Reidblog [The Reid Report blog]

Think at your own risk.
|
Monday, February 27, 2006
Dubai-bye
Prediction: The Bush administration will use the 45 day "cooling off" period to find a way to kill the Dubai port deal. If they don't, the Republican lead Congress will kill it for them. Either way, the port deal is dead. DOA. DNR. No coming back. And you can quote me on that.

Why? Because Republicans can't afford to take a bath in the Senate in November (see the next post), or to do badly in the House, either (though the miracle of gerrymandering makes the House a virtual incumbency bonanza). Still, if the GOP loses one branch of the legislature, particularly the Senate, the whole house of cards comes tumbling down: investigations, subpoenas, or worse could be in the cards. There certainly are enough scandals out there to make their lives, and the president's, a living hell for the next two years: Plamegate/the Scooter Libby trial, the AIPAC spy scandal and the associated Iraq/Iran scandals in the Feith/Cambone wing of the Pentagon, ongoing controversies over torture, domestic spying, and the possible disintegration of Iraq...

Make no mistake, the ports deal is a loser for the GOP. It's a loser because it carries with it the baggage of three very bad things in the eyes of average Americans, which even Republicans are beginning to associate heavily with the national GOP and President Bush: globalism (read open borders and free trade, plus that Indian call center that pisses you off every time you call tech support...), big business in control of government (read Enron, Worldcom, Ford, General Motors, layoffs, pay cuts, corruption, bribes, no health care and Wal-Mart...) and Muslims (or Arabs if you like, since most Americans really don't perceive a difference)-- the latter of the three the Bush administration has spent four long years pounding into our heads that we should fear the way a child fears the boogeyman. So now, we're handing our ports over the boogeyman, why??? Most Americans just can't make the leap. (No, no dear, not these Arabs ... these Arabs are our fiends...) Yeah, buddy. Whatever. Most Americans, so well trained by the constant terrors of the Bush-Cheney message machine, could give a damn about the complexities. (And it's confusing: we're supposed to loathe the Muslims because they're pissed off at the Danish cartoons, loathe the Palestinians because ... well, they're there ... smack the Iraqis with one hand and hand over $1 trillion to them with the other, and now this???) I'm afraid it's all just too much, which is why four in five Americans oppose the deal, even as:
Just 39% of Americans know that the operating rights are currently owned by a foreign firm. Fifteen percent (15%) believe the operating rights are U.S. owned while 46% are not sure.

From a political perspective, President Bush's national security credentials have clearly been tarnished due to the outcry over this issue. For the first time ever, Americans have a slight preference for Democrats in Congress over the President on national security issues. Forty-three percent (43%) say they trust the Democrats more on this issue today while 41% prefer the President.

It is important to note that the question about trust on national security issues was asked first, before any mention was made of the Dubai Ports issue. [Source: Rasmussen Reports]
Same point made by Paul Krugman here. (Take THAT, Times Select!!)
Let's go back to the beginning. At 2:40 p.m. on Sept. 11, 2001, Donald Rumsfeld gave military commanders their marching orders. "Judge whether good enough hit S. H. [Saddam Hussein] @ same time - not only UBL [Osama bin Laden]," read an aide's handwritten notes about his instructions. The notes were recently released after a Freedom of Information Act request. "Hard to get a good case," the notes acknowledge. Nonetheless, they say: "Sweep it all up. Things related and not."

So it literally began on Day 1. When terrorists attacked the United States, the Bush administration immediately looked for ways it could exploit the atrocity to pursue unrelated goals - especially, but not exclusively, a war with Iraq.

But to exploit the atrocity, President Bush had to do two things. First, he had to create a climate of fear: Al Qaeda, a real but limited threat, metamorphosed into a vast, imaginary axis of evil threatening America. Second, he had to blur the distinctions between nasty people who actually attacked us and nasty people who didn't.

The administration successfully linked Iraq and 9/11 in public perceptions through a campaign of constant insinuation and occasional outright lies. In the process, it also created a state of mind in which all Arabs were lumped together in the camp of evildoers. Osama, Saddam - what's the difference?

Now comes the port deal. Mr. Bush assures us that "people don't need to worry about security." But after all those declarations that we're engaged in a global war on terrorism, after all the terror alerts declared whenever the national political debate seemed to be shifting to questions of cronyism, corruption and incompetence, the administration can't suddenly change its theme song to "Don't Worry, Be Happy." ...

...Mr. Bush shouldn't really be losing his credibility as a terrorism fighter over the ports deal, which, after careful examination (which hasn't happened yet), may turn out to be O.K. Instead, Mr. Bush should have lost his credibility long ago over his diversion of U.S. resources away from the pursuit of Al Qaeda and into an unnecessary war in Iraq, his bungling of that war, and his adoption of a wrongful imprisonment and torture policy that has blackened America's reputation.

But there is, nonetheless, a kind of rough justice in Mr. Bush's current predicament. After 9/11, the American people granted him a degree of trust rarely, if ever, bestowed on our leaders. He abused that trust, and now he is facing a storm of skepticism about his actions - a storm that sweeps up everything, things related and not.
Righto? Now for more on the ports deal.

Surprise! The Dubai firm seeking to take over the 21 U.S. ports enforces the boycott of Israel...

The Homeland Security Department (perhaps the most ironically named agency in U.S. government history) wasn't the only Bush team player to oppose the Dubai deal before they approved of it:
Citing broad gaps in U.S. intelligence, the Coast Guard raised concerns weeks ago that it could not determine whether a United Arab Emirates-based company seeking a stake in some U.S. port operations might support terrorist operations.

The disclosure came during a hearing Monday on Dubai-owned DP World's plans to assume significant operations at six leading U.S. ports. It also clouded whether the Bush administration's agreement to conduct an unusual investigation into the pending takeover's security risks would allay lawmakers' concerns.

The administration said the Coast Guard's concerns were raised during its review of the deal, which it approved Jan. 17, and that all those questions were resolved. ...

..."There are many intelligence gaps, concerning the potential for DPW or P&O assets to support terrorist operations, that precludes an overall threat assessment" of the potential merger, an unclassified Coast Guard intelligence assessment said.

"The breadth of the intelligence gaps also infer potential unknown threats against a large number of potential vulnerabilities," said the half-page assessment. Officials said it was an unclassified excerpt from a larger document. ...

... The Coast Guard assessment raised questions about the security of the companies' operations, the backgrounds of people working for the companies, and whether other foreign countries influenced operations that affect security.

"We were never told about this and have no information about it," Michael Moore, DP World's senior vice president, said of the excerpt. However, he said it shows "serious and probing" questions were asked and that the initial approval of the deal indicates those questions were answered.
Oh, and the Saudis are running U.S. ports, too, including one in Brooklyn... Sleep well!

Tags: , Dubai, Ports, Terrorism, Politics, UAE, News, Republicans
posted by JReid @ 11:08 PM  


ReidBlog: The Obama Interview
Listen now:


Add to Technorati Favorites


Join the mailing list!
Enter your name and email address below:
Name:
Email:
Subscribe  Unsubscribe 


Home

Site Feed

Email Me

My FaceBook

My MySpace

Follow me on Twitter

Del.idio.us

BlackPlanet

Blogroll Me!

From the overwrought minds that brought you Mahatma Hillary, comes the new website devoted to America's Maverick...



Mahatma Hillary
"If it happened in the world,
Hillary was there!"


Finalist: Best Liberal Blog
Thanks to all who voted!



120x240 Direction 3 banner

Weblog Commenting and Trackback by HaloScan.com Listed on BlogShares
Weblog Commenting and Trackback by HaloScan.com



BlogRankers.com
Search Popdex:


My blog is worth $31,614.24.
How much is your blog worth?

<% dim done done = request.form("done") if done = "" then done = "No" %> Tell a friend

Recommend ReidBlog:

<% Else if request.form("done") = "Yes" then 'sets variables dim email, sendmail email = request.form("email") Set sendmail = Server.CreateObject("CDONTS.NewMail") 'put the webmaster address here sendmail.From = "webmaster@aspbasics.com" 'The mail is sent to the address entered in the previous page. sendmail.To = email 'Enter the subject of your mail here sendmail.Subject = "Check out this website" 'send a specific page or send a site url dim url 'url = Request.ServerVariables("HTTP_REFERER") url = "http://www.aspbasics.net" 'This is the content of the message. sendmail.Body = "Site recommendation from a friend!" & _ vbCrlf & vbCrlf & "A friend has sent you this email and thought you would should check out this site." & _ vbCrlf & url & vbCrlf 'this sets mail priority.... 0=low 1=normal 2=high sendmail.Importance = 1 sendmail.Send 'Send the email! response.redirect Request.ServerVariables("HTTP_REFERER") 'Response.write ("Sent to ") & email End if End if %>

About Reidblog

Previous Posts
Title
"[T]he practice of arbitrary imprisonments, have been, in all ages, the favorite and most formidable instruments of tyranny.'
Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 84, August, 1788
Links

Templates by
Free Blogger Templates