The Thought Axis

Porta-Potty

I enthusiastically support a global economy because it is in America's best interests, but I thought the emphasis of our government over the last four years has been security.  Recent events have given me a sinking feeling. You know- the one you get when you realize you have been duped in a big way. 

Michelle Malkin has rounded up the highlights of what is undoubtedly a growing negative sentiment concerning the Administration's approval of the sale of operating contracts pertaining to some of our nation's largest ports.  We aren't allowing them to be sold to Australia, but rather the UAE.  For those who don't know, this is a place on the Persian Gulf (need I say more?).  Yes, its almost as bad as allowing France to run our ports.  Not quite, because even allowing France to run our porta-potties would probably mean the end for us.  We'd all die of a cholera pandemic. 

Are we really back to business as usual?  The Administration says no.  We constantly hear about the dangers this country faces. But this decision doesn't sqaure with the rhetoric.  Are we being misled as to the magnitude of the threats against our nation? Have we fought the war against terrorism so successfully that the only remaining threats are residual traces of the consolidated effort which produced the terrorist attacks? 

I think the best explanation is that we need oil.  We don't want to get too harsh with the Iranians.  We try to placate the violent Muslim mobs instead of supporting our ally Denmark.  Now we don't want to offend the Emirates by nixing a deal that has the potential to seriously harm our strategic security. 

Why, you ask, might this deal by harmful?  One only needs to look at the evidence concerning the Saudi royal family's ties to terrorism to understand how this is a disaster waiting to happen.  The company buying the contracts is partially state-owned.  Do we want these people to have access to cargo manifests, departure schedules, and details of security operations? 

Apparently the bureaucrats who cleared this deal see no problem with it. These would be the same bureaucrats who failed to "connect the dots" regarding the terrorist attacks on September 11th. You'd think they would learn, but in the absence of these people suddenly developing an IQ above that of the rabid cartoon protesters, the President should take the lead.  The failure of the Bush administration to take firm stands against our traditional Middle-Eastern allies when needed has been one of the most glaring defects of this president's leadership. 

We do need oil and the President would do well to take himself seriously when he says we are addicted to it.  Doing the right thing is sometimes painful, but it is still good and worthwhile because it is right.  The Arab world needs to know that we would like to be friends- but not at any cost. Not at the cost of denying the value of our freedoms when one of our allies is under siege and certainly not at the cost of denying the realities of this world by allowing the sale of these port management contracts.  We want to have good relationships, but not at the price of foresaking what we believe in or selling out our own security.  The small security gains to be had by taking this passive approach pale in comparison to the potentially catasrophic risks we are taking to do so.

Cartoon Fiasco

I decided to write my senator about the State Department's response to the mounting violence against Denmark. 

Dear Senator,

I write to you in order to express my frustration and anger with the U.S. State Department's comments regarding the ongoing dispute between certain EU nations and the Muslim world. I believe it was wrong for the administration to use such biased language in addressing this issue. Perhaps most troubling was State Department spokesman's attempt to qualify our own country's respect for freedom of the press with a caveat about the responsibility of the press to refrain from “inciting religious or ethnic hatreds” (read: refrain from offending anyone). While I do not find fault with the belief that the media's responsibility is important within the context of civic duty, it should not be implied that freedom is in any way contingent upon the prudent exercise of that freedom. In my view, this was tantamount to an endorsement of censorship. The more pressing need was to emphatically reject the calls of Arab and Muslim leaders to censor the media rather than to fire off a line to the effect that we all respect the freedom of the press (they obviously don't) and then try to placate a virulent mob.

I also reject in advance the argument that this was some sort of oversight. Given the way that the State Department measures its words, it is clear to me that this was a calculated attempt to garner favor with Muslims around the world. What is expedient is not always right, and quite frankly, this statement reeks of opportunism rather than virtue. It is perfectly fine for the administration to express its distaste for anything it chooses, but in a battle of values such as this, between freedom and the tyrannical alternative of ensuring that nobody is ever offended, it is imperative that the administration always side with freedom. The State Department didn't emphasize freedom. It emphasized feelings. How unfortunate it is that we send these mixed signals while simultaneously fighting a war in Iraq for the sake of freedom and democracy.

As an evangelical Christian, I am frequently offended by a culture that denigrates my beliefs. But the difference between me and some of the people offended by these newspaper cartoons is that I fight back with words and ideas rather than physical threats and violence. It is for this reason that I am asking you to publicly condemn the State Department's position rather than asking you to attack the State Department and take hostages.

In closing, let me just say that I cherish the right of anyone to offend my religious sensibilities because therein lies my right to share my religious beliefs, to say bad things about those who have offended me, and to speak out against the government in correspondence with my elected representative. I hope you'll take the State Department to task for its abject failure in this matter.