Should we discriminate on ports deal? You bet! [Buchanan is right for America]

World Net Daily ^ | 2 -25-06 | Pat Buchanan

[ex-snook]

Saturday, February 25, 2006
 

---

---

Should we discriminate on ports deal? You bet!
 

---

Posted: February 25, 2006
1:00 a.m. Eastern

 

By Patrick J. Buchanan
 

---

© 2006 Creators Syndicate Inc.

"This Dubai port deal has unleashed a kind of collective mania we haven't seen in decades ... a xenophobic tsunami," wails a keening David Brooks. "A nativist, isolationist mass hysteria is ... here."

The New York Times columnist obviously regards the nation's splenetic response to news that control of our East Coast ports had been sold to Arab sheiks as wildly irrational. In witness whereof, he quotes Philip Damas of Drewry Shipping Consultants: "The location of a company in the age of globalism is irrelevant."

But irrelevant to whom?

Why is it irrelevant, in a war against Arab and Islamic terrorists, to question the transfer of control of our East Coast ports from Great Britain to the United Arab Emirates?

Our cosmopolitan Brooks lives in another country. He has left the America of blood and soil, shaken the dust from his sandals, to enter the new Davos world of the Global Economy, where nationality does not matter, and where fundamentalists and flag-wavers of all faiths are the real enemies of progress toward the wonderful future these globalists have in store for us.

"God must love Hamas and Moktada Al-Sadr," snorts Brooks. "He has given them the America First brigades of Capitol Hill."

To Brooks, there is little distinction between Islamic mobs burning Danish consulates and America First patriots protesting some insider's deal to surrender control of American ports to Arab sheiks.

But the reflexive recoil to this transaction between transnationals is a manifestation of national mental health. The American people have not yet been over-educated into the higher stupidity. Common sense still trumps ideology here. Globalism has not yet triumphed over patriotism. Rather than take risks with national security, Americans will accept a pinch of racial profiling. Yep, the old America lives.

Like alley cats, Americans yet retain an IFF – Identify-Friend-or-Foe – radar that instinctively alerts them to keep a warier eye on some folks than on others.

But in rejecting a deal transferring control of our ports to Arabs, are Americans not engaging in discrimination? Are they not engaging in prejudice?

Of course they are. But not all discrimination is irrational, nor is all prejudice wrong. To discriminate is but to choose. We all discriminate in our choice of friends and associates. Prejudice means prejudgment. And a prejudgment in favor of Brits in matters touching on national security is rooted in history.

In the 20th century (if not the 19th), the Brits have been with us in almost every fight. It was not Brits who struck us on 9-11, who rejoiced in the death of 3,000 Americans, who daily threaten us from the mosques of East and West, who behead our aid workers, bomb our soldiers and call for "Death to America!" in a thousand demonstrations across the Middle East. And while not all Muslims are terrorists, almost all terrorists appear to be Muslim.

As Mother Church has a "preferential option" for the poor, there is nothing wrong with America's preferential option for the cousins.

Does this mean all Arabs should be considered enemies? Of course not. The folks from Dubai may detest the 9-11 murderers as much as we do, for those killers shamed their faith, disgraced their people, and bred a distrust and fear of Arabs and Muslims that had never before existed here.

Yet, just as sky marshals seat themselves behind young Arab males, not grannies taking the tots to Disney World, so Americans, in deciding who operates their ports, naturally prefer ourselves, or old friends.

Why take an unnecessary risk? Just to get an A for global maturity on our next report card from the WTO?

The real question this deal raises is what happened to the political antenna at the White House. Did it fall off the roof about the time President Bush named Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court?

Anyone in touch with Middle America, especially after 9-11 and endless warnings of imminent attacks on U.S. soil, would know this country is acutely sensitive to terror threats. Surely, before approving this deal with Dubai Ports World, someone should have asked:

"How do you think Bubba will react when he's told sheiks will take over the port of Baltimore, where in Tom Clancy's 'Sum of All Fears,' Arab terrorists smuggle in an A-bomb and detonate it?"

Apparently, no one bothered to ask, or the question was brushed off in the interests of hastily greasing the deal.

Now, this episode is going to end badly. Bush, who has denied advance knowledge of the deal, is being ripped by liberals for living in a pre-9/11 world and being out of touch with his government.

As for our remaining friends in the Middle East, they have been given another reason to regard Americans as fickle friends who, down deep, don't like Arabs.

Unquestionably, this will result in a victory for those who wish to sever America's friendships in the Arab world. But it is Bush and his unthinking globalists, not the American Firsters whom Brooks cannot abide, who are responsible for this debacle.
 

 

---

[MikeA]

"who is actually america's enemy? THE UNION'S!!!!"

Someone needs to really take the time and sit down and do a wide ranging piece on the amount of damage union extremism has done to the economy and interests of this country. I think such a piece would be tremendously valuable and enlightening. I have no doubt we would be shocked at the tremendous damage unions have done to the US economy in recent decades. whether it's the loss of a manufacturing base in this country or the slow death of GM and Ford and yes, if you think foreign companies doing operations work in US ports is bad, then add that to the list of negative results from excessive union power and why US companies don't do this kind work. But Pat Buchanan is a union suck-up and will never admit that it is his beloved labor unions that have brought us to this point.

[joe fonebone]

"This deal STINKS "
So, give us a list of the other bidders, and their ranking on the bidding and homeland security list.........oh, wait...you cannot do that, becaus NO ONE ELSE BID!!!! so if we use your logic, we should either (a) force a company to continue to operate at a loss, when they clearly want to sell the operation, noting that disgruntled employees usually are the most dangerours, or (b) shut down said ports until someone else decides they want to lose money running the unprofitable ports, or (c) let the respective cities run their own ports ( oh, wait we already discussed this, THE UNION makes the running of the ports unprofitable ) sooooo.....since you are so vastly more intellegent than the president and his advisors, what is YOUR solution...........I anxiously await your reply and solution....both please, not just one

[MikeA]

No problem. Thanks for your kind words. Civility!! What a breath of fresh air on FR!

[Thorin]

>>>>>>They strenuously support unions and protectionism and others forms of socialism

Strenuous supporters of protectionism in American history include George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, Abraham Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, Calvin Coolidge, and Robert A. Taft.

Strenuous supporters of free trade include Woodrow Wilson, FDR, and Bill Clinton.

Attacking protectionism as "socialism" betrays a monumental ignorance of American history, if not an actual hatred of America.

[the Marshal]

Old Buck's ability to be on both sides of a fence at once is truly astounding.

Even for a politician.

Trouble is even when he's right he's wrong.

What was that line from Claude Rains in Lawrence of Arabia?

[elhombrelibre]

Pat's Catholicism shows well in his attacks on Mexicans and other Latins not being part of Western Civilization. What a guy!

[joe fonebone]

"It is always amusing to see Catholics attack Buchanan, "
a Catholic basher, ehhh.....nowhere in this thread have i seen the word chatolic, except by you.....I personally do not attack Buchanan because of his religious beliefs, I attack him because he is a moron. As are you, sir.

[Reagan Man]

"" The FBI conducted a detailed financial investigation/analysis of the 19 hijackers and their support network, following the September 11th attacks. This investigation initially identified the Al Qa'ida funding sources of the 19 hijackers in the UAE and Germany."

Senate Committee Statement by FBI'S John Pistole, 31 July 2003

>>>>After all, it was a citizen of the UAE, Marwan al Shehhi, who piloted United Airlines Flight 175 into the second World Trade Center tower, and it was through the banks of this country that the 9/11 attacks were partially financed.
Mansoor Ijaz NRO Online 2-22-2006

"On September 11, 2001, a few hours before the Twin Towers were attacked in New York, one Mustafa Ahmed al-Hawsawi landed in Karachi. A Saudi nation, Hawsawi was the finance manager of 9/11 operations. There is clear evidence that he moved several thousand dollars from a Standard Chartered Bank account in the UAE to Florida’s SunTrust account operated by Atta and others. Working from Dubai, he had couriered ATM and credit cards to Atta and his group in the US for paying flight training schools, buying simulators and equipment like the Global Positioning System and for booking tickets on flights taking off from various destinations early September 11."

John Wilson: Observer Research Foundation

There is Dubai's Sheik Mohammed bin Rashid al Maktoum.
Al-Maktoum, Defense Minister of the United Arab Emirates, is also Crown Prince of Dubai-an Arab Muslim country that strongly supported and recognized Afghanistan's Taliban, one of only three countries to do so. According to "From the Desert to the Derby," by Jason Levin, 10 of the 19 September 11th hijackers carried documents and identification from Dubai, a country which also has no laws against money-laundering. Why? Maybe, because money to fund September 11th's terrorism was laundered to ringleader Mohammed Atta, directly from Dubai's banks.

Debbie Schlussel.com

"Opponents of the deal also argue that the FBI found that the UAE's banking system filtered much of the money used for the operational planning before the Sept. 11 attacks, and many of the hijackers traveled to the United States through the UAE. On top of that, the UAE was an important transfer point for shipments of smuggled nuclear components sent to Iran, North Korea and Libya by a Pakistani scientist."

Fox News, February 20, 2006 ******************************************************************

September 8-11, 2001: Last-Minute Money Transfers Between Hijackers and United Arab Emirates
The 9/11 hijackers send money to and receive money from a man in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) who uses the aliases "Mustafa Ahmed," "Mustafa Ahmad," and "Ahamad Mustafa." [MSNBC, 12/11/01] This "Mustafa" transfers money to Mohamed Atta in Florida on September 8 and 9 from a branch of the Al Ansari Exchange in Sharjah, UAE, a center of al-Qaeda financial dealings. [Financial Times, 11/30/01] On September 9, three hijackers, Atta, Waleed Alshehri, and Marwan Alshehhi, transfer about $15,000 back to "Mustafa's" account. [Time, 10/1/01; Los Angeles Times, 10/20/01] Apparently the hijackers are returning money meant for the 9/11 attacks that they have not needed. "Mustafa" then transfers $40,000 to his Visa card and then, using a Saudi passport, flies from the UAE to Karachi, Pakistan, on 9/11. He makes six ATM withdrawals there two days later, and then disappears into Pakistan. [MSNBC, 12/11/01] In early October 2001, it is reported that the financier “Mustafa Ahmed” is an alias used by Saeed Sheikh. [CNN, 10/6/01] It will later be reported that Saeed wired money to Atta the month before. These last-minute transfers are touted as the “smoking gun” proving al-Qaeda involvement in the 9/11 attacks, since Saeed is a known financial manager for bin Laden. [Guardian, 10/1/01]

The Center for Cooperative Research

[fizziwig]

"Blood And Soil" (in German Blut und Boden) was a slogan employed by racialist agitator Walther Darre in the early 1930s and Hitler made it a staple of his speeches, where it was chanted by crowds at the Nuremberg rallies."
______________________________________________

Buchanan is a closet Nazi...no doubt about it.

What a Moonbat!

[stop_fascism]

I kind of imagine him painting on a little hitler moustache and goose stepping around his bedroom while Mrs. Buchanan chants "Seig Heil, Geig Heil."

[CWOJackson]

During one of his campaigns for President one reporter was granted an interview by pat at his home.

The reporter commented that when he arrived at pat's house the first thing he notice when entering through the front door was a life size bust of pat buchanan in the entry way.

Caesar complex?

[Thorin]

>>>>>>"It is always amusing to see Catholics attack Buchanan, "

Wideawake is on the Catholic ping list, as am I.

>>>>>I attack him because he is a moron. As are you, sir.

Such an incisive, intelligent attack! What a wit you are!

[wideawake]

The phrase is used in this ad for the latest book from Tom Fleming, of Chronicles: chroniclesmagazine.org/www/Books/index.html

I'm sure it is.

Fleming is an Aristotelian, not a Nazi.

Fleming is neither an Aristotelian nor a Nazi.

He is a tacit racialist sympathizer (i.e. his championing of the openly racialist Sam Francis) and, while an admirer of Aristotle, his reasoning involves nothing remotely approaching Aristotelian metaphysical clarity.

And Buchanan subscribes to Chronicles.

Are you honestly claiming that Buchanan - a man who is clearly an enthusiast for political and military history - never heard the phrase in his life until he scanned the ads in a recent issue of Chronicles?

Don't take us for idiots.

It is always amusing to see Catholics attack Buchanan, just because he has consistently opposed the anti-Catholic neocon philosophy which they have embraced.

This statement is disingenuous in a number of ways.

Would it be OK if Catholics criticized Buchanan because he embraced the agenda of the anti-Catholic Bolshevik Lenora Fulani? Would that be justified?

Also, I don't know the sense in which you use the term "neocon". Please direct me to a philosophical work which you consider to be "neocon" which attacks Catholicism.

Maybe a book by Michael Novak?

Buchanan is an American patriot and a traditional Catholic, not a "Nazi."

I never called him one and I do not believe that he is one. If I assumed he was one, I wouldn't be surprised to see him using a hackneyed phrase so closely associated with Nazism.

Perhaps he is indeed a traditional Catholic. I'm less sanguine about his status as an American patriot.

Of course the "Catholics" who consider themselves the most traditional of America's Catholic population are America-haters like Solange Hertz, Anthony Cekada, Richard Williamson and the SSPV, among others.

[UCANSEE2]

"They helped obl escape. One of the hijackers was from UAE.
"

We trained OBL. Gave him weapons. Protected him. Gave him money. We had the information that would have kept 9/11 from happening, but a U.S. President kept it quiet so he could keep the Justice Department from proving he was selling off our security secrets to the Red Chinese for campaign money.

Your turn.

[stop_fascism]

We attack him because he fosters a stereotype which anti-catholic bigots exploit. BTW - what patriotic thing has he ever done. His book on WWII about how the mean Americans stopped loveable nazis from exterminating jews is not my idea of patriotism.

[macamadamia]

Blood and Soil! Blood and Soil! BLOOD AND SOIL!

[wideawake]

Strenuous supporters of protectionism in American history include George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, Abraham Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, Calvin Coolidge, and Robert A. Taft.

The only person you named who saw protectionism as a metaphysical necessity, as opposed to a useful policy tactic to employ vis a vis recalcitrant trading partners, is Taft.

Strenuous supporters of free trade include Woodrow Wilson, FDR, and Bill Clinton.

FDR? Be serious.

Attacking protectionism as "socialism" betrays a monumental ignorance of American history, if not an actual hatred of America.

Now I just have to laugh at you. Supporting free enterprise and free trade is "hatred of America"? Hilarious.

[Thorin]

>>>>>> His book on WWII about how the mean Americans stopped loveable nazis from exterminating jews is not my idea of patriotism.

That is hardly what the book was about. But it's not surprising to see a Buchanan-hater have such a skewed view of reality.

[wideawake]

You'll find this thread amusing, perhaps.

[Thorin]

>>>>>>The only person you named who saw protectionism as a metaphysical necessity, as opposed to a useful policy tactic to employ vis a vis recalcitrant trading partners, is Taft.

No, all of them believed in the American system of protective tariffs. It was TR who declaimed, "Thank God I am not a free trader."

But if you want to think of Lincoln and Taft as "socialists," go right ahead.