Guests: Congressman Peter King (R-NY) & Peter Beinart, The New Republic
"In one corner, you have the unlikely alliance of the conservative New York Post, the liberal New York Times, the conservative Peter King, and the liberal Hillary Clinton - all opposed to allowing a company controlled by the United Arab Emirates to work at six American ports. In the opposing corner you have me, the conservative Wall Street Journal, the liberal Washington Post, and Jimmy Carter. Confused yet? This port story in complicated, but the bottom line is this: If America spits in the eye of the UAE, which is a huge help in the war on terror right now, we'll lose the help of all the rest of the Arab world. So the USA is caught between a mosque and a hard place. The Bush administration knows it has to honor the contract, but it should provide ultra-strict oversight at ports. This is a very tough issue and many people are demagoguing it. But if you are looking out for the USA, and we are, you can not throw out one of our most important allies in the war on terror."
Fox News Video: FoxNews.com
New York Congressman Peter King, a leading conservative opponent of the UAE port contract, explained his opposition. "This is not against Arabs. It involves a specific country that had an Al Qaeda influence within it, and was one of only three countries in the world that recognized the Taliban. The port of Dubai itself was a stopping-off point for materials going to North Korea and Libya. There's danger in allowing this to happen before a full investigation." The Factor advised Congressman King to reconsider. "The United Arab Emirates did support the Taliban in 1996, and there is no excuse for that. But according to the State Department today, the Emirates is cooperating in hunting down Al Qaeda and has tightened up its banking laws to prevent Al Qaeda money from washing through. You're demonizing an ally that is one of our most important in the world."
From the opposite side of the political spectrum, journalist Peter Beinart detailed why he and other liberals oppose the contract. "This is about competence. After Hurricane Katrina, Democrats don't trust the Bush administration to do a thorough investigation." The Factor challenged Beinart to back up the following, which he wrote in The New Republic: "Trying to get information about Iraq ? by listening to Bill O'Reilly is like trying to get information about the Soviet Union in the 1950's by listening to Joe McCarthy." Beinert defended his statement, saying "most of the time you discuss the war on terror as a partisan issue of liberals versus conservatives. I don't think you provide enough information for Americans to make good analyses as to whether we should get out of Iraq or stay." The Factor was incensed by Beinart's indictment. "Your statement is ridiculous, because our reporting on Iraq has been very tough. The picture that we've given on the war on terror is absolutely accurate, and for you to put that in your magazine is a bunch of crap."