[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
We wouldn't let a non-Arab country like Iran do this do you think?

[/ QUOTE ]

No. Iran is a hostile nation that is currently under sanctions, is threatening to develop nuclear weapons, and consistently spews rhetoric threatening us and our allies. The UAE is an ally, and no one has produced ANY EVIDENCE that their proposed purchase is suspicious in any way.

[/ QUOTE ]


There is evidence, in that UAE has a lot of terrorist activity going on and apparently was a focal point of the Pakistani/Khan nuke transfer.

But that is also besides the point. We can't just outsource our security to any country relying on that there is "ANY EVIDENCE that their proposed purchase is suspicious in any way." No, we need to be SURE--but we can't. So outsourcing our security to any foreign country is a bad idea, and outsourcing our security to an Arab Muslim country is a worse idea, and outsourcing our security to an Arab Muslim country that has a fair amount of terrorist activity going on is yet a worse idea.

I hope Congress and the governors fight Bush tooth and nail on this, and if he vetos, I hope they get the supermajority or whatever it takes to override his veto. For all our sakes'.

Bush is a lot cleverer than most think, but he is also just too trusting. And in this kind of "war" we can't afford to be trusting AT ALL when it comes to our most vital security--especially with a Muslim Arab country which, as I've read lately, is something of a "hub" for terrorist activity.

This is quite possibly the single worst idea of Bush's entire presidency. The good relations--or slight loss of good relations if we back out of the deal--means absolutely jacksh!t compared to the possible spectre of nukes going off in our major Eastern seaboard ports. And just because we are good buddies with the UAE government (right now anyway), doesn't mean that the company in question can't be infiltrated by cunning terrorists.