Tuesday, February 21, 2006

Should The UAE Be In Charge of US Port Security?


That's a tough one. Give me a second. No.

On second thought that wasn't so tough after all. Forgive me for being religiously predjudice here, but Muslim terrorism has had something to do with this. For over 30 years the world has faced murderous barbarism in the form of Islamic fundamentalism.

While it is still proclaimed to be a product of a minority of Islam's followers that do this, it is remarkably telling that much of the world is engulfed in riots perpetrated by Muslims, that many polls show 10% or more of Muslims support terrorism as a political tool, that many Muslims believe that their religion is their country, and that the most realistic threat of a nuclear device entering our country is through a port, and not delivery by missile.

It isn't often that I agree with Sens. Hillary Clinton and Chuck Schumer over, well, over anybody. This time, however, they hold the trump card versus the White House.

Cal Thomas writing in Townhall has similar views:

The UAE was used as a financial and operational base by some of the 9/11 hijackers. A New York Times editorial said the sale takes the Bush administration's "laxness to a new level."

Members of Congress may wish to consider that the UAE was an important transfer point for shipments of smuggled nuclear components bound for Iran, North Korea and Libya by a Pakistani scientist, Abdul Qadeer Khan. The UAE was one of only three countries to recognize the Taliban as Afghanistan's legitimate government before the U.S. invasion toppled it.

The Department of Homeland Security says it is legally impossible under CFIUS rules to reconsider approval of the sale without evidence the Dubai company gave false information or withheld vital details from U.S. officials. Congress should change that law.

Last year, Congress overwhelmingly recommended against the Bush administration granting permission to a Chinese company to purchase the U.S. oil services company UNOCAL. Six years ago, when a Chinese company took control of the Panama Canal from the United States, retired U.S. Admiral and former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Thomas H. Moorer warned of a "nuclear Pearl Harbor."

Congress must stop this sale of American ports to foreign interests and, in an era of terrorism, prevent any more potential terrorist targets from falling into the hands of those who wish to destroy us.
This is a potential firestorm for the White House and is a no-win firestorm at that. President Bush must put aside his "I don't care what anyone thinks" attitude and listen to the people that elected him (read Harriet Miers.)

There are serious bi-partisan concerns here. In the case of security, always err on the side of security. Redundant I know, but can it get more simple?


When Jimmy Carter comes out in favor of something you know it is a mistake.

This Miami Herald article via Drudge.

No comments: