G.O.P. to W.: You're Nuts!

[kurth]

G.O.P. to W.: You're Nuts!
By MAUREEN DOWD

It's enough to make you nostalgic for those gnarly union stevedores in "On the Waterfront," the ones who hung up rats on hooks and took away Marlon Brando's chance to be a contend-ah. Maybe it's corporate racial profiling, but I don't want foreign companies, particularly ones with links to 9/11, running American ports. What kind of empire are we if we have to outsource our coastline to a group of sheiks who don't recognize Israel, in a country where money was laundered for the 9/11 attacks? And that let A. Q. Kahn, the Pakistani nuclear scientist, smuggle nuclear components through its port to Libya, North Korea and Iran? It's mind-boggling that President Bush ever agreed to let an alliance of seven emirs be in charge of six of our ports.

< snip >

Our ports are already nearly naked in terms of security. Only about 5 percent of the containers coming into the country are checked. And when the White House assures us that the Homeland Security Department will oversee security at the ports, is that supposed to make us sleep better? Not after the chuckleheaded Chertoff-and-Brownie show on Capitol Hill. "Our borders are wide open," said Jan Gadiel of 9/11 Families for a Secure America. "We don't know who's in our country right now, not a clue. And now they're giving away our ports." The "trust us" routine of W. and Dick Cheney is threadbare.

< snip >

A bristly Bush said yesterday that scotching the deal would send "a terrible signal" to a worthy ally. He equated the "Great British" with the U.A.E. Well, maybe Britain in the 12th century. Besides, the American people can be forgiven if they're confused about what it means in the Arab world to be a U.S. ally. Is it a nation that helps us sometimes but also addicts us to oil and then jacks up the price, refuses to recognize Israel, denies women basic rights, tolerates radical anti-American clerics, looks the other way when its citizens burn down embassies and consulates over cartoons, and often turns a blind eye when it comes to hunting down terrorists in its midst?

< snip >

As part of the lunatic White House defense, Dan Bartlett argued that
"people are trying to drive wedges and make this to be a political
issue." But as the New Republic editor Peter Beinart pointed out in a recent column, W. has made the war on terror "one vast wedge issue" to divide the country. Now, however, the president has pulled us together. We all pretty much agree: mitts off our ports.

http://select.nytimes.com/2006/02/22/opinion/22dowd.html

[roguevalley]

1. if anyone throws the argument at you that we allowed the British

to have the ports first, tell them that British people never flew planes into our buildings and they\ir country doesn't sponsor the terrorists that did.

[izzybeans]

2. And that the British firm was a private company. This company

is state owned and ran. It's like letting the Greeks make the decision to bring in the big wooden horse. At least let us make that stupid mistake.

[grytpype]

3. Buh... but we fought them in 1776!

And 1812!