Just a quick vent...a lot of people are criticizing Bush for the anti-Arab backlash created by his rhetoric after Sept. 11- the "axis of evil," "war on terror," yada yada. But he has certainly gone out of his way to make a distinction, both in rhetoric and policy, between terrorists and the larger category of Muslims or Arabs. Certainly he hasn't been wishy-washy about the threat of terrorists and those countries that harbor them. But is Bush really responsible for this fear of Arabs or general anti-Arab sentiment?
Think about it for a minute. Within a few hours Muslim terrorists demolished huge in the hub of American business activities. Would any amount of presidential speeches about Islam being a peaceful religion have really changed public opinion after that horrifying display of terrorism?
I definitely don't like the general distrust of Arabs that has obviously been increasing among the American public and politicians. Instead of making a huge deal about the Dubai contract, US legislators should be focusing on the real issue, which is improving port security on the ground. But I just wanted to bring up the blame game that inevitably happens in politics. Bush is not responsible, it's just natural that Americans would have a bad taste in their mouths after Sept. 11. Reminds me of Mercer's Theory...we form a reputation about our adversary the way we want to. Acts of terrorism speak much louder to us at home than any kind of cooperative or peaceful gesture.
2 comments:
I don't like the way that UAE got treated in this affair at all. The main problem is politics. Democrats sensed a weakness and exploited a lack of communication (what else is new)between the White House and Congress. Republicans, not wanting to actually look weak on national security for a change, lambasted the President and the UAE. So, in the end, certain interests got to make their points; but that doesn't change the fact that with our current trade deficit we need a mininum of $3 billion a day in foreign investment into the US just to keep things our finances from becoming...bad. I hope the UAE refuses to buy anymore of our Boeings to show politicians in Washington how moronic they are being.
What does this say about America? First CNOOC and now this. If we're going to promote globalization, the American public HAS to understand that it is a two way street. Foreign companies will invest here, and that will be a good thing. Dubai Ports World was just being aggressive and trying to make money. Isn't that the American way? Furthermore, Dubai Ports wasn't going to be in control of security anyway, that would still be done by the US Coast Guard.
On a larger scale, what will this do for free trade? Probably not much, but there seems to be an anti-globlization backlash in the world right now, and if America stops supporting it, then things really are in trouble. Why aren't we doing everything we can to practice what we preach? Why can't we reward a moderate Islamic country?
Did it not appear strange that Bush supposedly knew nothing about this transaction but when it came to light he was willing to risk his positive national security image with the American people?
I believe he knew about the deal and was paying off UAE for his near term plans to use their territory to protect the Straight of Hormuz from the Iranians and to use the UAE bases to launch an air attack against underground nuclear facilities in Iran.
The rhetoric from the White House has decidedly increased in the last two days about Iranian terrorism to prepare us for this possible outcome.
Wait and see. It doesn't take too much imagination to see what is being planned.
Post a Comment