A Terrorist in Every Port
By A.M. Siriano (02/22/06)
I have been unwavering in my support of President Bush, even siding to some degree with him on his much hated immigration policies. Consequently, a number of conservatives have pinned me to the wall, demanding to know if that support is still solid in light of Bush’s “foolish” and “stubborn” defense of the turning over of American ports to United Arab Emirates.
My general reaction to all this is similar to how I felt when I once witnessed a dog eating its own excrement: a mix of disbelief, disgust, and humor. A diet of that sort will surely bring down even the hardiest of creatures.
The Democrats, who are well-trained in the art of hypocrisy, are making hay out of this because they can. Since 9/11, liberals have been crying about the ethnic and racial implications of this war, that it threatens to unjustly malign the Arab peoples of the world, largely governed by the Islamic faith, which is a “religion of peace.” Yet they are quick to abandon those concerns for the sake of political power. President Bush has been consistent with the same sort of rhetoric, but now he alone is standing true to his word. Even his own party has largely abandoned him on this one, thus indicating that those implications—that Arabs can’t be trusted—are very real.
I don’t like Bush’s stand either, but this is our reality: Our present war has been waged against radical Islamic fundamentalists, aka terrorists. The enemy has been defined—albeit loosely— as those who truly hate us and intend to harm us, not those who might hate us but still call themselves our political and economic allies. The UAE is just that, which makes those Arabs as officially qualified for managing ports as the British. Any argument to the contrary is, under this current mindset, “discrimination.”
Personally I don’t trust any other country running our ports, including Great Britain, whose people have been less than supportive of America. But that is the problem with this war. I have heard many talk show hosts insisting that we are in the midst of a “World War.” They have a point, since it is a global conflict, but compared to WWI and WWII, whose hardnosed political stances matched their aggressive military strategies, this ain’t no World War, folks. Not yet. When we kick every unnaturalized Muslim out of this country, put every other one under surveillance, assume control of our own ports, create active fronts all over the globe, rehire Rosie the Riveter to man our factories, and happily accept rations as our short-term lot in life—well, then I’m willing to call it a “World War.”
If you can imagine a WWII-like spirit of cooperation happening in this country today, you win the prize for optimism. President Bush never attempted to generate that sort of support, even after the Towers fell, because he knew he couldn’t, perhaps because he knew he couldn’t. Instead we were all told to go on with our lives, because gosh durn it, we ain’t gonna let them terrorists think they can change our way of life! That would be “letting the terrorists win,” right?
No, letting them live is letting them win, and until they are all dead, our lives should not be “business as usual.”
I don’t blame the Bush administration. This is not his fault, this is our fault. No President today would be President for long were he to handle this war as Roosevelt and Truman handled World War II. We did this to ourselves. We are paying the price for allowing the infiltration of anti-American forces in this country after World War II, and for allowing decadence, which generates weakness, to become the norm after the Sixties. We are paying for not stopping the rise of Islamo-fascism throughout the 80’s and 90’s, and for suffering terrorists to live and grow into a cockroach-like infestation.
Before I conclude this piece, a word about our borders. Like most red-state Americans, I want them shut. That doesn’t mean I am against Latinos working in our country as guest workers, but it does mean that we should have guards posted every few miles, both north and south, and when we see people crossing illegally, they should be shot on sight. But Americans are not willing to use this sort of force. I have conservative friends who want to use my tax dollars to build fences. Bullets are cheaper and more effective. I have conservative friends who are mad that Bush won’t support the Minutemen, but just imagine the ire from the American people (not to mention the international community) were one of them to gun down a few wayward illegals. The weakness that resisted extermination of the terrorists in the last few decades now has its hand in keeping our borders fluid.
Stupidity has become the norm in this country, and this deal with the UAE is just par for the course. But our hands our tied, are they not? We can’t say openly what is giving the Dems the upper hand and what is driving the Republicans to oppose the President, but it is on the minds of many Americans:
We don’t trust Arabs. Period. They can get as touchy-feely as they want with the President, but given the state of the world today, the burden of proof is on Muslims, not on us. To most Americans, letting Arabs manage our ports is like letting Michael Jackson host sleepovers with our kids. Yes, the UAE has been a strong ally in this war, but no Arab country has led the charge against terrorism, which is the only way they will earn our trust.
Of course, there are plenty of people in this country who do trust them, but, as we have seen, there are also people willing to let Michael Jackson frolic in bed with their children. Unfortunately these are the ones who govern the mood of the day, which is why the insane idea of Arabs in our ports is actually a consideration that has legitimacy in a time of war.
(Printer friendly version) Email: A.M. Siriano
