White House: Tone deaf or brain dead?

I heard Sen. Lindsay Graham, R-S.C., describe Homeland Security Chief Michael Chertoff's defense of turning over managing U.S. port operations to an Arab company as "tone deafness."

That would seem to be a charitable description.

TRENDING: Montana lawmaker follows Trump's lead, moves to designate Antifa as domestic terror group

I don't know what's crazier and more politically inept – the original decision to contract the management of six major U.S. ports in New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, Philadelphia, Miami and New Orleans or the White House's continued defense of the idea in the face of overwhelming criticism.

You tell me: Is Bush tone deaf or brain dead?

"We have a very disciplined process, it's a classified process, for reviewing any acquisition by a foreign company of assets that we consider relevant to national security," explained Chertoff.

Disciplined?

Classified?

Does that make you feel any better about this "process?"

Someone needs to tell the Bush administration it's not the process that bothers clear-thinking Americans – it's the decision.

You don't need discipline to determine it's not such a good idea to turn over port security to Dubai Ports World. It's so self-evident even Democrats can see it.

It's insanity. It's political correctness gone mad. Only a suicidal nation, or one that has lost touch with reality, would take such an irresponsible step.

Need I remind the Bush administration of what it already knows? That our port security even now is less than stellar. If terrorists are determined to bring nuclear weapons into this country, and if they don't already have enough of them here to destroy American cities, entry through ports are the most likely means of entry.

Of course, they could also drive them across the unguarded border, more proof – four-and-half years after Sept. 11, 2001 – that the Bush administration is irresponsible, suicidal, insane or incompetent. Politically tone deaf doesn't begin to explain such lapses in judgment.

But you remember, of course, the Bush administration's rationale for keeping the border open? It's because we have too much work in this country that Americans just won't do. We need the cheap labor. Americans won't harvest crops. Americans won't build homes. Americans won't mow lawns. Americans won't flip hamburgers.

I guess Americans also won't run ports.

That would be the only explanation I have for why we would turn over the most sensitive security measures to a company from the United Arab Emirates.

Stunning. I'm practically speechless. Words fail this writer.

"It's unbelievably tone deaf politically at this point in our history," said Graham. "Most Americans are scratching their heads, wondering why this company from this region now."

Yes, Americans are scratching their heads. They're also wondering if the Republicans are still the party of national security. Historically, this has been one reason Americans had for choosing Tweedle Dum from Tweedle Dumber. But this decision has got to give Americans pause to consider if that is still the case.

When Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., and Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., can see this national security issue with clarity and a Republican administration cannot, it's time to question whether it really makes a difference. It's time to wonder if America's political leadership can really protect this country. It's time to wonder whether the federal government has abdicated all responsibility of its constitutionally mandated role of defending the homeland.

Bush has no cover on this.

Even those who would, under other circumstances, say it is "ethnic profiling" to disallow an Arab company from guarding and administering our ports are ready to ride the wave of popular opinion on this one.

And this American of Arabic ancestry is joining them.

It's quite simple.

Would we turn over border patrol operations to an Arab company to supervise?

Would we turn over airline security to an Arab country to supervise?

Then why on earth would we even consider turning over port security to an Arab country?

If you'd like to sound off on this issue, please take part in the WorldNetDaily poll.