My Chat with the President

“But I will never turn over our national security decisions to leaders of other countries.”

George W. Bush, third Presidential debate, October 13, 2004.

(Unless, of course, it’s the leaders of the UAE, and my friends in the Carlyle Group are poised to make a couple gazillion off this deal. )

“points”? Bushco started out with enough “points” in the Saudi world to make about a gazillion trips around the world in first class on the Concorde, if the Concorde were still flying. Those points didn’t protect us from attack, and I doubt these will, either.

Tony Blair already has a position with the Carlyle Group when he steps down as PM. So a Brit company to the UAE international business district - the pieces fit oh, so nicely. I’m not accusing anyone, I’m just sayin’.

Oh, merd, j’accuse…

Ditto dee’s reading list.

Bush the first had that “vision” thing going on. Which,as it turned out,didn’t extend beyond his wristwatch.

Ahem,well, at least we know Adam has the President’s ear.That other Fellow giving him advice seems to have let him down in so many ways,what with bad intel on the WMD’s and the connection between Osama and Sadaam, and all that other stuff,like Social Security and the Medicare Drug Program and the list goes on. Mr.President, listen to Adam.

“A southern accent does not equate to stupidity.” True. His “duh” factor transcends dialect.

That “if it’s OK for a Great British company, why isn’t it OK for an Arab company?” line misses an important point as far as I’m concerned. Why is it OK for a British company to be minding American ports? Aren’t there any American companies (employing American citizens) who can do this work? I’m sure Halliburton could do it.

Yeah, yeah, I know; it’s good for the American economy to export jobs, and leave American citizens unemployed (as long as the lazy b*****ds don’t lay around collecting unemployment payments at the expense of the abused taxpayers). And it’s certainly a *real* good thing to have American companies running things in other countries (’cause after all those other people couldn’t possibly do it as well as us Americans).

I’m wondering why Bush is so insistant that such an obviously stupid venture be pushed through? Who gains if this deal happens and what do they gain? What this country needs right now is a dedicated cadre of investigative journalists. So, where are they?

Bush is asking what’s the difference between the “Great British” (0 out 19 hijackers) owning the company vs a Middle Eastern country (19 out of 19 hijackers). Sorry if I seem cynical.

Dave D - I did hear that not a single American company bid for the job.

Adam, I stand by my assertion that it is wise to take the route that you know will bring progress instead of stubbornly spinning your wheels on futile terrain. It is quite likely that if the administration had opposed the UAE company that the ACLU would have been hiring lawyers and the critics would have been crawling out crying racism, poor international relations, and whatever other dirt they could dig up. The argument could be made that if your goal is really peace then there would be a PR reason to allow the company, to give them a “chance”. I wouldn’t make that argument though. I think they are evil and wouldn’t trust them as far as I could throw them. Apparently that is suddenly the consensus here, probably more because of the Bush hating than the actual merits of the case. I really would have expected a few to be on the “other” side of this.

I will definitely concede this though, if he is serious it is quite out of character and I would not agree with this position. My lackey status may be in jeopardy on this one.

I think the President is serious, and if I’m listening to the news right, it shouldn’t hurt security (NPR had a good story this morning). That being said - the administration shows quite a bit of hubris with this. They had to know that when this was public it would look bad, even if its not that bad. The entire presidency has been based on the idea that we’re right and no one else can criticise us. The problem is, when you say that so many times and are wrong - when you really might be right, no one wants to give you a chance.

You think they would have learned by now.

RRRyan-
Just a few clarifications:
1)The ACLU wouldn’t have had anything to do with it. This has nothing to do with American Civil Liberties- as in their name.
2)If you look for character and results, I believe you maybe overlooking a number of character flaws such as secretiveness, name calling, shifting blame and misleading/lying to name a few. Personally, over 2,000 American bodies doesn’t really seem like results to me.
3) To underscore Adam’s point, it isn’t just his “enemies” that are against Shrub on this one. It is also his own party. That isn’t your opponent’s rhetoric against him/her. It is “pissing in the wind.” IMHO

Sadly, I believe a good deal of this has to do with this administration’s belief that the executive branch has ultimate power. Despite all of their lip service to the Constitution, they have no intention of allowing the government to have three branches. Shrub has even said he would veto any bill that gave the Congress the right to review such deals.

The bright spot in all of this is that it will be US citizens who do the inspection and security.

Adam,

We’ve been through this before,

If a reader can’t understand satire, it’s not your fault. If you need to explain what you have written, it’s time that one of you find a more suitable blog.

As someone else wrote several years ago to a similar situation, explaining a joke is like dissecting a frog, It’s not very interesting for most and the frog dies in the process.

Adam, you have no obligation to dumb down your writing.

Wow! President Bush will actually veto legislation? I’ll believe it when I see it.

I don’t care what business group owns the business of the ports, I am most concerned about the lack of security. This UAE story is really about who runs the port businesses, right?

Kind of similar to the nuclear power industry. I believe the Nine Mile nuclear plants here in Central New York are owned and run by a UK company, and who knows what other international groups have controlling interests. But the security of the nuclear power industry is the responsibility of the Dept of Homeland Security… erm, pardon my misgivings over that…

So, I’ve been suffering from the deafening silence regarding the lack of a plan to secure our chemical, nuclear and port industries. I think this is the real issue!

Now excuse me while I succumb to another apoplectic fit….

‘Rumsfeld also said al-Qaida and other Islamic extremist groups have poisoned the Muslim public’s view of the United States through deft use of the Internet and other modern communications methods that the American government has failed to master… Our enemies have skillfully adapted to fighting wars in today’s media age, but for the most part we — our country, our government — has not adapted,” he said.’

Adam, I would love to see your interpretation of Rumsfeld’s profoundly inane statement… unbelievable!

I wouldn’t even know where to start!?!

Murray, that poor frog.

The latest from AP:

White House Says Bush Didn’t Know About Port Deal
(White House-AP) February 22, 2006 - It seems lawmakers aren’t alone in having just learned that operations at six US ports are being sold to a state-owned Mideast company. The White House is acknowledging President Bush didn’t know either.
Press Secretary Scott McClellan says the decision was made by an interagency committee, and it never “rose to the presidential level.”

Bush didn’t find out until a few days ago.
http://articles.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id=20060218210909990001& ncid=NWS00010000000001

I’m going to have to go ahead and agree with Scooby (#25) on this one. I’m not particularly concerned with who runs the businesses at the port (from a security standpoint). I AM however concerned that we still aren’t doing a whole lot to secure our ports.

Congress is freaking out now because this looks bad and this is easy to spin in short sound bites, but they’ll be damned if they care about actual security as they (and the executive) don’t do much at all to inspect incoming cargo, while they still make me take off my SANDALS to get through security and get on an airplane.

Now we just look like idiots saying that an Arab company can’t handle the business aspect of a port in the US, but any other country can.

OK - that hurts. I can’t take this agreeing with this President thing. I’m sure I’m in agreement for different reasons, but it still hurts.

I feel your pain, Scooby. You may think that you’re crying in the wilderness about port security, but a lot of folks feel the same way. Unfortunately, few of them are members of the administration, which has more of a close-the-barn-door-after-two-or-three-dozen-horses-have-escaped policy.

Murray,

Thank you for the link. Yes, I agree about the problem of the increasing corporate ownership and management of, well, just about everything!

It also helps clear up what the “New York Port Authority” is. I never quite understood that. (NY/NJ Port Authority).

Yes, public oversight makes the most sense to maintain the infrastructure. Just as how the roads, public transportation and airports are managed.

Mary, your ACLU defense doesn’t hold up. What do international prisoners at GITMO have to do with A.C.L.U? That’s off the top of my head, at your request I will be happy to itemize a list for you proving that the A.C.L.U does more than A.C.L.U.

Lots of good stuff here and nothing I can take issue with except Murray’s continual attempts to alienate me. Your just jealous cause Adam talked to me. I apologize for being too slow to catch the point, I don’t speak liberalese remember. Anyway, I do appreciate the clarification and apparently a few others did too.

So I respectfully ask for a little respect from you Mr. Murray sir.

Murray, you took the words out of my mouth. Why are such important national security functions being privatized? Since when does a corporation have any incentive to look after anything except the bootom line? A corporation is answerable only to its stockholders, or its owner, if it is privately held. I want an entity that is answerable to the soverign American people to be responsible for this function.

Murray, thanks for the link. Dee, great points.

Let me clarify a little and change my mind just a bit. The people who are doing the yelling right now are doing the yelling BECAUSE this is an Arab company, not because this is a corporation. They didn’t have a problem when it was run by a UK company.

I would prefer that this infrastructure be run like other public infrastructure but since it’s not right now, merely yelling because they’re Arab isn’t a good idea. If this PARTICULAR company isn’t the best choice, I think the public argument should be about that - but this isn’t what I’ve been hearing. In fact the only things I’ve been hearing specifically about this company is how well they run their ports.

So yes: it definitely smells of cronyism (which would explain a lot) and corporate control of everything is not necessarily good. But since these ports are already run by a foreign corporation, and this new corporation has been doing this in many places besides the Middle East, maybe we should focus more on the security aspect of our ports and less on the business aspect.

Alright, so a couple of possible options are as follows:

1: Bush is foolishly playing the crony card. (interesting that day before yesterday he was defending the sale of the management services to the UAE and threatening to veto any block of the deal; while yesterday, he claims to have not known about it until “a few days ago.”

2: An purely speculative wag-the-dog extrapolation of RRRRyan’s comment re red-herring.

Mid-term elections are coming up.
News of the sale of control of major east coast maritime ports to a middle eastern state run corporation becomes public.
Major Republican power players denounce the deal en mass as a threat to national security. Dems do so as well, while trying not to appear “anti-muslim.”
Bush backs down/didn’t know about deal, in face of Republican back-lash.
Republicans re-elected during mid-term elections and retain majority of seats on a platform of staying on message: “Keeping America Secure from Terrorists and Those Who Harbor Them(tm).”
Rove already has his next candidate picked out for managing during the 2008 presidential elections (most likely the Republican that is most vocally outraged by UAE control of ports) and maintains control of the Presidency once Bush’s term expires.

Possible?

To put things in perspective, how do you think politicians on both sides of the aisle would have reacted if control of non-maritime portals into the U.S had been handed over to the UAE (or any foreign corporation)?
Think LaGuardia, Dulles, Ronald Reagan International, O’Hare, LAX et al.

So the “American” part is just for effect? Suddenly the “Bill of Rights” applies to non-Americans? Why wasn’t the ACLU leading the charge to liberate Iraq from Hussein using that logic? You cut my argument in half, but that’s okay…

“I don’t think that “civil liberties” are involved here”

Sure they are, disallowing a foreign company to continue the operations of another foreign company that it bought out strictly on the grounds of nationality? If you want it to be about civil liberties it can be construed just about without exception. Which is one of the many grounds for removing their tax-exempt status.

When I was watching the movie Groundhog Day I kept thinking how fun it would be to do one thing one day, do the exact opposite the next and see how many people complained no matter what I did. It’s up there with the tree falling in the woods. I can’t prove it, but I’m quite certain that there is a sound. LOL. Don’t even get me going on string theory nonsense.

“When I was watching the movie Groundhog Day I kept thinking how fun it would be to do one thing one day, do the exact opposite the next and see how many people complained no matter what I did.”

In other words, you’d just want to be a shit-disturber, not discussing things from a genuine point of view?

Jim, I was kinda taking #2 as a given. This isn’t quite as much a non-issue as Dick Cheney’s hunting accident, but it’s one that everyone can do a lot of fairly safe political grandstanding on. A lot of Congressional incumbents are going to try to use this to their advantage in the upcoming elections.

Siobhan do you really think you got my point? Every post I’ve made here has attested to my sincere and genuine opinion that people here simply hate Bush, everything he does, and everything he stands for, regardless of the individual merits of those actions. This has been a huge circus watching as opinions adjust to the latest news,

1. Bush approved a UAE company running security on our ports.
General response: “What an idiot”
2. Bush approved a UAE company running 6 ports that would be secured via the coast guard and overseen via customs.
General response: “What an idiot”
3. Bus didn’t even know about it.
General response: “What an idiot”
—— Alarm goes off, it’s 7:00 AM yesterday morning!
1. Bush disapproved a UAE company running security on our ports.
General response: “What an idiot”

…

I’m kinda living in a glass house here though. I realized that about 11 days ago I crossed over to a point that anything A.G. does will result in “What an idiot” from me. How does one get out of such an illogical state?

Heard George Bartlett on Fresh Air today. His book might be worth the read:
“George W. Bush is widely considered to be one of the most politically conservative presidents in history. His invasion of Iraq, his huge tax cuts, and his intervention in the Terri Schiavo case are among the issues where those on the left view him as being to the right of Attila the Hun. But those on the right have a different perspective — mostly discussed among themselves or in forums that fly below the major media’s radar. They know that Bush has never really been one of them the way Ronald Reagan was. Bush is more like Richard Nixon — a man who used the right to pursue his agenda, but was never really part of it. In short, he is an impostor, a pretend conservative.”

There is a great excerpt from his book on their web site.

It’s not a circle. I said the rights apply to anyone under American jurisdiction. Iraq is under Iraqi jurisdiction, it’s not under American law.

That’s why, as I understand it, if you’re an American citizen caught breaking, say, Turkish law, in Turkey, you can go to prison for a very long time - in Turkey.

Julia

Iraq is not under U.S. jurisdiction–sort of. But Guantanamo is, arguably.

Julia, RRRRyan, thanks for reminding me. It’s time to renew my membership in ACLU.

Pete, ever since they started making me take off my shoes I wore sandals. And I got away with it several times. But the last couple of times they even made me take off my beloved Chacos. And this was AFTER the news reports about people being allowed to keep their shoes on again!

Oh, and of course I wear my socks. Usually white. And my wife has gotten used to it.

And while you’re still trying to figure out what your point was, I’m working on pointing out that I was trying to make that same point.

Glad to see you found that ‘Zed’ key. I hope you don’t wear it out.

No, Pete, I don’t wear sandals when I travel, and I’m afraid I’d join your wife in a veto over sandals with socks, had I the power. I recognize that there may be some outdoorsy activities for which this combo is appropriate, however. I DID sympathize with Landis, who complained about taking off HIS sandals. It’s a ridiculous waste of time and can’t possibly be considered a safety measure. But I wear shoes on a plane. Slip-ons, of course.

I’m already an ACLU member, but discussions such as this one remind me I’d better send them a few more bucks.

ACLU is not tax-exempt. ACLU Foundation is.

I’ll throw in my house in Fairfield County, CT.

Sharon, I recently read this article: http://www.ahherald.com/bishop/2005/gb050929_aclu.htm and thought it was accurate. Thanks for shedding some light for me.

Stephen, that article was super relevant. So perhaps we have a third party emerging? I especially appreciated the insight into Bush’s pattern of firing and demoting people who don’t agree with him. Now I’d like to verify that other presidents don’t have similar stories to the two that are mentioned in the excerpt. Actually it is three since Bruce Bartlett himself was one of the victims. That would make it hard to present an unbiased POV wouldn’t it?

A lot of the article was very well articulated opinion. It is easy to find distinctions between any two people on the planet. So I didn’t find the itemized list of “Bush isn’t Reagan”s very important.

Anyway, that article did get me thinking. I still would prefer to let the administration do their job without my nosing around but you know, it’s perfectly reasonable to want more information. I think I get the point of Adam’s post, so yaw are sayin’ you’d like to know more of the details on more of the issues?

Ooops… I have to change the channel the one I’m on just showed Alec Baldwin. Have you seen the petition going around? If the one I got is even remotely accurate there are like 15,000 people boycotting Alec Baldwin. LOL.

Ryan, lately the core of your arguments seems to be “the Democrats did it, too.” But this was the administration that was going to restore “honor and integrity” to the White House. Or did I misunderstand?

To simply say, “they did it first,” is a double-edged sword. Assuming that we ever again have fair elections in this country, there -will- be a Democratic in the White House again someday. Do you really want him (or her) to have this kind of unlimited power?

no.

OOPs, hit the send key too soon. The last paragraph should read:

This is a storm in a teacup. This is about who drives the forklifts, and it’s being presented as a great crisis of national security. In fact, most of the people driving the forklifts now are American (read the NPR story linked above); and they’ll continue to drive the forklifts if DPW does take over cargo management. Not to mention that Dubai is in this for the money, which they won’t make if they hire terrorists.

And we did lose the battle over “foreign” management of U.S. ports years ago: after all, we hired the Brits.

Good point, Emmarie, since probably the worst thing about the Bush administration is its total unwillingness to explain anything to anyone. Starting with Congress.

Hedera,
Thank You!
for restoring my faith in the Assha…er…Felbernauts! I was thinking of opening w/ “The ragheads are coming, the ragheads are coming!!”
Where does this leave us? Screaming about national security about this “tempest” or about an “un-covert” agent?
I’m glad y’all are so interested in our security, can we please start w/ our borders? And where do y’all stand on the Patriot Act or NSA eavesdropping or profiling?
They’re all tied together, yet y’all jumped on the slowest pony.

Sharon (75) and Max. Bob (76),
It’s just that we have short memories, and don’t remember y’all being so disturbed when Clinton was lying to us and a federal prosecutor or when he was selling missile technology to the Communist Chinese (to reach L.A.),who, I believe, were given control of some of our ports out West during “their” administration.
It’s not that y’all did it first, it’s that we openly object…to border policy, relations w/ Mexico, control of our ports, and I still believe that “if you carry a gun, don’t be a Dick.”

WF -

“BuBuBut Clinton!…”

Thanks. Never fails to amuse.

Landis, next time you fly, try sandals, calf-high black nylon socks, pasty white legs and plaid Bermuda shorts w/ striped golf shirt. TSA will wave you right through, though your wife will be finding another seat assignment.

I’m only going to say this once.

Clinton lied under oath…about a blow job. W took an oath–twice–to defend the Constitution of the United States. He’s never “lied under oath” because he refuses to ever testify under oath.

Out of all the million$$$ of taxpayer dollars that were spent investigating the Clintons’ so-called criminal activites, not one indictment was ever obtained. Scooter Libby, Tom DeLay, Bill Frist, Jack Abramoff…just the tip of the iceberg.

Whatever Clinton did or didn’t do while in office, it was legal at that time. In fact, his administration pushed to tighten up the loopholes in FISA. Selling missle technology to China? Well, Clinton, like BushCo, never met a corporation he didn’t like.

The idea of “they’re just managing the port, the Coast Guard and Customs are in charge of security” is just another line of BS, don’t buy it.

Yes, those agencies are in charge of security, but that doesn’t mean that the company running the port can’t be a security risk. To indulge in a bit of hyperbole, it’s like saying that there’s no security problem having a mob-connected company move into your city, because the police are in charge of law enforcement. Adding security risks to the mundane operations of the port means more work for the people “in charge of security,” which makes them less secure.

Considering the general attitude of this administration that they’re always right, and rules are a nuisance rather than a mechanism to ensure the job is done right, their assurances that “the government” has fully checked this out (but they can’t tell Congress the details) are somewhat less than reassuring. Given the number of times in the past that claimes of secret information that supports their conclusion turned out to be false, requiring them to “show their work” on this one is just common sense.

The Long War, martial law, detention without trial, suppression of dissent, and Bush’s mysterious “new programs”:

http://www.alternet.org/rights/32647/

And a quote from one of the comments:

…one of the most disturbing aspects of the current regime is that they act as if they will never be held to account, that there will never be a day of reckoning for all their misdeeds. As if the revolution upon which they have embarked will never be undone. Talk of impeachment or a change in control of either or both houses of Congrees does not seem to worry them. They just press ahead with their agenda apparently unconcerned with the political consequences. So much so that one has to wonder whether their plans preclude political consequences.

Does not this feel like a coup d’etat?

cooper, quit being an asshat.

OK, My Bad.

I posted before reading the last several comments. Now my take on this issue has shifted again, although I think I’m back to having our Government handle anything that resembles security.

Gotta go, Realtor’s here to sell my house so that I can donate the proceeds to NARAL.

Ann, They need it the most.

Well, I built me a raft and she’s ready for floatin’
Ol’ Mississippi, she’s callin’ my name
Catfish are jumpin’
That paddle wheel thumpin’
Black water keeps rollin’ on past just the same
- Black Water

By Bush’s standards, I believe the Doobie Brothers are even overqualified for the job.

But seriously, I wouldn’t even start worrying about the increased threat from the UAE operating the ports, until we really gave port security some consideration… any consideration… we’re like wide open… I’m shocked and awed that we haven’t been struck again since 9/11…

I’ll just segue out of here…

I’d like to hear some funky Dixieland
Pretty mama come and take me by the hand
By the hand, take me by the hand pretty mama
Come and dance with your daddy all night long

So I love this question! “What was happening while everyone was distracted with this port thing?”