Wednesday, February 22, 2006

NSA scandal and Portgate - a perfect match

When this port controversy erupted yesterday, I thought that it might be prudent to wait a few days before activating the focused, state-based campaign designed to influence the NSA investigations which Jane Hamsher, John Amato and I described a couple of days ago. I originally thought that with the media attention focused for the time being on the Administration's growing port problem and seemingly intractable dispute with Congressional Republicans, it might be difficult to induce people to pay attention to the NSA scandal until the port dispute settled down a little.

But after thinking about it more and talking further with those who have begun to participate in our project, I actually think the reverse is true -- that the serious split between the Administration and their formerly compliant Congressional allies is, for many reasons, the perfect framework in which to press for real Congressional investigations into the NSA scandal. The emergence of this sharp wedge between the Congress and White House, as well as the distrust of the White House which the port controversy is generating, create the ideal groundwork for agitating for Congressional investigations.

The principal argument which has been invoked by the President's apologists for suppressing investigations -- namely, that we should blindly trust the President on national security matters and that Congress has no business investigating the President's decisions concerning the "war on terror"-- is entirely obviated by the port controversy. In response to demands for an NSA investigation, it will now ring intuitively false for any Republican Senator to claim that Congress has no role to play, or that the Administration should be trusted with no oversight, when it comes to making decisions about how to defend the nation.

After all, the spectacle playing out in front of everyone's eyes is precisely the opposite -- namely, Congressional Republicans are insisting that they need to intervene in the decision-making process of who will control our ports precisely because the Administration has exercised such poor judgment and cannot be trusted to operate without Congressional oversight. In many ways, this conflict between Congressional Republicans and the Administration is the perfectly constructed antidote for the noxious excuse we've been hearing (from Pat Roberts, among others) that Congress should not bother the White House about any decisions which the President makes relating to defense of the country.

Beyond that specific point, this port controversy represents yet another instance where the Administration expressed its transparent contempt for the notion that Congress has any real role to play in our system of Government other than giving symbolic endorsement to the dictates of the President. Drenched yet again with the humiliation that comes from being ignored and misled, members of Congress -- including Republicans -- will be in no mood to play the role of meek little rugs which lay quietly on the floor and have no role other than to conceal the Administration's dirt. Helping the White House evade accountability for the NSA scandal by continuing to stonewall investigations would appear to be the very last thing this Congress -- desperate to demonstrate its institutional dignity and independence -- would be inclined right now to do.

In light of all of that, we want to being our laboratory experiment by first targeting Kansas -- because it has a Senator (Roberts) who is probably the single most important person right now in determining whether a Senate Intelligence Committee investigation will proceed; because it has another Senator (Brownback) who is on the Judiciary Committee and has expressed strong objections to the White House's NSA law-breaking; and because we have had a substantial number of Kansans who are very familiar with the political terrain in that state step forward to work with us.

We believe we can develop a potent strategy for generating as much pressure and persuasion as possible towards Roberts (and Brownback) to encourage a meaningful investigation into to the NSA scandal -- not because the Administration should per se be assumed to be guilty of high crimes, but because the NSA program has generated a very intense controversy and Americans ought to know what our Government has been doing with regard to its secret eavesdropping on American citizens.

Only a meaningful Congressional investigation into the operational aspects of the program (obviously with safeguards to prevent disclosure of genuinely classified information) can bring these facts to light. The Administration has repeatedly claimed that it welcomes an investigation; it's time for the Congress to ensure that Americans can know the facts about what happened here.

Jane is working with the people in Kansas who are working on this with us. If you live in Kansas and have connections to that state and want to help, please contact Jane. Over the next couple of days, we hope to have finalized this first step, and will then begin to work on developing a strategy for the next couple of states (maybe Maine, Pennsylvania and/or Nebraska).

The fact that Congressional Republicans have stepped so publicly out of line, questioned the President's judgment with regard to defending the nation, and insisted that they have a serious and important role to play in exercising oversight concerning national security matters, is actually the most encouraging sign yet of the real possibility that there will be serious consequences for George Bush's decision to deliberately violate the law. We want to do what we can to help that process along.

81 comments:

  1. Anonymous5:40 PM

    This is great. Glad this is real and it's starting.

    At the end of the day, all of these scandals do have a common theme. That's why we should focus on one or two and just use the others to re-inforce the themes. But always stay focused.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Anonymous5:44 PM

    I posed the argument in a LTE today that if the President wants the deal to go through, why veto? He could say under Article II that it is his right to ignore congress as Commander in Chief.
    Conversely, and I din't think of this until recently, why not just put out a signing statement that although the bill forbids the sale of ports to the UAE, he reads it as giving him the right?
    P Hughes

    ReplyDelete
  3. Anonymous5:46 PM

    Now we have a bogeyman anthrax scare to take everyone's mind off the port deal and NSA spying.

    ReplyDelete
  4. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  5. No offense, but I think this is rather naive.

    This "serious split," this "sharp wedge between the Congress and White House," as you call it, is on one issue -- it's Harriet Miers, volume II. Congressional Republicans don't want to get into multiple fights with their party's leader going into an election -- why would they seek to do that? They fight with Bush only on (some) righty issues -- conservatively correct judges, immigration, possibly spending. One or two of them will cross him on civil liberties from a righty-libertarian perspective. And maybe you get some pressure from, say, Collins or Specter from the left on an issue here and there. But this isn't a schism, for heaven's sake.

    Republicans think the right policy on terrorism is: Be "tough." Period. That means warrantless spying and torture and any damn war Bush wants to start. It would be a 180 for them to challenge him in great numbers on the NSA. I mean, good luck, but I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for this one rift to lead to another -- not on spying.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Anonymous6:11 PM

    I can understand the concern about people not being able to pay attention to too many scandals at once. But on the other hand, maybe there's something to be said for the (ahem) shotgun approach.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Anonymous6:25 PM

    I sent you an email earlier in regards to "Portgate".

    To your latest Post: "NSA scandal and Portgate - a perfect match", I say to you, "welcome back"!

    ReplyDelete
  8. Anonymous6:28 PM

    One or two of them will cross him on civil liberties from a righty-libertarian perspective. And maybe you get some pressure from, say, Collins or Specter from the left on an issue here and there. But this isn't a schism, for heaven's sake.

    Steve M. - maybe you've been in a cave for the last 2 months, but a HUGE number of Republicans and conservatives have said they are very against Bushies' eavesropping and law-breaking. And not just Snowe and Collins, but real conservatives. Maybe you should pay more attention before coming here and telling us that we're naive.

    I'm personally sick of all these people who just sit around hand-ringing about how nothing works, we always lose, Republicans will ignore us. If you really want to resign yourself to defeat, at least sit quietly instead of always telling people who are trying to change things that they're going to fail.

    ReplyDelete
  9. a HUGE number of Republicans and conservatives have said they are very against Bushies' eavesropping and law-breaking.

    Name ten in Congress.

    ReplyDelete
  10. To your latest Post: "NSA scandal and Portgate - a perfect match", I say to you, "welcome back"!

    It's somewhat funny - whenever I write about a topic other than the NSA scandal even for one day, I get lots of e-mails telling me not to abandon the NSA scandal and to stay focused on it.

    Trust me, I'm not going to wander away from those issues. I think this scandal and the theories of law-breaking which caused it are the single most potent and potentially fatal weapon against the Administration, and I intend to pursue them as aggressively as I can for as long as they exist. Along those lines, I hope (and expect) to announce a serious and potentially significant project very soon which will be designed to induce even more attention and awareness of the Administration's law-breaking theories and the real dangers to our country which they pose.

    But there are others that matter, too - ones which relate to this scandal and can help further it. And, just on a personal note, I write about issues which interest me even if they don't have a direct relation to the law-breaking issues. But I'm committed to seeing those issues through and genuinely believe there is a lot more to do with them. I think we are just at the beginning with it, not near the end.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Anonymous6:36 PM

    I think you are dreaming on this one Glen.

    I still believe the port deal is a head fake while the NSA spy story runs deeper and has more legs to it than is realized right now.

    Frist and others see no political loss in opposing Bush on the port deal, in fact I think they may well see some personal political gain in doing so. But, if the NSA spy story has the depth I think it does they won't touch it. They won't box themselves into a corner over what it might bring out, a real impeachment issue which would be a political loss for them if they don't pursue it, especially in an election year.

    ReplyDelete
  12. "The fact that Congressional Republicans have stepped so publicly out of line, questioned the President's judgment with regard to defending the nation, and insisted that they have a serious and important role to play in exercising oversight concerning national security matters, is actually the most encouraging sign yet of the real possibility that there will be serious consequences for George Bush's decision to deliberately violate the law. We want to do what we can to help that process along."

    My sentiments exactly, Glenn. Thanks for the props in your previous entry, by the way. Your intellectual openness and honesty is very refreshing, and I think I speak for everyone when I say how much I appreciate your give-and-take.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Anonymous6:42 PM

    Name ten in Congress.

    LOL - Very few "in Congress" have expressed their views yet, that's the whole point - really only those on the Intell. and Judiciary Committee, where these Repubs. have expressed serious objections to what the Administration did - Specter, Brownback, Graham, Snowe, Hagel, Rep. Wilson, Rep. Hostettler. And as glenn showed a few days ago, they are fighting with each other over what should be done, even DeWine and Roberts.

    Add to that Grover Norquist, George Will, Bob Barr, Bruce Fein, David Keane and numerous other conservative and Republican pundits and activists.

    But if you want to go pout in the corner and tell everyone how Democrats will lose, go ahead. People like you are why Democrats lose, always whining that Republicans can win. It's a psychological problem as much as a political one.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Fine, Ryan. Forget about, say, nationalizing the '06 elections by talking to voters about high health-care prices and high gas prices and the Medicare fuckup and the Katrina fuckup and the Iraq clusterfuck and no WMDs. Instead, let's concentrate on getting Bush fragged by members of his own party, live on C-SPAN -- after all, Republicans are famous for party disunity, right?

    ReplyDelete
  15. Anonymous6:53 PM

    Here is another little tidbit I found about the NSA spy story:

    This guy and several others were testifying before the house government reform subcommittee.

    You notice he says programs as in plural


    Published on Wednesday, February 15, 2006 by the Sacramento Bee (California)
    National Security Whistle-Blowers Allege Retaliation
    by James Rosen

    Russell Tice, a former National Security Agency analyst who was a New York Times source for its reporting on domestic wiretapping, told of having been classified as mentally ill and then fired in connection with an earlier episode at the espionage agency.

    Tice said he would have to testify in closed hearings about the details of the eavesdropping program, which President Bush authorized soon after the Sept. 11 attacks. But under questioning by lawmakers, Tice suggested that other NSA programs also raised concerns for him.

    "Some of the programs that I worked on I believe treaded on illegalities and, I believe, unconstitutional activity," Tice said.

    In one of the hearing's most dramatic moments, Tice read aloud the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution, which protects Americans against "unreasonable searches and seizures" without a court warrant. Tice also read an NSA policy that limits the signals agency to monitoring foreign communications.

    "As intelligence officers, we take an oath and swear to protect the Constitution," Tice said.

    ReplyDelete
  16. In order to really drive it home to the President, I've created a handy guide for bloggers on this NSA issue. [ Click ]

    The guide will show you how you can look up information, compare publicly available information, and ask questions about the hidden NSA programs.

    The guide is not intended to answer all your questions -- rather, it's a place to start, and let you see that there is an orderly process underway to find out what is going on, and what is to be done.

    Bloggers are encouraged to use the guide if you come across someone who is "wondering what they can do".

    It's all there. And you don't have to know anything -- just how to read and use a mouse.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Anonymous7:08 PM

    You state that one effect of the Portgate issue is that "In response to demands for an NSA investigation, it will now ring intuitively false for any Republican Senator to claim that Congress has no role to play, or that the Administration should be trusted with no oversight, when it comes to making decisions about how to defend the nation."
    That's exactly right. The transcript below is from a segment of Scarborough Country on Portgate, and begins with Joe Scarborough:

    "Let me start with you, Brad. Why do you support this plan that so many Americans are concerned about?

    BRAD BLAKEMAN, DEPUTY ASSISTANT TO PRESIDENT BUSH (2001-2004):

    Because congress chose to give the president under his authority under the constitution for our national security, the power to rule on foreign investments in our country as an (inaudible) to national security. Congress did that. And then the president decided some time in the 80‘s, I think it was 88, that there should be a panel. And almost the entire cabinet sits on that panel and they fully investigated this. And they came up with the conclusion—

    SCARBOROUGH: How do you know they fully—Brad, I don‘t mean to cut you off, but how do you know they fully investigated this?

    BLAKEMAN: Well we have to trust in our government, these are our elected officials.

    SCARBOROUGH: Why? Our elected officials make mistakes, and I don‘t trust them.

    BLAKEMAN: That‘s what makes our country great. The congress provided that power to the president.

    SCARBOROUGH: No, that‘s not what makes—

    BLAKEMAN: And the president is doing his job.

    SCARBOROUGH: That‘s not what makes this country great, trusting our governmental leaders isn‘t what makes it great. What makes it great is we‘ve got the ability to debate, but these people are making a decision on port security in a secret meeting.

    The above-quoted debate is almost exactly the debate that should be taking place over the NSA scandal, but with one critical difference: while Congress may have delegated its authority over the ports to the Administration, it limited the President's powers by enacting FISA. That's all the more reason why the arguments Scarborough raises in the Portgate context (Our elected officials make mistakes, and I don‘t trust them"; "trusting our governmental leaders isn‘t what makes it great. What makes it great is we‘ve got the ability to debate") should be getting aired in the NSA context.

    retr2327

    ReplyDelete
  18. retr2327 "it limited the President's powers by enacting FISA.

    What a load of rubbish. There are two aspects to the President: one is executive power, and the second is ministerial.

    FISA is a lawful ministerial requirement. Your statement has no legal foundation. Try again.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Anonymous7:15 PM

    Here we R in the middle of another non-story, just like Cheney last week, that'll have no longlasting impact, save positively for the repubs---if for no other reason than for what we haven't been talking about.

    With all of that notwithstanding however, let's examine the facts as they are presently known.

    It's congress that's up for re-election, that needs to re-instill the belief in, and to reassert their "togh on NS issues BS, not Bush. Imho, and looking at ti with my Rovian goggles and beany on, why would Rove wnat Bush to appear as if he's soft on such, under any circumstances?

    Furthermore, this story like no other before it, save maybe the Meir one, gives the repubs the much needed distance and differentiation they sorely need from Bush, for the upcoming election---his is a reverse midas touch now.

    So yeah, let's not take our eyes off the little birdy, lest it catch that flu thingy and die. Given the fact that the "I" word, is now no longer confined to whispers in the shadows, and criminality is involved in a great deal of that be bandied about as reasons and justifications, the soupier and muddier the political waters remain, and incoherent and unfocused the MSM reporting, the safer the criminals are-----and Rove knows this.

    It's a variation on the "Big lie" scheme. In this case they are creating controversy in a sacrificial way, to obscure the many and more profound weaknesses they have. You just have to look at the stories you think should be being focused on now, to see what I mean...only big fish are swimming in the repub cesspool now, so rove has to come up with increasingly bigger stinkers, to keep from being eaten alive.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Anonymous7:18 PM

    NSA and port security are closely linked. This can be cake if the dems play it right!

    ReplyDelete
  21. Anonymous7:29 PM

    I said yesterday that Glenn had lost some of my respect.

    He's gained it all back today.

    I see that he is a cautious person, which is a good thing, I guess, but when that caution interefered with his immediate recognition of how this Portgage "gift" could enable us to achieve our desperately sought goals, I was dismayed.

    Glenn's posts of today reveal that he has what I originally thought he did: an eerily accurate (and eloquent) ability to focus on the exact right issues, for the exact right reasons, and determine the best strategy for winning the intellectual battle concerning those ideas.

    It's too bad that the intellectual battle sits right in the middle of the field of politics, that sorry science, but that's the reality, as the Constitution and The Bill of Rights, and capitalism itself, can only be realized if the right politicians are in office to uphold those values.

    What I am hoping is that the following sentence by Glenn turns out to be true:

    "In response to demands for an NSA investigation, it will now ring intuitively false for any Republican Senator to claim that Congress has no role to play, or that the Administration should be trusted with no oversight, when it comes to making decisions about how to defend the nation."

    Two last points:

    l) I had an open mind about John McCain, but increasingly, I feel I cannot support him. The main reason I turned on him is that after sponsoring the anti-torture bill, and speaking out forcefully against torture, when the President added his "signing statement" to the bill, corrupting it, I, of course, expected McCain to strike out forcefully against that action of the President. I expected him to literally howl in protest.

    He didn't. That's when I realized that he appears to be a whore, and I don't use that word as an ad hominem attack, but because no other word accurately describes this type of behaviour.

    A hypocrite merely says one thing and does another. A whore, literally (not a prostitute who exchanges sexual favors for money) is a person who sells out his core beliefs for personal gain of one sort or another. In McCain's case, that personal gain is power.

    Being an optimist, I am hoping that by 2008 the Republicans will come up with a Presidential Candidate who is a principled capitalist, who condemns every ugly thing this corrupt group of whorish politicans on both sides have come to stand for.

    Until then, I'll support those whom Glenn feels will most effectively stand in the way of the totalitarian train coming at us.

    Finally, it appears there is a very real possibility of a civil war in Iraq. It's always been unreasonable to think that Americans are the only ones willing to fight for their country, the only ones willing to resist occupation by a foreign nation whose corrupt leaders have launched an immoral invasion guided not by principle, but for secret, imperial reasons of which the invading nation's own citizens would disapprove if they knew.

    If this happens, I really think that the link should be expanded, because these are really three faces of the same coin:

    NSA scandal + Portgate + Iraqi Civil war (to protest a lying, immoral invasion.)

    Naturally, should my words be interpreted as otherwise, I obviously condemn with every fiber of my being, any violence against innocent people done for any reason, including in the name of any religion, and I deplore any interpretation of any religion which sanctions such violence.

    ReplyDelete
  22. David Neiwart made what I think is an important point in the previous thread, “That Bush is actually terribly weak on national security.”

    He can be attacked on his strong point, and that should be engaged in fully, not avoided. And, I might add, the Republicans in particular are weak on port security.

    I think we have to be careful on this issue, and not get caught up in what may be considered anti-Arab or xenophobic statements (we’re already accused of that), but concentrate on how this decision was made and the connections between this decision and the NSA spying scandal -- and in the process bring up the decision making processes (the arrogance, incompetence, lawlessness) that led to all the other scandals – Katrina, Plamegate, ad infinitum.

    The Bush supporters outraged by this decision are demanding an investigation. By all means lets have one, and use it as reason not to sweep the NSA scandal away as well.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Anonymous7:32 PM

    TED BILKEY. TED BILKEY.

    Those who know why I write those words thatway will know. Those who don't, I can't enlighten.

    But I can tell you not to believe a single word coming out of the mouth of that person, who happens to be the COO of Dubai Ports World.

    Also, I object equally vehemently to Britain controlling our ports. Maybe more so.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Anonymous7:40 PM

    zack,

    I read some place that there was an amendment to the Congressional bill authorizing the Committee on Foreign Investments that was passed in 1993.

    That amendment mandated a 45 day review process. That was not done in this Port Deal, for reasons not known to us at this time.

    This, if true, is another instance of the Bush cabal who controls these decisions violating the law.

    ReplyDelete
  25. i've noticed some commenters believe that portgate is actually another brilliant behind-the-scenes rovian masterstroke designed to help the republicans distance themselves from the white house in time for the midterm elections.

    this was no more planned than was the shooting accident. i think they got caught with their pants down and their bloody red hands in the cookie jar. since a number of our port affairs are already handled by foriegners, they obviously did not expect the public to suddenly either notice or care, and are not prepared to deal with the blowback from such attention -- blowback they set themselves up for after five years of stoking the public's jingoism and xenophobia.

    i know some people believe karl rove to be a genius, after having twice delivered the white house to bush. there's no doubt that he's very smart when it comes to running election campaigns.

    but genius in one area does not translate to genius in another, and it is in fact possible for otherwise smart people to make horrifically bad decisions. while bushCo seems to have a talent for electioneering, they display none whatsoever for governing. it could even be argued that they have no real interest in governing, as opposed to ruling -- with a big stick and a short leash on their minions.

    look at bush's poll numbers. <snark>you'd think a genius could keep the sheeple happy while ruthlessly fleecing them.</snark> clinton's numbers remained in the 60s throughout his pummeling. (presiding over a boom and a surplus obviously helps.) bushCo seem to be reeling from a different new crisis every week and have been badly hemorrhaging supporters since fallujah. i find it impossible to believe that rove would think that any strategy that would worsen the administration's poll numbers could possibly be a good one.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Anonymous7:50 PM

    Politics is not always logical. Is the following true or not? X number of voters always vote D. Y number of voters always vote R. Some people believe that if X is larger than Y, then the D’s will win. Do you? Unfortunately, there is this damned third group: Z. They are totally crazy. Sometimes they vote D, sometimes R and sometimes I, C, L, G or for a write-in candidate of their choice. Beginning to see the flaw in the earlier logic? If the Z’s (OK, minus the Z’s who always vote C, L, G or write-in) who sometimes vote R and sometimes D are a larger number than the difference between X and Y then I would think that their decision would be important to me if I were running a political campaign. Yes, one must “get out your vote” for the X’s and Y’s and that is important because that’s where the money comes from. But, as far as those things called “issues” are concerned, well, they are largely about the Z’s, speaking campaign-wise. And the character of the candidates comes into play with Z’s as well. Finally, let’s throw in bed-wetting as a factor. Does that about cover it? OK.
    So I think I understand the “Bed-Wetter Campaign Plan”. If you scare the D’s enough about the future with Bushies, they will pony up and also go vote. Instead of wetting the bed and voting R, defecting X’s will wet the bed and vote for D again, like the old days. You will scare all of the Z’s who voted D last time into voting D again and also get the bed-wetters who voted for R’s last time to vote D this time.
    Do I understand the plan? Let me restate it. The motto is: “We don’t need no stinkin’ issues.” Bush can be made into the antichrist and if we do that, sufficient voters to win will vote for our candidate (code name ABB) whomever we run and therefore it’s balls to the wall on making Bush the antichrist. On second thought, that motto needs to be more positive. How about “It’s about winning, baby!” or “All BushBadNews All The Time!”.
    Oh yeah, one final point: if one lies, cheats and steals when making someone an antichrist, does that detract from the campaign? Not if it’s done in self defense.
    What about the Z’s who are not bed-wetters? Eh, not enough votes to worry about. Sigh.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Anonymous7:54 PM

    Glenn, is there anything that we non-Kansans can do to help this effort?

    ReplyDelete
  28. i agree with several of the commenters here about who this really benefits: congressional republicans.

    we want to have it both ways on the left: a) look, bush is unpopular! look at the poll numbers! make the media notice!! and b) look, those republicans are bucking bush on issue x or scandal y!

    well no kidding. they can read poll numbers too. and any garden variety republican (hi heather wilson) can come off as "tough" and "maverick" without having to do anything in particular except make noises to their local papers. they still vote the same way, they still wait us out so that our attention focusses on the next thing, or the next thing, or the next thing. this is what i'm worried about--the internet makes it too easy to flit from one issue to the next, ultimately giving them all short shrift.

    it all adds up to nothing changing, and republicans holding both houses of congress when the dust settles in november.

    my proscription? focus on one thing and hammer on it. maybe use karl rove jujitsu and just say "can't keep us safe" over and over and over and over and over and over and over ad infinitum.

    http://anothergreenworld.blogspot.com

    ReplyDelete
  29. Glenn, is there anything that we non-Kansans can do to help this effort?

    In this first step, we just want to keep it focused and localized - not create an impression that this is some nationalized mail-in campaign but really create a system and infrastructure where people in Kansas can impact the conversation taking place in that state about these issues.

    The next steps - involving bigger states and nationalized figures (such as Specter in Pa.) -- will definitely involve everyone.

    i agree with several of the commenters here about who this really benefits: congressional republicans.

    I agree that this is a real danger, but I also don't think it should be exaggerated. Bush and the Congressional Republicans have been inextricably melded in the public mind for way too long to enable some perceived separation now. "Republicans" have been markted as a collective, indivisible brand and I think attempts to divide it and separate themselves from the increasingly unpopular and weak-looking Bush - which is certainly what their plan is -- will only succeed in making them look even more scattered and in the process of imploding.

    Attacks which weaken Bush surely help the Democrats even if (perhaps especially if) it's Republicans doing the most damage.

    ReplyDelete
  30. "it all adds up to nothing changing, and republicans holding both houses of congress when the dust settles in november."

    take a look outside, my friend -- something is changing, and republicans have already started losing seats.

    Another Dem Special Election Pickup - In Texas!

    ReplyDelete
  31. I want to make it absolutely clear, in light of the way my comments yesterday may have been interpreted, that I do not advocate a Democrat attacking Bush for the substance of port deal if he or she does not actually think it is a bad idea. Some on the left will legitimately feel that this deal might risk our national security more so than selling control to some other company (even foreign).

    On the other hand, other Democrats will legitimately feel that the deal is not as dangerous as suggested. I am a person of principal who would never attack someone for doing something I don't even think is bad, for purely political or opportunistic reasons, and I don't think others should. Why I don't think they should is not only based on the moral premise that fighting dirty only gets everyone covered in filth, and is just plain unethical, but also because there is plenty about this move to criticize without having to attack the substance of the deal itself.

    One can attack the hypocrisy of Bush's alacrity over the decision, when for so long he has beaten dissenters over the head with xenophobic "with us or against us" fear-mongering when anyone raises a doubt about one of his national security policies. One can attack the apparent disregard for the legal requirement--like so many other ignored legal requirements--that such sales to companies controlled by foreign governments must undergo a 45-day investigation and review process. On a similar note, one can criticize the overall failure to examine the sale closely, or to at least take into account the strong probability that many Americans would have reservations about a country with UAE's track record. One could also point out the fact that Bush has yet again responded to the concerns of critics with reflexive disdain and the threat to veto anything that even the GOP Congress legislates against his wishes. Note that all of these criticisms, fittingly, strike directly at the heart of the overall sickness of this Administration, and lend themselves directly to the NSA issue and other matters of the abuse of Executive power.

    There are multiple reasons to condemn what Bush has done, only one of which is the substance of the deal. Yet, even if one has qualms over raising any of these other objections, no critic of Bush's unilateralism and arrogance need come to his rescue on this deal. I seriously doubt that the virtues, if any, of handing over port control to DP World are so great as to justify giving the President a helping hand when he becomes the ironic victim of his own vitriolic rhetoric and machiavellianism.

    After all, as Glenn aptly pointed out, this issue segues perfectly back into the NSA scandal and other abuses of presidential power.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Anonymous8:34 PM

    notherbob2 said...

    Politics is not always logical. Is the following true or not? X number of voters always vote D. Y number of voters always vote R. Some people believe that if X is larger than Y, then the D’s will win. Do you? Unfortunately, there is this damned third group: Z. They are totally crazy. Sometimes they vote D, sometimes R and sometimes I, C, L, G or for a write-in candidate of their choice.

    We z's are not crazy, and even if we are there are still more of us than either D's or R's

    Don't you have to wonder why? If the D's or the R's are so great why aren't they in the majority? Both of them have to depend on a level of Z support to win an election.

    The R's have a small base, they always have which is why they didn't have any control for 40 years. But their strength lies in the fact that they always without exception cater to that base.

    The D's in contrast have abandoned their base, starting when Clinton got elected which is the real reason they are losing elections, why there has been an explosion in the numbers of Z's, and why there is so much back and forth voting among them.

    You can't continue to ask the working poor, the labor unions, and the middle class to support you; and then run off and make trade agreements and institute policies that drive their jobs overseas to cheap labor markets.

    The labor unions just had a big split over this very issue. Sweeney would support Democrats regardless of what they did in hopes they would throw a few crumbs to the workers after they got elected. Some of them finally wised up and left.

    The guy that is in his fifties or any age for that matter that has just lost his job, his house, and has gone bankrupt because his factory job just went to China, the Carribean, South America, Africa, Singapore, etc. etc. etc. is not going to be inclined to vote for you if the your the cause of it.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Glenn,

    My reply is a bit off-topic, but your latest post offers a chance to consider your earlier post on ethics -- namely, is it ethical to exploit PortGate for political gain, if you actually believe it's not a scandal?

    At first glance, it appears your latest proposal is that we *should* take advantage of PortGate, and thus (possibly) act unethically.

    But there is a subtle difference I think. While it would clearly be unethical to go around shouting that PortGate is some huge issue, when you think it's not, is it unethical merely to take advantage of the change in political mood that has already occurred due to PortGate, and use it as an opportunity?

    An analogy might be this: Let's say you're in a footrace with someone and he trips and falls. Most would agree that if you had caused his tripping, that would be unethical. But what if he just tripped because he was unlucky and stepped on a rock? Is it ethical or not to take advantage of his unlucky state, and continue racing without waiting for him to stand up?

    Personally, I think there's a difference, but some might argue that both are unethical.

    Keith

    ReplyDelete
  34. Anonymous8:56 PM

    I might have missed it, but it seems as though no one is talking about the congressional phone system installed by Foxcom Wireless, and Israeli company.

    http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=8587

    ReplyDelete
  35. Anonymous8:57 PM

    I like it.

    I have often wondered why blogs don't partially focus on diect activism.

    If you hit Colorado, let me know.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Anonymous8:59 PM

    dclaw1 said:

    [QUOTE]On the other hand, other Democrats will legitimately feel that the deal is not as dangerous as suggested. I am a person of principal who would never attack someone for doing something I don't even think is bad, for purely political or opportunistic reasons, and I don't think others should.[/QUOTE]

    What we can ALL agree on however is that Port Security is vulnerable to attack and must seriously be focused on, no?

    ReplyDelete
  37. Anonymous8:59 PM

    I think that the idea of Republican congresspeople turning this to their advantage is overrated. Remember from the last election? these people have voting records. I can tell you without a lick of research that my state's two Repub Senators and one Republican House Rep (good clue to where I'm from) are all on record for voting down money for port security measures 5+ times. Except maybe Cubin (doh, let the cat out of the bag!) she forgets to show up for votes rather often.
    Remember that they were against port security before they were for it.

    ReplyDelete
  38. While it would clearly be unethical to go around shouting that PortGate is some huge issue, when you think it's not, is it unethical merely to take advantage of the change in political mood that has already occurred due to PortGate, and use it as an opportunity?

    Agree totally. There is a huge difference - fundamental, really - between (a) pretending that this is a huge scandal even though you don't think it is just to inflict political damage on the President and (b) observing that the damaging is occurring and is weakening him and then strategizing how to capitalize on that with other issues and even to exacerbate the weakness. (I know there are plenty of people who believe this is a real national security threat - I'm only referring here to those who don't).

    I think the foot race analogy you provided is totally on point. And, as DCLaw1 and others have pointed out, one can be unimpressed with the claims about how these port contracts harm our national security but still find it justifiable to pound the Administration with other, more legitimate components of this story (the cronyism, the law-breaking, the recalcitrance towards any Congressional input, etc.).

    ReplyDelete
  39. If I were to speculate, I would guess that cronyism connections are (at least partially) what drove this transaction originally and what is driving Bush’s oddly emphatic commitment to it now.

    If, as you argue, Bush fairly drips with "contempt for the notion that Congress has any meaningful role to play in national security," the fact that you suddenly find him "oddly" emphatic in this instance is the real departure here. On the other hand, abandoning consistency in favor of hinting at dark doings is as emblematic of the left as the inconsistencies you've been pointing out on the right.

    I note that you have yet to take a position on the actual propriety of the particulars here. If the deal makes sense, of course, it would be difficult (though apparently not impossible!) to revive the cronyism theme. You cite "his belief in doing business deals, especially those which reward people and entities whom he wants to reward," without even bothering to speculate as to who is being rewarded for what this time around. I certainly won't pretend the shoe never fits, Harriet Miers springs to mind, but as a one-size-fits-all, standalone charge, it just doesn't do much for either your argument or credibility. If Bush is rewarding an Arab ally for its critical, if not perfect, support with a business contract in an area of acknowledged expertise, it would qualify as good foreign policy, not cronyism, I should think. If not, however, is siding with overwrought Republicans just prohibitively unpalatable? Much easier not to take a stand on substance, I suppose.

    I find your question about descending to Republican depths in electioneering, similarly "troubling," as a Democrat might put it. When one of the few identifiable themes in Democratic discourse, on topics like Gitmo, has been that above all else, no matter the cost, we must never resort to the tactics of the enemy we fight, I'd have thought the answer to your question would be obvious, if disappointing. Now I won't attempt to disabuse you of the notion that the left hasn't already dipped beneath that surface themselves, I'll just say I think you're better off fixing the real problem, as demonstrated here and elsewhere -- along with the most problematic label of all:

    What I hear you talking about is all tactics, tactics, tactics. What you really, really, really need to be talking about is a pro-active, non (label) obstructionist (/label), message, message, message. I gather that folks over here don't like hearing that, but that doesn't mean it isn't good advice. What you've been doing instead, it seems to me, is mostly trying to persuade yourselves that the Republicans don't really have a message they believe in either. Don't kid yourselves.

    Simple tedium with the same administration will help you at the polls, but if you're looking for anything remotely resembling victories, you need to start building coalitions, not just with like minded Bush detractors, but with enough unlike minded groups to start winning elections again. Lucky for you, the Republicans have proved it's possible -- because the kind of cultist rhetoric you've developed could have been designed to alienate potential swing voters -- like me -- whom you must ultimately attract. The Democratic party has been described as a collection of disparate interest groups, so there are plenty of folks out there. Right now, they're not publicly united around anything much but their dislike of Bush, and as the President's pre-election polls numbers should have already made abundantly clear: That's. Not. Enough.

    I was astonished to read recently that most of the Democrat leadership thought they still had plenty of time to work up an '06 campaign message; someone even suggested it would be unwise to tip their hands! Others, most recently Hillary, seem to think that there's not much point in a legislative agenda when you can't get anything passed with the Republicans in charge. That's when you need one the most! Until you come up with a platform, platform, platform, you won't attract enough voters, voters, voters, to win back the power to do anything at all.

    Democrats have now wasted years spitting into the wind at this Administration. Quit obsessing over Republicans. Not only are you clueless about what makes them tick, you're not much better at figuring out how they win elections. You're gazing at the wrong navel anyway. Start rebuilding a party of your own. Please tell me you have more in mind than waiting for the day that Bush leaves office. Tell the voters what that is, and what you plan to do about it. If you want a two party system, be a party, not a faction, and certainly not the faction of malcontents so many on the left currently have every appearance of being.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Anonymous9:10 PM

    Correct me if I am wrong, but was it not a well known Nazi strategy to always keep your opponenets fighting the last battle while you move on: political slight of hand as it were?

    ReplyDelete
  41. Anonymous9:10 PM

    Anonymous said:

    "Remember that they were against port security before they were for it."

    Good one!! This is what Turd Blossom would do.

    ReplyDelete
  42. While corruption and cronyism are no doubt a part of the port management scandal, I think there is something bigger and more important; the administration needs to cozy up with Dubai/UAE because they need a launching venue/staging area for war on Iran. I think the Bushniks aare making nice with this particular Arab country to smooth the way for establishing a massive US Air Force and Navy presence there in anticipation of making strikes on Iran.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Anonymous9:22 PM

    I agree that along with pointing out the obvious mistakes of the Bush Administration in regards to our security, we should come up with solutions of our own.

    The Murtha re-deployment plan for our troops in Iraq, investigating the NSA program and fixing it, and revamping our Homeland Security.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Anonymous9:57 PM

    I think Peter is right on this one -- I'm hearing more and more that this UAE deal has more to do with maintaining a military presence in the Gulf, as the UAE sits "opposite Iran," so that we'll be geared up and ready to go (I guess Iran has threatened to shut down the strait through which oil shipments pass, if sanctions are placed against them for their nuclear program?). It's about to get really messy, really quick.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Anonymous9:58 PM

    Alert: Going on Paula Zahn right now, first interview with one of the Committee members who voted for this port deal.

    As an aside, if Wolf Blitzer does any more heavy lifting for the Administration trying to sell this port deal, he's going to get a very bad hernia.

    Cafferty and Dobbs have been terrific, however.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Anonymous10:03 PM

    Are they passing out suicide pills in Washington?

    John McCain was interviewed today and his advice to the American people?

    "Trust Bush."

    He's not coming out against this Port deal for any reason other than that he "trusts Bush."

    Bye bye, John.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Anonymous10:05 PM

    Coming up: Keith Olberman on MSNBC talking about the fact that George Tenet had "connected the dots" between the UAE and OBL.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Anonymous10:06 PM

    How did this Port Deal first come into the MSM? Was it the headline on Drudge two days ago? That is where I first saw it.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Anonymous10:08 PM

    Here's another thought. Maybe this is NOT a Rovian plot, although it certainly is about money. (However, Tom Delay coming out against the President IS curious.)

    Maybe Bush thinks he can win on this?

    Let's give him credit for putting on a lot of clean-cut, glip talkers who could make someone doubt whether 2 + 2 = 4.

    But it does.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Anonymous10:10 PM

    Latest buzz? Who is going to be the "fall guy" designated to take the blame and let Bush, who said he didn't know about this deal, off the hook?

    One thing's for sure. It'll be someone closer to the guy who shines shoes in the Capitol Builing than anyone with money and power, like Snow.

    ReplyDelete
  51. I think the Bushniks are making nice with this particular Arab country to smooth the way for establishing a massive US Air Force and Navy presence there in anticipation of making strikes on Iran.

    Oh dear, Peter has mentioned the elephant in the room that we all want to ignore. Let’s face it, the administration is gearing up for some strategic bombing of Iran just before the elections.

    Bush and Rove are counting on a little “shock and awe” to keep all these brewing scandals at bay. As far as I can see, Bush opponents don’t have a clue how to deal with the war hysteria that Rove plans to whip up prior to November.

    ReplyDelete
  52. Anonymous10:19 PM

    "because they need a launching venue/staging area for war on Iran."

    Well, if that's true, thank goodness for China. They may be the only thing that stands in the way of an invasion of Iran.

    ReplyDelete
  53. Anonymous10:20 PM

    I had forgetten that the 9/11 report stated that we had the opportunity to take out Saddam, but didn't because he was in the company of members from the UAE royal family.

    ReplyDelete
  54. Anonymous10:53 PM

    Quote from (James)Screedblog:

    "I don’t make predictions, because – well, who cares? .... But if I had to make a prediction, I’d say this: the Dubai-ports fracas will become a flap, quickly swell into a firestorm, then become a debacle before settling into the history books as a “historic miscalculation” – providing the Republicans only lose the Congress. If they lose a city, it will be a 'critical turning point.'

    Do I expect the managers of the ports to start installing Al Qaeda operatives in key positions, so they can wave through all the containers with small nukes for national distribution? No. But such a scenario does not exactly tax the imagination, which is why it’s such a stupendously bad idea."

    ReplyDelete
  55. Anonymous11:01 PM

    Bush, Cheney and Team Misinformation spend the last 4-1/2 yrs crisscrossing the country going "9/11 - 9/11-terrorist-terrorist-terrorist," reminding Americans at every opportunity that they need to fear and mistrust (and dislike) Arab countries - because it suited their political purposes, suppressed thier critics, cowed the press and made the population compliant. Then, when the CEO Pres wants to cut a business deal that turns over major port operations to a state-owned company from a country that two of the 9/11 terrorists came from, he doesn't understand? why Americans are behaving just as he's trained them to?

    ReplyDelete
  56. Anonymous11:26 PM

    Important talking point: (from a poster at Daily Kos).
    "P&O, the "Great British" company that now holds the contracts, acquired them BEFORE 9/11. (See the the company Web site.) So this is the FIRST post-9/11 opportunity to review foreign ownership issue."

    And Bush didn't even review it! He in fact allowed the 45 day law to be broken that would have faciliated that review. The President whose whole lief motif is that he's so extra cautious about national security that he's subjecting innocents to torture, citizens to spying, and a country to invasion, not only says he wasn't informed, but once informed, says we have to "stretch" to not look like we are anti-Arab?

    This is going to be a very hard position to defend.

    I think a discussion of impeachment is going to be thrust upon us much sooner than perhaps we might have wanted.

    But if it happens, it can't be an "impeachment" of the man. It has to be a rousing condemnation of all that is wrong with this Administration, and the last, and the one before that. It has to be an impeachment of ideas, of corrupt practices, of an out of control, arrogant, power mad and money grubbing bunch of public officials, on all levels.

    We really do have to take back the America we knew and loved.

    ReplyDelete
  57. Anonymous11:59 PM

    Statement from a very recent speech of Bob Woodward's at Trinity College:

    "Even as he scolded the media's tendency to prophesy the future, Woodward offered his prediction for the 2008 presidential race.

    By all indications, he said, Democrat Hillary Clinton is running.

    He noted that Republicans have a long track record of nominating "old war horses."

    Given that, and depending on how things in Iraq proceed, "You're going to think I'm crazy, but you heard it here first. I think they could nominate Dick Cheney."

    Uh, no, Bob. Not quite.

    I wonder if this whole Port deal would have played out the way it did if it weren't for the blogosphere. This point has been noted before concerning other scandals, but this seems to me to be the moment that the real role of the blogosphere becomes visible for all to see.

    People like Rove, Woodward, Rumsfeld (who don't use emails and therefore probably doesn't read blogs or maybe even use the Internet) Cheney, etc. are so yesterday.

    And they can't keep up with the news, discussion, introduction of mountains of facts, debate, and then general consensus at the speed of light aspect of the blogosphere.

    It's like a newspaper with millions of reporters on 24 hour call. Pretty powerful stuff.

    Woodward also said that the biggest threat our nation faces is the "secrecy" of government. He explains that the President told him that secrecy was necesary because of the terrorist post 9/11 threat.

    Now, THAT'S, a thigh slapper, especially today!

    Woodward is just another cog in the corruption machine, and is the last person to be talking about secrecy, his middle name. He would be an also if it wasn't for his cultivation of secret governent sources and leaks. He's no principled investigative reporter, no seeker of truth. He's just another person with an inflated ego who is addicted to power, and doesn't care what the cost of that addiction becomes.

    He's a faciliator of a corrupt system, and a disgrace, and I am glad his time is over and nobody who cares about truth and freedom listens to him anymore.

    Don't buy his books. It's subsidizing the enemy.

    ReplyDelete
  58. Anonymous12:24 AM

    Nobody noticed that Bush and UAE had a Secret Agreement?

    ReplyDelete
  59. Anonymous12:31 AM

    I am sure the people of kansas will "appreciate" a "know-it-all" blogger with little patience or tolerance for anyone else's opinion telling them what to do...

    LOL

    Go back and read the posts at FDL -- the "self-appointed" intellectuals don't actually have a great track record in their analysis or predictions. Bring the same condenscencing attitude to your "movement" and nothing good will happen.

    I wish you the best, do feel its appropriate to add these observations -- coalitions of support must leave room for people to get "on board" without expecting them to shower you with blind acceptance of "insight" and "leadership"

    Snarky comments, "trexing" and banning people from comment boards are not exactly the "core skills" it will take to lead positive change.

    ReplyDelete
  60. Anonymous1:04 AM

    Glenn,

    I think this is a mixed bag.

    You're right that the echo of this mess-up weakens Republican partisanship and softens up the environment for us to drive a wedge through.

    However, the hypocrisy angle is a double-edged sword. Our congressional leaders are already cowards - now they see that the way to gravy is not to protest "get tough" measures like not letting UAE have our ports (I know that's a very low floor for toughness), but to be as tough as they can.

    Congresspersons swarming to be as tough as they can does not increase interest in arguing against wiretapping, illegal or whatever.

    If this is going to turn to our advantage in the near term, it's only because we make serious headlines, somehow.

    The only other advantage would of course be getting a House of Congress in 06. That's our only real shot at truly knecapping the power center that led to warrantless wiretaps in the first place.

    ReplyDelete
  61. Connecting UAE and NSA

    Here is a checklist of what the RNC is doing with the UAE: [Click ]

    The goal is to distract you from the NSA: [ Click ]

    If you want to springboard off the UAE, then need to frame the issues in terms that directly link to the NSA and the rule of law. If you fail to make that connection for the RNC, you will have taken the bait.

    Good luck

    ReplyDelete
  62. Anonymous1:18 AM

    Somebody was asking about more details today on the port deal:

    "The Dubai Ports World Deal - Through a Coast Guard Veteran's Eyes
    Posted by Coastie for Truth
    Added to homepage Wed Feb 22nd 2006, 08:53 AM ET

    The "Port Service Company" receives, manifests, loads, offloads, and transfers the containers. Normally, this is monitored for drugs -- but there are "holes." The "Port Service Company" has the "expertise" (in a "perverse kind of way") to know where the holes are.

    Second, the "Port Service Company" frequently prepares the manifest. This is the legal document ennumerating what the ship is carrying, shipper, recipient, port on loaded, port to be off loaded. This guides (or misguides) the inspection.

    Third, frequently the "Port Service Company" performs "ship chandlering" - that's the sale of consumables and low level spare parts. This is not inventoried or manifested.

    Fourth, merchant mariners' documents. It is fairly easy to enter a country on "Merchant Mariner's Documents" (functions like a mini-passport). No visa requirements if you stay within some distance of the port. This is popular with drug dealers - and could be a route for terrorists. In many countries a "Port Service Company" can issue "documents" (note - these are not Master, Mate, Pilot, Engineer, Radio Officer licenses or "Competency Documents") which are good enough to get you off of the ship while it's in port.

    Historically - in my active duty days - we were looking for drug smugglers. But these techniques could work with terrorists and dirty bombs.

    And Dubai is "A" cross roads of the world."

    And, apparently there have been no requirements for US citizenship for Security officials working at our ports:

    A U.S. congressman said Saturday he wants to require that security officials at U.S. ports be American citizens to prevent overseas companies operating shipping facilities here from hiring foreigners in such sensitive positions.

    Republican Frank A. LoBiondo, chairman of the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Subcommittee, said he wants new mandatory citizenship requirements approved by Congress and U.S. President George W. Bush before Dubai Ports World completes its pending purchase of P&O

    LoBiondo's legislative proposal would amend federal maritime laws to require facility security officers, which operate at terminals in every U.S. port, to be American citizens. LoBiondo said there are presently no citizenship requirements, which he said permits foreign companies who are or become partners in domestic terminal operations to employ security officers who are not Americans.

    ReplyDelete
  63. By removing Our Leaders ability to invade our privacy and read our e-mail with his morning coffee we would be completely eliminating his entire domestic terrorist defense program.

    To adequately protect or ports would require over $7 Billion dollars. He provided $460 million. And He increased our border security by hiring additional guards. Rick, Pedro and Elizibeth have been added to ride the fence we haven't built.

    Good thing we're fighting them over there. Only now the Iraqi conflict has reached the only conclusion possible--a civil war. And we caused it and are in the middle of it.

    And congress has the audacity to question Him? Maybe they can find a testicle to share so they can investigate his abuses.

    ReplyDelete
  64. Anonymous2:49 AM

    "The "Port Service Company" receives, manifests, loads, offloads, and transfers the containers. Normally, this is monitored for drugs -- but there are "holes." The "Port Service Company" has the "expertise" (in a "perverse kind of way") to know where the holes are.

    Second, the "Port Service Company" frequently prepares the manifest. This is the legal document ennumerating what the ship is carrying, shipper, recipient, port on loaded, port to be off loaded. This guides (or misguides) the inspection.

    Third, frequently the "Port Service Company" performs "ship chandlering" - that's the sale of consumables and low level spare parts. This is not inventoried or manifested.

    Fourth, merchant mariners' documents. It is fairly easy to enter a country on "Merchant Mariner's Documents" (functions like a mini-passport). No visa requirements if you stay within some distance of the port. This is popular with drug dealers - and could be a route for terrorists. In many countries a "Port Service Company" can issue "documents" (note - these are not Master, Mate, Pilot, Engineer, Radio Officer licenses or "Competency Documents") which are good enough to get you off of the ship while it's in port."

    -From a Coast Guard Official.

    Yikes. Maybe this Port Deal really IS a threat, and we've already been brainwashed by all of Bush's minions on TV to discount that possibility.

    ReplyDelete
  65. Anonymous3:28 AM

    "The goal is to distract you from the NSA: [ Click ]

    If you want to springboard off the UAE, then need to frame the issues in terms that directly link to the NSA and the rule of law. If you fail to make that connection for the RNC, you will have taken the bait.

    Good luck"

    I repost that post of constant's, because I think he is really on target.

    The NSA thing is the nub of the direct assault on Americans that all these policies have led to.

    I really think constant is right that however we use this issue, NSA spying has to be in almost every sentence we speak. Otherwise, we gain nothing.

    I also think more posters here should visit constant's site, and thank him for the extraordinary work he does. I don't know who he is, who's beind him, or who supports him, but it's hard to believe one person could accumulate that much worthwhile information, and be so pithily accurate in his strategic advice.

    constant, care to tell us any more about you? Do you have a party affiliation? What is the main engine that drives you?

    ReplyDelete
  66. Sorry, meant to put the first paragraph above in quotes, with attribution to Glenn.

    ReplyDelete
  67. Anonymous3:50 AM

    I saw this on VC in comments:

    "I found the State Department's 'The United Arab Emirates (UAE): Issues for US Policy' to be an interesting starting point for learning more about the issues surrounding the UAE...


    Summary: The United Arab Emirates (UAE), under new leadership upon the November 2, 2004 death of its president, Shaykh Zayid bin Sultan al-Nuhayyan, has undergone a smooth transition, but it remains weak militarily and surrounded by several powerful and ambitious neighbors. Political reform has been minimal, but its relatively open economy and borders, particularly in the emirate of Dubai, have caused problems in proliferation, terrorism, and human trafficking."

    HUMAN TRAFFICKING? HUMAN TRAFFICKING?

    I wouldn't let these people even VISIT our country, much less take over management of the Ports.

    Maybe when they stop the Human Trafficking, they can re-apply.

    ReplyDelete
  68. Anonymous4:07 AM

    Frpm a post by David Kopel on VC:

    "One of the talking points raised by defenders of the Bush decision on Dubai Ports has been to point out that many ports in the Los Angeles area are run by the Chinese. During the 2d Clinton term, Congress blocked Administration efforts to give the former Long Beach Naval Station to COSCO (Chinese Ocean Shipping Company), a front for the Chinese military. The COSCO issue garned almost no attention in the traditional media, but public opposition grew overwhelming as a result of New Media attention to the issue.

    But, obviously, the temporary victory at Long Beach did not prevent the Chinese dictatorship from taking control of many California ports.

    Congressional opposition to the Dubai Ports deal currently appears to far exceed the margin necessary to over-ride a presidential veto. Congress could improve American national security, and also scuttle claims that opposition to Dubai Ports is based on prejudice against Arabs or Muslims, by using the Dubai Ports prevention bill to also provide for the termination of Chinese control of American ports. As a general rule, it would make sense to prohibit operation of any U.S. port, or other critical national infrastructure, by a company which is not from a democratic nation or from a nation with a formal alliance requiring the nation to defend the U.S. if the U.S. is attacked."

    I have no doubt that if Clinton were President today, he approve the exact same deal. The only difference would be he would make sure it was signed before it hit the press.

    We need principled politicians of either party, committed to the Rule of Law, and without "For Sale"
    signs on their tee-shirts.

    ReplyDelete
  69. Anonymous4:33 AM

    From Americablog:


    Wednesday, February 22, 2006

    Bushies had secret -- not very restrictive -- deal with UAE
    by Joe in DC - 2/22/2006 11:47:00 PM


    "Team Bush cut a secret deal with their pals in the UAE on port security:
    The Bush administration secretly required a company in the United Arab Emirates to cooperate with future U.S. investigations before approving its takeover of operations at six American ports, according to documents obtained by The Associated Press. It chose not to impose other, routine restrictions.....According to experts, the deal did not include a lot of standard operating procedures. Why was the Bush Administration so determined to give the UAE a break?:
    The administration did not require Dubai Ports to keep copies of business records on U.S. soil, where they would be subject to court orders. It also did not require the company to designate an American citizen to accommodate U.S. government requests. Outside legal experts said such obligations are routinely attached to U.S. approvals of foreign sales in other industries....

    This story still has a long way to go before we really find the truth. And, the truth won't come from the Bush Administration."

    ReplyDelete
  70. Anonymous5:55 AM

    No matter whether you think the Port deal threatens security or not, this is classic:

    Jeb Bush: 'Faith' in Dubai Ports Deal

    E-mail NewsMax
    RSS Feed

    Governor Jeb Bush says he has faith in his brother's administration over its decision to allow an Arab-owned company to operate major U.S. ports, including in Miami.....

    Florida's governor says he thinks criticism by some Congress members is unwarranted because his brother, President Bush, could press for more details by the time the sale is supposed to go through on March 2."


    COULD?

    ReplyDelete
  71. Anonymous6:11 AM

    Thanks to Gris Lobo for listing the ways in which a port terminal operator could thwart the minimal port security rules currently enforced.

    Thanks to Eschaton for resurrecting the following story.

    "The Central Intelligence Agency did not target Al Qaeda chief Osama bin laden once as he had the royal family of the United Arab Emirates with him in Afghanistan, the agency's director, George Tenet, told the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks on the United States on Thursday.

    Had the CIA targeted bin Laden, half the royal family would have been wiped out as well, he said."


    So the UAE is one of our best partners in the war on terrorism and the royal family was vacationing with Osama? The inconsistency hurts my head. I really don't know what to think.

    Regardless of the wisdom of allowing the UAE to run our ports, the executive branch has again wittingly flouted Congressional legislation. The White House claims GWB was not aware of the port decision but the Exon-Florio provision and the Byrd Amendment seem to require an investigation of this issue by the CFIUS, communication of the results of this investigation to the Pres who makes the decision to permit the investment, and notification by the Pres of his decision to the Congress. There is no evidence that the executive branch fulfilled any of these three requirements. Perhaps Congressional regulation is just a quaint relic of an earlier era, no longer practical in our post 9-11 world.

    ReplyDelete
  72. Anonymous7:30 AM

    Pin the tale on the elephant:
    Radical Republicans!
    Exploding budget deficits?
    Radical Republicans!
    Divisive tax cuts for the rich?
    Radical Republicans!
    Elective wars?
    Radical Republicans!
    Politization of the judiciary?
    Radical Republicans!
    Degradation of environmental protections?
    Radical Republicans!
    "For Sale" sign on the nation's Capitol?
    Radical Republicans!
    Cynical exploitation of a nation's trauma?
    Radical Republicans!
    Subversion of foundation of constitutional mandated checks and balances?
    Radical Republicans!
    Profiteering for former, or future, employers?
    Radical Republicans!
    Pin the tale on the elephant.

    ReplyDelete
  73. Anonymous11:28 AM

    Glenn,

    I thought you might be interested in, and want to comment on, this great post by Greg.

    More on Mora

    It talks about a meeting at the Pentagon with top officials (military and civilian) where the issue of the Geneva conventions was discussed. Here's a quote:

    "Just a few months ago, Mora attended a meeting in Rumsfeld’s private conference room at the Pentagon, called by Gordon England, the Deputy Defense Secretary, to discuss a proposed new directive defining the military’s detention policy. The civilian Secretaries of the Army, the Air Force, and the Navy were present, along with the highest-ranking officers of each service, and some half-dozen military lawyers. Matthew Waxman, the deputy assistant secretary of defense for detainee affairs, had proposed making it official Pentagon policy to treat detainees in accordance with Common Article Three of the Geneva conventions, which bars cruel, inhumane, and degrading treatment, as well as outrages against human dignity.Going around the huge wooden conference table, where the officials sat in double rows, England asked for a consensus on whether the Pentagon should support Waxman’s proposal.

    This standard had been in effect for fifty years, and all members of the U.S. armed services were trained to follow it. One by one, the military officers argued for returning the U.S. to what they called the high ground. But two people opposed it. One was Stephen Cambone, the under-secretary of defense for intelligence; the other was Haynes. They argued that the articulated standard would limit America’s “flexibility.” It also might expose Administration officials to charges of war crimes: if Common Article Three became the standard for treatment, then it might become a crime to violate it. Their opposition was enough to scuttle the proposal."

    ReplyDelete
  74. Anonymous11:33 AM

    This statement by Mora is amazing:

    "To my mind, there's no moral or practical distinction. If cruelty is no longer declared unlawful, but instead is applied as a matter of policy, it alters the fundamental relationship of man to government. It destroys the whole notion of individual rights. The Constitution recognizes that man has an inherent right, not bestowed by the state or laws, to personal dignity, including the right to be free of cruelty. It applies to all human beings, not just in America — even those designated as 'unlawful enemy combatants.' If you make this exception, the whole Constitution crumbles. It's a transformative issue."

    ReplyDelete
  75. I think what's so frustrating about this whole port deal is that time and again, from wireless wiretapping to botched prosecutions to most anything re: the GWOT, we see the administration going nuts because some guy gave money in 1991 to a charity that turned Muslim and was run by a guy who's second cousin once had conversation with someone sympathetic to the Taliban.

    Ok, ok, I exaggerate, but the point is that this administration has admittedly run roughshod over civil liberties of those with only very tangential and speculative connections to terrorism.

    Now, one can debate whether this vigilance is necessary or overdone, but regardless of whether it's right or wrong, how can they turn around and hand control of our ports over to a company ultimately run by a nation whose leaders have regularly associated with high-ranking al Qaeda members? This isn't some guy's brother's mistesses' brother who once did a job for Osama's driver. This is the owners of a company hanging out with AQ itself.

    The hypocrisy is astounding.

    ReplyDelete
  76. Anonymous3:33 PM

    “If you want a two party system, be a party, not a faction, and certainly not the faction of malcontents so many on the left currently have every appearance of being.”

    Excellent comment, jm hanes. Two things you apparently are not understanding. Yes, the “Greenwald Raiders” have no message for the future. They are a faction bent on destroying Republicans and clearing the way for the election of Democrats. Their sole mission is to create the Bush antichrist and expose its slithery tentacles wherever they may raise their ugly heads (how’s that for a mixed metaphor?). When pressed for positive alternatives by voters like you, they simply grunt and point their swords in the direction of the “Angels” and return to waling away at those evil Republicans. The “Angels” are busy preparing the extremely positive message you demand. I would provide a link, but they have not yet anointed their champion. Perhaps she is on (or is it “in”?) a vigil. They are currently working through some problems, which will be covered in a moment.
    The Democratic coalition you refer to has been formed. In one group (the “Raiders”) are the discontented. Other groups are being formed for those who lack the bile and ferocity to get a nasty job done. A third group is being formed which will explain how both groups can come together after the elections and govern ably. Hillary appears to be the speaker pro tem for that group and as you can see, they have their problems too. I think that their plan to provide guarded cages for the surviving “Raiders” is just bravado designed to flatter the egos of the “Raiders”.
    Other than a few “Indian Scouts For The Cavalry” types like Hypatia, the “Raiders” are gonna be pretty much hard-core Democrats for obvious reasons. It’s going to get very nasty. Presumably no laws will be broken... but if you put “Bush broke the law” with “we must meet fire with fire”....?
    Let’s look in on the “Angels” and see how they are doing in coming up with the Democratic message:
    “...I have just come from a meeting with the leader of the “Raiders”. The are ready to go into Kansas and they have completed the last phase of preparation. For those pansies who worried about ethics; you can forget it. They can be counted on to do what needs doing. Next, the Message Committee report. Ed, what have you got for us?:
    “Ahem, well, as we said at the last meeting, the big problem is that the Republicans are already doing what can realistically be done in most of the major issue areas. Our polling shows that where the public is unhappy we can’t do anything and where we can do something they aren’t unhappy. We have some opportunities opening up in “Homeland Security”, but we have a long way to go there. Our “Spending? Hell Yes!” theme is not coming around. Yes, it is traditional, appeals to the teachers and other unions, but other than that, voters hate it. “ Social Security” and “Medicare” are dead as positive issues. “Tax the Rich” is looking good. Nothing new on “Immigration”. We are still waiting for the results of the Hispanic voting pattern study. Right now it looks like too many vote Republican. Spending the proceeds from the tax on the rich on the Spanish-speaking shows promise, but it is still being roughed out. We have a green light on that provided the voting pattern study shows the correct pattern. Otherwise, we are tentatively set to go with “Hire the Unionized to Protect Our Borders”. Jeez, can’t you guys do something about that title?
    Oh, and the “FDR” idea didn[‘t test well. Yeah, the elderly remembered, but it doesn’t fit into our “Vision of the Future” overall theme and it offers too many “win the war” quotes to the Rethugs.”
    Thanks Ed. We have a long way to go, but I am sure we will make it in time. Keep working.
    [satire/humor alert]

    ReplyDelete
  77. Anonymous5:04 PM

    I love reading your insightful analysis of the days issues-but, Omigod! Do you really believe for a minute that there are ANY principled Republicans left in our sycophantic House of Unrepentant or the Seenot? Already Senator John Warner and ultimate suck-up John McCain have rubber-stamped this act by the Bush Administration and, with all the blackmail evidence gathered through the NSA spying it won't be long before the rest of those simpering cowards fall into line.

    It is time to face the fact that, thanks to the Republicans, AmeriKa has been forever mutated into a totalitarian autocratic society with their own anointed King George. I can no longer ignore the plain facts and believe for even one second that our democracy isn't dead, we're led by fools so ready and willing to sell us out that they bend over backwards to betray us to the Chinese, the Saudis, the Russians, and every other foreign government seeking a foothold to destroy America, that the only thing remaining for them to do is dicker over the secret details, improperly classified, to hide their perfidy. I am reminded of the old saw:

    "Is it progress if a cannibal uses knife and fork?" And in this case we all know who the cannibals are, that they have knifed us in the back, and forked over the treasury and its contents to the highest bidder.

    ReplyDelete
  78. There's a solution to the Cargo Inspection Problem: Use the container as the platform to inspect the cargo:
    [ Click ]

    Includes system features, development criteria, and change in sampling plan for real time verification.

    Focus on the important issue: The NSA illegal activities

    Now that we've solved that problem -- back to the unlawful NSA monitoring! [ Click ]

    ReplyDelete
  79. UAE connected to NSA . . .


    Intelligence Community Acquisition Risk Centre

    The American intelligence organization behind the UAE deal is under the Battalion 316 Negroponte.

    And you're going to find a number of warnings about Negraponte: He does his own thing, breaks the rules, and focuses on outcomes, and ignores the laws.

    Search this page for analysis kw= negroponte [ Link ]

    This was a disaster waiting to happen, especially combined with the "do what we want" mentality of NSA, CIA, DoD, DoJ, and the White House.

    ReplyDelete
  80. Anonymous1:30 AM

    This perspective on the Dubai Port controversy is informed by pretty thorough knowledge of Port operations and security in the US gained through being part of the management team at a Port. Some facts are not being accurately or at least thoroughly reported. Day to day security at Ports is almost entirely the responsibility of terminal operators, which are almost exclusively private companies.

    The roles of the Coast Guard and US Customs are very limited. They do not inspect all cargo, or all ships. The Coast Guard requests the private companies to provide a security plan and then expects the company to follow the plan. There are not sufficient personnel to inspect all ships or cargo. The terminal operators do not have equipment or expertise to assure the safety of all cargo. Most terminals are no more secure than they were prior to 9/11. There are few if any federal mandates for Ports and there has been virtually no federal money authorized for Port security.

    A contrast with Airport security is instructive. Airports have secured perimeters with controlled access which requires ID cards and increasingly biometric fingerprint information. In order to obtain an ID card, a person must undergo fingerprinting, and an FBI check. Access to secure areas is controlled by government employees who check for the approved identification cards. All baggage is X rayed by government employees and passengers are screened by government employees or private employees meeting detailed government standards.

    By contrast, ports do not have secure perimeters, do not require screening of employees and visitors, do not require ID cards and do not x ray all cargo. Checking of cargo inbound to the US occurs at worldwide ports where security may be lax and where bribery and smuggling are known to occur.

    An almost perfect analogy would be if airport security were handled by the airlines, including government owned airlines and if those airlines set their own policies and allocated resources with limited government oversight.

    This Dubai transaction would present an entirely different situation, if the security at Ports was entirely conducted by government employees with the resources to check all incoming and outgoing activity. The problem being obscured by the administration, is that in fact Ports are a huge terrorist opportunity. Ports are the one place one can transport and literally hide a nuclear device. If the administration is comfortable with this transaction, it should also be comfortable with the same company operating Dulles Airport.

    As to the Dubai connection, there well may be “racism” underlying the outcry. However, that should not obscure that we have virtually no government security at the ports and we are entirely at the mercy of private operators,. At those ports we receive shipments from all over the world, which we cannot possibly know have been competently and honestly inspected. Personally this has bothered me as a resident of a port city long before Dubai became an issue. The real issue we need to debate is whether we are safe when we delegate such vital security to any government or corporation over which we do not have adequate control and oversight as opposed to devoting the same level of our own government resources to ports which have been devoted to airports. Rather than just examine the Dubai transaction, the entire structure of port operations must be examined before we can increase our security.

    ReplyDelete
  81. Anonymous12:31 PM

    I have followed the corporate money trail behind the emirate’s bid for US ports. Apart from the observations already made regarding homeland security, it occurs to me that the issue of long term viability of the current global economic structure is being ignored.

    Given the US current account and financial deficits are largely financed by maintaining international demand for US$, overseas creditors need to use their huge US$ reserves. For an oil exporting country like Dubai, this means opportunities to invest in the US itself. If this is not possible then there is nothing to stop such countries from divesting its US$ reserves and diversify its foreign assets against a basket of currencies, particularly the Euro. It is useful to bear in mind that this is already happening among the biggest international creditors of the US. This would spell the end of the agreement that the OPEC countries entered into, led by Saudi Arabia, in 1975 to sell oil against the US$ only through the London and New York petroleum exchanges. Iraq, under Saddam Hussein, had been selling its oil against the Euro with UN approval – a practice that was stopped by the US occupation force in 2003. Iran now proposes to do the same through its planned oil bourse due to open on 20 March 2006. Norway has been waging a rearguard battle to get EU agreement to open a Norwegian oil bourse that trades against the Euro for some time now. The petrodollar hegemony cannot survive such a shift and would inevitably usher in a US and global financial meltdown.

    The Financial Times observed in an article on 16 August 2005 that the average US family spends $1.22 for every dollar it earns, the deficit largely financed through credit underwritten essentially by overseas creditor nations. The level of indebtedness has been rising almost daily and is no doubt worse today.

    A saner approach would be to reduce US reliance on overseas credit to finance its global military misadventures and unsustainable domestic financial and international current account imbalances to focus on the need to develop rational policies that serve US national interests both at home and abroad.

    ReplyDelete