraud and overcharging for similar types of contracts in Iraq, you have to admit that GW has conviction. George knows his friends alright.
So when George tells us that he has been assured by his loyal friends in the government of Dubai and the UAE that takeover of major US ports poses no risk to "national security," especially when that assurance is backed up by VERY fat bank accounts of the Bush family in the Bank of Houston [as well as a number of offshore accounts], who are we to second guess our Commander in Chief? He hasn't been wrong yet, ...or has he?
[If you'll excuse me, I have to go now. I have my broker on the phone about selling my property in New York and Philadelphia and reinvesting in new locations as far away from major ports as possible. Really, just a coincidence...]
No comments:
Post a Comment