Election-Year Politics Displayed By Congress During Ports Brewhaha Needs to Be Considered

There's some unsettled issues on the recently scuttled Dubai Worldports deal that need to be examined a little closer.

The United Arab Emerates is considered to be a friendly Arab nation. They were a voice of moderation in oil production and often responded positively to U.S. requests to not follow OPEC's decisions to cut production.

For their opening their port up to American warships, providing fuel and portside services, and being a good friend to the U.S. military, Congress effectively told them to "go to hell" because two of the ninteen 9/11 hijackers were from the UAE.

If we were to follow the same line of thinking that Congress did in deciding to kill the deal, then the following nations would be unacceptable as well because their citizens have participated in terrorist acts against us: Great Britain, Belgium, Germany, Canada, Spain, Sweden, France, Denmark, Australia, Russia, China, Kazakhstan, Turkey, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Morocco, Kuwait, Syria, Tunisia, Libya, Bangladesh, Iraq, Afghanistan, Algeria, Kenya, Qatar, Yemen, Mauritania, Chechnya, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and Egypt. Let's not forget the United States itself either.

Many of those other nations (including our allies in Europe) have more than two al-Qaeda or Taliban recruits as well. We do too.

The election year politics involved in this controversy makes me wonder exactly how many members of Congress know what the difference between a "terminal" and a "port" is (see my earlier post in this very subject). Clearly many of them didn't know the difference, didn't bother to look them up, or didn't care.

There's a world of difference between the two words; and Congress kept referring to the "ports" being under the control of the UAE company, when it was actually the "terminals" that were clearly mentioned in the deal.

When Republicans and Democrats jump onto the same bandwagon (based on a distortion) in an election year, it does nothing for their credibility, which is already stretched beyond belief.

During the upcoming debates between the various candidates, they and their opponents should be asked (in a surprise question) to define a "port" and a "terminal" and the incumbent should be asked first. Some will definitely have egg in their faces when they stand there with a blank expression on their faces.

I would laugh my head off.