The debate surrounding the controversial UAE port deal has made for some strange bedfellows. I’m on board with it, and this morning the LA Times editorial page has come out in support of it (hat tip: Karl), Richard Cohen at the WashPost is in favor of it, as is Nick Kristoff (paid reg. req.) at the New York Times.
The same can be said for my friends on the right who are against the UAE port deal, who are on the same side of the fence on this one as Senator Hillary Clinton (among others on the left who share her opinion) – although the reasons why why our friends on the right are against the deal more than pass the credibility test whereas the Hillary Clinton-led left’s do not.
Stange bedfellows indeed, eh?
There’s a strong element of profiling in all of this, and Hillary has never been a proponent of profiling – until now. Whether for or against it, the right’s position on this is pretty consistent with their belief in profiling: both pro and con UAE port deal on the right believe the UAE should have been more heavily scrutinized than, say, the UK, on this deal for the obvious reasons – namely, the fact that two of the 9-11 hijackers were from the UAE and also the UAE’s questionable relationship in the past with the Taliban. One side of the right says that scrutiny should have shown that the deal shouldn’t have been approved while the other side of the right (the pro-deal side) welcomed the extra scrutiny but believed in the end that the scrutiny shows that the UAE are a valuable ally in the war on terror and have proven their worth with their assistance in the WOT.
The left’s position on this all of a sudden seems to be that it’s ok to profile because the buyers are from the UAE. Does this mean that Hillary and the rest of the newfound supporters of profiling on the left are now on board with a more targeted scrutiny of UAE Muslims who pass through our airports? I would bet the answer on that would be a resounding “NO.”
(Cross-posted at Blogs For Bush)
Related Toldjah So posts: