Here is the source of my ambivalence. What exactly is the principle which the Administration has violated here? Are we supposed to be assuming that anything or anyone connected to the Middle East is more likely to pose a threat of terrorism than those who aren't connected to the Middle East, and thereby avoid anything related to the Middle East when it comes to sensitive contracts? Or is the concern specific to this Middle Eastern country -- that we ought to be assuming that anyone with connections to the UAE poses a greater threat of terrorism than those who don't have such connections? Isn't that the sort of profiling that most people have agreed is improper? These are real questions, not rhetorical ones.
Here is what Ace of Spades says in (sarcastically) explaining his opposition to the Administration's decision to award this contract:
The idea that a large number of Americans would have any suspicions about Arab Muslims controlling ports is just absurd.
Why, it's almost as ridiculous at feeling anxiety about such people taking unauthorized control of airplanes.
Is that really the argument that Bush opponents are embracing now -- that we should be inherently suspicious about "Arab Muslims"?
Sean-Paul Kelley at The Agonist argues that there is no meritorious profiling component to these objections:
A number of people have pointed out that opposition to the UAE-US port management deal has a 'racist' tint to it. Bogus. The problem here is that we are giving a foreign company and country (it's state-owned) control over a vital national security concern. What's worse, is that we're considering giving it to a country/company that has links to non-state actors. The same non-state actors that blew up the WTC, the Pentagon and the Cole.
This is a sovereignty issue, but not in a xenophobic/Lou Dobbs/Michelle Malkin type way. It goes to the heart of our struggle with al Qaeda. The UAE still has ties to al Qaeda-not to mention that is was a focal trans-shipment point for material from the network of AQ Khan in Pakistan. P&O, to the best of my knowledge, has links to neither.
There is no link to Sean-Paul's specific claim that "the UAE still has ties to al Qaeda." Is this really the case, and if so, why haven't we taken action against the UAE in the past? Why hasn't anyone demanded that we do so?
And if this is really "a sovereignty issue," why isn't anyone bothered about the control of our ports by companies controlled by the Chinese government and other countries:
The White House appeared stunned by the uprising, over a transaction that they considered routine — especially since China's biggest state-owned shipper runs major ports in the United States, as do a host of other foreign companies. Mr. Bush's aides defended their decision, saying the company, Dubai Ports World, which is owned by the United Arab Emirates, would have no control over security issues.
And for those of you drooling with anticipation over the potential this issue has for doing some serious political damage, with almost all Republicans lined up with Democrats, who is this really going to hurt? After accusing Bush for several years of engaging in unnecessary violence and excessive aggression against Arab countries and individual terrorist suspects, is the idea now to accuse him of failing to sufficiently appreciate the terrorist threat posed by Arabs, or that he is too considerate of notions of political correctness at the expense of worrying about our security?
I'm open to being convinced one way or the other. I just can't say that I'm that scandalized or excited yet.
Maybe this post will convince you.
ReplyDeleteMaybe this post will convince you.
ReplyDeleteYour post argues - persuasively - that port security is important. How and why does awarding this contract jeopardize port security?
Distractions can be fun. I think this is being intentionally drummed up to deflect attention from Snoopygate and other scandals.
ReplyDeleteBecause we're awarding the contract to a company controlled by a nation whose track record on terrorism is shaky, at best. That and the fact that the review board who recommended allowing the Dubai Corp to control these ports doesn't even seem to know what it's recommending.
ReplyDeleteMy principal point though is not about the contract--it's about the fact that on my TV tonight "port security" is suddenly a Republican issue. And that shows shortsightedness on the part of Democrats who are so determined to hew to the Republicans on national security that they can't see how an issue like port security is tailor-made for them.
Which is, umm, frustrating.
Keep your eye on the prize, Glenn. The Rovians are masters of the art of propaganda. Look at who is most "upset" about this deal. Bush's usual supporting cast and crew. This is a play fake.
ReplyDeleteGlenn,
ReplyDeleteHere's a post at Think Progress that lays out some of the concerns.
Quote:
- The UAE was one of three countries in the world to recognize the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan.
- The UAE has been a key transfer point for illegal shipments of nuclear components to Iran, North Korea and Lybia.
- According to the FBI, money was transferred to the 9/11 hijackers through the UAE banking system.
- After 9/11, the Treasury Department reported that the UAE was not cooperating in efforts to track down Osama Bin Laden's bank accounts.
At a minimum, I'd argue that the UAE is not a country we should be rewarding with lucrative port contracts. At worst, details of our port security filter to the UAE through company channels where they are passed/sold to terrorist elements that they appear to be either friendly with or unconcerned about.
We haven't gone after Saudia Arabia either. That doesn't make it right.
I think the issue is again one of back room deals and secrecy. This is an issue that should have been discussed openly, letting us know why this is a secure way to run our ports. It shouldn't be based on business connections by Snowe or the other white house official. Should port security, which is supposed to be very important for homeland security, be outsourced to anyone who operates on a profit motive and not a national security standpoint. Lets hear all the arguments and then make a decision. I for one no longer can take the word of this administration that a deal is okay just because they say so and we should just trust them. That's what Chertoff said on Sunday and that position is unacceptable.
ReplyDeleteDavid Shaughnessy said...
ReplyDeleteBart & Gedaliya:
How can you continue to support this Administration? Seriously. Turning over American ports to the United Arab Emigrates? Well, so much for the Bush Administration's paramount concern for American security.
Do you know how xenophobic you are sounding?
I have been taking on my GOP friends on this issue...
The UAE company at issue runs ports across Asia, Europe and South America.
There is no evidence whatsoever that it has any terrorist connections. The argument is that some people in the UAE either were or supported al Qaeda. So what? Some people in the US either were or supported al Qaeda.
This UAE company has applied to buy a British company who has been running a handful of US ports with US employees under US laws and customs supervision.
The opposition to this acquisition boils down to the following argument: All arabs are or might be terrorists and can't be trusted running one of our ports.
Frankly, the argument is based on fear of Arabs and is despicable.
Both parties have acted reprehensibly on this issue.
Desperate to show that they are not complete squishes on national defense, the Donkeys have been beating up on the Administration for not barring all Arab companies from running our ports, conveniently ignoring how much of our oil infrastructure in the US is owned outright by Arabs.
The GOP has been nearly as bad. Not wanting to be outflanked on their signal 2006 election issue, many Elephants are more than willing to chuck the UAE under the truck to deny the Donkeys and issue.
I was surprised and pleased that the President took on his own party today by threatening a veto of any legislation to bar the UAE because they are Arabs.
How about, the BushCo tells us that most Americans think that security is more important than civil rights and thus he is empowered to wiretap without a warrant ... but now Bush is advocating an economic handshake which on its face is trumping security for this country? Also, I would respectfully pose the idea that since Portgate seems to be uniting outcry from both left and right that we take this window of opportunity wherein the right may finally be open to listening and attach Portgate talk to NSA, Katrina etc.? Bush is bullying everyone and he might be taken down by this, pardon me, feather.
ReplyDeleteI could be wrong, but the first instant I heard about this conflagration I thought: diversion. And it is simply bizarre to behold an awful lot of left-of-center folks insist that awarding this contract to the UEA is a security risk, with a pretty strong implication it is just because it is a Muslim-owned, ME company. (It is surely conceivable that that would be an entity best-informed in how to detect and prevent Islamic terrorism.)
ReplyDeleteBut so many on the left and right are joining in condemnation of this contract. It seems surreal, and also disturbing on many levels.
Cronyism and profit by those in or linked to the Administration -- ok. That sort of criticism may have some merit. But on the other hand, it is hardly surprising that well-to-do people have invested in security companies.
I'm with Glenn. I haven't made my mind up, but something feels very off-center and wrong in this whole controversy.
Keep your eye on the prize, Glenn. The Rovians are masters of the art of propaganda. Look at who is most "upset" about this deal. Bush's usual supporting cast and crew. This is a play fake.
ReplyDeleteI think we often chase our own tails like a dog, jumping at whatever pops up at the moment and then running after it. Nothing is seen through to the end. Peter Daou wrote a great post about this recently - the "scandal fatigue" that comes from chasing everything without focusing on one thing.
When the focus is on everything, it's actually on nothing. I think the Administration has benefitted, unintentionally but substantially, from this problem.
I have doubts about this port controversy both substantively and strategically, but they are preliminary.
When the focus is on everything, it's actually on nothing. I think the Administration has benefitted, unintentionally but substantially, from this problem.
ReplyDeleteI think it's quite intentional. They don't play this game by the Marquis of Queensbury rules.
Ah! So, like the Harriet Myers nominiation, UAE will withdraw and Bush will pick Saudi Arabia or Pakistan to manage our ports!
ReplyDeleteBetween this port deal, and all the attention that Cheney's hunting accident has been getting, I fear we have lost sight of the truly outrageous things that are occurring in this country. Not that this isn't a legitimate issue to spend time debating.... I'm merely suggesting that in the grand scheme of things, it is relatively insignificant.
ReplyDeleteGlenn, you are hanging yourself in this post as surely as Bush has hung himself.
ReplyDeleteIt's shocking you can't see the issue without reflecting on it. There are fifty containers a day coming into the country large enough to encase a nuclear bomb. If the UAE, a nation which does not recognize Israel (so why are we attempting to undercut Hamas's government?), which funded terrorists, which was the origin point of two of the 9/11 terrorists, can hire the people who work at the ports, inspect the containers, or not inspect them, and totally control six key entry points into the US, then why bother to have any security at all?
Maybe they are a friendly nation today. What about tomorrow? What if they turn on us? What if, what if, what if??????????????//
The headline on CNN is:
IS THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION FAILING OUR COUNTRY ON NATIONAL SECURITY?
This is not a laissez faire trade issue. Would Iran sell out control of its ports to Israel?
Glenn, have you gone mad?
This "review" of the deal, btw, turns out not to have been a review at all. The files were skimmed to see if there were any documents that would suggest the deal should not go through. As there were none, it was okayed by this secret Committee. That was the extent of the "review."
What next, Glenn? You are not upset at today's revelation that there have been EIGHT tunnels from Mexico into the United States that have been built in this last week?
If we say "whoa", are we against Mexicans? Against all Hispanics?
Gee.
Amazing.
Some things don't have to be explained. They are so obvious they negate the need for debate. This is one of them.
I personally don't think any other country should control our ports. What's the problem, there's no company in the United States smart enough to control the ports? Only the Mafia could do it?
This is sad, sad, sad, and you are about to lose a large percentage of your following on this, Glenn. If you didn't have an opinion, you shouldn't have written about this issue until you had one.
Keeping an open mind about some matters is not a badge of intellectual honesty, it's an admission of murky thinking.
"Let's see. Should I go cut off the ears of everyone in the office building in which I work? Hmmm, have to think about that one, keep an open mind until I decide what I think about that...."
That's about what you are saying here.
The next time some idiot says you are a nut, Glenn, how am I going to defend you?
Glenn, what bothers me the most about this deal is the complete undemocratic method that was arranged. There was no oversight, no public debate, no input from Congress. Given that the Congressmen and Senators are angry about this deal I'm guessing that they didn't even know. The President shouldn't be able to arrange a large deal like this without consulting Congress, at the very least. Idealy Pres. Bush should approach Congress and the States this deal affects and work it out.
ReplyDeleteI think that this differs from the British and Chinese, because a) we trust the brits very highly and b) the chinese keep a high level of control over their citizens, and have nothing to gain and everything to lose should "something" happen on their watch - and no interest in terrorism.
ReplyDeleteThe UAE, on the other hand, has a high likelyhood of hiring a terrorist, or someone who is sympathetic to terrorists, if they hire from their local population. That's not racist - its just the way it is.
The point is you can't have it both ways. Bushco has said we are at "war". OK, with whom are we at war?
ReplyDeleteIslamic terrorists.
OK.
That eliminates China.
We've been asked to give up a substantial portion of our civil liberties because we are "at war."
So why put a state that has funded terrorists in control of our ports?
The UAE, on the other hand, has a high likelyhood of hiring a terrorist, or someone who is sympathetic to terrorists, if they hire from their local population. That's not racist - its just the way it is.
ReplyDeleteWouldn't this same reasoning suggest that we shouldn't hire anyone from the UAE to work in sensitive areas? And we shouldn't allow anyone from the UAE on our airplanes?
I'm not arguing that profiling is inherently wrong. I'm just arguing that this seems to be a form of profiling, and it's odd hearing everyone advocate it given that opposition to this sort of profiling is one of those pieties that virtually everyone (at least claims to) agree on.
Maybe they are a friendly nation today. What about tomorrow? What if they turn on us? What if, what if, what if??????????????//
I'm not unsympathetic to the argument companies owned by other Governments shouldn't control our ports. But why isn't anyone upset that companies controlled by the Chinese government control some of our largest ports?
"Keep your eye on the prize, Glenn. The Rovians are masters of the art of propaganda. Look at who is most "upset" about this deal. Bush's usual supporting cast and crew. This is a play fake."
ReplyDeleteYes, it does have that smell to it. It's too insane to be true. But go on with your reasoning. How does Bush gain from this? What is the point of the "play fake?"
It's not profiling when the UAE is documentably lax on persuing the specific terrorist elements that carried out 9/11, as well as permitting illegal shipments of nuclear components to nations that support terrorism. What kind of track record is that, regardless of race?
ReplyDeleteI sincerely doubt China has such a dubious record.
Wouldn't this same reasoning suggest that we shouldn't hire anyone from the UAE to work in sensitive areas? And we shouldn't allow anyone from the UAE on our airplanes?
ReplyDeleteThe difference here is that american companies (or the govt) are doing the screening, and presumtively don't want to hire a terrorist. So they do security checks and metal detectors on everyone.
Here, though, the background checks are being done by someone who might well sympathise with terrorists... and might let them skip the screening process.
And as I've said - China has few terrorits, and their government is probably uninterested in an attack. As a state actor, China most definitely has a "return address".
Are you suggesting, Glenn, that we should put out to the highest bidder control of our surveillance programs? Why not? How xenophobic can you be? Huh?
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, if Bush's real plan is to nationalize the ports, then I have to give him credit for being a master chess player.
And isn't that the likely outcome?
People rise up. "We want control of our own ports"
"Why, are you racist?"
"No, we don't want ANY country to have control of our ports!"
"OK. We'll nationalize them."
Checkmate.
This isn't profiling, Glenn. Profiling says, 'you look similar to someone who committed a crime, hence you should be treated as a criminal.'
ReplyDeleteThis is, 'you [AE], personally, have supported criminals in the past, hence you should not manage a police station.'
As for the, 'China is doing it too, and there's no outcry' argument, that's absolutely true, and completely irrelevant. You'd dismiss that argument in any other situation ("Clinton did this, too!" "Why aren't the leading Democrats condeming this, if ti's so bad?"), why is it suddenly appropriate in this case?
There are racist reasons to oppose this deal, and valid reasons to oppose this deal. One cannot ignore the valid reasons simply because others promote the racist reasons.
That said, I -do- think this is another case of 'chase the shiny new scandal.'
It's an impressive example of the Bush practice of governance-through-cronyism, and finally puts a face (well, you know what I mean) to the hard cold fact that protecting the country is one of the many things the Bush administrations fails to adequately do ... but it's nothing next to the NSA warrantless wiretapping. This isn't an attempt to place the President above the law.
Gussie
"Wouldn't this same reasoning suggest that we shouldn't hire anyone from the UAE to work in sensitive areas? And we shouldn't allow anyone from the UAE on our airplanes?"
ReplyDeleteUh, no. Anyone working in sensitive areas gets vetted by OUR government, regardless of country of origin.
Anyone getting on a plane goes through a checkpoint search by OUR government.
Those are not intelligent analogies.
Well, I for one am upset any foreign country is operating our ports. Since we essentially have no control over our borders (and without borders you have no country) and are relinquishing control of our ports via the treasury department it is more a testimony of the weakness of our enemy than our own vigilance.
ReplyDeleteTwo hijakers had UAE addresses and Bart says so what, Americans had ties to terrorists too, but they are not in the process of trying to control our ports. The nuclear connection has been documented so I won't go into that. The people who made this decision view security very narrowly and have little understanding of it. They understand money, hence the title, treasury department. The UAE come to this deal with unclean hands and now those who protest are dubbed xenophobes and racists. Unreal.
Many have decried lax port security for quite some time now, to little avail. Our attention has been diverted abroad and our ports and borders have been left unprotected. This transaction in particular with the dubious Dubai is like the company who posts signs everywhere saying "Safety Pays." Unless of couse it costs money. Think miners.
Truthfully, I know little of UAE other than it exists in a troubled middle east where a bullet or carbomb can change the political scene dramatically--which can be said of us to a degree. Allah forbid someone should draw a cartoon "peace be with him."
To my mind there are three separate components to the objection, two of them roughly along lines you sketch:
ReplyDelete1. There is a reasonable specific objection to the UAE. It has already been shown that al-Qaeda can operate within the UAE (examples abound, no need to repeat), so it is no stretch to imagine they might easily penetrate the management of this company.
2. Regardless of above, control of any port by any foreign power is problematic. UAE (or, say, UK) is our ally today, but may not be in the future. What if the foreign power decides to slow down, or even stop entirely, shipments from the port? This episode brings to our attention the widely unknown fact that foreign powers already do have this control. Any reasonable legislation would outlaw control by foreign governments (or their majority-owned subsidiaries) entirely. I think it would be wrong to say nobody is bothered by the other powers--just that nobody knew about them until today.
3. It's a fact that al-Qaeda will find it easier to operate (and penetrate a specfic target company) in a predominantly Muslim country than a non-Muslim one. We can decide we do or don't want to profile on this basis, but it seems we should make that decision with our eyes open.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteGlenn - There you go standing on principle again instead of expedience. I agree that just using the fact that it's an Arab nation seems like we're falling for the same race-baiting strategey that the repubs use so well. I personally have more problem with the fact that the company in question is State owned!
ReplyDeleteWe've been selling our infrastucture out to foreign interests for years now so this latest move should come as no surprise.
The key, strategically now is not to play the racist card but the "what's in it for Bush that he would use his first ever veto to make this happen" follow the money card.
The White House appeared stunned by the uprising, over a transaction that they considered routine
ReplyDeleteI'm stunned that they're stunned. Why should an administration that has brought fear-mongering to new heights be surprised when people are afraid?
A defense of Bush on this one, which is rare for me. The group that does these deals all the time do so in secret and I think I saw somewhere it is even illegal for them to discuss it. The Bush management style is to defer to whatever the commitee decides. As Governor of Texas he reduced his review time of death sentences down to fifteen minutes.
ReplyDeleteFace it, he views all of this as homework. And as President, he doesn't have to do any. He will defend those decisions made by others though. Bush doesn't really lead--you sort of aim him.
What's interesting about this port issue is that the fear-mongered chickens are coming home to roost. The Cult of Bush uses the image of run-amok Arabs to frighten the faithful, to keep them hewn tightly to the line. But now this President is threatening a veto--which would be his first!--to allow state-owned Arab company to run a number of our ports.
ReplyDeleteThis cognitive dissonance ("Trust me, they hate our freedom" vs. "Trust me, they can run our ports") may cause a few of the Bush Cultists to reconsider their obeisance. That, to me, is entirely welcome.
Glenn:
ReplyDeleteWouldn't this same reasoning suggest that we shouldn't hire anyone from the UAE to work in sensitive areas? And we shouldn't allow anyone from the UAE on our airplanes?
The issue is not whether we should hire people from the UAE. The issue is whether we should let the UAE decide who will run our port security.
Profiling people = not-so-good
Profiling countries = not-so-bad
I think back to the far gentler days of last year, when UNOCAL recieved an offer by the Chinese national oil company for a buyout and everyone in the world freaked out about national security and strategic interests.
ReplyDeleteMy take on it is this:
ReplyDelete1) I plead ignorance to the knowledge that our port operations were handled by private companies. I always assumed that the only private concerns were the crane owners and the longshoreman, with "operations" handled by state and federal government. You know, like customs at the airport. Which leads to the question of why an "International Customs" area has been outsourced? Didn't we have this kind of argument when Bush wanted to privatize the NTSB screeners? Bottom line is I do not like any non US federal/state entity have any part of "Customs" operation.
2) How about ex executives of DP World being appointed to the very positions that approve of the DP World contract? May be nothing, but forgive me for wanting to “shoot first” when it comes to the Administrations hiring practices.
3) State owned corporation. Well, where do the loyalties lye of UAE citizens who are employees of state owned corporation? This is a fair question to ask, since it is our security that is the central issue. Do they get debriefed by UAE intelligence?
4) The Region of UAE. The fact is the Middle East in not exactly stable. Why is this even a factor? What if a manager (who is a UAE citizen) is kidnapped or worst yet his baby son is kidnapped, how much of our security could be compromised? I know that can happen here or in Great Briton, but what is the current history of the region?
5) The drooling factor. Well, if the Democratic Party was to get serious about the security/terrorism issue, it could help. First, a proposal that is serious about border, port, and infrastructure security, say ten billion over the next four years. If this is combined with a serious Iraq solution, it may go a long way in neutralizing the GOP advantage in security/terrorism.
For those who don’t see our “leadership” leading, I will leave you with this. Americans see the GOP as the Administration. So they may see this as another GOP failure. And even if they see the GOP White House and Congress as discreet entities, any hi-light of more GOP governing incompetence is a GOOD THING.
This isn't subterfuge -- it's just the way the Bush Administration runs things. Want to regulate the mining industry? Appoint former mining industry executives? Need an energy policy? Bring in Enron and Unocal and BP and let them write it up. Defend ports against terrorism? Who better than a country that has been friendly with the terrorists.
ReplyDeleteIf Bush created an agency to stop child molestation, he'd name Michael Jackson to head it and staff it full of accused priests...
Seriously -- as another poster indicated, I don't think this is about profiling -- this is based on track record. If the record is being exaggerated, that must come out.
One other thing is this shows, yet again, how tone deaf this administration is. If you're going to contract with UAE, you better have, at the ready, a list of reasons as to why they are the ones to go with, and, something that will assure people that their operation is 100% secure.
If torture is justified because of national security---then at the very least---rejecting this deal is justified because of nat sec.
ReplyDeleteThe only aspect of 'port security' I'm concerned with is the detecting of nuclear bombs and other unpleasant things that might be smuggled into our country. But the fact is this deal will not effect our ability (or inability) to detect these smuggled terror weapons one way or the other. Only DHS and US Customs searches for contraband inside ocean containers. Period. Port operators dont have anything to do with that aspect of our security. From a detection standpoint, it doesnt matter in the slightest who manages the port.
ReplyDeleteFrancis Scott Key wrote the our National Anthem in Baltimore Harbor. Tsk. Tsk. I can almost see Osama rubbing his hands together in glee.
ReplyDeleteGlenn, you are doing a terrific job on the NSA stuff, don't get off track.
ReplyDeleteThe port thing is fuzzier and more complicated, but as long as there are separate nations with armies (as opposed to a world government) it is foolish to have other countries running our ports, airports or other critical facilities. (Would Bush be comfortable to have his helicopter maintained by a UAE company, I wonder?)
The same xenophobia and ignorance that allowed BushCo. to implement a bad idea (WOT in its current, incompetently messy form) is preventing them from implementing what is argubly, if not necessarily "good" idea, quite possibly a harmless one. (It might even have served as a gesture of goodwill if not for the last four years of excessively badwill.)
ReplyDeleteThe polling will be terrible for this idea. How long before King George "flip-flops"? I give it until Friday, when they can give in during the Friday news "dump."
Security issues and bias against arabs aside, when people follow the money involved in this i think it will lead to interesting results knowing this administration.
ReplyDeleteJust talking about all those "nations out there" is a form of profiling, no? Like it or not, there are nations, and it is taken for granted that nations put their security before international civility.
ReplyDeleteHow about this from Raw Story:
ReplyDeleteDubai, 24 January 2006: - Global ports operator DP World today welcomed news that one of its senior executives, Dave Sanborn, has been nominated by US President George W. Bush to serve as Maritime Administrator
One month prior to the deal getting approved, a second insider (Secty Snowe is alpha) is appointed to a position able to influence the deal. Convenient, no? Paranoid?, well let me just say I am an American citizen living in the US circa 2006.
even though I don't really have all that much to say about it
ReplyDeleteJust take your "cue" from FDL -- have little to nothing to say, but say it in a few hundred words...
IMHO, power of blogosphere is greatly over-estimated when bloggers acknowledge that posting SOMETHING (even when the author has little or nothing to say) is "better" than waiting for a topic that you can actually make some insightful contributions for.
feel free to disagree -- just don't see how the "superblogs" can be part of change with any individuals comments are more important than actually having something to say...
Glenn,
ReplyDeleteAt this stage, what I find more interesting about this port deal is the reaction to it. This may of course change for me as I investigate this further. In particular, I find myself examining the reaction on conservative blogs in light of your thesis on how bush apologists represent a cult of personality more than an ideology. The reaction to label the opposition as liberal occurs in only a minority of the views I have seen, and there are conservatives both for and against it.
For example, on the latest article on it on blogs for bush, the blogger "Matt" came out not only in support of the deal, but also made the claim that the opposition was not only purely democratic, but also a hypocritical opposition in nature (because it is a democratic opposition, and democrats are opposed to racial profiling). Upon a cursory inspection, most of the comments seem to be against the deal and the above claim by Matt.
This post on redstate.com by US Representative Marsha Blackburn comes out against the deal. The comments here are more mixed, with strong opinions in both camps.
I have been trying to figure out how your analysis might provide insight into what is going on. According to your analysis, which only suggests a strong movement and not an absolute movement where no one ever diverges from it, you used to Miers example to suggest the following about some of the strongest opposition and criticism of the president by the apologists,
"But I will say this: one will see criticism of Bush when he doesn't defend the movement with sufficient vigor or extremity. If they perceive that the White House isn't attacking liberals with sufficient fervor, or that they're backing down and compromising too readily, they will urge a more resolute posture on behalf of themovement. That's all Harriet Miers was. They were unconvinced that she would be as reliably loyal as Bush thought she would be, and they wanted someone more reliable and dependable to the cause."
The opposition that is occuring seems to suggest another avenue for bush apologists to go against the president. This does not suggest your thesis is incorrect, but rather that it is interesting how "the movement" sometimes moves in such a consistently different direction from the president, or more appropiately that the movement breaks down on certain issues. I suspect that the port deal situation, the Miers situation, and potentially others might provide greater insight into the nature of the movement.
Glenn, what are your thoughts on this and specifically the general reaction of conservatives to the port deal?
~Kevin
As I witness Bush-cult members heads explode over this “portgate” issue, I can’t help asking:
ReplyDeleteIf we can’t trust Bush to make the right decision on who to guard our ports, then why must we trust him to make the right decision on all other matters of National Security?
The right-wingers have been essentially arguing that the Constitution gives the President carte blanche on National Security issues, and now, all of a sudden, they want Congress to challenge his authority on a crucial matter of National Security – port security.
Just what happened to their views on the Constitutional powers of the President in a time of war? Do we need to remind them we’re at war?
The President’s authority is off limits to challenge when they agree with him, but when they disagree, well, all of a sudden, it’s okay to challenge him.
If it’s okay to challenge Bush on this National Security issue, then why isn’t it a threat to our national security to challenge him on the NSA issue?
It’s time to connect these questions to the main issues of this forum. The Constitution didn’t just change. It’s time to use this issue to remind the exploding Bush-bot heads that there are limits to Presidential powers even in a time of war.
Well, my spouse who is the smartest person I know, says this is Karl Rove's idea to get Republicans reelected in 2006. Give them an issue where they can run against the President.
ReplyDeleteI think the most valuable piece of information to come out of this is mike20169's tidbit: "Only DHS and US Customs searches for contraband inside ocean containers."
ReplyDeleteIf true, that sort of changes the whole tone of the argument, huh? Port manager does paperwork, not security. Not such a big threat if all those scary Ay-rabs are just doing the filing.
Let's not pretend that racism doesn't factor in here. This debate is exactly the same one that I heard after 9/11: "Sure, maybe it's a little unfair to ask all the young, middle-eastern looking dudes to get cavity searches before they get on the plane, but you saw the pictures! They were all Arabs! Odds are they will be next time! We're just being realistic."
The point is the the Republicans will happily tear themselves apart over this one. For the Dems it is a classic case of 'do not interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake". If it is not necessary to take a position on this one, it is necessary not to take a position. If that sounds cynical, hey.
ReplyDeleteI just want to note that before this issue came up I wasn't even aware that foreign-controlled companies had contracts to run any of our security: I would be just as upset about realizing a UK-owned company had been managing our seaports instead of a domestic company. I know it's a bit, well isolationist is the only word I can think of to describe it, but honestly shouldn't U.S. companies be handling U.S. security?
ReplyDeleteThis is—at least at this point—a gut issue, not a cerebral one. Hastert and Frist understand that and are going to play it that way to all the good folks out there. Bubba may say ho-hum to the NSA eavesdropping scandal, but this one is easy to get het about out. It just smells bad.
ReplyDeleteMaybe the best political strategy for the Dems is to be appropriately shocked, but use the issue to drive a wedge between the Prez and his (former?) toadies in Congress. There is potentially much more at risk here for the Prez and his supporters than for the Dems, what with the crony connections in the administration.
feel free to disagree -- just don't see how the "superblogs" can be part of change with any individuals comments are more important than actually having something to say...
ReplyDeleteI think people who comment at my blog are smart, insightful and often have knowledge that I don't have. I believed - and I was right - that inviting a discussion about a topic on which I had not yet formed definitive views would be instructive. It's beyond me how someone could find fault with that.
I don't feel compelled to post on every issue of the day and I usually don't. I did here because it seemed people wanted to discuss this issue and I thought it would be interesting to hear views which were more solidified than mine are. What I like about blogs is that they are two-way conservations, not a one-way platform for pontifficating.
Glenn, what are your thoughts on this and specifically the general reaction of conservatives to the port deal?
I actually think what's happening is pretty close to what Dave Neiwert, Atrios and Digby all said in response to my Bush post (which is linked to in the next post) -- that once Bush followers start to perceive that he is weakened and no longer can be the leader they need, they will strat to turn on him, cast him aside, and search for his replacement. I think he's weakening on multiple fronts - you see this with the NSA scandal, where there is so much GOP discord and where they are all working at cross-purposes and the WH is having no success shoving its solution down their throats. The movement needs the leader to prop up and revere and if he is no longer up to the task, I do agree that they will discard him.
http://tinyurl.com/e6n2j
ReplyDeleteCONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE REPORT FOR CONGRESS
The United Arab Emirates (UAE)
Issues for U.S. Policy
May 9, 2005
* * *
Cooperation Against Terrorism and Proliferation
The UAE was one of only three countries (Pakistan and Saudi Arabia were the others) to have recognized the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan, after the movement captured Kabul in September 1996. During Taliban rule (1996-2001), the UAE continued to allow Ariana Afghan airlines to operate service to UAE, and many U.S. officials believed that Al Qaeda activists might have spent time in UAE.6 Two of the hijackers in the September 11, 2001 attacks were UAE nationals, and there were reports that the hijackers had used financial networks based in the UAE in the plot. Since then, the UAE has publicly acknowledged assisting in the 2002 arrest of at least one senior Al Qaeda operative in the Gulf, Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri.7 The State Department report on international terrorism for 2004 (Country Reports on Terrorism: 2004, released April 26, 2004), says "In 2004, the UAE continued to provide staunch assistance and cooperation" against terrorism" and that "the UAE Central Bank continued to enforce anti-money laundering regulations aggressively." The report adds that in December 2004, the United States and the emirate of Dubai signed a Container Security Initiative Statement of Principles, aimed at screening U.S.-bound containerized cargo transiting Dubai ports.
The UAE record on assisting U.S. anti-proliferation efforts may be of somewhat greater concern. In connection with recent revelations of illicit sales of nuclear technology to Iran, Libya, and North Korea by Pakistan's nuclear scientist A.Q. Khan, Dubai was named as a key transfer point for shipments of nuclear components sold by Khan. Two Dubai-based companies were apparently involved in trans-shipping such components: SMB Computers and Gulf Technical Industries.8
7 U.S. Embassy to Reopen on Saturday After UAE Threat. Reuters, Mar. 26, 2004.
8 Milhollin, Gary and Kelly Motz. "Nukes 'R' US." New York Times op.ed. Mar. 4, 2004.
Paul
ReplyDeleteI concur, the rants of racism against those you are uncomfortable with this, well it is right out of the kult scripture. I too did not know that the operations (even purely administrative) were a private concession. The actual loading and unloading of ships by PRIVATE concerns, I have no problem with. But controlling the customs yards and overseeing shipping company security compliance, that is a federal government concern. If you doubt this, please refer to the constitution.
http://tinyurl.com/hykbf
ReplyDeleteLETTER TO JOHN W. SNOW, Secretary of the Treasury, signed by Senators Schumer, Dodd, Lautenberg and Coburn; and Representatives Shays, Fossella, and Foley.
"We are concerned that the Administration is not giving this case the appropriate level of scrutiny required by law and ask that you direct the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) to conduct a full 45-day investigation.
Federal law requires the President or his designee investigate the impact on national security of a foreign acquisition if the acquisition "could result in control of a person engaged in interstate commerce in the United States that could affect the national security of the United States." (50 USC App. §2170). The President has delegated this investigative authority to CIFIUS of which you are Chairman. We understand that CFIUS has chosen not to conduct a formal investigation."
---------------
http://tinyurl.com/zsq9f
TITLE 50, APPENDIX App. DEFENSE ACT TITLE VII Sec. 2170
Sec. 2170. Authority to review certain mergers, acquisitions, and takeovers
Release date: 2005-03-17
[Excerpts]
(a) Investigations
The President or the President’s designee may make an investigation to determine the effects on national security of mergers, acquisitions, and takeovers proposed or pending on or after the date of enactment of this section [Aug. 23, 1988] by or with foreign persons which could result in foreign control of persons engaged in interstate commerce in the United States. If it is determined that an investigation should be undertaken, it shall commence no later than 30 days after receipt by the President or the President’s designee of written notification of the proposed or pending merger, acquisition, or takeover as prescribed by regulations promulgated pursuant to this section. Such investigation shall be completed no later than 45 days after such determination.
(b) Mandatory investigations
The President or the President’s designee shall make an investigation, as described in subsection (a), in any instance in which an entity controlled by or acting on behalf of a foreign government seeks to engage in any merger, acquisition, or takeover which could result in control of a person engaged in interstate commerce in the United States that could affect the national security of the United States. Such investigation shall--
(1) commence not later than 30 days after receipt by the President or the President’s designee of written notification of the proposed or pending merger, acquisition, or takeover, as prescribed by regulations promulgated pursuant to this section; and
(2) shall be completed not later than 45 days after its commencement.
* * *
(f) Factors to be considered
For purposes of this section, the President or the President’s designee may, taking into account the requirements of national security, consider among other factors--
(1) domestic production needed for projected national defense requirements,
(2) the capability and capacity of domestic industries to meet national defense requirements, including the availability of human resources, products, technology, materials, and other supplies and services,
(3) the control of domestic industries and commercial activity by foreign citizens as it affects the capability and capacity of the United States to meet the requirements of national security,
(4) the potential effects of the proposed or pending transaction on sales of military goods, equipment, or technology to any country--
* * *
(g) Report to the Congress
The President shall immediately transmit to the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House of Representatives a written report of the President’s determination of whether or not to take action under subsection (d), including a detailed explanation of the findings made under subsection (e) and the factors considered under subsection (f). Such report shall be consistent with the requirements of subsection (c) of this Act.[2]
* * *
Maybe the best political strategy for the Dems is to be appropriately shocked, but use the issue to drive a wedge between the Prez and his (former?) toadies in Congress.
ReplyDeleteI agree with everyone who pointed out the poetic justice here of Bush reaping the fear-mongering which he has so successfully sown over the last five years. But I also can't help but notice the cynicism of Bush opponents here - do we really have anywhere near the information we would need to have to really know that this presents a genuine national security threat? I don't think so.
Having said all that, for the last 5 years, the Bush movement has been cynically exploiting everything it can get its hands on for political gain - including, especially, national security and terrorism fears - so I don't think anyone can or should tell Democrats that they ought to adhere to an elevated set of rules when trying to win. If fear-mongering over Bush's Arabs working at our ports is effective in taking away some votes from the Republicans, I can't see how any Bush followers can complain about that.
On mike20169's comment:
ReplyDelete40% of the supplies for the US Army pass through these six ports. A foreign power's order to constrict shipping would directly impact US military forces. There's more to national security than just inbound containers.
For the most part, I agree that cargo inspection would be unaffected (I design such systems for a major manufacturer.) However, there are operational details of port cargo detection I would strongly prefer be closely held, and not in an organization that al-Qaeda might penetrate. Why take chances?
Follow the money.
ReplyDeleteThe Committee on Foreign Investment is led by the head of the Treasury Department, a man who has ties to the UAE who seeks to take control of these ports, and a man who sold his own company to this same group for over one billion dollars.
Another person involved, Sanborn, also has business ties to this group.
Follow the money.
ReplyDeleteThe Committee on Foreign Investment is led by the head of the Treasury Department, a man who has ties to the UAE who seeks to take control of these ports, and a man who sold his own company to this same group for over one billion dollars.
Another person involved, Sanborn, also has business ties to this group.
Glenn said: "But I also can't help but notice the cynicism of Bush opponents here - do we really have anywhere near the information we would need to have to really know that this presents a genuine national security threat? I don't think so."
ReplyDeleteFor me, this is funny. When I started reading your blog post, I agreed with you. Sure PortGate smelled funny, but I didn't have enough information to have strong judgments on this matter. But by the time I finished your excellent post plus all the reader comments above, I think I have enough to go on. PortGate reeks. I've concluded that this UAE deal shouldn't go through, and like the Harriet Meiers nomination, probably won't. It's the broader security issues--e.g., should the US nationalize all ports?--that I feel demand greater study and consideration. And it's the thornier political issues--e.g., how can the Democrats best capitalize on this issue without seeming to turn into supporters of racial profiling?--that require some time to sort out. But I'm puzzled that you, Glenn, are still teetering between what one commenter basically called the line between intellectual honesty and murky thinking. I started out in agreement, and now I disagree. Oh the irony.
Problems with this deal:
ReplyDelete1) Approval seems to have occured far outside of the normal channels. Rumsfeld is on the committee that supposedly unanamously voted for it, yet he claims not to have heard about it until this past weekend. Alleged cashouts for various Bush cronies as well.
2) Bush admin has shown no understanding of the importance of port security, so it seems foolish to trust their vetting of this deal.
3) UAE appears to have at least some tolerance for Al Quaeda operating within their borders. We should not be trusting them with a vital link in our security.
4) The wingnuts are going crazy. We don't need to so much, just point out that this is a normal outcome of Bush/Cheney secrecy.
To me it's about three things imho:
ReplyDelete1) Precedent - In light of security risks in a post-9/11 world (and as much as I hate to admit it they are there), do we want set a precedent that we allow foreign government-controlled companies security control over our ports? I have been waiting for at least some kind of response to the 9/11 Commission's report, but this would go 180 degrees in the opposite direction.
2) Military Arms - Do we want to risk even a 1% chance that ANY foreign government could have access to ports where about 40% of the Army cargo supporting the Iraq War are shipped out? I am as against this war as anybody else, but to me there should be a ZERO percent chance that arms can fall into the wrong hands (be it during peacetime or war), and if Congress has to legislate that, so be it.
3) Politics - If Congress forces Bush to make this his first-ever Veto, this will put Bush and all the Bush apologists on the ropes on the question of National Security... A huge victory for the Dems. Whether or not Rove wanted to do this so Republicans can run against Bush's record, Bush technically IS the leader of the Republican Party, so the Dems can campaign on this issue hard. And hopefully they will aggressively exploit not only the GOP party line, but also the mixed sentiment of the GOP constituents.
In the end, imho, this has nothing to do with Arabs and everything to do with satisfying a need to, at the very least, have control over areas of sensitive security in this country.
Was this contract ( which must be absolutely humongous) won by Dubai by open bidding? Surprising that Haliburton did not get it... unless it turns out that Haliburton is owned by Dubai.
ReplyDeleteit is worth noting that john kerry attempted to make an issue of port security (in the big picture) not that the national media thought that it was worth discussing. He even brought it up in one of the debates.
ReplyDeleteso the dems actually do have a broad-based critique to offer, and that's where the dem focus should be: we have an administration that is failing on port security, just as it is failing on all other aspects of hardening targets, aiding first responders, etc.
let the gop tear each other apart on the uae in particular; we just need to refer to the 9/11 commission grades for the bush administration.
not a one-way platform for pontifficating.
ReplyDeleteTrue for your blog -- gotta respect that.
But you cannot possibly be saying that this is true of the blogosphere as a whole
LOL!
I will not cite any, no reason to take a chance of offending anyone by mentioning their "favorite"
I believe the difference here is not that the company is associated with the UAE, it is that the company controling the ports is (or essentially can be) the UAE. Americans understand companies. Companies, for the most part, exist to try to make rational decisions which will result in a profit. Governments, and by extention, companies owned and controled by governments, have other agendas in addition to any profit motive. And those agendas may transparently shift based on the chnaging political landscape of the government owning the company. I personally would rest easier knowing an organization with a purely capitalist motivation was managing something as critical as our ports, as opposed to an organization which may or may not have other motivations. We generally have experience monitoring capitalist (and to a lesser degree limiting the amount of damage they can do).
ReplyDeleteeb
Glenn writes: If fear-mongering over Bush's Arabs working at our ports is effective in taking away some votes from the Republicans, I can't see how any Bush followers can complain about that.
ReplyDeleteFair, no doubt, for purposes of partisan politics. However, for purposes of where I am going to spend my time reading online, I'm disinclined to rely on, nor do I even have any interest in, blogs where the only or even a strong purpose is to promote one party or the other.
Powerline would be a good example. I hold some views in common with conservatives, but long, long before this NSA scandal emerged, I simply had had my fill of the naked partisanship, and knew I could not trust them to honestly hold forth on a wide variety of issues. So I had not been reading them for quite a while.
Truly interesting people may well hold partisan loyalties, but they also do as you have done here, namely, refrain from jumping on any bandwagon unless and until they are convinced of the merits of one position or the other. So, any left blogs who cynically employ this issue to get Bush, well, then they become to my mind no better than Powerline.
They may be politically potent, but some of us require intellectual honesty.
I'm waiting to learn the specific responsibilities the Dubai Co. will have, and to be instructed as to precisely how that company's employees constitute security risks vis-a-vis those responsibilities. Those who insist it is grosssly immoral to depict all Muslims as terrorists -- the supposed sin of, among others, the Danish cartoonists -- must explain why all citizens of the UAE and the companies they own, are necessarily security risks.
Should we have heightened immigration standards for UAE members, or any other Muslim country in which Al Qaeda or any other terrorist organization has stopped in to, oh, launder money? Should we have a moritorium on all immigration from such nations? Cancel all student visas?
Glen (I think) said "I'm not unsympathetic to the argument companies owned by other Governments shouldn't control our ports. But why isn't anyone upset that companies controlled by the Chinese government control some of our largest ports? "
ReplyDeleteI think that if they knew, they would be upset.
eb
"Well, my spouse who is the smartest person I know, says this is Karl Rove's idea to get Republicans reelected in 2006. Give them an issue where they can run against the President."
ReplyDeleteOkay, anonymous, I have stopped to consider this issue carefully, after my initial freakout.
If you look at everything that has happened in the last 48 hours very, very, very, very carefully, you almost have to conclude your wife is right.
l)It's not reasonable to assume Bush knew nothing about this, as is alleged. Even on this blog, people have pointed out that two instances of positioning key people who weighed in on this decision were made in the months ahead of this announcement. Bush would have known about that.
2) Bush is increasingly unpopular. Rove knows this. The latest polling on the upcoming elections show that the chances of Democrats winning control of at least one house have grown enormously, and may be predictive of success.
3) People like Bill Frist, a Presidential hopeful, come charging out of the gate on this issue, to make it their own.
4) Republicans cannot go against the President on the REAL issues, the lawlessness, the arrogance, the torture, the spying, the power grab, etc. This is a single, limited issue. It doesn't speak to the creeping totalitarinism big picture. It won't hurt the Republican party if they make this issue theirs from the git go.
5) Bush isn't running again. Those who have charged out of the gate on this issue ARE.
6) What's the real damage to the Republican Party, if they defeat Bush on this deal? They prove themselves as the "tough on terror" macho guys they bill themselves as, look prinicipled as they stand up to the President, refute the "cultish lemmings" accusation, and seize the high ground.
6) Bush has never vetoed a bill, and on day one of this explosive issue hitting the mainstream, he goes out of his way to set himself up as a target, saying he will veto any attempt to squash this deal. Doesn't quite seem kosher.
As a logician, I'd say there is a 90% chance your wife is right. This is one of the smartest strategic moves Rove has made yet. It's a strategy to keep control of both houses in the elections. It's brilliant.
If he didn't come up with this, he should have.
And if he did, it proves again why the Republicans will always retain power. They care nothing about anything but winning, and their strategic skills are so much better than the Democrats that there never really is any contest.
BTW, if this is a Rovian plot, doesn't hurt to announce we have just indicted 3 terrorists. Throws a bone to the cultists so they don't get too angry at the President.
Glenn, bravo. My sentiments exactly, and I despise Bush as much as anyone. Keeping your eye on the real issues is the only way to make progress over the long run (but of course I'm aware that I'm preaching to the converted on that point).
ReplyDeleteOK, yeah, Karl Rove is a savvy strategist, but for Pete's sake he's not omniscient or omnipotent. I find it completely implausible that Rove, who just recently tried to twist Republicans' arms on the NSA issue with the threat that they would receive no presidential support come reelection time, could or would somehow manipulate this issue to induce Republicans to separate from Bush in such a public way. No, Rove's modus operandi has always been to wield the President like a cudgel of top-down control over the party. He knows full well that the electoral survival of the Republican Party depends on legitimating Bush and making him look as good as possible through the end of his term. Otherwise, we would have seen much more dissent from Republicans much earlier.
ReplyDeleteThe port meltdown between the Congress and the President is much like the NSA scandal--it took a weak and distracted President by surprise, and now the Administration is in full-blown political triage and reactive damage control.
Glenn, I think you're right to reserve judgement. I'm suspicious of how the story arose because of what I know about Rover.
ReplyDelete1) Rove is great at persuading you to bring your knife to the gun fight.
2) he is smart enough to pimp this ports story to give the congresscritters a bone for their self-respect needs.
3) he really needs this NSA "investigation thingy" to go away.
4) it is happening earlier than he'd wanted it to but he has been forced to shift into "play out the clock" mode.
as a side note, rove is not nearly as smart as some of these comments would suggest. there is no reason to presume super-human powers to rove. he's a very effective thug, but he's a one-trick pony. the idea that this is some clever rove-ian plot to enable republicans to assert independence from bush: well, there were people who thought that presidential lawlessness was some clever rove-ian trap for the dems, and we see how well that worked.
ReplyDeleteonce Bush followers start to perceive that he is weakened and no longer can be the leader they need, they will strat to turn on him, cast him aside, and search for his replacement.
ReplyDeleteHelp me out here, Glenn. How do you square your theory of the Bush followers as a weird personality cult and the Bush followers as ruthlesslessly turning on their Leader to find someone better suited to cater to their interests?
It would be useful to know what Dubai Ports' specific repsonsibilities will be, but overall I think you have to be concerned about any meaningful role they would play in port operations.
ReplyDeleteMy secretary shuffles papers for me, but I have no doubt that she could compromise a lot of things (including building security) if she were so motivated.
On a different note, I keep wondering why/how Bush could be so politically tone deaf on this. There has to be more behind this and I don't think it is nationalizing the ports. If I understand the issue right, Dubai won't own the port just manage it.
Man o Man, where is Duke Cunningham when I need him. I mean after this all shakes down and we decide we need to have a US company running the ship(s), I would love to be in a position to grab myself a port or two. I figure with the Dukester around I would be able to set him up with a yacht or two (maybe he would take a container ship) and voila! I gots myself a few ports.
ReplyDeleteHere's the Fox News take (just what popped up on Google News):
ReplyDeleteHastert called for an "immediate moratorium" to be placed on the deal.
Democrats, too, have jumped on the national security bandwagon.
"America's ports are often the gateway into and out of our country. The unilateral decision of the Bush administration to allow the sale of port operations to a foreign government raises serious national security concerns," said House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.
There's a meta-story for you: the national security frame rearing its head. Republicans whip the horses, Democrats jump on the wagon.
More positively, in the same article Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass) is the money quote on why this deal is bad for national security. Incidentally, if he is "a long-time advocate of cargo screening", how can he be jumping on the national security bandwagon?
From the statement he made on his website (quoted in part in the article, reproduced more fully here):
Almost none of the cargo that enters our ports is ever inspected. While the federal government is ultimately responsible for security at ports, much of the day-to-day security responsibilities, such as hiring security guards and ensuring adequate access controls and fencing are in place, are delegated to the companies that operate at the port. While oversight of these private operators is the responsibility of the Department of Security [sic], the Bush Administration is nickel and diming our port security by proposing a budget that eliminates millions in port security grants. This is a wrong-headed decision that only leaves our country vulnerable to a devastating attack, such as a nuclear weapon or dirty bomb being detonated in our country.
I don't have time to fact-check this (or the rest of the Rep's statement) but it explains, at minimum, why we need to examine this weak link in our national security chain. As Bruce Schneier says regularly, security is only as good as the weakest link.
Incidentally, I recommend Bruce Schneier as a fascinating commentator on current events in security (national, computer, miscellaneous). I hope he picks up this port outsourcing story soon.
Glenn,
ReplyDeleteIn answer to your question, I think "Portgate" is highly important from a primarily strategic point of view. Democrats need only join the outrage that a country whose military actually subsidized one of the 911 hijackers (911 Commission report), through which terrorism has been financed, and which was one of only three governments to recognize the Taliban regime in Afghanistan might be given direct control over some of our biggest ports.
The rest can happen on its own, as Republicans in Congress and in the electorate either take overwhelmingly hostile views of the deal, or at least become fragmented over it. Either way, strategically, this story is almost self-executing, and has grown additional "legs" over the fact that Republican disunity has already begun to reach a tipping point.
Look, I am as much against racial profiling as anyone. But acknowledging a country's proven track record on terrorism-related issues and drawing obvious inferences about the propriety of their directly operating our ports is plainly not racial profiling.
Right now, on Joe Scarborough, Joe and other Republicans are almost unanimous in saying this is terrible for the GOP, allowing liberals "to run to the right" of the President on national security.
Don't fall in the race-card trap, don't fall for the canard that concerns over UAE are racial in any sense. I absolutely agree that the NSA issue, though less media-incendiary, strikes much more to the heart of problems with this administration. However, to do anything but run with this veritable gift to the Democratic Party would be plain silly.
At the very least, "Portgate" is a massive, new crack in the previously monolithic solidarity between the Administration and the Republican Congress. Though some, including you, might for good reason choose not to aggressively attack this port deal, there is absolutely no reason to rush to its defense.
Oops. Here's the link to Rep. Markey's statement decrying the executive's decision.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.antiwar.com/eland/?articleid=8582
ReplyDelete"But if Arab companies truly cannot be trusted to operate U.S. ports, then shouldn’t they be banned from all involvement with U.S. airports, farming, electrical generation, water works, nuclear power plants, chemical, biomedical, and pharmaceutical production, and tunnel, bridge, stadium, and skyscraper construction? Extending this flawed logic further, perhaps even airlines from Arab countries should be banned from landing at U.S. airports because they might be used in terrorism or bring terrorists into the United States—in spite of the fact that the planes used on 9/11 were U.S. airliners."
To hypatia: So, any left blogs who cynically employ this issue to get Bush, well, then they become to my mind no better than Powerline.
ReplyDeleteDo you have any evidence of left leaning blogs doing this? Just because Powerline is written by dishonest hacks doesn't mean than there must be a lefty parallel.
Here are the views that I have seen articulated on lefty blogs:
1. Is there really a doubt that Al Qaeda would have an easier time infiltrating the U.A.E. government or a U.A.E. corporation than the U.S. government or a U.S. corporation? One need not believe that "all Muslims or Arabs are terrorists" to believe that Al Qaeda has stronger roots in U.A.E. than in the U.S., or even many other countries.
2. Even if ultimately there is no real security risk, the Bush administration has failed to do the due diligence to insure that there is not a risk.
3. Even if ultimately there is no real security risk, the fact that the Bush administration has failed to do the due diligence to insure that there is not a risk is indicative of the administration's approach to national security issues generally.
4. Even if ultimately there is no real security risk, the fact that the Bush administration's secret "investigation" of the sale constituted a failure of due diligence is grounds for questioning other national security decisions that are or have been made in secret.
5. Even if ultimately there is no real security risk, Bush's first reaction was to defend this decision -- to the point of threatening to veto an attempt to block the transfer -- by playing the xenophobia card rather than attempting to allay people's concerns.
I see no evidence that this criticism is not being offered in good faith.
My two cents:
ReplyDelete1) It would be hypocritical of Dems to make too much of this from a racial profiling basis. Racial profiling and anti-Arab racism are a bad thing. And all this tying of the UAE specifically to terrorism may sounds just a little too johnny come lately. Who really worried about the UAE before? Not convincing.
However
2) Poetic justice indeed to see Bush get hoist on his own petard by this issue. What the hell are they thinking? That Bush alone knows how to tell a "good Arab" from a "bad Arab", the former being associates of his from the Oil business, the latter everyone else. This is a hard sell for him and I'm not about to do anything to make it easier.
3) Nationalism, not racism is the course Dems should be following here. Why the HELL can't we control and guard our own ports? This is just not a job that should be outsourced, period, to anyone.
Do we allow military munitions to be made by foreign corporations? I believe that there are many laws on the books about critical national security functions only being performed by U.S. entities. My worry is that non-U.S. entities are not fully under U.S. laws, and this weakness can permit infiltration of influences that threaten our security. I have no way to do legal research on laws governing foreign corporations and national security, but I know these laws exist, and I agree with the rationale.
ReplyDeleteOh, and also:
ReplyDelete"Portgate" represents an excellent means to open the debate to the neglected, more general issue of protecting our ports, and to showcase how little Bush has done on this vulnerability.
Let's not look a gift horse in the mouth.
Folks, it was the Muslim American community who tipped off and then worked with the FBI to bust the three al Qaeda terrorists in Ohio...
ReplyDeleteAre we now going to piss all over their patriotism by actually arguing that an Arab company which has no demonstrable ties to terrorism can't be trusted to manage an American port simply because they are Arab?
The UAE has been supporting our campaigns in the Middle East against al Qaeda. Are we going to reward their alliance this way?
The Arab American community is justifiably outraged about what is bald faced racism and xenophobia.
This is no less shameful than the persecution of the Japanese, Germans and Italians during the World Wars.
Hey, Glenn, where the hell are you blogging from?
ReplyDeleteGreenland or something? The times on your posts are three hours ahead of Central Standard Time.
David Shaughnessy said...
ReplyDeleteBart:
When the Bush Administration succumbs to common sense and overwhelming political pressure and reneges on this UAE port deal, will the Bush Administration also be xenophobic?
No, they have already shown that they know better.
If they cave on this, they are reprehensible hypocrites.
I cannot believe you Dems, who routinely condemn the persecution and imprisonment of the Japanese during WWII as shameful xenophobia and racism, would be leading the charge to bar a company from managing some ports simply because they are Arab owned.
Is your hatred for Mr. Bush gone to the point where you will sell out your core beliefs to take some transient political shots????
It is even worse that my party is joining the same lynch mob...
This has nothing to do with being Anti-Arab. Nothing. If China had the same connections to 9/11 and the Taliban that the UAE has, I would be outraged that they were being given this contract, and I think everyone else would be too. That's actually an excellent question for people to ask themselves;would you attribute the criticism to prejudice against Chinese people if that was the case? If not, who's the one that's too concerned about race, really? It has to do with the country and the record of its government, not the ethnicity of the people who live there.
ReplyDeleteThis story is huge, whether you think it in itself is noteworthy or not, just because of the politics of it. For years we have heard from the administration and its apologists about how it takes no chances with the safety of the American people. Even if you don't think it's a major risk, it still flies in the face of any number of administrational justifications. Look at the NSA scandal, for example. How is anyone going to simultaneously claim that we need to allow Bush to circumvent the law, and surely violate the Constitution in order to protect us and at the same time that handing over port security to the UAE is a good idea? How can you not note that while you have ridiculed the Administration's stance that the NSA scandal is a plus for them (because it highlights their dedication to national security), that this issue (whether you personally think it endangers us or not), further undermines their stance? For this reason, I find it hard to believe this is a "distraction" from the NSA scandal (as some have said), as it shoots a major hole through their "national security at all costs" posturing. Furthermore, the Administration will have a difficult time claiming "that was then, this is now" for the UAE, considering their case for invading Iraq was almost entirely based on intelligence four years old and on actions of Saddam during the Reagan years.
It's all about appearances. This issue is exactly the type of thing that the Administration decries as a "pre-9/11 viewpoint". They thrust out their chest over the NSA scandal, talking about how the appearance of it hurts the left, but then turn around and do this. As Sen. Graham said (I believe), it's "politically tone-deaf".
Is it a big risk for us? Maybe, maybe not. I think it's a big enough risk that it very clearly undermines the Administration's actions elsewhere, in any event. And this is death for Republicans, because all they have had in their arsenal is "national security" and 9/11. Anyone who sides with Bush on this is going to be bludgeoned with it in a particularly brutal fashion come election time, whether its this year, 2008 or 2010. This could very well be the issue that creates a permanent wedge between congressional Republicans and Bush, and in turn may cause some of those supporting him on the NSA scandal to flip. If this was intended to distract anyone from the NSA deal, it could backfire in a record-breaking manner.
Sorry for the long post. I hope I haven't attributed anything falsely to you personally (or appeared to have), but I hope you recognize that there's more to it than whether or not the UAE is actually a threat or not. Thank you for all your wonderful work.
Well I don't think it's cynical to demand a cease to this deal at all. How does this affect our national security? Is this a serious question or are you just trying to be silly. These are ports. Where big boats full of stuff coming from everywhere to unload. Hmmm. How can this be of any concern that terrorist financers are in charge of this.
ReplyDeleteJaysus. So someone else searches maybe 5% of the containers. The other 95% not so much. Mohammed Atta didn't have the keys to the airplane in his pocket either did he?
As far as using this for politics, the idea really sux hard. We are at war with a country with no 9/11 ties and throwing the front door wide open for one that did.
I saw one post that showed UAE did this and that and the other after 9/11. Well, isn't that special. Just like ol' knick of time dubya.
Our ports and borders should be owned, managed and operated at all times by Americans only. Anything less is selling our national security short.
OT OT
ReplyDeleteRhode Island Senate Candidate Sheeler letter to State Legislature calling for RI to vote on proclamation calling for impeachment:
[ Click ]
State Proclamation Successes:
[ Click ]
Re one of the Anonymouses above on: Military equipment flowing through the 6 ports in question... I'm not following at all how this could present a problem if the UAE manages the crains in say, the port of Galveston, for example. Are some posters here positing that the company who manages the crains in Galveston could steal a tank or something?
ReplyDeleteCargo theft is the number one security problem at all ports, so I'm not saying something couldnt be stolen at a DP run port. But are some posters trying to say that because DP is Arab-run there is somehow a greater risk of Mil stuff being stolen?
I just dont see any issues on military cargo theft at a DP run port being more likely or ominous or whatever as compared to any other port. I guess if something can be stolen, it probably will be stolen sooner or later; but the military being the largest shipper in the world, has a pretty decent handle on theft. I dont put much credence into this concern.
Another poster posited the possible danger of having a foreign government run a port. The poster didnt say what the specific danger was, but I am guessing that perhaps he's thinking the foreign government or foreign company could slow or shut down operations at a US port. Notwithstanding that shutting down a port is devastating financially to the foreign port operator, I dont think the US Government would allow a port to be shut down just because the foreign government or foreign company that ran the crains had a problem with the US that week. I believe the Government can and would order the port to stay open in the interest of national security. If the port chose to ignore the US Governments order, I think the government can and would take the port over themselves. So I really dont see that kind of danger from a foreign company or government involved in managing US ports.
My first reaction had NOTHING to do with the fact that "Arabs" would be in charge of our ports. Here is a short list of what bothers me:
ReplyDelete1) Why are we outsourcing our security? Why not put the security detail in the hands of the guys who work the ports, the longshoremen - or are labor unions that back Democratic candidates scarier to BushCo than a country involved in the 9/11 terrorist attack?
2)Why would we outsource our security to a country that had, and possibly helped finance, at least two of the 9/11 terrorists?
3) Follow the money. Who would benefit in this deal? John Snow? The Carlyle Group? Halliburton and the Bush family? All of the above? Is this not a problem for you??
Finally, I didn't realize that the British originally had this contract and frankly, I have a problem with that, too. Bottom line is not one of racism, but one of disbelief that we put our security in any other nation's hands. It just doesn't make sense on a visceral level.
databaz writes:
ReplyDeleteThe Management of a Port is much like the management at your local airport. Airport Mgt does not tell the TSA how to do their jobs, likewise they will not tell the Coast Guard or Customs how they will do their job, the Port Mgt will not tell the shipping companies how they will load/unload their ships, who will accept their cargo. Port Mgt does not tell the airport police when and where they can go. Port Mgt does not hire for the security functions and most importantly they cannot make an end around the security rules just because they are Port management.
That's the kind of analysis I'm looking for, but do you (or anyone) have links to a knowledgeable source in this area, someone who understands just what the UAE company is contracted to do, and how, if at all, that could present a security risk?
Glenn said: "I don't think anyone can or should tell Democrats that they ought to adhere to an elevated set of rules when trying to win."
ReplyDeleteWell, as a Democrat who is rather fond of stuff like 'truth' and 'honesty,' I hereby tell the Democrats: adhere to an elevated set of rules when trying to win. That's the thing that separates us from them, our crazy obsession with 'elevated sets of rules'--colloquialy known as 'morality.' We really can't afford to abandon it, lest we win only to find that we've become them.
By the same token, if we are going to oppose this deal, then we need better reasons than we don't like the UAE. In case you forgot, terrorists are fully capable of living in and working for non-Arab* states. The four responsible for the London bombings were all British nationals. If we are to have an effective anti-terrorist policy, then we need a slightly finer net than simple nationality.
*While we're on the subject, 'Arab' and 'Muslim' are not interchangeable terms. There are plenty of Muslims who aren't Arab, and some Arabs who aren't Muslim.
"This is no less shameful than the persecution of the Japanese, Germans and Italians during the World Wars."
ReplyDeleteIf you can't see the difference between interning our own citizens and allowing a foreign entity to manage our ports, I think this administration has a high level job for you.
Here, I'll help you. You could make the case that this was inappropriate and similar to Japanese WWII internment (though certainly not the moral equivalent)if the government refused to allow an American Muslim owned company to buy the port management company. But refusing to allow a foreign government owned entity to manage 6 of our ports is hardly the equivalent of interning many of our citizens of a certain race.
Would dubya be interested in outsourcing his secret service detail to UAE?
ReplyDeleteI really think anon's wife is right
ReplyDeleteHere's a comment from Huffington Post:
"Who are the current foreign companies that own our ports who would stand to profit substantially from a potential government subsidized buyback of those ports? This administration couldn't have possibly expected this deal to go through, this outrage very well could have been intended. And what domestic countries will buy these ports for a potentially government subsidized bargain? This reeks of corporate welfare."
This is a far more plausible explanation than that the President is this tone deaf.
Somebody is about to profit big time when the dust settles on this episode, someone who would not have if the Government had just announced that it was going to subsidize a crony's company to take over the ports.
When a story seems too unbelievable to be true, it usually is.
Nevertheless, stragetgically, since this can no longer be a weapon against Republicans since they are so solidly against this, it should still be used to assault the judgment of the cabal (Cheney, Rumsfeld, Gonzales, etc.), the same group who is pushing the repugnant totalitarian agenda. Even if the result is nationalization, the fact that BushCo pushed for this (probably in a fake out game plan)
should be enough to make the case that he's nuts, and that other of his policies are also nuts, and need to be re-examined, like the NSA spying program.
Anon said
ReplyDelete"My first reaction had NOTHING to do with the fact that "Arabs" would be in charge of our ports. Here is a short list of what bothers me:
1) Why are we outsourcing our security? Why not put the security detail in the hands of the guys who work the ports, the longshoremen - or are labor unions that back Democratic candidates scarier to BushCo than a country involved in the 9/11 terrorist attack?
2)Why would we outsource our security to a country that had, and possibly helped finance, at least two of the 9/11 terrorists?"
It is not port security, it is port operational management. Security would still be done by DHS and the Coast Guard.
Arabs have a quaint saying:
ReplyDelete"Don't let the camel's head in the tent."
This just doesn't pass the smell test for me. Lot's of great analysis here and "triangulation."
Everybody makes it sound like port managers don't do anything, like a three year old girl could do it or something. Could they manage to nuke our ass? If not why not. These guys are on probation big time.
"Don't let UAE head our ports."
Francis Scott Key wrote our national anthem while onboard a ship in Baltimore harbor. Now it's being turned over to terrorist financers.
ReplyDeleteI'm sure there is a symbol or metaphore for that. But I'm too damn shallow to ferrit it out.
databaz says
ReplyDelete" My expertise is the airline/airport industry. But Ports are set up the same way. Port Mgt is not the Grand Poo Ba of all things Port related. Port Police, Port Security, DHS, Coast Guard, Customs all come in and do their own thing. Port Mgt does not hire these folks, nor do they hire the loaders or inspectors. They cannot exempt shipments or ships from security inspections."
But surely they can:
1) Learn a great deal more about port operations, security patterns, weaknesses, etc. by mamnaging the port
2) Cause havoc if so inclined. Create confusion that can be exploited. Does Port Security not rely on Port Managment for any of its info?
I'd say it is more about how he's cynically used fear of "other" as a weapon to justify protecting us by taking away our liberties, to now cynically complain that others might be doing exactly the same thing he has become known for.
ReplyDeleteWhat was he thinking? Are they really this tone deaf?
Anon:
ReplyDeleteBut surely they can:
1) Learn a great deal more about port operations, security patterns, weaknesses, etc. by managing the port
Your right, port management can learn a lot but... They already know this stuff. It's already practiced at ports throughout the US and the world. Is there some 'inside' security information that isnt already well known by the port management at the highest levels? Sure, probably some. But all these top level employees have all worked in ports for decades and there's probably not too much their not already aware of. Dont forget industry frequently actually helps with input on government programs. You too can learn a lot of this info by the way. Just read the maritime trade rags, get a job as a clerk inside the port, go deliver a shipment there, dig into the TSA and customs websites, or just park outside the fence for an hour and watch the cranes work. I think your pushing the envelope on trying to find a security-based reason why a port operator couldnt be foreign owned.
databaz said
ReplyDeleteI suppose they would gain some first hand knowledge of port security procedures and they would have the full access to the facilty. But this brings up another matter. These on-site Managers are not going to be Arab nationals. The will be Americans. And all will have undergone security checks.
1) Security checks performed by whom? To what standard? Who has final say?
2) People get compromised by thier employers into doing all sorts of things that are wrong. It takes a special courage to risk one's job to point out soemthing is wrong if one is really not sure what is going on.
If everyone who knew something was wrong spoke up, this administration would not be getting away with half of what it is.
Really, isn't the question here - why do we as a nation need to create this risk? Does Dubai have some special port management skill we can't live without?
You just can't win these days.
ReplyDeleteHalliburton does port management.
Imagine if Cheney would have announced that Halliburton got the contract.
The video of Chuck Schumer asking for Halliburton today was priceless.
I saw an interview with a lawyer who represents the U.S. firm that would be partnered with DP World.
ReplyDeleteHe made the interesting point that it is official U.S. security policy that the private companies that run the ports are the first line of defense against terrorism. In other words, the Coast Guard and DHS just aren't prepared to monitor everything and our security DEPENDS on these private companies, in a way that it does not for air traffic.
Given that DP World would be entering into a de facto Rent-A-Cop role, a management that ignores threats may be nearly as bad as one that harbors them.
Now, all this is speculation, and DP World may be up to the task, but there is nothing wrong with starting with the assumption that foreign companies are security risks until proven otherwise. And by proof, I don't mean that the Bush administration signs off on it.
Anon:
ReplyDeleteBut surely they can:
1) Learn a great deal more about port operations, security patterns, weaknesses, etc. by managing the port
Mike 20169:
Your right, port management can learn a lot but... They already know this stuff. It's already practiced at ports throughout the US and the world. Is there some 'inside' security information that isnt already well known by the port management at the highest levels? Sure, probably some. But all these top level employees have all worked in ports for decades and there's probably not too much their not already aware of. Dont forget industry frequently actually helps with input on government programs. You too can learn a lot of this info by the way. Just read the maritime trade rags, get a job as a clerk inside the port, go deliver a shipment there, dig into the TSA and customs websites, or just park outside the fence for an hour and watch the cranes work. I think your pushing the envelope on trying to find a security-based reason why a port operator couldnt be foreign owned.
Oh but there is all osrts of other info that is site and time specific. Examples:
1) Who are the weakest shift managers
2) What is random, what is not?
3) Where are the blind spots?
I know very little about port management, but I know that I could figure out how to penetrate my company HQ a lot better after working there for a few years than by reading up on building security in general and then doing some reconnaissance.
databaz: Thank you, you've been helpful and informative.
ReplyDeleteWhat does the pool of people/entities available for this kind of contract look like? Is inaccurate to assume that there are American agencies available who would be as suitable to the task, or no?
"We can't afford for the smoking gun to come in the form of a mushroom cloud"
ReplyDeleteWhy not put these words to a double usage? Deny this deal to a country with furshure 9/11 linkage and ram them up dubyas ass.
Anon:
ReplyDeleteAll true what you say, but my point is your getting into areas where anyone could do all that. Anybody determined and sick enough could accomplish all that, but that also means any disgruntled American could too. Why dont you just come out and say that you think a UAE run firm would be more likely to do that stuff? If you dont think that a UAE firm is more likely to do this, then it seems your kind of saying that having a UAE firm running a port is not much different than having anyone else do it.
FWIW, I spoke with some political strategists who think this is a cleverly designed fake-out.
ReplyDeletel) Give Republicans running for office (not one who is up for election has spoken in favor of this deal) a campaign issue that separates them from the increasingly unpopular Bush and
2) Ends up with a lucrative contract going to a crony's company, subsidized by our government.
And you know what? If they're right, nobody is ever going to believe this was a plot, and they're going to get away with it!
Brilliant, and very scary.
I know you don't think so dclaw, but if you keep thinking about it, maybe you'll agree it makes more sense than that the President would be so tone deaf, defiant, and suicidal.
It also has the benefit of making everyone appear "anti-Arabic" so that criticism will not be able to be lodged effectively against Bush's followers in the future.
It is foolish to reward any country with ties to 9/11.
ReplyDeleteEven worse to let them manage ports with lots and lots of hidyholes to stash shiny things unloaded from boats from around the world in the midst of our biggest cities.
But seriously, what is the threat to our national security?
oilfieldguy: one threat is drugs. UAE is one of the big international drug pass throughs.
ReplyDeletedclaw1, Rove protects Bush, first and foremost. If the Republicans lose control of the House, and things go badly, impeachment becomes a possibility because of the host of other scandals.
ReplyDeleteHere's something I found that relates this issue to the Administration's disregard for law:
ReplyDeleteNew York Times:
"The administration's review of the deal was conducted by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, a body that was created in 1975 to review foreign investments in the country that could affect national security. Under that review, officials from the Defense, State, Commerce and Transportation Departments, along with the National Security Council and other agencies, were charged with raising questions and passing judgment. They found no problems to warrant the next stage of review, a 45-day investigation with results reported to the president for a final decision.
However, a 1993 amendment to the law stipulates that such an investigation is mandatory when the acquiring company is controlled by or acting on behalf of a foreign government. Administration officials said they conducted additional inquires because of the ties to the United Arab Emirates, but they could not say why a 45-day investigation did not occur."
I agree with the sentiment that, regardless of the final verdict on the security implications of letting DP World run these ports, this at least represents an instance where Bush has, yet again, (1) disregarded legal requirements, (2) failed to conduct due diligence on a homeland security matter, and (3) not allowed anyone but a select few to be in on the proposition, thus taking even his own party by surprise.
Thats too much like homework for dubya. He can't be bothered. He'll just defend his cronies and gently scold the country for questioning his decision.
ReplyDeleteconstant, what do you respond to Glenn's argument that the case against the NSA spying and all the other related issues has to be made first, and proved, in an open forum, and then the time will be right to consider options like impeachment?
ReplyDeleteYou don't feel a move toward impeachment is premature at this point?
The public isn't completely familiar with all the legal issues involved in this "inherent authority", unitary executive debate.
Glenn, I've been lurking here for 6 or 7 weeks, and you have become my must-read every single day. I have been heartened and deeply affected by 2 recent posts in particular, 'The Long Hard Slog' and "Erasing the Cold War from History.'
ReplyDeleteI watched every single day of the Watergate hearings during the summer between my junior and senior years of college. I remember hearing the news of the 'Saturday Night Massacre,' and how it felt like a blow to the solar plexus. That night I actually did have a sense that Nixon might be able to put a stop to the investigation by his extreme act of arrogance. But somewhere along the way, the steady accretion of that administration's acts of arrogance, secrecy, cynicism, and sleaziness broke through the public's tolerance for presidential privilege. We had a sleazy, hateful vice president then as well, and his scandals contributed to the wearing away of tolerance.
What I'm trying to say is that Portgate, Geezergate, and Katrina are all a part of the NSA spying outrage. Portgate, in particular, has all the elements: cronyism, secrecy, lack of appropriate oversight, incompetence, and an apparent lack of concern about security issues. We shouldn’t focus on this scandal, but we should take advantage of the attention it has gained. It’s sort of like the public got hit on top of the head with an acorn; while they’re looking up to see where it came from, we need to point to the boulder that is poised above and ready to fall on them.
As I was channel surfing the news this evening, I landed on Lou Dobbs as he read email from viewers. A couple of them referred to “the supposed war on terror,” or “the supposed terrorist threat.” That word “supposed” says to me that people are beginning to question whether the administration really thinks the threat is so dire, or whether they are just using fear to manipulate us. I think this is the crack that we can begin to lever open.
And yes, I am concerned that foreign governments control our ports, whether that government is UAE, China, France, or Argentina.
Please keep up your good work. You are a real hero.
Glenn,
ReplyDeleteI'm glad to see you haven't weighed in substantially on this issue - there's lots of hyperventillating on both the left and right end of the blogosphere.
I'd like to dispell several misconceptions being promilgated here (and elsewhere):
1. Dubai Ports World (DPW) outbid other maritime transport companies in purchasing P & O, a British-based firm, that currently conducts port operations in 5 US ports. The comapny that it was largely competing with was PSA, A Singapore-based (and substainaly government owned) comapny.
2. DPW is a state-owned, though largely non-state run, company. In other words, DPW is operated and managed like any other major corporation (All that UAE provides is largely cash).
Incidentally, the vast majority of the executes, managers, and employess who work for DPW are non-UAE citizens (and it might behoove those interested to check the the senior managers and executives of the company - Americans and Brits). If there are any UAE citizens who actually work for DPW, I would be extremely surprised. If there is any direct UAE involvement, it would largely be on a financial side and/or board of directors. And would largely defer decisions to those who actually run the company (as is typically the case of many companies found in the region).
3. UAE being one of the three countries that recognized the Taliban; was home country for some of the 9-11 terrorists; has acted as a conduct for funneling money to Al-Qaeda; and has acted as a conduit for the smuggling of nuclear weapons parts and other items is a non-sequitor with respect to this specific deal. No one has brought forth any substantial evidence that the above activities are directly related to DPW.
Yes, UAE recognized the Taliban. But 1) they may have done so bacause there is a substantial number of Afghanis living and working in the UAE; 2) the United States itself had contact/made overtures towards the Taliban government as well (or do people forget that we sent representatives to Afghanistan to negotiate on the proposed pipeline through the region?)
Yes, the UAE was home to several of the 9-11 highjackers and had banks that acted as conduits for financing Al-Qaeda. But the operational planning of 9-11 was conducted in Germany (and, by the way, the United States). In addition, any number of major banks found worldwide act as conduits for the funding of AL-Qaeda.
Likewise, the smuggling issue is not endemic to the UAE, but a problem worldwide. I suspect that smuggling is such a problem in the UAE due the scope of international trade that takes place in and out of UAE (acts as essential a transportation hub for the Middle East). I'm sure similar problems of smuggling can be found elsewhere (epecially Singapore, due it's location relative to the Straights of Malacca, where piracy is a major - and growing - concern).
3. As Glenn rightly points out, how does this deal jeopardize port security? In short, it doesn't. Operations currently being conducted by P & O will not change with the takeover by DPW.
The security of the ports in question will still be overseen by the appropriate local, state, and federal authroities (as they are in other ports where other foreign-owned companies conduct port operations).
I suspect one of the major reasons for why this deal was approved is precisely because there are so many Americans who actually run the comapny. For those who think that this company would make it easier for Al-Qaeda to infiltrate, then I guess Americans and Brits would be complicit in this infiltration to, essentialy undermine, the security of the US and UK, respectively).
Now, port security is a major concern and should be rightly scrutinized for the problem that it is - regardless of who is conducting port operations in US ports (whether they be foreign-owned American companies). I have no problem in taking to task the Bush Aminstration for their lack of effort in providing all the necessary man, material, and money to deal with the concern. I, too, share the concerns of many Americans that the administration hasn't done enough in this arena.
But as the security expert on Keith Olbermann's show "Countdown" stated this evening (I can't remember his name), this deal (as it relates to port security in general) is a canard.
And I'll echo Glenn's sentiments - if this deal is a national security issue, then where's the concern regarding Chinese involvement in port operations along the west coast of the US?
The idea that this is a Rovian triple-bank-shot is ludicrous. No-one in politics makes those kind of shots. After the ball hits the first cushion all bets are off. Re-read until you understand as I give you a great turht.
ReplyDeleteOilfieldguy:
ReplyDeletePicture this scenario... An Al-Qaeda sympathizer works the midnight shift on the shipping dock in a factory in say, Indonesia. His job is to load sacks of processed cocoa into ocean containers bound for say Hershey or Nestle in the US. Now say his buddies supply him with a WMD and get him to bury it in the middle of one of those pallets. Lets say he also makes himself a photocopy of the ocean bill of lading with vessel, voyage, and container number and gives that to his handler buddies. Meanwhile his handler buddies also have another sympathetic buddy who works in the port of New Orleans where this ship is headed. The guy in New Orleans manages to have another trucker freind of his steal the container right out of the yard by altering the trucker pick up manifest with cocoa container numbers. The shipment was customs cleared electronically but because it's from a safe known shipper and due to Customs manpower restraints, this particular container was never inspected. Then the trucker using an altered manifest showing him picking up a container of auto parts from Japan actually picks up the cocoa container. At 01:30 in the morning, the driver pulls out of the yard and onto I-10 and the shipment... disappears into the night.
Now my question for you: Why would you think this scenario couldnt happen at any port in the US as opposed to thinking that it would restricted to one of the six ports managed by DP Worldwide and the UAE?
Our security is a crapshoot. It really doesnt matter if DP/UAE runs a port or someone else does. It's neither more or less likely for this to happen through a DP/UAE run port than it is to happen at any port. DP/UAE isnt the problem. The problem is the inability of our government to control this kind of activity anywhere. And it can happen anywhere my freind.
When I read hypatia's excellent post, I was convinced of his position, and being non partisan, I was ashamed of my urge to want to see this issue exploited to become a catalyst in somehow discrediting Bush and finally making some progress in turning things around.
ReplyDeleteBut then, when I read David Shaughnessy's post, I changed my mind, because I realized that my desire to see Bush discredited is born of what David says: a desire to see the damage that he has wrought somehow cease, and see this country get restored to its fundamnetal values.
So I don't feel guilty, because what I hate more than anything is totalitarianism, and living in a society which has lost the protection of the constitutional safeguards I have always taken for granted. Fighting for something that is so basic to my happiness is not something about which to be ashamed.
One great thing about this blog is that the debates are of such a high level that I often find myself changing my own views when I read the posts of others.
On other blogs, I pick up information, and form opinions on issues about which I have no prior opinion, but I never seem to read anything that changes my own position once I have formulated it.
Here, I do.
So thanks, everyone ---but not you bart and gedaliya :)Those posts are like crawling over broken glass wearing shorts.
I also decided that I do believe there is more than meets the eye to this port deal. But since I am not psychic, and the facts so far are few, I will refrain from speculating what the truth really is, and instead concentrate on closely examining every new fact that comes out, so when there's enough evidence to piece together the real truth, I'll be quick to get to the right conclusion.
Isn't the point that areas of national security sensitivity should never be outsourced to foreign companies? Why should we assume they will maintain a first sense of responsibility to USA and not to their corporate or national management? And, btw, I had no idea we were already outsourcing to a foreign company. or is this a fake ploy to end up with giving the contract to KBR?
ReplyDeleteMike20196 said:
ReplyDeleteAnon:
All true what you say, but my point is your getting into areas where anyone could do all that. Anybody determined and sick enough could accomplish all that, but that also means any disgruntled American could too. Why dont you just come out and say that you think a UAE run firm would be more likely to do that stuff? If you dont think that a UAE firm is more likely to do this, then it seems your kind of saying that having a UAE firm running a port is not much different than having anyone else do it.
I have no problem with that. I think it will be more difficult for the US government to effectively monitor this company and I think its ownership makes it more likely to be compromised (though the operative word here is more; I don't think it is probable, likely or even a 5% chance that this will ever cause us a problem).
Nonetheless, why take the added risk? How do we benefit? Global trade? We'd be better off to focus on fair trade and being a good environmental citizen. Sending a message that we are not anti-Arab? Like it or not, we are an anti-Arab nation and last I checked OPEC was pretty self-interested too. Also, to be pro-Israel (and the US is) you are by Arab definition Anti-Arab.
I suppose that this has an ugly discriminatory element, but isn't it ok to acknowledge that some countries and citizens of those countries are more likely to be sympathetic to anti-American causes?
2:14 AM
Bart, first of all, it occurs to me you may be a humorist?
ReplyDeleteIf not, then your comment
"The Arab American community is justifiably outraged about what is bald faced racism and xenophobia."
is just unintentionally hilarious?
Bart, you are so transparent that if you were any more so, you wouldn't exist.
Do you really think anyone on this blog believes you are concerned about the sensibilities of the Arab
American community?
Tell us how much you care about the civil liberties of Padilla.
Tell us what you think of Yoo's position that crushing the testicles of a terrorist's child is justifiable.
No, you HAVE to be a humorist. Nobody could be as funny as you are accidentally.
Haha, the Administration messed up and gave birth to a soundbite that their base can't reconcile with all the other soundbites. Poetic justice.
ReplyDeletemike20169 said:
ReplyDeleteOur security is a crapshoot. It really doesnt matter if DP/UAE runs a port or someone else does. It's neither more or less likely for this to happen through a DP/UAE run port than it is to happen at any port. DP/UAE isnt the problem. The problem is the inability of our government to control this kind of activity anywhere. And it can happen anywhere my freind.
Mike - Not sure I understand. So our port security sucks (thanks George!) and because of that we shouldn't be concerned about something that might make it worse?
Aslo, thanks for the input - I'm thinking about your points. Trying to separate my gut reaction from the more reasoned response. (I think that was Glenn's point in starting this conversation)
Loved your post, brabantio.
ReplyDeleteGlenn: What Bush said today about the port issues was unintentionally very revealing about his view of presidential power.
ReplyDeleteEponymous, thank you for a very thorough and reasoned analysis. That sounds pretty much as I suspected, but lacked familiarity with the facts of port management or DPW --it sure seems likely that what we are talking about is a lot of Anglos actually doing the hands on mgmt.
ReplyDeleteThe hysteria over this, left and right, is truly mind-boggling. Lots of nations -- including ours -- had less than savory connections to the Taliban for years. But suddenly we are to get all worked up that Osama might show up in a company owned by the UAE, and apparently no foreign, Muslim-tainted company can be trusted in the least sensitive area.
Bush opponents are turning themselves inside out to rant about national security vis-a-vis Muslim terrorists right at the time they are also insisting that Muslim terrorists are no threat sufficient enough for Bush to break the law.
The whole country is now up in arms with visions of terrorists at the ports. Isn't that useful for some, at a time when it is necessary to keep the terrorist threat in some perspective if the rule of law is to be upheld.
Anon:
ReplyDeleteI guess my point is that there may indeed be lots of reasons to criticize the port deal - I just dont think security is one of them. Not that security is not important, but in this case when were debating if a company like DP/UAE will hurt our security or not, I really do think it's a 'canard' as someone posted above. 01:30 here in the east, I guess i've flogged this topic enough for tonight.
Paranoid personality disorder and security concerns goes hand to hand. I make the day for xenophoes,the Coulters, Milkens, Horotwiz and the derange of the planet.But it also make the day for politicians limelight and the security industry complex. Remember that airport conficated nail clipers?
ReplyDeleteThe press stun is enough to divert the attetion as it did with a run away bride.
The neurotic mentality, with constant "premonition" that something bad is going to happens is just one of those sign of the time, were BILLIONS of dollars in security are not enough.
Worst case scenarios have not end...Hence the lunacy of preemptive strikes!
Ah but we live in a post 9-11 world, yes we do but have you ask yourself what the Israel secret service was up to? http://antiwar.com/israeli-files.php
"Security," "Terra" etc. is bunch of bullshit invented by Rove and Co. to induce us all to vote for the GOP.
ReplyDeleteThose who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Read Noam Chomsky's
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=9718
... Let’s turn to the “War on Terror.” Since facts matter, it matters that the War was not declared by George W. Bush on 9/11, but by the Reagan administration 20 years earlier. They came into office declaring that their foreign policy would confront what the President called “the evil scourge of terrorism,” a plague spread by “depraved opponents of civilization itself” in “a return to barbarism in the modern age" (Secretary of State George Shultz). The campaign was directed to a particularly virulent form of the plague: state-directed international terrorism. The main focus was Central America and the Middle East, but it reached to southern Africa and Southeast Asia and beyond.
A second fact is that the war was declared and implemented by pretty much the same people who are conducting the re-declared war on terrorism. The civilian component of the re-declared War on Terror is led by John Negroponte, appointed last year to supervise all counterterror operations. As Ambassador in Honduras, he was the hands-on director of the major operation of the first War on Terror, the contra war against Nicaragua launched mainly from US bases in Honduras. I’ll return to some of his tasks. The military component of the re-declared War led by Donald Rumsfeld. During the first phase of the War on Terror, Rumsfeld was Reagan’s special representative to the Middle East. There, his main task was to establish close relations with Saddam Hussein so that the US could provide him with large-scale aid, including means to develop WMD, continuing long after the huge atrocities against the Kurds and the end of the war with Iran. The official purpose, not concealed, was Washington’s responsibility to aid American exporters and “the strikingly unanimous view” of Washington and its allies Britain and Saudi Arabia that “whatever the sins of the Iraqi leader, he offered the West and the region a better hope for his country’s stability than did those who have suffered his repression” -- New York Times Middle East correspondent Alan Cowell, describing Washington’s judgment as George Bush I authorized Saddam to crush the Shi’ite rebellion in 1991, which probably would have overthrown the tyrant. ...
mike20196 said
ReplyDeleteI guess my point is that there may indeed be lots of reasons to criticize the port deal - I just dont think security is one of them. Not that security is not important, but in this case when were debating if a company like DP/UAE will hurt our security or not, I really do think it's a 'canard' as someone posted above. 01:30 here in the east, I guess i've flogged this topic enough for tonight.
Fair enough, but "I think it's a canard" is hardly definitive. Is there a compelling reason to take what may be an additional risk? As ia sked earlier, does DP have some skill set that others don't possess.
The issue really seems to be whether you can get past allowing an Arab government owned business to operate our ports or do we let guilt by association rule the day. Or even more broadly do we, as some have suggested confine port mgmt to American owned companies that are more likely to be responsive to American law.
Perhaps a different way to look at it: Are there any things you wouldn't outsource to DP (weapons production? ship maintenance? telecommuncations?)? If there are then you need to explain a rationale for those that does not include port operations mgmt? Not pretending I have the answer to this - just posting for thoughts/feedback.
Wow, bluememe, thanks for highlighting this EXTRAORDINARY quote from Bush today. To my mind, it's the single most important insight of the day:
ReplyDeleteBluememe writes:
"I can understand why some in Congress have raised questions about whether or not our country will be less secure as a result of this transaction," the president said. "But they need to know that our government has looked at this issue and looked at it carefully."
Got that? There's Congress on the one hand. And what Bush considers "our Government" on the other. And never the twain shall meet."
This really is extraordinary, and something we have all known, and something which is at the heart of everything that's wrong. Bush considers "our government" to be himself and his cabal.
Congress isn't included. TALK ABOUT AN IMPERIAL PRESIDENCY!!!!!
k2, terrific post.
ReplyDeleteBart, first of all, it occurs to me you may be a humorist? ... No, you HAVE to be a humorist. Nobody could be as funny as you are accidentally.
ReplyDeleteMore a joke than a jokester, as he exercises his endless gophead capacity for hypocrisy.
OTOH, note how, when Glenn questions the prevailing view du jour, the result is a thoughtful and informed discussion, with people defending their position using facts and logic. Try to imagine something like that happening on a gophead/wingnut/freeper/bushie blog.
Maybe this isn't a big added security risk, but then all this electronic eavesdropping isn't a big terrorist deterrent either.
ReplyDeleteBut we are asked to give up our civil liberties for a program that has no real benefit. Every excess that BushCo has gotten away with has been facilitated by this bogus security issue.
Even these three latest terrorists who have been apprehended were found because of tips from the community, not because of surveillance.
Let's face it. You know what people do when they want to discuss really secret things with other people? They do what Bush does when he wants to talk privately with Blair. He visits him in person.
So if the government gives us back all our civil liberties and stops all these invasions of privacy and illegal assaults against the individual, I'll go along with the port deal.
But if they don't, I won't. Why allow them to be so hypocritical?
What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
worth a look - not least for the unthought of (so far) clash of critical priorities..
ReplyDeleteOops the link was: http://www.workingforchange.com/blog/index.cfm?mode=entry&entry=8F0C2C26-E5A6-B306-55BE87948B44A59C
ReplyDeleteLate to the party today but I had other things that needed to be done. Read Glen's lead in and all the posts. Personally I have to side with those that think it is a Rove-ian plot.
ReplyDeleteWhat is the worst thing possible that can happen to any President? Impeachment. And Bush has to consider that as a very real possibility if the Reps lose control of the House mainly, because the House impeaches, the Senate does the trial. But losing either would not be good in the Reps view.
There is the lead up to 9/11, the lead up to the Iraq war, the Katrina response, and the NSA scandal to name just a few. Does Bush want any of these really subject to a serious investigation. I don't think so and that is a very serious possibility if the Dems gain control.
Add in the fact that he basically becomes a house sitter for his last two years and I think that there is a strong possibility that he is taking one for the team right now in hopes of avoiding what could be infinitely worse shortly down the road.
Look at his poll numbers, they have been basically stuck between 35 and 45 for how long now? And it isn't as if he hasn't tried, but the message he's trying to deliver isn't getting across anymore. He has lost the trust of too many of the voters. So how else is he going to do what he so desperately needs, which is to keep the Reps in control. Having been an observer for a while now my take is that Bush's first and foremost response to crisis is self preservstion.
Just my thoughts on it.
P.S. to:
watou said...
"Do we allow military munitions to be made by foreign corporations? I believe that there are many laws on the books about critical national security functions only being performed by U.S. entities."
80 percent of our smart bomb components now come from China and we are buying ammunition from Taiwan because we don't have enough to fight the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Makes ya feel real secure and able to sleep real well at night doesn't it?
Saw this interesting post on Daily Kos:
ReplyDelete"what WE should be asking now is WHAT WAS IN IT for the people who covertly handed Dubai our ports? was it personal financial gain as in the duke cummingham case....or was it something even WORSE...has our government been making backroom deals with countries like DUBAI in order to get their continued support for the mid east policies the neocons have forced on us.....this is a three way deal between dubai, England and America.....england and america ARE the coalition of the willing....dubai is one of the richest arab nations on earth....has dubai been funneling money to the coalition and is OUR PORTS the way they expect to be paid back????????
is this why BUSH just gave congress and the majority of the american people the finger instead of agreeing to stop this deal from going through???????"
OK. Who is Duke Cunningham? I am seeing his name all over the Internet today? Does anyone here know the full and accurate story on him?
Another interesting post:
ReplyDelete"John Snow was chairman of CSX before he became Treasury Secretary. The year after he joined the Bush Cabinet CSX sold its international operations to DP for $1.15 billion. David Sanborn who was selected by Bush to head the U.S. Maritime Administration was DP's European and Latin American operations. This administration has a number of interesting connections to Middle Eastern countries and businesses.
I suspect that this deal is part of a policy to form closer ties with members of the Gulf Cooperative Council in preparation for an attack on Iran and as part of the Bush policy to expand our military presence in the Middle East. Before the attack on Iraq, Bush diverted $700 billion from the Afghanistan funds to build a command and control center in Qatar, another member of the GCC. We now have a large military base in Qatar that the local government not only wanted, but was willing to help fund. The UAE may be the location of the new command and control center for the attack on Iran and the site of another permanent base in the Middle East. All of this will help compensate for the draw-down in Saudi Arabia."
Theories are springing up all over the Internet, and it seems the majority of the blogosphere thinks
there's a whole lot more here than meets the eye.
Going over to Daily Kos and reading the various theories is really an education, as some there are very knowledgable on a lot of background stuff.
Did anyone here ever see the Guardian story about the CIA being in the hospital room in UAE with Bin Laden after 9/11? Those posts suggest Bush is being blackmailed by those in the UAE with knowledge about that event.
What is the real story about the Carlye Group?
And finally, is this all smoke and mirrors to squash the NSA investigation?
Jay Leno opened his monologue with "Crazy George is insane!", a few salient facts about Dubai, and the suggestion that ObL is hiding in the basement of the White House.
ReplyDeleteI can't wait to see Bush's latest poll numbers.
OK. Who is Duke Cunningham? I am seeing his name all over the Internet today? Does anyone here know the full and accurate story on him?
ReplyDeleteWhat, did someone steal your google?
Going back to the real issue, I got this alert from Vichy Dems and am passing it on:
ReplyDelete"MoveOn is sponsoring vigils tomorrow (Wednesday) across the country to protest the warrantless NSA domestic surveillance program. It's a good think to attend if you can, so I wanted to give folks as much advance notice as possible. There's a link to the MoveOn site on VichyDems."
Sure it does. If it were true that terrorists would wreak massive and existential destruction on us, but for Bush being able to spy on US citizens without warrants, almost none of us would object to his doing so.
ReplyDeleteA brilliant demonstration of your intellectual dishonesty. As is well known, and as you note, it is not "true that terrorists would wreak massive and existential destruction on us, but for Bush being able to spy on US citizens without warrants" -- and therefore that non possibility is irrelevant to considering why we object to Bush's illegal actions. My point which you are apparently too intellectually dishonest to grasp -- was that your comment about "insisting that Muslim terrorists are no threat sufficient enough for Bush to break the law" is absurd -- we no more insist that than we insist that the fact that 1+1 is only 2 isn't justification for Bush to break the law. The connection you make was entirely fabricated in order to make an argument of covenience. It is pathetic for you now to expound on how absurd it is to think that terrorists pose such a threat, when it was your construction in the first place.
As I was reading through news on this port thing, an article from Khaleej Times Online (United Arab Emirates) caught my eye. It's the standard spiel about Bush's veto threat from Reuters, but the middle of the article stopped me short:
ReplyDeleteWith mid-term congressional elections looming in November, Republican leaders appeared willing to confront their lame duck president to prevent Democrats from gaining traction on the issue of national security, something the Republicans under Bush see as their strongest political card.
I thought Reuters was independent, more or less, so I checked on the website directly to see if some Reuters article was rewritten by the UAE paper (maybe offering a more honest take on our national politics?). But here it is on Reuters, identical.
Since when did lame duck become the conventional wisdom, mentioned in passing as a given? Not that I'm complaining.
Quack, quack, quack.
The Ugly American asks, "doesn't this controversy poke a hole in your whole cult of personality theory Glenn?
It seems most GWB loyalists are complaining pretty loudly on this one.
So much for blind loyalty eh?"
Here's my take on it. Glenn's already pointed out that he won't be surprised if the movement conservatives ditch Bush in search of their next figurehead. This lame duck talk is only accelerating the process. It's a second draft of his theory, but I think "movementarian" is much closer to true than "cult of Bush".
I read articles in the last couple of weeks noting conservative activists, including direct-mail king Richard Viguerie, who say that Bush has betrayed the Reagan Revolution by governing as a cut-tax-and-spend interventionist. Here's one that I don't think Glenn linked. It's interesting to compare it to this post-2004 election piece quoting the same Viguerie as saying, we elected Bush, "Now comes the revolution."
Lo, how the mighty have fallen! What this all says to me is that the movement is dropping him like a rotten fish and looking for the next promising piece of cod.
Bush has been a lame duck since Hurricane Katrina. He's not advancing the movement anymore, which has always been about 50% + 1 political control, not about someone with the initials GWB. That's what explains the movement's revolts against Bush Administration overreach since then, including but not limited to Harriet Miers, NSA spying, and now Portgate.
Of course, there are still dead-enders who would follow the President into a meat grinder (I think the blog commenters and talk-show hosts will be the last to defend him), but we also see a bunch of Republican politicians positioning themselves for 2006 and 2008.
A more complicated case than Glenn's first draft, sure, but it accurately represents the sea change that was always going to happen when Bush lost his leader image (which, one way or another, was going to be in time for the 2008 primary season).
Beyond all this political maneuvering lies the constant that Glenn was getting at when he said that conservatives are only conservatives until they disagree with the President: "Conservatism never fails; it is only failed," says Digby. The President got to be infallible because he was the standard-bearer for the movement, not because he is some gifted, insightful policy wonk that everyone can trust to run the country. Bush was only a conservative until he failed (or more accurately, until he was seen as a failure), so now it's on to the next hunk of meat.
Quack.
Since when did lame duck become the conventional wisdom, mentioned in passing as a given?
ReplyDeleteIt's not "conventional wisdom"; as Reuters is using the term, it's an objective fact:
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=lame%20duck
An officeholder who has chosen not to run for reelection or is ineligible for reelection.
Glenn, eponymous, etc.:
ReplyDeleteRegarding China's involvement in our ports, there's an obvious quantitative difference between Dubai and China here: China exports a *ton* of goods to us! That alone gives them billions of reasons not to rock the boat.
This isn't to say that I think a foreign, state-owned company should be running port security in the United States. That's why Congress should examine this and other arrangements like it closely to ensure that our national security isn't endangered. In fact, they should have done so years ago--if not by 1999, then certainly by 2001.
"An officeholder who has chosen not to run for reelection or is ineligible for reelection."
ReplyDeleteDefining lame duck from the dictionary? Here's a contextual definition from an article in CNN on Sunday:
For an entire week, the Bush administration has been tangled in the aftermath of the Cheney hunting accident. That might not seem like a long time, but Bush and Cheney have barely over 1,000 days left and things they want to get done.
To succeed, they need to resist as long as possible the forces that make administrations irrelevant. "Some people in the White House are worried that this will hasten the start of the formal lame-duck period, which they were hoping to put off until after the midterm elections," said a Republican official. "This showed a weakened president and a vice president in a bubble within a bubble."
The Reuters article says that the lame-duck White House is fighting political pressure from its own party; I guess it could be referring to Bush's second-termedness, but I still think it's more likely that Reuters is referring to Bush's incipient loss of political power.
Defining lame duck from the dictionary?
ReplyDeleteYes, Dan, when trying to understand how someone is using a word, it is useful to consult a dictionary to see if you may be ass-uming a meaning that wasn't intended.
I still think it's more likely that Reuters is referring to Bush's incipient loss of political power.
They are quite clearly referring to the fact that Bush's reelectability does not need to be guarded.
I should add that it was clear even before I read the whole Reuters piece, which refers four times to contenders for the 2008 presidential race.
ReplyDeleteI don't associate with hyper-partisan organizations like MoveOn.org
ReplyDeleteIt's funny how people throw around this term "partisan" without understanding what it means, or even what they themselves mean by it.
There you have it. According to Bart, Bush Administration officials will be REPREHENSIBLE HYPOCRITES once they back away from the Portgate deal. Nice to have that on the record, as we lawyers like to say.
ReplyDeleteWhy, other than due to hyper-partisanship, is that nice?
BTW, in regard to MoveOn.org's allegedly being "hyper-partisan", it's worth remembering that it got its start with a call to censure Bill Clinton ("moveon" referred to moving on past the sex scandal and getting back to governing).
ReplyDeleteHere is a good piece on MoveOn that addresses a number of Republican-driven myths about them. MoveOn is "hyper-partisan" in the same way that any decent human being strongly opposed to the Bush administration's attack on American values (among other things) is "hyper-partisan".
ReplyDeleteIn regard to those who would avoid partisanship (which is simply commitment to a cause), consider Jim Hightower's comment: "There's nothing in the middle of the road but yellow stripes and dead armadillos."
the desperately non-constitutional refuge of the Clintonistas once impeachment became a real prospect. Do you seriously contend that MoveOn is not a hyper-partisan Democratic organization? Sheesh!
ReplyDelete"Clintonistas"? I contend that you are a rabid partisan, and a hypocritical asshole to boot. Here's what the Wired article says; choke on the facts, buddy:
One night during the run-up to Clinton's impeachment, Boyd and Blades were at a Chinese restaurant for dinner. They were griping about politics; this being Berkeley, they overheard a nearby couple having the same conversation. A few days later, they emailed a petition to a hundred or so friends calling on Congress to censure Clinton and "move on."Within a week, it had 100,000 signers. Within a month, more than 300,000.
Although the email petition spread, its effect on Congress was imperceptible. Boyd and Blades were newcomers to politics. ...
I am not partisan at all. I was curious what Bart's fallback position will be because it has become plain that Bart and Gedaliya and various Anonymouses on this site shill for the Bush Administration.
ReplyDeleteAnd why would you care, unless you have a "partisan" opposition to the Bush administration? The notion that anyone is "not partisan" is an absurd.
From David Shaughnessy's blog:
ReplyDeleteI voted for George W. Bush the first time as well, largely because I was disgusted with the Democratic party post-Clinton
That's really funny. Because you think in terms of parties rather than causes -- the very thing that you wrongly accuse MoveOn of -- you did something incredibly stupid and immoral. But members of MoveOn voted against Bush, not due to some allegiance to the Democratic party, but because they had the good sense to recognize George Bush for what he was.
Just for my own amusement, I'll spell this out: According to David Shaughnessy, the fact that an anonymous poster (with no affiliation with MoveOn, as it happens) to some blog uses vulgarity proves David's point about MoveOn.org being hyper-partisan.
ReplyDeleteROTLFMAO. David Shaunessy is dumber than dirt, and has the moral integrity of ... hmmm ... Karl Rove? Ann Coulter?
If Bush is really committing political suicide here, trying to keep the Repubs in power (which I doubt), then let him! I've long said that at some point there was going to be a stand-off between the more moderate element and the neocon/Bush loyalists, that they would have to break away from him to save their own political skins. Bush isn't a real conservative, but he's not a liberal either. He's a power-consolidating corporatist who practices cronyism. He's not just bad for progressive causes, he's bad for America. So let him cut his own throat, if that's the idea. Anyone who's been loyal to him all this time is going to have a 300-pound albatross secured to their own neck, and will prevent people from lionizing him in the future (considering the glossing over of Reagan's sorry reign, I can't emphasize enough how important that is).
ReplyDeleteWhat I find amusing is that after NSA, there was condemnation (and rightly so) of people who were tentative to tackle the issue because it made the left look soft on terrorism. Now, we're hearing concerns about perceived racism and Rove triple-bank-shots. Was NSA so long ago that we've forgotten the principle of sticking to our guns? What are we waiting for, some situation where Rove is not going to have some spin?
From the sound of this, it seems like there's a legal issue - there was no extended review of this deal, as the law requires. It also seems like Bush cronies are making money off the deal. And that's the problem with Bush. He doesn't care about the law, and feeds his friends. The partisan nature of our political atmosphere has created people who blindly defend him, no matter how illogical or inconsistent with their own party's values it forces them to be. That's the poison in our system. If congressional Repubs dump Bush, that can only help as an antidote.
So stick to your guns - the deal appears to be bad for security (whether is actually is or not), and possibly illegal. Forget race and Rove. We've been looking for some common ground with Repubs to fight Bush, to heal our system and our nation, and this issue coupled with NSA could be it!
Another long post, sorry, but this is a golden opportunity. He who hesitates is lost!
Anonymous said
ReplyDelete"And why would you care, unless you have a "partisan" opposition to the Bush administration? The notion that anyone is "not partisan" is an absurd."
Glad to know I'm absurd. I'm not partisan, I dislike both the Republicans and the Democrats.
Plus I don't believe that the Libertarians, Greens, or any other of the parties have the answers either.
P.S. The initial "hysteria" here was the use of the term "hyper-partisan", raised to even greater heights with this rabid counterfactual paragraph:
ReplyDeleteYou may perhaps recall, I do vividly, that "censure" was the desperately non-constitutional refuge of the Clintonistas once impeachment became a real prospect. Do you seriously contend that MoveOn is not a hyper-partisan Democratic organization? Sheesh!
The founders of MoveOn were just a successful Silicon Valley couple dismayed by the rabid partisanship of Ken Starr and the Republicans (anyone remember all their lies about Whitewater and Vincent Foster?); they weren't "Clintonistas". They became involved in Democratic politics because that's where they could best achieve their ends. They weren't morons like "non partisan" David Shaughnessy who won't attend a vigil until it's launched as a "multipartisan effort". He's going to be waiting quite a while.
Glad to know I'm absurd. I'm not partisan, I dislike both the Republicans and the Democrats.
ReplyDeleteSame with me: some of the people I dislike are Republicans, and some are Democrats. Oh, wait, that's not what you meant? Well, you don't know what you meant. But perhaps this will help:
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=partisan
A fervent, sometimes militant supporter or proponent of a party, cause, faction, person, or idea.
Everyone's a partisan, especially those who militantly proclaim themselves to be "not partisan".
Brabantio said...
ReplyDelete"If Bush is really committing political suicide here, trying to keep the Repubs in power (which I doubt)"
Bush can't comit political suicide. He is already done when this term is up and there is nothing else for him to run for.
There is only his legacy as president left for him to consider. Not that the history books are going to show him in any favorable light IMO, but does he want to add impeachment to the list?
Anonymous said:
ReplyDeleteSame with me: some of the people I dislike are Republicans, and some are Democrats. Oh, wait, that's not what you meant? Well, you don't know what you meant. But perhaps this will help:
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=partisan
A fervent, sometimes militant supporter or proponent of a party, cause, faction, person, or idea.
Everyone's a partisan, especially those who militantly proclaim themselves to be "not partisan".
And just what party, cause, faction, person, or idea, do you deem that I am a partisan for? I mean since you seem to so clearly want to define me. You might as well go ahead and decide that too.
The other Anonymous is right: this is a play fake, geared to 'prove' that the lockstep Republicans in Congress have minds of their own, so when the vote to bomb Iran back to the Stone Age reaches the House and Senate floors it will seem to have broad-based support.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, I find it amusing to consider what this bit of cognitive dissonance is doing to the alleged brains of rabid anti-Arab racists Malkin and Coulter.
"Bush can't comit political suicide. He is already done when this term is up and there is nothing else for him to run for."
ReplyDeleteThe idea was that he was sacrificing himself for the sake of the party, from the tone of some of the posts here. That's what I was referring to. Besides, "political suicide" doesn't affect just elections or legacies. Without the partisan-based allegiance of Congressional Republicans, he will not have the capital to propose any plans - everything he tries to do will not be rubber-stamped by Congress, as has been the trend. Most importantly he could lose whatever support he has on the NSA issue. Getting impeached is a very risky way to "save" the party, as that embarrassment will haunt them for ages.
That was the main point, impeachment (and removal) is political suicide, and separating himself from Congressional Republicans runs a very, very high risk of that.
Why can't American companies be charged with the security of our ports. It's our problem. I have as much trouble with any other country as the Arab countries. It is not because they are Arab, it's because accountability is important and we spend a fortune on it. Why can't we pay people here to do it.
ReplyDeleteCourtesy of Washington Post, Feb. 2002:
ReplyDelete"Gold is a huge factor in the moving of terrorist money because you can melt it, smelt it or deposit it on account with no questions asked," said a senior U.S. law enforcement official investigating gold transactions. "Why move it through Dubai? Because there is a willful blindness there."
I agree, let's not outsource our port operations too. There must be American companies that can run the ports.
ReplyDeleteAlso, is it too late for the dems to take the issue of "port security" and run with it?
brabintino said
ReplyDeleteFrom the sound of this, it seems like there's a legal issue - there was no extended review of this deal, as the law requires. It also seems like Bush cronies are making money off the deal.
-----------------------
I have also read somewhere on this blog where they won the bid over two other companies. Is there a story on whether is was lowest bid or not?
Brabantio said...
ReplyDelete"The idea was that he was sacrificing himself for the sake of the party, from the tone of some of the posts here. That's what I was referring to. Besides, "political suicide" doesn't affect just elections or legacies. Without the partisan-based allegiance of Congressional Republicans, he will not have the capital to propose any plans - everything he tries to do will not be rubber-stamped by Congress, as has been the trend. Most importantly he could lose whatever support he has on the NSA issue. Getting impeached is a very risky way to "save" the party, as that embarrassment will haunt them for ages."
That was the main point, impeachment (and removal) is political suicide, and separating himself from Congressional Republicans runs a very, very high risk of that.
I said it an earlier post, but I think he is taking one for the team to avoid impeachment. If the Republicans keep control of the House and Senate his chances of being impeached are slim and none IMO. If the Dems gain control there is a fairly good chance he will be.
With his poll numbers continuing to stay in the 35 to 45 range I think the best chance for the Republicans to retain control is to separate themselves from him, even if only temporarily. I don't see how they can run on his record and be successful so the only choice they have is to run against him. Portgate gives them the perfect opportunity to do so on a throw away issue.
Plus if the Republicans retain control he won't be a lame duck, at least until the next election looms. He will still have a chance to get some of his agenda legislation passed before 2008.
If the Dems takeover his chances of getting much of anything passed are pretty slim, hence the lame duck label. He will become the house sitter in charge, at least until he is removed if he is in fact impeached.
It's just too coinceydinky that he comes out for this port deal that will give a state owned Arab company control of managing our ports after 5 years of making them out to be the bad guys. And then Frist (a 2008 contender) jumps right out and says he will introduce legislation to block or at least delay the deal after towing the line so faithfully for the same 5 years. Throw in Bush threatening a veto, his first, and something smells pretty bad.
Don't know if it has any bearing or not but I did read that Bush and the Republicans had a private meeting not too long ago off campus (out of Washington)
If nothing else, this will call attention to problems that still exist with port security:
ReplyDeleteRisk Management: Further Refinements Needed to Assess Risks and Prioritize Protective Measures at Ports and Other Critical Infrastructure
Congress and the President have called for various homeland security efforts to be based on risk management--a systematic process for assessing threats and taking appropriate steps to deal with them….
The three DHS components GAO studied varied considerably in their progress in developing a sound risk management framework for homeland security responsibilities. …The Coast Guard and ODP have a relatively robust methodology in place for assessing risks at ports; IAIP is still developing its methodology and has had several setbacks in completing the task. All three components, however, have much left to do.
State and Local Homeland Security: Unresolved Issues for the 109th ...(pdf)
Security clearances are a problem not only for state and local officials, but also, according to the Government Accountability Office (GAO), for port security officials. GAO reported in April 2005 that port security officials are having difficulties getting homeland security information due to delays in obtaining security clearances. Delays, as determined by GAO, have occurred because U.S. Coast Guard field representatives did not know that the Coast Guard was responsible for contacting non-federal port security officials concerning security clearances, and Coast Guard field offices were not tracking submitted port security officials’ security clearance requests.
Post-partisanship. That's what I advocate. I think this country has evolved so that political parties are either altogether unnecessary or can be relegated to a distinctly minor role in the political process.
ReplyDeleteAs I repeatedly noted, organizations such MoveOn are issues-oriented, not party-oriented; parties are just the vehicles available. Unfortunately, talk of political parties being unnecessary in the U.S. is pathetically uninformed. The U.S. started out without political parties -- the founding fathers were opposed to them. But they were unaware of something that modern theorists have demonstrated -- a two-party system is an inevitable consequence of first-past-the-post voting systems. If you are serious about ending the sway of political parties, then work toward alternative voting systems such as Instant Runoff. But I suspect that you aren't really serious -- it's too big an ego boost to hold oneself above those inferior squabbling "partisans".
BTW, ya gotta love idiotic strawmen like
ReplyDeleteI simply don't see how anyone can argue that the increasingly rabid partisanship demonstrated across the political spectrum is beneficial in any way.
How much better would our port and border security be than it is right now, if the money misspent on Iraq had been well-spent in this Country?
ReplyDelete(Same could be said for Gulf State rebuilding/FEMA.)
However, this port deal is merely a tree in the forest that is the bungling of our whole national security, domestically and internationally.
The issue here is one of incompetence of the administration. This is not separate from the NSA matter, which is an issue of criminality. Two fronts: incompetence and criminality. They need not be mutually exclusive.
Rick
"It's just too coinceydinky that he comes out for this port deal that will give a state owned Arab company control of managing our ports after 5 years of making them out to be the bad guys. And then Frist (a 2008 contender) jumps right out and says he will introduce legislation to block or at least delay the deal after towing the line so faithfully for the same 5 years. Throw in Bush threatening a veto, his first, and something smells pretty bad."
ReplyDeletePossibly, but I have a difficult time believing that if they are going to try this kind of ruse that they would do so on a matter of national security. Anything else, I could see, but this is really their only strong issue (in appearance at least). It undercuts the NSA rationale, especially when they're trying to kill that issue it seems like an awfully powerful weapon to hand Dems and Repubs who think Bush has overreached.
Isn't there some other issue they could have used? Medicare? SS again? This just seems bizarre that they give those up in arms about the NSA a strong argument that Bush is not concerned about national security, that he is just interested in cronyism and strong executive power. I understand the idea, it just seems awfully odd to use this issue when it reflects on a case where Bush broke the law.
These are important comments:
ReplyDeletenerdoff said...
Terrorism is a minor problem. You have a much greater chance of dying of cancer or heart disease or in a car accident. While the Democrats lick their chops over this port issue they might consider that they are playing a Republican game. "Security," "Terra" etc. is bunch of bullshit invented by Rove and Co. to induce us all to vote for the GOP.
As I was channel surfing the news this evening, I landed on Lou Dobbs as he read email from viewers. A couple of them referred to “the supposed war on terror,” or “the supposed terrorist threat.” That word “supposed” says to me that people are beginning to question whether the administration really thinks the threat is so dire, or whether they are just using fear to manipulate us. I think this is the crack that we can begin to lever open.
I'm the Anon whose "spouse" thinks this business has Rove's fingerprints all over it. My "husband" will be glad to know he sparked some debate.
On to the larger issue. Bush is a corporatist to his core. We know that and to understand the mindset we can read the WSJ editorial page from this morning (2/22/06). This port deal is part of a larger, global/free trade trend and it begs the question I have asked since 9/11. Why? Why did Osama and his band of brothers attack the US?
We have no perspective in this country. The outside world is censored from our main source of visual news: TV. K2 seems to have an understanding of this larger worldview and I would like to hear her/his views on this issue. Why did they do it? Is it because of global corporatization wherein the international companies known for exploiting the people and resources of countries around the world are the real targets of Osama and his ilk? Do we all need to read "Rogue Nation" when it's reprinted next month to even begin to understand what is really going on with the corporate class?
Glenn,
ReplyDeleteI look forward to reading your blogs daily. I find that you are really on top of what's happening in this country especially in regards to this administraton and where it stands at this moment. You say that you're open to be convinced, or to understand the uproar forming against this port deal.
Wouldn't you say that upon discovering that such a seemingly unanimous, early consensus (politicians especially) about anything has formed while your attention was diverted is in itself most noteworthy? And, deserving of much commentary?
The point of your articles to one degree or another is about majorities oposing the activities of this administration and how they're ignored.
My point here, Glenn, is this: The mojority has formed or at least will be very shortly. You only have to jump on the wagon!
Scotty just told us that Bush only heard of the deal AFTER it was APROVED by the Administration.
ReplyDeleteWTF!!!
Listen, I am a liberal Democrat, but admittedly, my debate skills aren't as nuanced as most of those posted on this issue. What I do relate to is the knee-jerk reaction that you're seeing now - the "selling out of our ports to the enemy" kind of sentiment, which has obvious roots in a well-honed terror mentality, compliments of this administration. Sudden widespread notice of this seems to be because of the terror angle, forget all the other similar sell-outs. This one hits home as none other did - even if the issue focused on is not remotely the "point". With Bush it's been all black and white. No nuance, no subtleties, no gray areas. Bush perpetuated this fear for his own gain, and now it's biting him in the a**. The question is, why would he do it? Does he believe his base sees only Iraqis as the enemy?
ReplyDeleteI remain highly suspicious of his motives and feel they are based in big, big money. My biggest fear is that we are now beholden to everyone but ourselves in this country. Everything is becoming privatized, and ultimately out of the hands of "the people". THAT, to me is the scariest aspect of this.
Is it so hard (or will it soon be) to sneak a nuclear bomb or a terrorist into this country even if one doesn't control port operations? Maybe it is, but, if not, why are we so concerned about searching containers? I recognize that there are other concerns merited in this issue, btw.
ReplyDeleteI think everything these days is "about" the Thing that we have not yet truthfully addressed. Truth can shine, or it can stink, and when it's denied, it will stink up the room good——until you can't even tell which apples are good, and which ones are rotten, even when they're right under your nose.
ReplyDeleteUntil the day we open the window and air things out——to drag out the metaphor——I suppose that every single episode of human behavior that the White House engages in becomes a stage upon which we may pretend to address this wrong that lives on. Is the sublimation helpful? I don't know. Not if, ultimately, it supplants or distracts us from the actual addressing of that Wrong, I suppose. Or maybe every spark adds to the flames licking thier way topward; cumulative heat that will help to ignite the whole mess, and cauterize the cancer of deception that is eating our nation up like candy.....apples....Damn. I let my metaphors run the show on this one, and they've gummed up the whole show. But it's too late to go back now.
brabantio said...
ReplyDelete"Possibly, but I have a difficult time believing that if they are going to try this kind of ruse that they would do so on a matter of national security. Anything else, I could see, but this is really their only strong issue (in appearance at least). It undercuts the NSA rationale, especially when they're trying to kill that issue it seems like an awfully powerful weapon to hand Dems and Repubs who think Bush has overreached"
Sure they will. Rove has already said that are going to run on national security.
Bush isn't running and Congress will look like hero's because they stood up, even against the president and head of their own party on an issue perceived to be about national security. They will overide Bush's veto if he exercises that option with the help of the Democrats who are also desperate not to look weak on security and they hope they will live happily ever after through the next election.
Bush will look bad but it's more important to him IMO to not be impeached and removed than it is to look bad on this one issue.
Just my opinion about it anyway. Glen in his newest blog is saying the conservatives are already crowing about how Congress is standing up to Bush on this issue.
Very simple.
ReplyDeleteThe UAE can be cheesed off, if the US backs out of this deal. We mess with China, we go bankrupt in a second.
It's the opposite of the "deep pockets" theory of lawsuits -- who will hurt us least, by making a political point of their investments in America?
Yes, cynical. But in this case, safe enough to use to discredit Bush.
"Bush will look bad but it's more important to him IMO to not be impeached and removed than it is to look bad on this one issue."
ReplyDeleteLike I said though, why not use a different issue, if that was the purpose? Why use something that seriously undermines their defense on NSA? Seems to me that if the scandal grows, with their legal arguments so weak already, there could be a lot of fallout here. Sure, the Repubs will show they're not joined at the hip to Bush on this one instance, but if the NSA scandal grows and those same Repubs back Bush on it, after this? That seems like an awfully big risk to me - it would be gaining a strong stance on ports while making themselves vulnerable on holding Bush accountable to the law. And if Dems also stand the same way on the port issue, how do the Repubs gain any advantage in that arena? They're just giving the opposition a chance to make a stand against Bush and for the issue that the Repubs need to be dominant in. That makes it an even worse trade-off, as far as I can see.
You could be right. I just think that if they want to do that, they'd be better off sticking to their guns on the NSA issue and finding an issue far away from national security to criticize Bush for, because this way could have serious repercussions. I think the simplest explanation - that Bush doesn't really care about national security as much as he cares about cronyism and extended powers (which seems to be consistent with his behavior in general, I think) - is probably the true one.
Glen,
ReplyDeleteI have a problem with a foreign country running our ports, plain and simple. Especially a foreign country that has been a conduit for terrorist monies, and a place where illegal nuclear shipments had taken place.
We are not talking about a foreign COMPANY here, we are talking about a STATE OWNED company.
Why, what the hell, why don't we sell our entire fucking country to foreigners while we are at it.
If this plays out the way it's playing now, Bush loses.
ReplyDeleteIf he vetos this, he is seen as
1: not sensitive to security (irrespective of any actual security issues in hand. Lack of real security in such questions hasn't been a factor yet, I don't see why it would matter now).
2: Smacking his supporters around. If he manages a successful veto he is telling the Republican legislators he doesn't care about them.
3: Losing. If he has to issue a successful veto, then he loses, and he's been very good at not losing. So far each time he has threatened a veto the legislators have caved in; this time it would be a smack in the face for him.
TK
Re Portgate --
ReplyDeleteFirst, I did not know til all of this emerged that some of our ports were owned/run by Chinese companies.
Second, if the company that runs a port is owned by the government of the UAE, that company will put the interests of its own government ahead of ours. Here's an example from 1910: Belgium ordered heavy siege guns for its border forts from two suppliers -- Skoda and Krupp. Krupp, a German company, had very close ties to the German army because the Germany army was its best customer. The German army quietly asked Krupp to delay delivery of those guns. Krupp complied -- after all, they were good German citizens as well as good businessmen who wanted to oblige their biggest customer -- and the siege guns were never delivered.
In 1914, when the German army crossed the Belgian border, the Belgian forts did not have enough guns to stop them -- because most of their heavy guns were still in a Krupp factory in Essen.
I would actually be opposed to ANY foreign government being in control of our port facilities for exactly this reason -- it compromises our ability to manage our security as we see fit.
I was the person who put the alert from Move On about the NSA spying protest on this blog yesterday. I got that in my email as an alert from Vichy Dems. I had originally, within the last week or so, gone to Vichy Dems because I liked many of the posts that thersites had posted to this blog, which is the first time I ever heard of them.
ReplyDeleteDavid Shaughnessy is one of my few favorite posters, and when he said he wouldn't go to that meeting, I immediately understood why, as I had the same initial reaction to supporting anything with the word DEM in it, but the NSA spying issue is so important to me that I decided to support whomever was an ally in the fight against the erosion of my civil liberties.
I voted for Bush twice, unapologetically, although I do agree he is the worst President in history, and have never voted Democrat in my life, but I am definitely non-partisan. The reason I am reluctant to associate myself with anything with the word DEM in it is not because I support the Republican Party as such.
I am a radical laissez faire capitalist, who sees capitalism as a system whose moral underpinning is a belief in every man's right to his own life and his own property, without any government interference beyond the concepts of government laid out in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
The Democratic Party is a party whose stated program, in essence, is the antithesis of capitalism, which is why I can never support that party.
I could support an individual like Feingold, because although I disagree with his economic positions, he appears to be an honest, even heroic person who shares a visceral dislike of government intrusion into a person's private life. The fact that he was the only Senator on either side of the aisle to object to the Patriot Act is an enormous point in his favor to me, as I too was against it from day one and knew it would lead to everything which it has, in fact, led to.
Unfortunately, the Republican party has veered farther and farther away from capitalism, so it now offers little alternative, but as long as it at least made some attempt to include a position of small government and lower taxes, and to defend some capitalistic principles, if one was to vote, and have that vote count (as opposed to voting for a third party, voting Republican seemed to be a reasonable choice.
If supporting Democrats who are allies in what I now consider to be the most important issue, which I will summarize as BIG BROTHER, leads to attacks by them on someone like David Shaughnessy, then that's a big problem and I won't post any more references to Democratic sites on this blog.
Since I have been almost totally apolitical for many years, I don't even know what the positions of groups like Move On are. On this one issue, they are speaking my mind, which is why I mentioned them.
BTW, my beliefs always stay the same, although the parties seem to change, which is why I say I am non-partisan. That is why, although I paid little attention to the whole debate, I was against the attacks on Clinton for lying about his sex life. The issue to me was not that he lied and thus in applying the Rule of Law, he must be punished.
I objected for the same reason I object now to the NSA spying, microchips in drivers licenses, unreasonable searches in the phony guise of security, demands for identification, intrusive demands for private information from banks and brokerage firms, etc., etc. etc. Clinton's sex life is a private matter that should be nobody's business but his own. If he was forced, for any reason, to reveal private facts about his sex life, in a lawsuit, a government investigation, or whatever, I object to that. If he broke the law in not revealing details about his private sex life, I object to whatever law would require him to do so in the first place. I am not a big fan of fascist laws passed by fascist majorities in otherwise democratic socities.
So I don't think the argument that Clinton should have been impeached because he broke the law is valid. Breaking immoral laws should always be an option for principled citizens, but that option should be used judiciously.
By that I mean that if the government tomorrow passed a law (and Chicago seems headed in just that direction) that private citizens and private businesses must allow police cameras into their homes and businesses, I'd break it.
But although I object vehemously to progressive taxation, I dutifully pay my taxes.
Everyone has to decide for himself where to draw the line in the sand.
I am a radical laissez faire capitalist, who sees capitalism as a system whose moral underpinning is a belief in every man's right to his own life and his own property, without any government interference beyond the concepts of government laid out in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
ReplyDeleteAdam Smith didn't agree; you might try him sometime. Or better, read Kenneth Lux's book "Adam Smith's Mistake: How a Moral Philosopher Invented Economics and Ended Morality" (http://www.makethemaccountable.com/myth/GreedIsGood.htm)
The Democratic Party is a party whose stated program, in essence, is the antithesis of capitalism, which is why I can never support that party.
Ya gotta love these hyper-partisan nut case ideologues who call themselves "non-partisan". "partisan" is NOT a synonym for "party hack". From Mirriam Webster: "a firm adherent to a party , faction, cause, or person; especially : one exhibiting blind, prejudiced, and unreasoning allegiance".
I just wanted to highlight this I copied from Talking Points Memo:
ReplyDeleteThe NY Times reported today that the law governing this sort of deal, when "the acquiring company is controlled by or acting on behalf of a foreign government," requires a "mandatory," 45-day investigation. That was never done, and what's more, "Administration officials ... could not say why a 45-day investigation did not occur."
Here's yet another example of a 'shortcut' taken by the Bush administration where they wanted to do something, they did it and to hell with the law or the consequences. You can like or dislike the idea of having foreign companies run American security, but another aspect of this scandal is that the Bush administration simply doesn't give a damn about procedure, the law, or respecting the opinions or rights of others...
Brabantio said:
ReplyDeleteLike I said though, why not use a different issue, if that was the purpose? Why use something that seriously undermines their defense on NSA? Seems to me that if the scandal grows, with their legal arguments so weak already, there could be a lot of fallout here.
IMO the Republicans don't have any issue to run on rather than national security. I just can't see anything else that they have. They aren't going to win on more tax cuts for the rich, the budget cuts that hurt students and the poor, not even the economy.
My guess is that they will try to paint the port deal and the NSA scandal as being two different issues.
Anon, the female, not the male :):
ReplyDeleteSeems like both you and your husband are very insightful. I hope someone answers the question you pose.
Meanwhile, CNN reports that the Bush family has a huge investment in companies related to this Port Deal.
Add that to the "global/free trade" trend, with whatever is really behind that, the possible Rovian "game plan" tactic of this Port Deal, and four or five other theories floating around, and they all add up to one thing: smart people know BushCo cannot be trusted, and that if one follows the money, or the power that leads to the money, they're not likely to land up at a dead end.
Here's something interesting: Bush is not the only person who says he wasn't informed about this deal. The White House says that they were not informed, nor their staffers, nor Andy Card or Karl Rove. Rumsfeld says he wasn't informed. That's peculiar.
WHO IS REALLY THE CABAL RUNNING THIS COUNTRY? Who is using whom, for what? Are they Americans, foreigners, internationalists? Who?
Do they care about the Constitution, or the citizens of this country, or freedom? Or is that a rhetorical question?
As for my critic re: capitalism. I said "I see capitalism", not how YOU see capitalism.
I see capitalism as the School of Austrian Economists did, not Adam Smith.
You say tomato, and I say tomahto, but in my view, capitalism is the only moral system of government prescisely because it is the only system which places supreme value on the individual and his right to his life and property.
Finally, none of us really knows what's behind this Port Deal, but you know what? We're going to find out. You can't put the genie back in the bottle once the genie has been let out, and it looks like that's what is happening now in America.
About time!
Hello Glenn,
ReplyDeleteAs a liberal, I'm rather disgusted by this display of political haymaking.
The fact is that the UAE is a modern, progressive country that allows equal rights for women, where alchohol is legal, and a large portion of the population is white, Christian and welcome. Unlike many Arab aristocracies, the UAE has reinvested its windfalls back into the people that live there, including its many foreigners.
Though the Emirates built its initial wealth from oil, they are trying to diversify and are now the banking center of the Middle East and a major new crossroads between Asian and European business. It is because of its massive banking industry that charges of 9-11 'money laundering' are made, but as Justin Raimondo has said, Targeting DP World on account of this is like embargoing Wal-Mart because the 9/11 hijackers bought their box-cutters there.
This issue reeks head to tail of an easy political score because Democrats know there is no backlash from portraying Arabs as terrorists.
The UAE and Dubai in particular is what the west should want the rest of the Middle East to move towards. If we are willing to run around making accusations of terrorism with little or no proof I don't think we can expect much from the rest of the region beyond perpetual strife and hate.
I have written about it more here and here if you care to read more about it.
Right on Patriot Daily, that was very succinct.
ReplyDeleteThroughout this whole deal one thing stands out: We now have definitive proof that Bush is just a front.
Bushco must be desparate by now.
I have a feeling it's comeuppance time.
"IMO the Republicans don't have any issue to run on rather than national security. I just can't see anything else that they have."
ReplyDeleteThat's exactly why such a ruse that relates directly to that issue, and gives Dems a chance to make a stand on conservative turf seems so stupid.
"My guess is that they will try to paint the port deal and the NSA scandal as being two different issues."
It's going to be difficult for Bush, who has made so many speeches regarding how important the safety of the American people is and how no chances can be taken with that, to argue that the Port issue doesn't reflect on national security at all. It's going to be even more difficult for Repubs to defend Bush on NSA and admit that Bush isn't thinking about national security regarding the ports. "Bush is circumventing the law because he'll do anything to protect us...but he's endangering our safety by giving away this control of the ports...does not compute!"