February 20, 2006

Arab Entity

Today's NYT story on the UAE port takeover: More Objections to Port Takeover by Arab Entity.

An 'arab entity?' Is that anything like the crystalline entity from Star Trek: TNG? Wherever they were going with that phrase, it doesn't sound flattering. And it shouldn't, because even the tone deaf traditional media can't miss the enormous unpopularity of giving control of 6 US ports to a company owned by the government of a country whose friendship is dubious at best. CNN's Jack Cafferty was saying earlier today that when he asked his viewers about the sale, he got hundreds of negative responses and not a single positive comment.

Over at dKos, Georgia10 lays out the port debate. Of particular note, the distinction between foreign-owned businesses and foreign government owned businesses, the increased likelihood of terrorist action against these particular ports and the fact that the UAE was one of three countries to recognize the Taliban. Many news outlets are noting both the UAE citizenship of two of the 9/11 hijackers and that country's service as a transit point for A.Q. Khan's nuclear blackmarket trade between Pakistan, Iran and North Korea.

A monstrously bad, frakking idea from the political party who tells us that they're the best when it comes to our national security.

Posted by natasha at February 20, 2006 03:33 PM | US Politics | TrackBack(1) | Technorati links |
Comments

It's a shame that some are playing this as anti-Arab. It is not. However, we simply cannot trust another country with these ports (especially the NY/NJ ports that are so close to the most dangerous stretch of real estate in the country) unless the extreme example of the Great "British." UAE is a risk, period, and this once and for all displays how little the Bushies care about the national security issue.

Posted by: Scott at February 22, 2006 04:04 PM