Are we done yet??

Update 2/24/06:

(Scroll below for the Sage's "What would Mother Sheehan do" post...but be warned, gratuitous SheBeast photo alert...)

Okay, I'm done talking about this. The UAE has agreed to delay the deal pending further investigation. Fine. Good. Super.

However, the more I hear Democrats pretending to give a hoot about our security the more I am in favor of this and frankly consider the deal a "non-issue".

This is a controversy specifically because Democrats are making it so. Period. I'm not going to suddenly trust everything coming out of the MSM just because I haven't formulated an opinion yet. Part of formulating that opinion will be concluded by doing what we always do - reading facts from all sources available - not just the news sources making a big deal about it.

I think as conservative bloggers, this is yet another chance to dig for the "rest of the story" (rip-off from Paul Harvey) and make it known. So until more information is known, I'm done talking about it.

Oh - and HAPPY FRIDAY!!

****

Michelle Malkin makes a good point:

But there is a teachable moment here that shouldn't be missed. The tone-deafness of the White House is bad. The craven political opportunism of the Democrats is worse.

Political opportunism. Bet the Democrats never thought that coming out in FAVOR of US "Security" would make them look good and Bush look bad. Another interesting way of looking at this...?

More from Rush:

Now, in this case, if the UAE deal were to go through, the UAE is not going to staff it. We're not going to have imported Arabs working for the company. US law still will operate. There is not one port -- you say we've got to get back into port security. Where? The United States does not own one port, one dock where cargo is loaded or off-loaded in the world. There is not a US company in existence that does it, and when the British finish this deal, this is the last one they will own. Every dock, every port in the world where cargo is loaded for shipment to the United States is owned by a foreign country, and quite a few of them are owned by UAE. In Hong Kong, in China, in two or three other places. They are in this business. We don't own anything, but in our own country we do have laws and we do have our own safeguards, hiring practices, all this, none of that's going to change. We're not bringing over United Arab Emirate law. They are not allowed to do that. Just as the Supreme Court should not be looking to foreign law to determine US constitutional issues, we are not going to be importing United Arab Emirate customs or law if they were to get this deal, but nobody wants to hear this. Nobody wants to hear this, and I know why: You don't trust them.

Update: 2/22
This morning as I puttered around getting ready (preggo here passed out at 9:30pm and didn't even set the alarm. Thank God I have a very vigilant, furry, alarm clock that woke me up in time!), listening to Fox News as usual, the thought hit me: Why are the Democrats so opposed to this deal? These are the same Democrats that want to protect terrorists in our country from being discovered by screaming about "illegal wiretapping", call Gitmo a concentration camp, don't want us "racially profiling" at airports, have consistently taken the side of terrorists...on and on. So why, all of a sudden, are THEY "profiling" by coming out against an Arab company running ports in our country?

To add to the confusion, why is Jimmy Carter in FAVOR of it, siding with Bush? Isn't the hard and fast rule that if Jimmy Carter is in favor of a matter regarding foreign relations - it's wrong?

I have much respect for our President, as all of you know. I believe in him, and I know that he is an honest, good man who has done more for our security than ANY of the Democrats currently caterwauling about this UAE deal. I know that left to their own devices, or if we had Kerry or Algore as a President, we'd probably have been attacked again. However, I just can't get behind this and it suprises me.

When Bush talks about this company having been an ally in the war on terror and that they've "played by the rules" and have been very helpful in assisting in the liberation of Kuwait - all I can think of is Putin and Russia who we now suspect allegedly helped Saddam move his WMDs. Putin was our friend, too. Political worms turn quickly, however. I'm suprised Bush is willing to take that chance.

Amy Proctor has a very thoughtful post up on her blog - and she speaks my mind. She embellishes the "we're confused by the bi-partisan opposition, and the Carter support" issue. I guess there must be a few pieces of this puzzle we aren't privy to just yet. There HAS to be more to it than what we are being told.

There are two main trains of thought in this regard. One is the most obvious, that contracting port security to an Arab emirate has the potential to make US ports vulnerable to terrorism. The other, that the UAE is a trustworthy ally in the war against terror and has not given reason for doubt. What’s fully confusing is that the usual politically sure fire way of determining which side of an issue to take has been obliterated: Democrats suddenly care about national security in a convincing way, and without directly criticising the President (this from a party who blamed Pres. Bush for Hurricane Katrina). Republicans are joining with Democrats against the White House’s support of the contract, and most significantly the President seems willing to take a risk regarding national security.

****

Update: 2/21
I just don't get it.

As a matter of fact, I'm rather speechless for the first time in...well...some 20-odd years.
President Bush, a man I respect and feel much loyalty toward, has said perhaps one of the most infuriating things I've ever heard him say:

"After careful review by our government, I believe the transaction ought to go forward," Bush told reporters who had traveled with him on Air Force One to Washington. "I want those who are questioning it to step up and explain why all of a sudden a Middle Eastern company is held to a different standard than a Great British company. I am trying to conduct foreign policy now by saying to the people of the world, `We'll treat you fairly."

Let me get this straight, Mr. President. You are seriously, and with a straight face, comparing an Arab/Middle Eastern company with a British one. Yes? You honestly, sincerely don't see the difference between a British company and an Arab one? Do you know (of course you do) that the majority of the population of UAE is Muslim?

Remind me again of the ethnic/religious group that has attacked us over and over and over again. Catholic Britians? Christian Welsh? No. Middle Eastern muslims. Every. single. solitary. attack. on Americans. has been carrried out. by Muslims. Every one.

Am I saying all Muslims are bad? Heavens no. What I'm saying is that comparing a British company with a Muslim/Arab one and then looking innocently into the camera asking "what?" makes you look really really ridiculous, Mr. President.

But maybe I'm missing something.

****

If Jimmy Carter backs the Arab-owned port idea, it should be your FIRST clue that something's not right. As a conservative, I don't think ANYTHING I do or say or believe should be supported by Jimmy Carter. And if he does? I better rethink. And quick.

''The overall threat to the United States and security, I don't think it exists,'' Carter said on CNN's The Situation Room. ``I'm sure the president's done a good job with his subordinates to make sure this is not a threat.''

This is the same idiot that downplayed the threat of communism. (among other things)
Continuing on...

The Council on American-Islamic Relations, a Washington group that seeks to promote a positive image of Islam and Muslims, said some of the reaction smacks of prejudice.

''No one seems to be criticizing the company itself, but they're most concerned with the religion and ethnicity of its owners,'' said spokesman Ibrahim Hooper. ``It's what we have to deal with in the post-9/11 era.''

Gee, I wonder why. Could it be that some of the hijackers from 9/11 were affiliated with Arab Emirates? Could it be that this so-called "religion of peace" continually kills women and children without prejudice on a daily basis? That this "religion of peace" is responsible for killing 3,000 Americans on American soil?

When it comes to protecting our airports, we don't get to racially profile. But when it comes to protecting our ports? Suddenly it's priority #1.