Dubai: A clear threat to national security

Many Americans supported George W. Bush because they viewed him as a nationalist who would protect America. The refusal of Bush to back down from supporting the Dubai ports deal should make any thinking person question if our Commander in Chief has any real concern about protecting the American people from terrorism. I doubt that our President is a patriot is any sense. Bush has refused to secure our borders and supported trade policies which continue to destroy America's industrial capacity. Bush and the free traders think it is perfectly OK if Americans must import most of the components necessary to make weaponry. Why is anyone surprised that the Bush Administration is willing to give control of our ports to a company owned by the United Arab Emirates - one of the three countries which recognized the Taliban before 9/11 ? Below are excerpts from a column by Joe Conason writing in the New York Observer which points out the hypocrisy of Bush and his free trade apologists including the idiots at the Cato Institute.

Questions about the U.S. approval of Dubai Ports World should begin with the fact that it is not a private business but a government-owned enterprise. The “free-market” fanatics of the Bush administration and the conservative movement should explain exactly why they believe a corporation owned by a foreign state is an acceptable business partner, when they so vigorously oppose public ownership of any economic entity within the United States. Even the Cato Institute, that bastion of libertarian thought, is urging the approval of the Dubai deal.

Imagine the ideological fury among conservatives if our own federal government proposed to take over the operation of American ports (which might not be such an awful idea, considering the risk we now confront from nuclear or other threats that could be shipped into our cities by terrorists). They would scream about “socialism” and unfair competition with private enterprise. After all, they resisted the establishment of the Transportation Security Administration after 9/11 because of their knee-jerk preference for private security firms. Yet the tribal rulers of the U.A.E. evidently should be encouraged to profit from government enterprise, while the free people of the United States cannot. [For the complete Conason column go to http://tinyurl.com/gfe6d]

Today's Seattle Times reports that former New Jersey Governor Thomas Kean, a Republican who chaired the 9/11 Commission has called the Dubai ports deal a big mistake because of close ties between the 2001 hijackers and the UAE. "It shouldn't have happened, it never should have happened," Kean stated. "The quicker the Bush administration can get out of the deal, the better, he added. "There's no question that two of the 9/11 hijackers came from there and money was laundered through there," Kean said. http://tinyurl.com/nyx8w

Public opinion clearly opposes the ports deal and Democrats appear to be making political gains as a result of a backlash against the Bush Administration on this matter. According to a newly released Rasmussen Reports survey, only 17% of the public favors control of U.S. ports by Dubai while 64% are opposed. By a margin of 43% to 41%, voters trust the Democratic Congress to protect American national security interests over the Bush White House. I will be the first to point out that Democrats need to take a tougher stand on national security matters, but the polling certainly suggests that the public is starting to recognize that "W" is much more focused on protecting special interests and "free trade" than defending America. For more information about the polling go to http://rasmussenreports.com