Wednesday, February 22, 2006

I Got Your Bill Right Here

As we mentioned yesterday, the United Arab Emirates is close to taking over six major U.S. ports. This raised some concerns for the good men and women in congress. Even for some of the bad ones too. Together they're thinking about drafting a bill to stop it.

But guess who's on board with the Give Our Ports to the UAE Plan? George W. Bush hasn't vetoed a single bill during the five years he's been in office. From my admittedly shoddy recollection, I can remember only once where he even threatened to veto and that was to block a bill banning torture. He avoided vetoing that bill by pissing one of his signing statements all over it, declaring, "You do what you want, and I'll do what I want."

As you may have already guessed, Bush is threatening to veto this bill as well.

"This process has been extensively reviewed," Bush said. "I really don't understand why it's OK for a British company to operate our ports but not a company from the Middle East that our experts are convinced that port security is not an issue," he said.
That's OK, W. We know you're a little slow on the uptake. To start at the beginning, the UK is one of our closest allies. Blair - Tony Blair, remember him? – is often referred to as your lapdog. Remember England? Where they play that kicky sport with the round ball and the goals? Right! Now. Here's the UAE:
Two of the 9/11 hijackers were UAE nationals; the FBI concluded that money for the 9/11 attacks was moved through the UAE banking system; the Treasury Department complained that the UAE was uncooperative in helping the United States track down Osama bin Laden's bank accounts; Dubai was one of only three nations to recognize the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan; and it has been named as a "key transfer point" for shipments of nuclear components by A.Q. Khan.
Do you see the difference now?

So, by my count, Bush is for national security when it involves cramming poles up Muslim men's asses, spying on American citizens, and starting unnecessary bloody wars of choice. But he's against national security if it involves not hiring his incompetent cronies, preparing in any real way for an attack, or getting in the way of a country where ExxonMobil does a lot of business.

Remember during the campaign where a slight majority of people thought Bush was somehow better at protecting the country?

No comments: