[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Very low handed

[/ QUOTE ]

Their learning from the best

[/ QUOTE ]

Democrats are no stranger to low handed tactics to gain politically.

[/ QUOTE ]

Seems like there are enough Islamo-phobic right-wingers (see: this thread) to prove there's enough bi-partisan idiocy to go around.

I'd rather be an opportunist than a bigot (and as we're all poker players, we shouldn't hold opportunists in such disregard -- but I certainly agree that this is nothing more than coarse opportunism on behalf of the Democrats; I'll need help understanding the widespread Republican opposition, though, without resorting to explanations that rely on xenophobia).

[/ QUOTE ]

Points well taken. The Republicans in Congress are behaving no better IMO. It's an election year and they're putting their fingers in the political wind and seeing where they feel they need to be to get re-elected IMO.

[/ QUOTE ]


I agree some politicians are no doubt "politicking" or "pandering" as usual over this issue, but it is not xenophobia or Islamophobia to have grave reservations about outsourcing management of our ports to a Middle Eastern entity. A phobia is an irrational fear, so "xenophobia" and "Islamophobia", to be appropriate terms in this instance, must hinge on the irrationality of the fear. To have fears or grave reservations in this case is NOT irrational and I defy anybody to show that it is irrational.

edited: Best anyone can probably come up with is to say, well, it was extensively reviewed and investigated by the administration, so we should have confidence in their assessment. Well... how good were the administration's assessments about Iraq's WMD program prior to the war? How good was the administration's assessment of capturing al-Qaeda and the Taliban when we had them trapped in Tora Bora? So why should we have full confidence in their assessment of this? Also there is no way they can know that the foreign company won't be infiltrated by terrorist operatives at some future date--and despite the friendly status of the UAE government itself, the UAE as a country is reputedly a fair hotbed of terrorist activity.

Bottom line is it can't save THAT much money to be worth the risk. We're talking what, 5 or 6 billion for the contract? But wiping out just one major port city would cost many, many trillions (and bin-Laden wants to wipe out 6-10 major cities simultaneously--coincidentally, a large number of the cities he wants to nuke happen to be our Eastern port cities). The cost differential, the savings, just cannot be worth the risk of an increased chance, however small, of terrorist infiltration into the body overseeing operation of our ports.

How much could it cost to keep operation of the ports in American hands? What would the deal with UAE save? Even if it saves a billion or two a year that is small potatoes in national budget terms. I'm going now to look at the figure again and more figures if I can find them (was just going on memory that the contract is for around 5-6 billion).