Wall Street Journal Still Doesn`t Have A Clue
February 23, 2006, 06:13 PM
Print Friendly and PDF
The sale of US Ports to the Arabs is an incredibly bad idea, both politically, and from the standpoint of national security. Thus it`s not surprising that the Wall Street Journal supports it.

Michelle Malkin has more details, but she highlighted this piece of stunning cluelessness on the Journal`s part:

Yes, some of the 9/11 hijackers were UAE citizens. But then the London subway bombings last year were perpetrated by citizens of Britain, home to the company (P&O) that currently manages the ports that Dubai Ports World would take over. Which tells us three things: First, this work is already being outsourced to "a foreign-based company"; second, discriminating against a Mideast company offers no security guarantees because attacks are sometimes homegrown; and third, Mr. Graham likes to talk first and ask questions later.

Perhaps the WSJ doesn`t realize that there are still different nations and nation states in the world but here it is: Britain is not the United Arab Emirates.The Arabs not British..

The reason that the London bombing were committed by "citizens of Britain," is because Britain extended citizenship to a great many dangerous Muslims. This is what it technically known as a "preventable evil."The attacks weren`t homegrown, but rather transplanted.

But Britain is still dominated by actual Britons, the stock from which the founders American nation came. The British are America`s allies in the War on Terror.

The UAE, on the other hand, is all dangerous Muslims, from top to bottom. They aren`t allies; they`re enemies. The Journal, in it`s transnational way, once again proves unable to tell the difference.