Bush Saves Face on Ports - Who Gets the Tab?
I assume you're attuned to the wonderfully descriptive term "chickenhawk." We have a disturbing number of those warmongering but-rarely-serving sorts in high places right now of course. The moniker does a good job of encapsulating both the warlike ("belligerent," actually) and cowardly tendencies of folks like Bush and Cheney (ok, virtually the entire inner Bush circle). This is the government of "let's you and him fight."
That's on my mind as a result of the interesting new development in the US Ports vs. Dubai faceoff. As best I can tell, the White House went into full arm-twisting mode to get the prospective UAE buyers of the British port-operating firm to "initiate" an offer to submit to the mandatory US 45-day security investigation. I gather that is supposed to on some level save whatever is left of the Bushista "Face." The short version is that the guy in charge (yeah, him, the guy who criminally failed to fulfill the plum daddy-arranged national guard obligation) wasn't even aware of the imminent semi-scary and certainly politically-sensitive business deal when it erupted in the news last week. He did his usual schoolyard bully act. It didn't work, Senators and Congressmen of both parties objecting publicly and in a few cases loudly to being once again expected to submit to whatever crappola the White House wants, due process and the legalities be damned. (Of course the republicans have been happy to do this for the prior 4.5 years, and most of the dems are still having to be reminded forcibly that they were once vertebrates.)
But this business of (I must presume) bullying the Dubai solicitors into "volunteering" to submit to the mandatory security check is pretty astonishing. If I get it correctly, this was apparently all done so our Little Prince Stubbornness could avoid possibly his first-ever public admission of mistake. Let us set aside the obvious buffoonery that everyone with an IQ over 50 (no partisan jokes now) knows what is going on, i.e. we will accept with straight face the comical spectacle that the world must temporarily choose a different orbit while we cover our eyes so bubba isn't shamed. In front of his scary parents? The religious right? Huh??
Need I stipulate that a public backpedal of this sort by the Dubai group cannot possibly be devoid of the old quid pro quo? I believe we are watching an extremely public version of the very circumstances that make a conflict of interest or other historical security-risk behavior by a government official such a concern. In the present situation we have a president who's so deathly afraid of ever admitting an error, mistake, or flaw (some might say a hint of human quality) that we must assume that he has repeatedly ended up in negotiations and decisionmaking of various sorts with a stance that is severely compromised. Any course of action that involves an admission of being human is known by all parties to be off-limits.
Isn't this precisely one of the reasons we worry about things like a history of substance abuse or sexual misconduct or other human behavior in a powerful politician, i.e. that it opens the perpetrator to the possibility of blackmail? How is that different from the standard MO for this sorry little chap who's always been bailed out and been able to go home to be nursed? Those maternal nipples must be damn tired of this, eh Barb?
There are generally trustworthy folks out there claiming that the ports deal in question may be in "our" interests in the long run. I can't but be skeptical about that; I have increasing reservations about how so much of what is supposed to be good for "us" is really about corporate profits and how much more a corporation counts for these days than an actual live breathing person. But setting that aside for the moment, I am arguing that this is another vivid example of how thoroughly our president (yes, the one illegally appointed by the Supreme Court the first time and probably mosh-pitted into office the second time thanks to widespread election fraud, including assistance from the republican-owned voting machine manufacturers) has delighted in corrupting the lofty principles on which the country he has ripped off was founded.
Dan Froomkin at the Washington Post (among mainstream press I find Froomkin one of the best day-to-day summarizers - find him towards the bottom of the "Today's Editorials, Opinions, Columns" box on LHS of WaPo homepage - "White House Briefing") as always does a great job of weaving the strands for us. I will excerpt here, regretfully forgoing many more bits that deserve circulation and counting on your zeal to be informed to follow up:
Now that the White House has twisted and squirmed and wheedled its way out of an imminent conflict with Congress over the proposed ports takeover, the question is whether this delays or even derails the Bush-as-lame-duck narrative sweeping the media this weekend.
Ducking a Bullet
Jonathan Weisman writes in The Washington Post: "The Bush administration said yesterday that it has accepted a proposal from a Dubai maritime company to conduct a 45-day review of the national security implications of the company's plans to take control of significant operations at six U.S. ports.
"The announcement by Dubai Ports World, brokered by the White House and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.), appears to satisfy the demands of many members of Congress, who had threatened to force a security review if the administration would not conduct one."
But, as David E. Sanger writes in the New York Times: "The request will leave President Bush in the politically delicate position of having to personally approve or disapprove the takeover."
Nedra Pickler writes for the Associated Press: "The White House got a gift in the ports security debate, a chance for the president to sidestep a battle with members of his own party and to tone down bipartisan criticism of the deal. . . .
"The president's national security adviser, Stephen Hadley, said as late as Friday that the administration would not reconsider its approval. . . .
"But behind the scenes, the administration took part in discussions that would give the administration a way to save face. If the company was taking the initiative and would submit to further review, the hope was that congressional critics would be quieted and the president would not have to take on a fight with a well-positioned Congress or appear that he was giving in to their demands."
Bush on the Ropes
Janet Hook writes in the Los Angeles Times: "Republicans' raucous rebellion against the White House on a port management deal has proved to be a crucial juncture in George W. Bush's presidency, signaling how dramatically his vise-like grip on the GOP has been loosened in his second term. . . .
[clip]
About Those Antennae
Karen Tumulty writes in Time: "The closest thing to a working political antenna at the White House these days may be the one on Dan Bartlett's car radio. Congressional anger over President George W. Bush's decision to allow a Dubai-owned company to operate terminals at major U.S. ports had been at a low boil for days before the White House got its first inkling of the furor: Bartlett, the presidential counselor, happened to tune in to conservative talk-show host Michael Savage on the way home from work."
[clip]
Columnist Joe Klein writes, also in Time: " 'The media are wondering what ever happened to the Bushies' political antennae,' a prominent Republican told me. 'They don't have antennae. They just have a transmitter -- and the party is beginning to tune them out.' "
[clip]
Pick Your Metaphor
Ronald Brownstein writes in the Los Angeles Times that Bush "is stewing in a pot he brought to boil. . . .
"President Bush may not like the arguments that critics are raising against the Dubai company attempting to take over cargo and cruise operations at ports in six U.S. cities. But he should recognize them. The arguments marshaled against Bush closely echoed the ones he deployed to defend the Iraq war. . . .
"At the core of Bush's case for invading Iraq was the contention that the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks changed the burden of proof in evaluating potential threats. Bush justified the war, despite inconclusive intelligence about whether Iraqi President Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction, largely on the grounds that after Sept. 11, waiting for definitive evidence of danger was itself too risky. . . .
"That sort of argument, which revolves around the fear of things that might someday occur, is inherently difficult to refute."
[clip]
That's on my mind as a result of the interesting new development in the US Ports vs. Dubai faceoff. As best I can tell, the White House went into full arm-twisting mode to get the prospective UAE buyers of the British port-operating firm to "initiate" an offer to submit to the mandatory US 45-day security investigation. I gather that is supposed to on some level save whatever is left of the Bushista "Face." The short version is that the guy in charge (yeah, him, the guy who criminally failed to fulfill the plum daddy-arranged national guard obligation) wasn't even aware of the imminent semi-scary and certainly politically-sensitive business deal when it erupted in the news last week. He did his usual schoolyard bully act. It didn't work, Senators and Congressmen of both parties objecting publicly and in a few cases loudly to being once again expected to submit to whatever crappola the White House wants, due process and the legalities be damned. (Of course the republicans have been happy to do this for the prior 4.5 years, and most of the dems are still having to be reminded forcibly that they were once vertebrates.)
But this business of (I must presume) bullying the Dubai solicitors into "volunteering" to submit to the mandatory security check is pretty astonishing. If I get it correctly, this was apparently all done so our Little Prince Stubbornness could avoid possibly his first-ever public admission of mistake. Let us set aside the obvious buffoonery that everyone with an IQ over 50 (no partisan jokes now) knows what is going on, i.e. we will accept with straight face the comical spectacle that the world must temporarily choose a different orbit while we cover our eyes so bubba isn't shamed. In front of his scary parents? The religious right? Huh??
Need I stipulate that a public backpedal of this sort by the Dubai group cannot possibly be devoid of the old quid pro quo? I believe we are watching an extremely public version of the very circumstances that make a conflict of interest or other historical security-risk behavior by a government official such a concern. In the present situation we have a president who's so deathly afraid of ever admitting an error, mistake, or flaw (some might say a hint of human quality) that we must assume that he has repeatedly ended up in negotiations and decisionmaking of various sorts with a stance that is severely compromised. Any course of action that involves an admission of being human is known by all parties to be off-limits.
Isn't this precisely one of the reasons we worry about things like a history of substance abuse or sexual misconduct or other human behavior in a powerful politician, i.e. that it opens the perpetrator to the possibility of blackmail? How is that different from the standard MO for this sorry little chap who's always been bailed out and been able to go home to be nursed? Those maternal nipples must be damn tired of this, eh Barb?
There are generally trustworthy folks out there claiming that the ports deal in question may be in "our" interests in the long run. I can't but be skeptical about that; I have increasing reservations about how so much of what is supposed to be good for "us" is really about corporate profits and how much more a corporation counts for these days than an actual live breathing person. But setting that aside for the moment, I am arguing that this is another vivid example of how thoroughly our president (yes, the one illegally appointed by the Supreme Court the first time and probably mosh-pitted into office the second time thanks to widespread election fraud, including assistance from the republican-owned voting machine manufacturers) has delighted in corrupting the lofty principles on which the country he has ripped off was founded.
Dan Froomkin at the Washington Post (among mainstream press I find Froomkin one of the best day-to-day summarizers - find him towards the bottom of the "Today's Editorials, Opinions, Columns" box on LHS of WaPo homepage - "White House Briefing") as always does a great job of weaving the strands for us. I will excerpt here, regretfully forgoing many more bits that deserve circulation and counting on your zeal to be informed to follow up:
Now that the White House has twisted and squirmed and wheedled its way out of an imminent conflict with Congress over the proposed ports takeover, the question is whether this delays or even derails the Bush-as-lame-duck narrative sweeping the media this weekend.
Ducking a Bullet
Jonathan Weisman writes in The Washington Post: "The Bush administration said yesterday that it has accepted a proposal from a Dubai maritime company to conduct a 45-day review of the national security implications of the company's plans to take control of significant operations at six U.S. ports.
"The announcement by Dubai Ports World, brokered by the White House and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.), appears to satisfy the demands of many members of Congress, who had threatened to force a security review if the administration would not conduct one."
But, as David E. Sanger writes in the New York Times: "The request will leave President Bush in the politically delicate position of having to personally approve or disapprove the takeover."
Nedra Pickler writes for the Associated Press: "The White House got a gift in the ports security debate, a chance for the president to sidestep a battle with members of his own party and to tone down bipartisan criticism of the deal. . . .
"The president's national security adviser, Stephen Hadley, said as late as Friday that the administration would not reconsider its approval. . . .
"But behind the scenes, the administration took part in discussions that would give the administration a way to save face. If the company was taking the initiative and would submit to further review, the hope was that congressional critics would be quieted and the president would not have to take on a fight with a well-positioned Congress or appear that he was giving in to their demands."
Bush on the Ropes
Janet Hook writes in the Los Angeles Times: "Republicans' raucous rebellion against the White House on a port management deal has proved to be a crucial juncture in George W. Bush's presidency, signaling how dramatically his vise-like grip on the GOP has been loosened in his second term. . . .
[clip]
About Those Antennae
Karen Tumulty writes in Time: "The closest thing to a working political antenna at the White House these days may be the one on Dan Bartlett's car radio. Congressional anger over President George W. Bush's decision to allow a Dubai-owned company to operate terminals at major U.S. ports had been at a low boil for days before the White House got its first inkling of the furor: Bartlett, the presidential counselor, happened to tune in to conservative talk-show host Michael Savage on the way home from work."
[clip]
Columnist Joe Klein writes, also in Time: " 'The media are wondering what ever happened to the Bushies' political antennae,' a prominent Republican told me. 'They don't have antennae. They just have a transmitter -- and the party is beginning to tune them out.' "
[clip]
Pick Your Metaphor
Ronald Brownstein writes in the Los Angeles Times that Bush "is stewing in a pot he brought to boil. . . .
"President Bush may not like the arguments that critics are raising against the Dubai company attempting to take over cargo and cruise operations at ports in six U.S. cities. But he should recognize them. The arguments marshaled against Bush closely echoed the ones he deployed to defend the Iraq war. . . .
"At the core of Bush's case for invading Iraq was the contention that the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks changed the burden of proof in evaluating potential threats. Bush justified the war, despite inconclusive intelligence about whether Iraqi President Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction, largely on the grounds that after Sept. 11, waiting for definitive evidence of danger was itself too risky. . . .
"That sort of argument, which revolves around the fear of things that might someday occur, is inherently difficult to refute."
[clip]
posted by Sir Gumbo at 8:52 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home