"Unity at Last: No Arabs running U.S Ports" Bills Syndicated Column of the week

Who better to write an editorial on the United Arab Emirates (UAE) running U.S ports than Bill? He points out one element of the debate that is interesting, "for the first time since the Paleolithic period, The New York Post and The New York Times concur: No Arabs in charge of the US ports." He goes on to write that the Wall Street Journal and the Washington Post also agree that the UAE should be allowed to run the ports. Then Bill goes on to lay out the main points of this debate, something that not many other broadcasters are doing. The pros: UAE allows for the US to post military on their soil and run missions in Iraq and Afghanistan. They cooperate with the CIA and captured Al Queda's Al-Nashiri. The cons: They are a conservative Muslim nation that refuses to recognize Israel, an ally of the US and have been known to support the Taliban in the past. Bill sums up this pickle by simply writing, "the USA is caught between a mosque and a hard place." Well put Bill. So Bill has pointed out the problems and weighed both sides in a balanced, no spin kind of way...so what is Bill's answer then? Bill thinks the Bush administration should allow the UAE to run the ports but with "strict oversight and accountability". Bill not only offers a short term solution that satisfies both sides, but also puts out a long term one, who would of thought? Bill believes Congress should pass legislation that bans foreign companies from controlling the operations at U.S ports. This will keep this sort of confilct form arising again. Now it is out of character of me to bash Bush, but I will end with this...if Bush would take on Bill's way of thinking about issues like this one, maybe the administration could actually clean up the mess and start walking instead of talking.