The idea that the
Democrats have any meaningful interest in America's national security
is a joke, so I'm perfectly willing to believe there's more to
this port story.
But Bush is going
to need a better justification for turning over management of
our ports to an Arab country than he's come up with so far --
especially now that Jimmy Carter has said it's a good idea. Judging
from his life's work to date, Carter's definition of a good idea
is "an idea likely to hurt America and/or help its enemies."
Bush's defense of
the port deal is to say that "those who are questioning it"
need to "step up and explain why all of a sudden a Middle
Eastern company is held to a different standard than a Great British
company."
First of all, it's
not "all of a sudden." The phrase you're searching for,
Mr. President, is "ever since the murderous attacks of Sept.
11." The Bush administration's obstinate refusal to profile
Middle Easterners has been the one massive gaping hole in national
security since the 9/11 attacks -- attacks that received indirect
support from the United Arab Emirates.
There are at least
3,000 reasons why a company controlled by a Middle Eastern Muslim
emirate should be held to a different standard than a British
company. Many of these reasons are now buried under a gaping hole
that isn't metaphorical in lower Manhattan.
Even four years after
9/11, I note that we don't hear Tony Blair condemning some cartoons
in a Danish newspaper as "a cultural extremism," or
saying their publication represents a "dreadful clash of
civilizations."
That was U.A.E. Minister
of Justice and Islamic Affairs Mohammed Al Dhaheri's recent comment
on the great Danish cartoon caper.
So maybe Bush could
defend his port deal without insulting our intelligence by asking
why anyone might imagine there's any conceivable difference between
a British company and a United Arab Emirates company.
President Bush has
painted himself into a corner on this issue, and he needs a face-saving
compromise to get out of it. Here's my proposal: Let Harriet Miers
run the ports.
Isn't it enough that
we're already patronizing the savages over the cartoons? Do we
have to let them operate our ports, too?
The Bush administration
defended Muslims rioting over cartoons, saying, "We certainly
understand why Muslims would find these images offensive."
Hey, while they're at it, why don't they invite some Muslim leaders
with well-known ties to terrorism to the White House for a reception?
Oh wait, I forgot ... They did that right after 9/11. Yes, now
I see why we must turn over our ports to the United Arab Emirates.
The University
of Illinois has suspended editors of the student newspaper, The
Daily Illini, for republishing the cartoons -- even though
the kiss-ass editors ran a column accompanying the cartoons denouncing
them as "bigoted and insensitive."
That was still not
enough for Richard Herman, the chancellor of the university, who
wrote a letter to the editor saying that he was "saddened"
by the publication of the cartoons. You want sad? The University
of Illinois' sports teams are known as the "Fighting Illini."
Now they're going to have to change it to the "Surrendering
Illini."
Fox News' Bill O'Reilly
refuses to show the cartoons on "The O'Reilly Factor,"
saying he doesn't want to offend anyone's religion. Someone should
tell him those endless interviews with prostitutes from the Bunny
Ranch and porn stars aren't high on Christians' list of enjoyable
viewing either. (How about adding Prophet Muhammad cartoon T-shirts
and fleece tops to his vast collection of "Factor gear"?
Isn't Father's Day right around the corner? I'd buy those.)
Needless
to say, the Treason Times won't show the cartoons that have incited
mass rioting around the globe. At least The New York Times
has a good excuse: It's too busy printing national security secrets
that will get Americans killed. Its pages are already brimming
with classified information about our techniques for spying on
terrorists here in America -- no room for newsworthy cartoons!
The Pentagon Papers and a top-secret surveillance program are
one thing; cartoons that irritate Muslims are quite another.
Two days
after the Times editorial page justified its decision
not to reprint the cartoons as "a reasonable choice for news
organizations that usually refrain from gratuitous assaults on
religious symbols, especially since the cartoons are so easy to
describe in words," the Times ran a photo of the
Virgin Mary covered in cutouts from pornographic magazines and
cow dung -- which I seem to have just described using a handful
of common words! Gee, that was easy!
Taking to heart the
lesson that violence works, I hereby announce to the world: I
am offended by hotel windows that don't open, pilots chattering
when the passengers are trying to sleep, and Garfield cartoons.
Next time my sleep is disturbed by gibberish about our altitude
over Kansas, the National Pilots Emirate embassy is going down.
And mark my words: One minute after "Garfield II" goes
into pre-production, some heads are gonna roll. Oh -- and I'll
take the San Diego port, please.
Copyright
2006 Ann Coulter
Distributed
by Universal Press Syndicate
