Andrew McCarthy asks the tough questions at NRO no one in the Bush administration or its defenders wants to answer about that little Dubai port deal. Bush was re-elected in large measure due to public support for the Bush doctrine, a doctrine that seems to have been abandoned the day after the election. Here's McCarthy:
I have this simple question that no one seems to want to answer.Thankfully, the five-alarm debacle that was the lucrative deal to permit a company wholly owned by the United Arab Emirates to manage stevedoring operations at several U.S. ports has been averted. Backstage pressure induced the UAE to withdraw, avoiding further, immense embarrassment to President Bush, who inexplicably raised the stakes of this blunder by threatening a veto — his first, and what a bizarre cause to take that maiden voyage over.
The end has unleashed another torrent of censorious caterwauling from the “Let’s Make a Deal” Right — an amalgam of free-trade-at-any-cost business interests and starry-eyed democracy-builders who see in every apparent moderate throughout the Islamic world a James Madison waiting to happen. This morning’s latest philippic from the Wall Street Journal’s editorial page is case-in-point.
Objection to the deal, we’re told, was a “political stampede” manufactured out of the worst kind of chauvinism — just because it was an “Arab-owned company buying port operations.” Yes, this was a wanton “mugging of a foreign investor.” It marks the “the re-emergence of the ‘national security’ protectionists.” (The “they’re delusional” quotes around national security are the Journal’s, not mine.)
So I’ll ask the same question I asked last week on NRO’s Corner. The same question a number of us have been asking for the last several weeks, with deafening silence the lone response: Does it matter that the UAE appears to be in violation of our fundamental antiterrorism law?
We’re told there’s a Bush Doctrine. That our national security is singularly dependent on communicating to the world — a world full of shady regimes and deadly terror networks — a simple, elegant message: If you are with the terrorists, you are not with us. If you are with the terrorists, we are going to treat you as a hostile. Period. Full stop. End of story...
Read it all.
Andrew McCarthy is the best columnist that NRO
has. Derbyshire is also very good, realistic
about Iraq, but can't seem to get a grip on
the fundamental issue, Islam itself.
Wow. This guy is rational. What a breath of fresh air.
I'm not sure if Pres Bush endorses the Bush doctrine anymore.
Karl Rove is supposed to be the man with the pulse on the Heart of America, has he found a pulse lately? I want to ask Bush a few questions, simple really. What's a dhimmi? Have you read Ch. 9 of the Quran? What is jizya? I just want to have a few questions answered so that I can be confident Bush undestands Islam and know he does not believe that 'Islam is a relgion of peace' diatribe that he keeps saying and I keep snickering.
"If you are with the terrorists, you are not with us." Gee, I wonder where the uae stand. I am concerned about security, some brain-washed mohamadite infiltrating his way in, but moreover, I'm genuinely insulted that a government, where HONER killing (what an oxy-moron) and pedophilia are legal, would be in charge of our ports.
I'm no fan of George Bush, but some "Context" is also useful:
While many in the world howled and lambasted Bush for his simple "doctrine", and actively attempted to thwart the USA's so-called "doctrine of pre-emption", and savagely pilloried him for his "Axis of Evil" speech, and accused America of "unilteralism" when we seemed like the only nation taking UN Security Council rulings seriously, while all of that was going on...
I think those policies and positions were solid, and Mr. Bush deserves credit for steadfastness in a sea of flailing midgets and munchkins. And while others regularly deride him for his doggedness, (and often I do too) what role do all the tectonic world forces play in watering down his clarity, or America's ability to stick to a single pathway?
I fully agree that Mr. Bush seems to lack follow through in these important areas. It is tragic.
Also, I am concluding that Mr. Bush appears to be LAZY. I don't buy into the notion that he's completely corrupt or completely evil, but the man has never appears to have worked very hard for anything, and seems to think the US Presidency is no different. Perhaps Expediency should be his middle name, rather than W.
Time will tell -- but it is at least extremely harmful to have a lazy man in the White House at such a time as this... Especially with the global dearth of good leadership. Strangely enough, the elections of 2000 and 2004, reflect a complete lack of good alternatives both domestically and abroad...All of the alternatives to Bush's leadership were/are even worse in my opinion.
Putin? A criminal and a thug. Chirac? A clown and a criminal. Schroeder? An evil clown and stupid criminal. Chretien? A cretin and a criminal. Aznar? (Now he's good leader -- wasted on a weak country -- Even the best would have trouble leading such an appeasement minded smug self satisfied populace) Blair (I like him, but similar problem as Aznar) Berlusconi -- (his hair transplants look pretty good, huh?)
So the WORLD is lacking good leadership today -- and George Bush seems to be one of the better brews on tap -- if that's not scary enough I'm sure some Muslims can be rustled up to blow something up...
Uh, so the GOP is shot through with hypocrites and liars and seem willing to sell us out for $$$$ at a moment's notice. Is this buyer's remorse?
Seymour Paine writes:
"Uh, so the GOP is shot through with hypocrites and liars and seem willing to sell us out for $$$$ at a moment's notice. Is this buyer's remorse?"
Not for me. The alternative is far worse.
I can't remember if it was McCarthy or someone else at NRO (not Derb, he was FOR invasion but AGAINST democratization), but I think he was initially very skeptical of the Democracy-Is-On-The-March project. McCarthy is the only one (other than Derb) that is actually making some sense at NRO. Actually, I'm kinda surprised that this article made it through. I'm sure Ijaz found it too "Islamophobic" and Goldberg found it too "nativist" but whatever, I'm just glad that someone is speaking the truth to power at the Bush Kult Kompound. Certainly a breath of fresh air considering the quislings at WSJ, Kudlow & Taranto, are more than willing to sell us into dhimmitude for a few million.
Maccarthy is right on the mark on UAE, but what of Pakistan? As Hugh has argued here often, it is a travesty to treat the Paki General as a " key ally" in the war on terror,while his army still harbors Taliban supporters,helps protect Al Queda, and his nuclear scientist had been passing on the recipes and material for N-bombs to many unsavoury regimes. Bush Doctine has all along been full of holes.
This is War and an enemy sleeps in our house and has many US sponsors for a fee.
US has its head stuck-up its duplicitous association! It takes two or more, most likely it was a gang rape and robbery of US citizens. Oh, now to exercise the procrastination & kick-back finger to so many Government friends of Moham & Uncle Joe, and for sure, an enemy Agenda!
How many of our Government academics do sponsor a Pals-Arabs agenda, for a fee and/or have an alien philosophy, a foreign allegiance. Where is one going to find just Our Pro US Standards in forced without a civil war or revolt via philosophies. In this Our time of War looking for the best US Leaders with a Victory Map.
Chakravak,
McCarthy is making the same mistake that the entire NRO staff is making vis-a-vis Pakistan. Firstly, since Musharraf is hated by his people and since he is not an Islamist they assume that he must be secular. Secondly they assume that Bush needs Musharraf more than Musharraf needs Bush. They are wrong on both counts. It is true that if Musharraf was overthrown, the person who would replace him would be much worse but I think they are overestimating the severity of a coup. A nuclear showdown with India would not be inevitable. Since Pakistan is India's only major enemy (China is a distant second), and if a nuke or WMD was detonated anywhere in India, India would retaliate against Pakistan regardless of who set off the bomb.
A coup would most likely come from the military ranks and not the clerical ranks. The only way the mullahs could win would be, ironically enough, through democracy. The U.S. should not support Musharraf to the hilt because of what might happen in the future but if they were to support him they should support him on the basis of intel that Musharraf and Pakistan in general is providing the United States on Al-Qaeda. Clearly they have been lacking in that department but the eggheads at NRO think that something is better than nothing eventhough that "something" that Musharraf is supplying is only for the sake of more foreign and military aid so he can continue his jihad in Kashmir.
If Ataturk were alive today and still ruling over Turkey the United States would be justified in supporting him to the hilt because despite his atrocities against the Armenians and the Greeks, he did put the muzzle on Islam and restricted its power. Restricting Islam's influence is impossible but restricting its power is not. Turkey still moniters its mosques but Pakistan does not (or not as rigorously as it should). This is a problem because the madrassas in Pakistan are on the same level as the ones in Saudi Arabia. So in effect, Musharraf is not an "ally" against jihad, he is an abettor of it. That is why he doesn't deserve one red cent or any political support.
igor writes:
"not Derb, he was FOR invasion but AGAINST democratization"
That's not necessarily a bad position. Ass
kicking is fine. Nation building is not. Well,
to be specific, making a nation that never existed is not. Helping Kurdistan is OK.
There is no Iraq, and there are no Iraqis.
There are Shiites, Sunnis, and Kurds in that
place, and lots of smaller groups. But no
"Iraqis".
igor: Well said, could no agree more. It seems that Bush's recent tough lecture to Musharaff on his visit to Pakistan might be an indication that the blinkers on US policy may br ststing to come off.Wait and see.
l also realize we are in need of a Winston Churchill. Bush is prol. one of the best of this time. l would like more fierce words and policy coming from him and is administration. but l think the daily media attacks on him is wearing him down.
he cannot micro manage everything, and must rely on his people to give him the best information. l think we should send Robert's book to KarlRove, Rice, etc. he must of been rather blunt with Pakistan, and when he made that deal with nuclear energy program with India, it started to show the muslim countries, you need to do your part to get more from the US.
American,
You misunderstand. I agree 90% of the time with Derb's foreign policy. I also agree with this one.
Blinkers are coming off -- That press conference was pretty uncomfortable for Mushareff and therefore Fantastic for us --Mr. Bush, to his credit, (and I'm not a fan) is turning our huge ship of state towards India and away from Pakistan -- finally.
He clearly bitch slapped Pervez big time. There's been non-stop slaughter in the "ungovernable regions" since the day he arrived in Pakistan.
The Muslim world accuses us of being a heinous bully anyway -- maybe it's about time we began living up to their expectations? How much worse could it be for us than it already is... That's part of their evil game we can use against them... It seems pretty difficult for them to amplify the hatred any further than they already have across the Muslim world -- Let's call their filthy collective bluff. I don't think the Muslims are holding good enough cards.
I'm with the Prez on this one. Either we play the grown up game, use our lesser enemies to fight our greater ones, or we we simply tell all arabs to 'f" off. And if you want to be pure about it I can hang with that. No more oil imports from arab countries, we plunge this country, this world into global depression. I'm already independent in the woods. I just have to let my family and friends sink.
Anyway, it seems obvious to me that the Bush team decided it was impossible to seal the borders and that it was better to make a good offense than play Clinton defense.
"Anyway, it seems obvious to me that the Bush team decided it was impossible to seal the borders and that it was better to make a good offense than play Clinton defense."
The American Border is left open to help bring this country down to Third World Country status. All it would take is to put the National Guard in force down on the California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas border to shore up the Border on the South. The president could also give a thumbs up to the American people who would volunteer to secure their own borders in their own states. Americans would jump on the bandwagon to finally be able to DO SOMETHING CONSTRUCTIVE. But..........no............the Federal and State Government can't have us Americans taking things into our own hands........God forbid........Americans might actually start to feel like..."WE THE PEOPLE!" Can't have that..........start the television re-runs again....
Rumoret sez: "The American Border is left open to help bring this country down to Third World Country status."
Thats always been a sub plot of the NWO's main plot of dominating the world. The idea is to not bring the third worlds standards of living up to US standards, but to lower the standards in the US to match theirs. I dont know if the border is deliberatly left open for that purpose, but it really helps. Part of the idea is to eliminate the southern border completely. There were provisions in NAFTA that allow for this. Thats why there are dangerous Mexican cargo trucks allowed across the border. Now they want to let the Sons of Allah control our ports. Can Bush and 'Rush' really be that stupid? That was not a straight forward business deal. You never get that from any of Allahs Sons when they are dealing with infidels. The western leaders have been informed time after time about the nature of Islamic hegemony. How can they not know, generally at least , by now, what almost everyone on this site knows. That the Sons of Allah are ruthlessly pursuing a course set for them centuries ago.
They have instruction books to direct them. The Quran, Hadith and Suras.
The main thrust is, 'Islam is here to dominate'.
Thats not too complicated. A 12 year old could understand that. The way the western leaders (most of them) are reacting to Islam and jihad is very schizophrenic, of the catatonic type.
Bush seems to have a rare condition called 'waxy flexability'.
"Waxy flexibility is disorder of muscle tone which is seen in chronic (catatonia) schizophrenia. It can be elicited by placing the patient in an awkward posture. The posture is held without distress for longer than would be possible for a normal individual."
This is who is going to save the free world???
If not him, the UN? What is this some cosmic joke? Everyone in power who acts like they 'dont get it' needs to be replaced with someone who does. The quicker the better...