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.