a little mind
Hey Folks,
President Bush has recently received a lot of criticism over allowing the United Arab Emirates to administer several large, American ports. Columnist David Brooks is angry about that.
He argued recently that the criticism of Bush results from an hysterical fear of Arabs, a fear not unrelated to ethnic profiling. He points out that a number of professional experts see no problem with the deal. He calls the criticism “bogus,” “illogical,” and “irrelevant.” He argues that there is no connection between the United Arab Emirates and “Taliban radicalism.” He explains how this will cause us financial difficulties, and he ends by claiming that thwarting Bush will give our enemies “All the garbage they need.”
Every one of these points is perfectly parallel with arguments made earlier against invading Iraq, but Brooks was strangely silent then – no mention of hysteria, fear, and racism – no name-calling - no respect demanded for CIA/FBI/State Department professional experts - no objection to linking Saddam to Al Qaida - no concern for the financial consequences of war - and no recognition that attacking Iraq would provide “All the garbage” Osama “needed.”
Well, Brooks may be hypocritical, but he’s not inconsistent!
When we were being pushed into an unnecessary war that could lead to disaster, he was willing to take a chance that thousands of our young people would be killed and tens of thousands maimed. Now that we are being pushed into an unnecessary business arrangement that could lead to disaster he again is willing to take a chance that thousands of Americans will be killed and tens of thousands maimed.
What is it they say about consistency and hobgoblins?
- Uke Man
President Bush has recently received a lot of criticism over allowing the United Arab Emirates to administer several large, American ports. Columnist David Brooks is angry about that.
He argued recently that the criticism of Bush results from an hysterical fear of Arabs, a fear not unrelated to ethnic profiling. He points out that a number of professional experts see no problem with the deal. He calls the criticism “bogus,” “illogical,” and “irrelevant.” He argues that there is no connection between the United Arab Emirates and “Taliban radicalism.” He explains how this will cause us financial difficulties, and he ends by claiming that thwarting Bush will give our enemies “All the garbage they need.”
Every one of these points is perfectly parallel with arguments made earlier against invading Iraq, but Brooks was strangely silent then – no mention of hysteria, fear, and racism – no name-calling - no respect demanded for CIA/FBI/State Department professional experts - no objection to linking Saddam to Al Qaida - no concern for the financial consequences of war - and no recognition that attacking Iraq would provide “All the garbage” Osama “needed.”
Well, Brooks may be hypocritical, but he’s not inconsistent!
When we were being pushed into an unnecessary war that could lead to disaster, he was willing to take a chance that thousands of our young people would be killed and tens of thousands maimed. Now that we are being pushed into an unnecessary business arrangement that could lead to disaster he again is willing to take a chance that thousands of Americans will be killed and tens of thousands maimed.
What is it they say about consistency and hobgoblins?
- Uke Man
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home