Bush Stands Up Against Bigotry

[NATO AIR]

Playing to his strength; his convictions.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/27/AR2006022701041.html

Bush, Speaking Up Against Bigotry

By Richard Cohen
Tuesday, February 28, 2006; Page A15

There are times when George Bush sorely disappoints. Just when you might expect him to issue a malapropian explanation, pander to his base or simply not have a clue about what he is talking about, he does something so right, so honest and, yes, so commendable, that -- as Arthur Miller put it in "Death of a Salesman" -- "attention must be paid." Pay attention to how he has refused to indulge anti-Arab sentiment over the Dubai ports deal.

Would that anyone could say the same about many of the deal's critics. Whatever their concerns may be, whatever their fears, they would not have had them, expressed them or seen them in print had the middle name of the United Arab Emirates been something else. After all, no one goes nuts over Germany, the country where some of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorists lived and attended school.

To overlook the xenophobic element in this controversy is to overlook the obvious. It is what propelled the squabble and what sustains it. Bush put his finger on it right away. "What I find interesting is that it's okay for a British company to manage some ports, but not okay for a company from a country that is a valuable ally in the war on terror," he said last week. "The UAE has been a valuable partner in fighting the war on terror." It is a long way from a terrorist haven.

Somewhere in the White House, a political operative -- maybe the storied Karl Rove -- must have slapped his head in consternation as Bush made that remark. The politic thing for a president with a dismal approval rating (about 40 percent) would have been to join with the critics, get ahead of the anti-Arab wave and announce that he, too, was concerned about the deal, which was the fault, now that he thought about it, of pointy-headed bureaucrats, Democrats and the occasional atheist. Instead, the White House stuck to its guns, ordering a symbolic retreat -- more study -- but continuing to back the deal.

That Bush has done this should come as no surprise. As a bigot he leaves a lot to be desired. He has refused to pander to anti-immigration forces, and shortly after Sept. 11, if you will remember, he visited Washington's Islamic Center. He reassured American Muslims and the worldwide Islamic community that neither America nor its government were waging war on an entire people.

"The face of terror is not the true faith of Islam," Bush said back then -- and he has since repeated this message over and over again. That very year -- in November 2001 -- Bush invited 52 Muslim diplomats to a traditional Iftar dinner, breaking the daily Ramadan fast, and he has occasionally cited purported racism as the reason some people doubt the Muslim world will, as Bush so fervently wishes, make progress toward democracy. They think people whose skin is "a different color than white" are incapable of self-government, he has said.

We are in an odd era of symbolic news events. The Dick Cheney shooting was treated as if it were of cosmic political importance. Some pundits even called on the vice president to resign, while others merely saw everything the Bush administration had gotten wrong -- an almost inexhaustible list -- as distilled in a single bad shot and the resultant pout. Now it is the port controversy. But if the Cheney story was about everything else -- including, of course, the taciturn and slippery Cheney himself -- then this port controversy is really about security anxiety and a dislike of things and people Arab. The deal may not be perfect, but it is a long way from a Page One story.

America has many friends in the Arab world. You can go to Saudi Arabia, for instance, and talk "American" at a dinner party -- banter about the Washington Redskins or California real estate prices or, of course, politics. The region is home to many people who have gone to school in the United States and admire it greatly. They are not the majority by any means, but they are important and influential -- and they are being slowly alienated by knee-jerk insults and brainless policies that reflect panic and prejudice. The true security cost of the Dubai deal has already been inflicted.

Maybe because Bush is a Bush -- son of a president who got to know many Arabs -- or maybe because he just naturally recoils from prejudice, his initial stance on this controversy has been refreshingly admirable. Whatever the case, the president has done the right thing. Attention must be paid.

[email protected]

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Do you believe this nato? Not wanting to allow the UAE to manage our ports is somehow wrong. We're nationalistic if we don't allow our ports to be managed by foreign governments? Don't fall for this nato. The deal is bad for america. Bush is doing nothing noble by calling patriots RAAAAAAYCIST. Was he right when he called the minutemen vigilantes? I know it's much easier to just go along with it. He's the head of the organization you've devoted yourself too. I wanted to believe too, but he's selling us out.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Some allies ARE closer allied than others. To deny that is just stupid.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Americans have been conditioned to recoil from logic and sense in the face of being called a racist. It's bullshit. Now they're cashing in on that big time.

 

[nosarcasm]

Americans have been conditioned to recoil from logic and sense in the face of being called a racist. It's bullshit. Now they're cashing in on that big time.

What are you talking about. Accusations of racism here ? :teeth:

 

[dilloduck]

I honestly took Bushs' statement regarding treating countries the same was that he was throwing it out there for the libs to take a huge dose of thier own hypocrisy.

 

[trobinett]

Some allies ARE closer allied than others. To deny that is just stupid.

So we agree then, to refuse UAE, a close Allie, the port deal, is just stupid.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

So we agree then, to refuse UAE, a close Allie, the port deal, is just stupid.

They're not close enough. As gradations of allies go, they're at about a c. Being the best IN THE ISLAMIC WORLD, if that's true, is not good enough.

 

[dilloduck]

They're not close enough. As gradations of allies go, they're at about a c. Being the best IN THE ISLAMIC WORLD, if that's true, is not good enough.

So it's American or nothing ?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

So it's American or nothing ?

is that what I said?

 

[dilloduck]

is that what I said?

i'm just trying to figure out what you are for----what everyone is against is pretty clear.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

i'm just trying to figure out what you are for----what everyone is against is pretty clear.

I'm for our ports not being operated by questionable foreign governments. WHy is this hard. Bush is selling us out, is that really so unbelievable?

 

[dilloduck]

I'm for our ports not being operated by questionable foreign governments. WHy is this hard. Bush is selling us out, is that really so unbelievable?

It's so hard because you REFUSE to say who you want to run the ports and just how you plan to bring this miracle about. If you want an American company, WHICH ONE. If you want all of our ports nationalized, then just say so and explain to me how that will be so much safer.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

It's so hard because you REFUSE to say who you want to run the ports and just how you plan to bring this miracle about. If you want an American company, WHICH ONE. If you want all of our ports nationalized, then just say so and explain to me how that will be so much safer.

That's right, the uae is our only hope. Did this message come to you out the ass of a damaged droid?

 

[dilloduck]

That's right, the uae is our only hope. Did this message come to you out the ass of a damaged droid?

no answer huh?

 

[The ClayTaurus]

That's right, the uae is our only hope. Did this message come to you out the ass of a damaged droid?

Is there another hope? This sounds a lot like a Dem convention: all criticism; no new ideas.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

no answer huh?

I don't have to have an answer about who should run them to know who shouldn't.

That's like saying unless you can perform the correct operation on this patient I'm gonna hit him on the head with this hammer. because YOU can't do an appendectomy, I'm going to just hit him with this hammer, ok?

 

[dilloduck]

I don't have to have an answer about who should run them to know who shouldn't.

That's like saying unless you can perform the correct operation on this patient I'm gonna hit him on the head with this hammer. because YOU can't do an appendectomy, I'm going to just hit him with this hammer, ok?

damn--you have united with the libs haven't you. See if you can try to become part of the solution.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

damn--you have united with the libs haven't you. See if you can try to become part of the solution.

I don't see how you got that. I was making another scenario similar to the one you're putting me in. Unless I can think of another company right now, that means the deal must go through. The deal going through is the hammer hitting the head, in case you were confused. I won't explain stuff to you in a demeaning manner if you stop acting stupid.

 

[dilloduck]

I don't see how you got that. I was making another scenario similar to the one you're putting me in. Unless I can think of another company right now, that means the deal must go through. The deal going through is the hammer hitting the head, in case you were confused. I won't explain stuff to you in a demeaning manner if you stop acting stupid.

I get that because SOMEONE is going to run the ports--they are not going to sit there until they're covered with cobwebs. That is reality is it not? It's like our elections--you gotta choice between two candidates---you can chose not to vote but we still get a president. If you don't like the UAE as a candidate for WHATEVER reason, let's hear you come up with a second choice and defend it.