This Could Be It
This could be the issue that finally brings down this corrupt administration. On CNN last night Lou Dobbs went off, and all their viewer mail was anti Bush on this. All they had was homeland security. Now they will not even have that. The Dems have really got to drive this mother of all wedge issues.
ABC News: Bush: Arab Co. Port Deal Should Proceed: "President Bush said Tuesday that the deal allowing an Arab company to take over six major U.S. seaports should go forward and that he would veto any congressional effort to stop it."
posted by Victor Laszlo @ 2/21/2006
15 comments
15 Comments:
Well Vic,
I would imagine you're not surprised that I think this issue is specious. Sure, the way the contracts were handed out speaks to a corrupt system, but I think the largest factor at play here is anti-arab sentiment. And I'm pretty skeptical about the Dems' use of this issue to make political hay.
Be careful who you lie down with, my friend. (That is not a reference to your wife).
The key issue here is fear. This has to be tied into the whole "bush can't control the borders" theme. The dems don't necessarily have to lie down with anyone, it's about tearing bush down and creating an impression in the voter's minds. Bush=can't control borders. Bush=cronyism. Bush=friends of oil. You can write books about it but people don't get it. You have to make it emotional and scare the living crap out of them. The next step is to equate Bush and Republicans in general.
The wedge is between the commerce/free trade/big oil republicans and the border control idiots. The strategy is to split them up. The symbolism is that a corrupt incompetent administration tied to big money can't protect america.
Xenophobic maybe, I don't know about racist. The company is state owned, so the u.s. is giving control of the ports to a foreign govt. And UAE does have ties to terrorism and dealing nuclear weapons to south korea.
Oddly I find myself agreeing with Dumpy. The "state owned business" defense seems kinda weird. I'd like to know more details about how secruity is maintained with any foreign company.
To me the furor reeks of political opportunism. I see Republicans getting behind this because they know the public has a gut reaction to the issue and you can fight it.
To me the furor reeks of political opportunism. I see Republicans getting behind this because they know the public has a gut reaction to the issue and you can fight it.
I meant to say can't fight it.
"The wedge is between the commerce/free trade/big oil republicans and the border control idiots. The strategy is to split them up."
Well, I agree with you there Vic, in a sense. In an ideal world, if this issue would really play out that way, then I wouldn't feel I need a shower after watching the Dems join with the Repubs in protest.
In reality this deal is about back-room corporatism, cronyism, free-trade agreements with the UAE, and outsourcing infrastructure instead of building infrastructure.
But is isn't going to play out that way, and any use of this issue by the Dems will really be utlizing anti-Arab sentiment to political advantage.
It's going to be fun to watch the Bush misadministration squirm - but any satisfaction I feel from that will be offset by the knowledge that racism is the real thing at play here.
And what a twist of irony that now we here that this deal needs to go through as a statement that racism shouldn't drive policy decisions. Down is up. Up is down.
Sorry to freak you out, Libby E. I'll try to limit my opinions to those you disagree with in the future. I will self-sensor my comments so as to not provoke an unfriendly response on your part.
"In reality this deal is about back-room corporatism, cronyism, free-trade agreements with the UAE, and outsourcing infrastructure instead of building infrastructure."
Exactly. There are so many issues that this brings up. If this is opportunism, so what? It's a great opportunity to show the faults of the repubs and how the dems can differ. It's already got bipartisan anger, the dems just have to channel it their way. I listened to CSPAN this morning and all the calls were about this, 99% anti-Bush. I think the Dems can do this without the racism. The question of whether we want our ports controlled by any foreign country is a good one. I'm going to try to look this up later--is Dubai Ports World connected to Carlyle Group and the Bush Family?
"But is isn't going to play out that way, and any use of this issue by the Dems will really be utlizing anti-Arab sentiment to political advantage."
Dumpy its frustrating how you claim to know how the future will work out and then use that to justify a course of action/inaction. Sometimes you are right about how things will work out but sometimes you are wrong. We just don't know how things will work out, and as human beings we have to exercise our agency to try make them work out a certain way. Isn't that the whole point to activism?
VL,
To your point about this being a wedge issue between corporate interests on the right and religious interests: there are a couple of other possible wedges. For one, I thought the "war on Xmas" was going to be the beginning of a wedge. It really highlights how the consumer culture is essentially pluralistic.
Also, there are some Xian fundies who are taking the bit in the bible about stewardship seriously and joining the environmental camp.
I just wonder which side we should be wooing in the split.
Vic,
"The question of whether we want our ports controlled by any foreign country is a good one. I'm going to try to look this up later--is Dubai Ports World connected to Carlyle Group and the Bush Family?"
Lifted from another blog:
"A small history of two of the players in the sale and how they got there....
The Dubai group have interlocking monetary links with Carlyle Exxon-Mobil and other groups that Bush41 and Bush 43 are beholden to. This deal is more about keeping the cosy ties that the Carlyle Group and its players then Homeland Security. Plus Sec. of Treus Snow was CEO fo CSX RR before he went to Tres. His deputy was David Sanborn who came to CSX from the Conrail RR deal, CSX owned operating rights to ports in Brazil and elseware and sold them to Dubai Ports World, the same company trying to buy the US ports. Mr. Sanborn became a member of the board of directors, and ran the ports that CSX had sold, later this announcement was made; Dave Sanborn, has been nominated by US President George W. Bush to serve as Maritime Administrator a key transportation appointment reporting directly to Norman Mineta the Secretary of Transportation and Cabinet Member. The rest is as they say is todays news."
Also lifted:
"How much does "free" trade have to do with this? How about a lot. The Bush administration is in the middle of a two-year push to ink a corporate-backed "free" trade accord with the UAE. At the end of 2004, in fact, it was Bush Trade Representative Robert Zoellick who proudly boasted of his trip to the UAE to begin negotiating the trade accord. Rejecting this port security deal might have set back that trade pact. Accepting the port security deal - regardless of the security consequences - likely greases the wheels for the pact. That's probably why instead of backing off the deal, President Bush - supposedly Mr. Tough on National Secuirty - took the extraordinary step of threatening to use the first veto of his entire presidency to protect the UAE's interests. Because he knows protecting those interetsts - regardless of the security implications for America - is integral to the "free" trade agenda all of his corporate supporters are demanding.
The Inter Press Service highlights exactly what's at stake, quoting a conservative activists who admits that this is all about trade:
"The United States' trade relationship with the UAE is the third largest in the Middle East, after Israel and Saudi Arabia. The two nations are engaged in bilateral free talks that would liberalise trade between the two countries and would, in theory at least, allow companies to own and operate businesses in both nations. 'There are legitimate security questions to be asked but it would be a mistake and really an insult to one of our leading trading partners in that region to reject this commercial transaction out of hand,' said Daniel T. Griswold, who directs the Center for Trade Policy Studies at the Cato Institute, a Washington-based libertarian think tank.
Look, we've seen this before. Just last year, Congress approved a U.S. taxpayer-funded loan by the Bush administration to a British company to help build nuclear technology in Communist China. Despite major security concerns raised - and a legislative effort to block the loan - Congress's "free traders" (many of whom talk so tough on security) made sure the loan went through so as to preserve the U.S.-China free trade relationship that is allowing lawmakers' corporate campaign contributors export so many U.S. jobs.
There is no better proof that our government takes its orders from corporate interests than these kinds of moves. That's what this UAE deal is all about - the mixture of the right-wing's goal of privatizing all government services (even post 9/11 port security!) with the political Establishment's desire to make sure Tom-Friedman-style "free" trade orthodoxy supersedes everything. This is where the culture of corruption meets national security policy - and, more specifically, where the unbridled corruption of on-the-take politicians are weakening America's security.
The fact that no politicians and almost no media wants to even explore this simple fact is telling. Here we have a major U.S. security scandal with the same country we are simultaneously negotiating a free trade pact with, and no one in Washington is saying a thing. The silence tells you all you need to know about a political/media establishment that is so totally owned by Big Money interests they won't even talk about what's potentially at the heart of a burgeoning national security scandal."
"Sometimes you are right about how things will work out but sometimes you are wrong."
Show me evidence of when I was wrong about ANYTHING, EVER. Such unsupported statements are part of the problem here, Vic. I can predict the future prefectly - my tin foil hat is perfectly tuned.
But seriously, I have already seen that Hillary and the like are jumping on this issue as hard as possible. Sure, their public stance will be that it isn't racism, but only real concern about national security. I don't buy it for a second.
Will it have positive results in the long run? I'm not insensitive to the idea that the first thing to do is hit the Republicans as hard as you can with whatever you've got. Take some power back. And then work on developing better policies.
I don't know. I don't think that the Dems jumping on this issue is going to increase anti-Arab sentiment more than it already exists - so I guess my reaction is one of principle. However, I still do have other questions.
First, will it work? There is precedent that trying to out Republican the Republicans is a losing strategy. Second, if Dems use such tactics then what does it say about their real character. How is it an indication that they will really develop better policies? As bad as Bush is, cronyism, corporatism, militarism, and the assault on the poor were all well established policy streams in the Clinton administration.
coporatism needs to be better defined. That is a broad brush you are painting with, my brother, and I just am not seeing it in my camp. There are many corps. benefitting from the administration, but not as many as you may think. If it a smart corp. it is thinking long-term and globally. None of this stuff coming out of the admin. is helping those people. It hurts us... bad across all levels, including international investment, safety, development, talent investment, the whole magilla.
As for the arab-bashing, I just can't stomach it in any form. It is plain wrong and you have to pick the point at which opportunism on the issues slides into hurtful rhetoric that last much longer than the short term win. Hit them on the care and feeding of the people, that is where the hurt is. Let them republ. sort out their own victory/loss here but frame it out carefully and with respect. Arab americans are at risk in many places in this country, and I will not support any policy, democrats or otherwise that puts people at risk. That is my take.
"coporatism needs to be better defined. That is a broad brush you are painting with, my brother, "
Fair enough. I'm sure that at some point, the roads that you and I travel will fork in different directions exaclty in the town of Corporatism - but for now, how about we agree on "crony corporatism involving oil-rich Middle Eastern monarchies."
That being said, I have had some experience with UAE students, (shockandawe probably knows more than I on this issue). I can tell you that they truly seem open to multi-culturalism, definitely do not hear intolerant religious ratns in their mosques, and are very, very focused on western-style capitalism.
The UAE is heavily focused on diversifying its economy. They have a booming European tourist industry going (they are a leading purachaser of superjumbo jets from Airbus). Further, their government seems to me to be one of the most moderate in the ME in quite a number of respects.
Dumpling, thanks for the due diligence on DPW, interesting. If you take a broad view, yes Clinton was guilty of those things you say. But in the very big picture there's no differences between anything. I think there's enough differences to prefer the dems to Bush.
Think Progress has the something like the Dumpling/S&A/LiberalElite point of view and some debate in the comments. I still disagree.
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/02/22/dubai-counterpoint/
Oh stop it. We have not diverged as much as you might think. As much as it may seem that I have gone over to the dark side, I too have been able to meet people from all walks of life in my travels. I even did a little work with the UAE while at Sotheby's for a magazine called Debrette's (very, very upscale publication, by the way). I found them to be open and very interested in diversity as we see it in the US. But they also are extremely wealthy as a nation and have a very cosmopolitan view of the world. I have also worked with muslims from Indonesia, Egypt, Turkey, where things are not so hot and I can tell you, the feeling amongst these people was very different than the UAE guys. I guess my point is, it has nothing to do with the country involved here or its merits as such. It is in the ME and it ain't Israel, so for the vast majority of Americans, it must be bad.
Either way, "crony corporatism involving oil-rich Middle Eastern monarchies" is sadly too narrow. Let me give you my take: any company or coutnry for that matter that uses geographic expansion as a method of stripping that country of its resources, whether it is natural resources, its people or its culture in support of their own coporate benefits is WRONG. Not insensitive, not short sighted, just WRONG. Yes, those people may get burned financially in the long run (but probably not, to be honest). But they should be driven by ethics as a core value above and beyond profits. Why? Because I say so and I will take down any rat bastard who disagrees. But also because the haves and the have nots are both growing at an alarming rate and the have somes are moving more to the poorer side. We, as democrats, stand for something balanced and egalitarian. Is the short term gain worth it, to win a short term skirmish in a long term battle?
Same applies for the Dems. You either do it right and ethically, even visciously and ethically (if that makes sense to you) or you don't do it. It is too slippery a slope in my book. The path to ruin, Samwise.
Now, back to the other stuff you mentioned.
From a conservative wingnut blog:
"Mr. Bush has appeased Muslims in the US by putting their unholy, devilish Koran in the White House library at a winter banquet for Muslim men and women. He’s courted them with a non-Christian Christmas card. He’s invited their leaders to Washington department offices to dialogue about the Bush surveillance program. They have got the red carpet treatment all the way along.
But this is going too far with this ports issue.
Mr. Bush says that the company in question has proven its integrity as "an ally in the War on Terror." Right now I don’t know of any Muslim we can trust on the war on terror."
Post a Comment
<< Home