Bush: Arab Co. Port Deal Should Proceed

At first blush, it is easy to be against this port deal, but I think there may be some underlying reasons involved that are not public. First, let's remember that port security remains with the DHS, not the UAE company, regardless of who takes over the port.

Secondly, what if this port deal provides U.S. intelligence with a new UAE asset to monitor cargo activities before the cargo reaches port? Wouldn't it be worth having the willing cooperation of an stable Arab country to monitor activities in what the terrorist probably view as a friendly country because of its stability? Would it be worth having an inside view in a country where Aljazeera is headquartered and regularly receives communications from al Qaeda? Maybe there are some "big picture" strategic considerations at work with this port deal, and perhaps that is the reason for the strong veto threat.

UPDATE 2/22/2006: From Drudge:

Documents obtained by the AP show the Bush administration's conditions for approving a ports sale required a Dubai company to cooperate with future U.S. investigations and disclose internal operations records on demand... Developing...

Correction: Al Jazeera is headquartered in Qatar, not UAE

"My job is to tell the truth slowly"

As the MSM, and particularly the Washington press core, continues its over-the-top frenzy about the untimely disclosure of the Cheney shooting by the White House, it would do them good to research the quote above, which press secretary said it and whether there was press outrage about it.

First Bush Wins, Now This: More Reasons for Seattle to Whine

Seattle will no doubt spend a great deal of time wallowing in the self-pity and perceived superiority that only a moonbat-laden city could conjure, but I am glad that some people outside of Seattle can write about the Super Bowl officiating with some objectivity:

No one can deny there were questionable calls during the game. But before Holmgren and Latte Nation start whining about playing "the guys in the striped shirts as well,'' perhaps a history lesson is in order.

The striped shirts didn't cause tight end Jerramy Stevens to drop four passes. The striped shirts didn't cause the Seahawks defense to give up a Steelers first down on a third-and-28 situation (which later led to the Roethlisberger disputed TD). The striped shirts didn't cause the Seahawks defense to give up the longest touchdown run in Super Bowl history. They also didn't cause Etric Pruitt to sprint up from his safety position, only to be fooled by the trick play that resulted in Randle El's 43-yard TD pass to Ward (and by the way, if everyone knows the Steelers like to run gadget plays near midfield, don't you think the Seahawks knew it too?). Or cause Seahawks quarterback Matt Hasselbeck to throw a killer interception with nearly 11 minutes left in the game and Seattle trailing by only four points.

Enough already with the whining. The Seahawks had their chances. Plenty of them to overcome the Steelers and, if they insist, the refs, too.

Thanks. Couldn't have said it better. Whenever I have to tolerate the whir of the whinners, I'll think back to this column by Gene Wojciechowski of ESPN.