Bush Defending UAE from Discrimination???

[Tamyrlin79]

Susanne Malveaux, CNN's Whitehouse reporter, reports that:

(Bush)warned that the United States was sending mixed signals by going after a company from the middle east when they said nothing when a British company was in charge. He goes on to say that it is the lawmakers - members of Congress - that have to step up and explain why a middle eastern company is held to a different standard.

Apparently, Bush thinks it is discriminatory to allow the British to do it and not the UAE company.

This comparison and assertion of discrimination ignores two salient facts in all this that distinguish the two situations:

1. The British company was very likely NOT state-owned, ie, explicitly run by a foreign government.

2. The British have no documented, ongoing history of ties to international terrorism.


And for the record, I don't think that the British should be handling our ports either. That is US business that should go exclusively to US businesses, not outsourced to any foreign entity.

Still, don't you think it is interesting that Bush is using the language of liberalism (equal treatment, charges of discrimination, etc.) to defend this deal?

[jackbourassa]

1. Bush is totally tone deaf...

The British also never fly airplanes into our buildings.

[The Backlash Cometh]

4. He's not tone deaf. He's a whore. He doesn't stand for anything,

but money.

[annabanana]

2. It's all he's got.. that and the lame assertion

That UAE is an "valuable partner in the war on turrism"

[Tanuki]

3. Mr. Bush,

when you can explain why your government is torturing innocent middle eastern people, and not British people, in prisons like Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo, then you can come back and ask your question again. Discrimination indeed!

[mdmc]

5. I just posted a similar thread, defending Bush

I oppose this deal because Bush supports it, and it is unpopular (thus, negative for Bush). People are in an uproar because arabs / muslims will be in control of our ports.
Basically, our argument appears to be "no arab firms can be trusted with (our ports) security due to 9-11-01." No one care that other foreign companies run airports and ports.

[Tamyrlin79]

6. Actually, I do.

I was surprised to learn that fact today.

Although Britain, as today's example, doesn't have the security problems, I oppose turning these things over to other nations or companies from other nations purely on the principle that the US should not hand such border entities over to any foreign control. And that idea includes the fact that I think that we should be supporting american companies with american workers for this sort of thing.

[txindy]

8. Those other foreign companies aren't owned by their respective countries.

That makes a large difference.

[txindy]

7. Terra! Terra! Terra! Terra! Terra! Terra! Terra! Terra! Terra!

Equality. Terra! Terra! TERRA! TERRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!

He's now Bozo TWO-Note instead of Bozo One-Note. Yippee.