Friday, February 24


In a recent post, I tried this historical analogy to make the case that simply because the United Arab Emirates is a trusted ally of the Bush administration in the GWOT they shouldn't necessarily get a pass in taking over port management operations for six of America's major ports.

Russia was a critical ally of the United States in World War II and integral to the defeat of Nazi Germany.

Would that fact have made Americans comfortable were FDR to have staunchly defended (and with the threat of a presidential veto, no less) a deal "vetted" by his administration (and without his prior knowledge) for a Russian-owned company to take over the management of six critical American ports and during wartime?

Humor me. Let me try another.

What if "the deal" was that a UAE-owned company was about to assume management of the flight training of commercial airline pilots in the United States and the president and federal government high-ups were reassuring Americans that the TSA would continue performing airport security regardless -- i.e., that it, not a Dubai-owned company, would continue removing the shoes of elderly women sporting canes and posing serious security risks to the nation?

Just something to think about as center-right polibloggers continue their Olympic-class pirouette's, turning their "True North" compass bearings in the direction of President Bush's myopic justification of the Ports' Deal.

FOLLOW-UP: Kudos to Michelle Malkin for comprehensively covering the Ports' Deal imbroglio and sticking to her guns even in the wake of her blog being hacked and her receipt of a customary plethora of hate mail. And a tip of the hat as well to Frank Laughter of Common Sense Junction for putting 2 + 2 together and knowing that, even in this age of spin and glib ratiocination, it still equals 4.

FOLLOW-UP II: Conservative columnist and pundit Ann Coulter makes the following observation:

There are at least 3,000 reasons why a company controlled by a Middle Eastern Muslim emirate should be held to a different standard than a British company. Many of these reasons are now buried under a gaping hole that isn't metaphorical in lower Manhattan.

So maybe Bush could defend his port deal without insulting our intelligence by asking why anyone might imagine there's any conceivable difference between a British company and a United Arab Emirates company.

President Bush has painted himself into a corner on this issue, and he needs a face-saving compromise to get out of it. Here's my proposal: Let Harriet Miers run the ports.