During his appearance on last week’s Colbert Report, NYT columnist David Brooks glowingly referred to himself as “the conservative with whom liberals can get along.” No, David. We don’t get along with you. It’s just that your arguments are so lame that few liberals are compelled to bother taking issue with you!
Take your column (don’t bother linking “unless you’ve paid for an argument”) on the Dubai Ports World deal, “Kicking Arabs in the Teeth.” Basically, your point seems to be that we shouldn’t discriminate at all between foreign nations who want to operate in the U.S., particularly when we are willing to eat their hummus! Well, what if the foreign nation willing to pony up the billions necessary for this deal was Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, or Kim Jong-il's North Korea? Would you still be so open-minded? I don’t think so!
It’s not a matter of whether or not we should discriminate. Under the policies of an administration you support, we discriminate all the time. We discriminate when we decide to occupy a nation like Iraq when there was no connection to the Arabs who conducted the 9/11 attack. Not only does this administration kick Arabs in the teeth - to use your phrase - it tortures them in a lot of other ways as well (warning: graphic!) Apparently while laughing, taking pictures, and probably stealing their hummus!
Few but you, Mr. Brooks, would argue that there isn’t a line at which we should discriminate, when it comes to foreign nations controlling U.S. assets with security implications. We just need to determine where the line is. Let me suggest that we keep things simple and use the same line used by this administration in determining whether an Arab should be waterboarded, or stripped naked and forced to commit degrading acts. If a foreign nation is known to have had a connection with Al Qaeda, then it does not get to manage U.S. assets where security is at stake. If that means we’ve got to find another source of hummus, so be it! In fact, here’s a recipe so that Americans can make their own damned hummus!