This just doesn't seem like a good idea.
First of all, Bush seems to be making a case for "equal rights for foreign investment". And that doesn't fly. Foreign entities are not entitled to equal treatment for any reason. And when I say "entitled", I mean, to the point of trumping common sense.
Secondly, if he feels they should be treated "equally", doesn't this undercut the argument against affording constitutional rights to prisoners at Gitmo? I mean, if foreign commercial interests are somehow protected by some quasi "equal treatment" notion, why aren't individuals?
Thirdly, given the very much publicized issue of port security and terrorist activity, why would Bush choose to stake his political reputation on a hill like this? I don't think ANY foreign interest should be owning and operating the chokepoint of trade on our shores.
I'm aware that UAE is a friend of this country, but where is it written that will always be the case?
Just bizarre.
Look up "Damien Thorn" and tell me GWB is not turining into him with all this globalism.
Then you should also be aware that this UAE company is buying a British company with contracts to operate port terminals in the U.S. -- but where is it written that these contracts will last in perpetuity, and have no termination clauses within them that could be executed if necessary?