THE PHONY VS THE REAL PORT ISSUETHE NARROW POINTS OF VIEW"Congress is up in arms. The Democrats, in particular, are in full cry,
gleeful to at last get to the right of George Bush on an issue of
national security. Gleeful, and shamelessly hypocritical. If a citizen
of the UAE walked into an airport in full burnoose and flowing robes,
speaking only Arabic, Democrats would be deeply offended, and might
even sue, if the security people were to give him any more scrutiny
than they would to my sweet 84-year-old mother. Democrats loudly
denounce any thought of racial profiling. But when that same Arab,
attired in business suit and MBA, and with a good record running ports
in 15 countries, buys P&O, Democrats howl at the very idea of allowing
Arabs to run our ports. (Republicans are howling too, but they don't
grandstand on the issue of racial profiling.) On this, the Democrats
are rank hypocrites." —Charles Krauthammer
"Especially precious...is Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton's newfound
passion for port security. Fresh from throwing in her lot with partisan
efforts to derail the Patriot Act and frame the NSA's surveillance of
wartime enemy communications as a crime, the '08 stars in Mrs.
Clinton's eyes have suddenly twinkled with a fond memory: namely, how
her husband managed to win the 1992 election, in large part, by getting
to the right of the first President Bush on what was that era's great
global menace—post-Tiananmen Square China. So here she is, trying to
elbow her way to the right of the current Bush administration on the
scourge of al-Qa'ida—and hoping the rest of us are struck by amnesia."
—Andrew McCarthy
But both Democrats and Republicans need to really think about the
effect that rejection of the port deal could have on U.S.-Arab
relations in the midst of an incipient "clash of civilizations."
Enemies of the United States are using every means to fuel violent
enmity between the West and the Muslim world. It's what the worldwide
cartoon riots were all about and outrageous charges by Iran's president
that the United States and Israel were behind the bombing of one of
Shia Islam's holiest shrines in Iraq.
Democrats, in particular, constantly say that the United States should
rely on "soft power" — diplomacy, trade and cultural relations — rather
than military force to expand American influence. Blocking the port
deal would certainly undermine that power.
This is a moment of truth for the United States. Can its leaders
overcome prejudices and petty politics to make a rational judgment? Or
will small-mindedness help America's mortal enemies? Morton Kondrake
MY BIRD'S EYE POINT OF VIEW
Listening to the port flop and the sleazy reaction of politicians,
suddenly i am struck with a terrible thought. A major terror attack on
the US is now inevitable. Hear me out. I am not some highly paid
commentator, so my ideas and language may be more blunt. But I won't
beat on or around the Bush.
9/11 was not repeated for many reasons, but mostly because leaders of
the Jihad suddenly understood that it woke up the American giant and
united by public opinion the President took decisive action against
them. After the attack on Pearl Harbor, Admiral Yamamoto said "... it
seems all we have done is awakened a sleeping giant." The jihadists
could not risk the anger of a further aroused American public.
Times have changed. Now they can ask the question: Is there any event
that would again unite the American public? A terror attack would be
blamed on Bush and the country would no longer unite, but be torn
further apart, lead by politicians more interested in their own power
than the safety of this country. Is there anything that would unite us
again? The assassination of the President by a Muslim? Enemies of Bush
would shamelessly rejoice. They are now openly advocating killing him
on their blogs. They even published a book on the various ways it could
be done.
How would we react to a nuclear explosion destroying the Port of
Houston, the industries around it and hundreds of thousands of people?
Would this country unite behind any effort? What kind of retaliation
would be acceptable by the Congress?
Jihad leaders by now may realize that by their action they could tear
apart this country rather than unite it.
Could we still abandon the silly idea that this is a democracy and
return to sanity?
Here is how I see sanity, hopeless as it may be. The President, should
he need them, possesses awesome powers. Those powers potentially
include what political scientists have described as the powers of a
"constitutional dictatorship." Luckily we are not a Democracy.
Democracy works best in times of peace, when there is debate,
compromise, and deliberation in forming governing rules, regulations,
and policies. When confronted with a major crisis - particularly one
that is, like terrorism, of an unfamiliar nature - the nation will turn
to the President for initiative and resolute leadership. If our very
existence and way of life are threatened, Americans will want their
President to do whatever is necessary.
The history of democratic governments, from the ancient republics of
Greece and Rome to the modern states show that governing by committees,
or legislative bodies, never works in times of crisis. Fortunately, our
Founders were aware of this when they designed our system. The abhorred
the idea of democracy and the word is never mentioned in the founding
documents.
Self-preservation is the first law of any nation. Past presidents -
principally Abraham Lincoln, Woodrow Wilson, and Franklin Roosevelt -
by exercising their powers in time of emergency, have expanded their
authority as necessary to meet emergencies they faced. They have, in
essence, made the law in times of crisis.
Lincoln launched the Civil War unilaterally, without Congressional
action, following the secession of seven Southern states. His critics
called him a dictator. But he got the job done that had to be done.
When Franklin Roosevelt was inaugurated in 1933, the world-wide Great
Depression had reached its depths. The new President promised action,
and
while FDR continued to ask Congress for what he needed, he gave them no
choice as to whether they would accede. "In the event the Congress
should fail to act, and act adequately, I shall accept the
responsibility, and I will act." And he reminded the Congress: "The
President has the power ... to take measures necessary to avert a
disaster which would interfere with winning of the war." We've been
blessed with strong presidents in times of national crisis. They were
men who demonstrated a capacity for leadership, and men who acted
undemocratically, but only to preserve our republic.
The distinction between a "constitutional dictator" and a strong
president is remarkably thin, if not non-existent.
Recall that FDR took the nation from a "limited" national emergency on
September 8, 1939, to an "unlimited" emergency by May 27, 1941, and
then to total war by December 7, 1941. Anyone who does not believe the
war on terrorism will escalate, as well, is in denial. Total war is
coming.
Constitutional dictatorship is the result of necessity, an imperative
of survival. These are not decisions, however, that should be made by
the President and Congress each time the crisis escalates; rather, we
should think about them carefully in advance.
Congress and the President should agree now how we will react to a
terror attack, who is in charge, and if possible, how will we
retaliate. This action would send a message to those who hope that we
are so divided that we can no longer function as a unified nation. Why
not tell them what the consequences of their action will be?
Consequences may stop the threat.
After you read the last paragraph you may have a sinking moment of
desperation, that we are too far gone to be able to act sanely. The
Senate is hell-bent to destroy the President's powers. Yet if we don't
pre-act, how will be able re-act in a polarized nation?
WHICH BRINGS US to an issue facing us revealed by the port debate:
the Muslim population of this country. Are they the enemy or can they
be trusted? Why have they been so silent about their condemnation of
terror acts? Where is the moderate, reformed Muslim leadership? Did
they by their silence create the violent reaction against a friendly
Arab nation in the port fiasco?
Such reaction by implication indicates a deep distrust of any Arab or
Muslims, domestic or foreign? How do we make them join us before the
next attack against us? Why are we so unsure about their loyalty? No
pollster dares to ask questions on this subject, nor is any journalist
willing to ask the obvious question I have been asking for years:
What will we do when a major terror attack hits us here?
What do you think?
