Saturday, February 25, 2006
Today the liberal left is trying to project a pro-defense attack on president Bush by bashing him on the security of America's shipping port. Are they simply creating mass hysteria once again with their puppets in the liberal media? Or do they really care about being hit again? After all, the left has been screaming for Bush (ala Cindy Sheehan) to throw the towel in on the war in Iraq and bring our troops home, without telling the American people the disastrous effect it would have on homeland security.
Suddenly the left has turned 180º and is demanding we protect our borders from the rest of the world's population, especially Arabs. Are Democrat's proving themselves isolationists'? Should we build a wall around the county to keep foreign elements out? Of course not, but that seems to be the slide some republicans are getting on with Democrat's who are giddy about finally finding some traction on a security issue against Bush, that has also struck a chord with some Republican's in congress, although it may come at a cost larger than anyone yet realizes, depending on the outcome. See my post below for my first take on the ports deal, which is usually on the money. However, with this issue being somewhat more complex than first believed, I am waiting to see how this plays out on the world stage, as there is quite alot being thrown into the air, which includes conservative radio hosts being split on the issue. Surely an exciting development for liberals to savor.
For now, I'll defer to someone who's opinion I think is close to the realities of the situation.
Mr. Charles Kruthammer sums up the ports dispute. I recommend reading the whole article... A Dubai Finesse
"This contract should have been stopped at an earlier stage, but at this point doing so would cause too much damage to our relations with moderate Arab states. There are no very good options. The best exit strategy is this: (1) Allow the contract to go through; (2) give it heightened scrutiny by assigning a team of U.S. government agents to work inside the company at least for the first few years to make sure security is tight and information closely held; (3) have the team report every six months to both the executive and a select congressional committee."
But somwhere there is some lack of forethought on this deal by the administration who tried to ram it through.
Homeland Security did not approve this deal. So the question is who initiated it and who put it through?
Someone's head should roll for this, but perhaps not the president's as says he found out about it like we all did, through the media if we are to believe that, which might lead me to suspect that this deal was hidden from the highest levels, and sprung at the last moment for maximum effect by a lower political enemy of the president.
Somehow in the end, I have a hunch that democrat finger prints will be found on this deal.
© Copyright 2005-2008 The Creative Conservative, All Rights Reserved.|