Machiavelli Would Sell the Ports

Washington. The Bush administration is leading the war on terror. The White House understands the security implications in the proposed $6.8 billion sale of the ports of New York, Elizabeth, Baltimore, Philadelphia, Miami, and New Orleans to a company in the United Arab Emirates, a benevolent dictatorship where Islamic Fundamentalism, oil, banking and slavery meet, mingle, and thrive under the watchful eye of the Emir, and where women and Christians better stay in their place and Jews ought stay away. The Bush administration understands very well that there are security concerns with the sale. But there is more to the proposed sale than meets the eye. Six Point Eight Billion Dollars more to be exact.

And granted, neither Presidents Roosevelt nor Truman would have sold the port of Pearl Harbor to the Japanese in World War II, nor would they have sold New Orleans. Gulf or Eastern Seaboard ports to the Germans in what Senator Dole called that “Democrat War.” But remember, Roosevelt and Truman were “Liberals.” Similarly, neither Presidents Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, or Reagan would have given these or any ports to the Soviets during the Cold War. But this is different. Some of those Presidents were “Liberals.” Even Reagan was a “Liberal,” albeit in his youth, and he learned better. While giving control over ports to “The Enemy” in time of war could seem like treason, and could seem to be an “impeachable” event, this is different. We are not giving the ports away; we’re selling the ports. Big difference. And no one is having sex.

It is actually a very ingenious plan, hatched by covert operatives in the White House basement – the same people who brought us the Watergate break-in and the Iran Contra affair. This is the best thing for the country since Jack Abramoff’s courageous work on behalf of the American people, and this plan has several goals.

First it distracts Americans from the silly incident in which the Vice President shot that lawyer. (And is it really so bad to shoot a lawyer? Doesn’t everyone want to shoot a lawyer? At least sometimes? Isn’t it practically guaranteed by the Second Amendment – does not the Right to Bear Arms imply the right to Shoot Lawyers?)

It also lulls the left-wing “humorists” like Jay Leno, David Letterman, Jon Stewart with the sense that they can take it easy. Why make stuff up – the facts are even better. The White House, eyeing the success of “Saturday Night Live”, “Weekend Update,” “The Daily Show,” and the “Dave Chappell Show” and its own poor performance in the “Katrina Show” aims to improve its ratings.

In addition, it gives the Democrats a false sense of security that they will recapture the House and Senate in the mid-term elections, and the White House in 2008.

And remember, it’s not a security risk if more than $1 billion will change hands, and $6.8 billion will finance a lot of campaigns.

Besides, New York, New Jersey, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Miami, New Orleans – some of these are liberal Democratic strongholds. Not Miami, sure you have a lot of old retired New Yorkers, but you also have the free Cubans, and they can be counted on to sacrifice – like they did in the glorious Bay of Pigs adventure.

But most important, and this is pure Machiavellian genius, selling these ports for $6.8 Billion will give us a lot of money – enough to finance the war in Iraq for about a month, which will be sufficient to end the war, after all, didn’t the President declare the mission accomplished and major fighting ended back in May, 2003, almost 3 years ago? So today, 3 years later, it must really be almost over, little more than a mopping up operation. So selling these ports to a company headquartered in a country where they launder money for Al Qaeda Terrorists will lay a trap for Bin Laden and Al Qaeda. The next time they try something we’ll know where they are!