Proposed port deal doesn#039;t sit well with Dems

by Beacon Staff • March 1, 2006

The Democratic Party has finally gained momentum in the security issue just as the mid-term 2006 elections are quickly approaching.

As the party that supposedly prides itself on integrity, responsibility and selflessness, the Democrats have been earning this support by attacking the Dubai Ports Authority purchase of several ports in the United States.,Well, they finally did it.

The Democratic Party has finally gained momentum in the security issue just as the mid-term 2006 elections are quickly approaching.

As the party that supposedly prides itself on integrity, responsibility and selflessness, the Democrats have been earning this support by attacking the Dubai Ports Authority purchase of several ports in the United States.

In fact-and facts are nothing to stop Democrats-another foreign company, the British PO, has been running these port facilities for several years.

Recently, the company was purchased by Dubai Ports World, and that is why the ports would be under that company's authority, rather than under the control of the British PO company.

This situation has now become a larger story because several members of Congress (many of them Democrats; a few of them Republicans) have shown skepticism in this transfer of authority in the ports.

While some Republicans have shown slight skepticism, Democrats have gone into a rage over this issue so they can use it to their advantage in 2006.

Instead of staying close to their "values" of open-mindedness and diplomacy, the party has decided to cry national security.

Did they even know what that meant before last week?

Democrats cried foul over supporting Kuwait during the first Gulf War after Saddam Hussein decided to invade that nation.

They were also the ones who voted for the Patriot Act shortly after 9/11 and then decided that they disagreed with it when national security was less of an issue in this country.

In more recent times, members of the Democratic Party have fought against wiretapping individuals suspected of being terrorists and against terror suspects being held by our national government.

In old SAT terms, the Democratic Party is to national security as Bill Clinton is to values.

Both the party and former President Clinton use these terms when absolutely necessary but never actually follow through on what they said.

It is well known that Hollywood superstars and the liberal party are close.

They both take pride in pretending to be something that they are not.

It should come as no surprise that the Democrats are panhandling for votes on this issue.

President Bush, whether you agree with his policies or not, has remained resolved in his mission of fighting his War on Terror. He has a strong record in national security.

Since September 2001, there have been no major attacks on U.S. soil and most threats from other nations are being addressed diplomatically.

Therefore, any weakness-even the appearance of weakness, which the port situation is-has elicited a strong response from the Democrats who want their poll numbers on national security to rise.

Hillary Clinton, the Democratic matriarch, has used her criticism of the port deal to argue against any foreign government gaining control over U.S. ports.

According to Newsday, Clinton stated in a speech that "we cannot cede sovereignty over critical infrastructure of our ports. That is a job America has to do."

It is funny how Clinton is only discussing this in such a strong way now.

If she felt so strongly about this, why had this not been one of her trademarks when the PO company controlled the ports?

If she feels security is so lax, why has she not really focused on that until now?

Any senator who uses security as a political panhandling ploy whenever he or she senses a weakness in the other party's position should never have control over our national security.

National security is not a one-time deal-it is a full time responsibility for our nation's leaders.

John Hanlon is a senior political communications major and a contributer to The Beacon. He is also Press Secretary of the SGA, though the views expressed above are not in any way associated with the organization.