Are the progressives who support the GZVM the same ones who attacked Bush for the Dubai Ports Deal?
Why the Dubai port deal is dangerous to America – Daily Kos, Feb 27, 2006:
He said a company the size of Dubai Ports World would be able to get hundreds of visas to relocate managers and other employees to the United States. Using appeals to Muslim solidarity or threats of violence, al-Qaeda operatives could force low-level managers to provide some of those visas to al-Qaeda sympathizers, said King, who for years tracked similar efforts by organized crime to infiltrate ports in New York and New Jersey. Those sympathizers could obtain legitimate driver’s licenses, work permits and mortgages that could then be used by terrorist operatives.
Sounds like Mr. Kos was lumping all Muslims together with the terrorists.
The Huffington Post also was acting pretty Islamophobic four years ago, and opposed the Dubai Ports deal because of the Global Corporate/Islamic Conspiracy:
In a previous post, I noted how the Bush administration is simultaneously negotiating a “free” trade agreement with the UAE – the country tied to the terrorists who attacked America on 9/11. The administration was negotiating this deal at the very same time it tried to quietly slip this port security deal under the radar.
The New York Times, also Islamophobic.
Congress is right to resist the ports deal, in which the company, Dubai Ports World, would take over the British company now running these operations. The issue is not, as Mr. Bush is now claiming, a question of bias against a Middle Eastern company. The United Arab Emirates is an ally, but its record in the war on terror is mixed. It is not irrational for the United States to resist putting port operations, perhaps the most vulnerable part of the security infrastructure, under that country’s control.
Think Progress also opposed the deal, because you can’t trust those shifty Muslims.
It would be like Los Angeles being run by the Bloods or Cripts. Sure, they may have changed and the ones that are now operating on their own have changed, but they are still part of the gang. Not to say that they can’t change, but there GENERALLY is a life long alegance to the gang.
MSNBC, of course, loved to beat Bush over the head over it while avoiding taking an over position (unlike their full-throated support for the GZVM):
Think about it: President Bush, the 9/11 president who says he thinks every day about how to protect the country… who said he wanted Osama bin Laden “dead or alive”… whose top political adviser Karl Rove said in January, “Republicans have a post-9/11 view of the world and Democrats have a pre-9/11 view of the world”… his administration is now making a much more nuanced argument about why the U.S. cannot block a deal with the UAE just because it’s an Arab government with terror links. Two 9/11 hijackers were UAE citizens and money for the plot went through UAE banks.
Now, to be fair, some of these sources also admitted there were arguments in favor of the DPW deal. But we are told there is no legitimate opposition to the GZVM, only xenophobia, bigotry, and hatred.