Shame!
As if we needed further proof that the Democrats offer no alternative to the war on terror, the venerable Charles Schumer and Hillary Rodham Clinton have moved to protect us from foreign ownership of our ports. No wait--the port in question was already in foreign hands, owned by Britain's P&O. So why the fuss? Because P&O has just been bought by Dubai Ports, a company owned by the government of that country. Yet the only possible danger anybody can point to is that two of the 9/11 hijackers came from the UAE (not even from Dubai itself incidentally). By that logic the origins of Timothy McVeigh would end US ownership of US firms.
This is a truly ugly piece of posturing, a Democratic attempt to 'out tough' the Republicans. The Senators, and the various Republicans who have jumped on their bandwagon, should be ashamed of themselves for this racist innuendo. If Sen. Clinton is indeed the great Democratic hope for '08 then the electorate can expect, once again, little choice at the polls.
This is a truly ugly piece of posturing, a Democratic attempt to 'out tough' the Republicans. The Senators, and the various Republicans who have jumped on their bandwagon, should be ashamed of themselves for this racist innuendo. If Sen. Clinton is indeed the great Democratic hope for '08 then the electorate can expect, once again, little choice at the polls.
3 Comments:
I agree about Clinton's use of this. Jimmy Carter is right.
But I do think there's a bit of mot juste here: Bush has used racism and fear-mongering to whip up Americans to back invasion, detention, surveillance and now, he wants to argue Americans should look kindly upon this sale because it would send a friendly, diplomatic message about the way we look upon Arab countries. Not too surprisingly, those who believed him when he said we had to wage holy war against all the jihadis can't commit this 180 degree turn so blithely.
What is striking about this story is how national security arguments are being used to justify an ostensibly protectionist move. Previously, a refusal to let a Chinese company takeover a US oil company was justified in the language of national security. Is security being used opportunistically to pursue protectionist ends? Or is it vice versa? This blurring of the War on Terror and protectionist trends is worth exploring further.
I agree that the connection between the war on terror and protectionist trends should be more fleshed out. There is a book that pertains to this issued called, "Do Companies or Countries Compete?"
Post a Comment
<< Home