Not sure what to make of this.

The President is now telling us that the United Arab Emirates should be doing business on our soil, despite the objections of many in Congress.

"It sends a terrible signal to friends around the world that it's OK for a company from one country to manage the port, but not a country that plays by the rules and has got a good track record from another part of the world," Bush said.

"One country" meaning the UK, who currently manages the port, and "a country that plays by the rules and has got a good track record from another part of the world" meaning the United Arab Emirates? What's wrong with this picture, Mr. President?

"I can understand why some in Congress have raised questions about whether or not our country will be less secure as a result of this transaction," the president said. "But they need to know that our government has looked at this issue and looked at it carefully."

I'm looking at it pretty carefully myself (AltaVista search on "9/11 Commission" and "Dubai"), and I don't think it's a really good idea, Mr. President.

"This is a company that has played by the rules, has been cooperative with the United States, from a country that's an ally on the war on terror, and it would send a terrible signal to friends and allies not to let this transaction go through."

Yeah, sure Mr. President. I'll need to see your evidence that the UAE has been an ally on the war. I just presented you some evidence that they're not.

Look, the problems with the 9/11 Commission Report have to do with what was left out of it. Perhaps something was left out that would have exonerated the UAE? Sir, I'd really like to know. You're doing a bang-up job fighting this war abroad, but you're still not doing the right things at home to keep the terrorists out. Secure the borders, Mr. President. Letting a government-run company from a terror-sponsoring nation run ANY ports in the US is a step in the WRONG direction.

"They ought to listen to what I have to say about this," the president said. "They'll look at the facts and understand the consequences of what they're going to do. But if they pass a law, I'll deal with it with a veto."

Well, I'll believe that when I see it, Mr. President. You haven't vetoed a single bill passed by Congress the whole time you've been in office. Starting with this one would easily be exposed as a political stunt, due to the overwhelming support such a law is likely to have in Congress. I don't doubt the votes would be there to override you.

Maybe there's something I'm missing in all this, but as I see it right now, this is not the right thing to do. I'll listen to what you have to say, and I'll let you know if I change my mind. For now, this doesn't look like something I'd support.

RWR

Link procured at The Drudge Report.