Bell Curve The Law Talking Guy Raised by Republicans U.S. West
Well, he's kind of had it in for me ever since I accidentally ran over his dog. Actually, replace "accidentally" with "repeatedly," and replace "dog" with "son."

Wednesday, February 22, 2006

What's Arabic for Stevedore?

I can sum up the issue swirling around the proposed takeover of US port operation by a Dubai-based company in one hypothetical exchange:

Rumsfeld: We all deal with the UAE on a regular basis. It's a country that's been involved in the global War on Terror.
Me: Which side?

Another exchange we might hear:

George Bush, 2/21/06: "I want those who are questioning it to step up and explain why all of a sudden a Middle Eastern company is held to a different standard than a [British] company." [NY Times]
Me: Isn't it a lot easier for Jihadists to inflitrate a Middle Eastern company where they already probably have blood ties and recruits? This is what you have to explain. According to today's NY Times: "Two of the hijackers in the Sept. 11 attacks came from the United Arab Emirates and laundered some of their money through its banking system. It was also the main transshipment point for Abdul Qadeer Khan a Pakistani nuclear engineer who ran the world's largest nuclear proliferation ring from warehouses near the port, met Iranian officials there, and shipped centrifuge equipment, which can be used to enrich uranium, from there to Libya."

This is all fascinating. Politically, this is the Bush administration having a tin ear. Also, it's about the Republicans coming apart at the seams. Hastert (Speaker of House), Jim Boehner (newly elected House Majority leader), and Frist (Senate leader) all oppose this deal. Why didn't Bush immediately bring them on board with the sensible party line.? Why couldn't he?

The truth is, it probably doesn't matter which corporate holding company owns the operations, or where that headquarters is located. But then again, I don't really know that. How much will people from Dubai be personally involved in the security of US ports? The administration needs to explain this. Some people are saying "of course it does not matter," but they don't have the facts either, they are just assuming that this is the equivalent of Saudis buying Harrod's in London, or a larger stake in Ford. What if, in fact, the deal will result in a significant number of UAE citizens, or those purporting to be officials of the company, showing up with ID cards that let them go everywhere?

Dollars to donuts says this was a political payoff to company which supports Bush (probably has prominent Saudi investors) and nobody in the Bush administration thought beyond that.

19 comments:

Anonymous said...

This is yet another example of the incredible arrogance of power that pervades the Bush administration. This time (like with the Meiers fiasco) the right wing is just as victimized as the rest of us are most of the time.

Bush is an arrogant tyrrant and the Republicans are hypocrits for only objecting when it might harm their personal political careers.

Bush is now saying he didn't even know about the UAE take over until a couple of days ago. All those wire taps and they didn't know about this!? I bet they knew when the next PETA meeting was going to be though!

The Democrats need to make a HUGE stink about this for the election. Pile on!  

// posted by Raised By Republicans

Anonymous said...

The part that has me laughing is the line from the Christian Science Monitor article where they say, "The Bush administration, which approved the sale, says it thoroughly reviewed all the national security implications. Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff made the rounds of TV talk shows Sunday morning, trying to assure skeptics that the administration had put proper security precautions into place. But he said that information was classified. "

First of all, the guy you roll out to defend you is none other than Chertoff, beloved and trusted by the Katrina victims. And the talking point is like something from a super hero comic, "Don't worry my countrymen, you are safe. Trust me."

Is it arrogance or stupidity that drives these people? Maybe stupidity derived from arrogance?

Remember we also have a precedent for refusing sale to foreign interests. We didn't allow the Chinese to buy oil and gas interests in this country. I wonder what the WTO would have to say about such the double standard??  

// posted by USWest

Anonymous said...

US West raises an interesting question which we should discuss at length later...Is the Bush administration stupid because they are arrogant or arrogant because they are stupid?

I think this is almost certainly a case of Bush's oil Sheik friends (who are major financial backers of groups like Al Qaeda and Hamas) pushed this through with a behind the scenes wink and a nod to our own Oil Sheiks: Bush and Cheney.

I just heard on PBS's News Hour that Bush is threatening to veto any legislative move to block the UAE take over. This would be first and only veto of his adminstration!! I hope he does it. The Democrats could beat the Republicans over the head with it. No Republican in the country would be able to have Bush campaign in their district or fund raise for him!

Pile on! Kick them when their down! 

// posted by Raised By Republicans

Anonymous said...

Well what gets me is Scott McClellan saying that the President didn't know about this deal until last week. His cabinet offices were vetting it like nuts (or so he says), but that the president didn't know about it. And the people on "News Hour" are saying that port security is for "experts" which is why the president didn't know about it. Spare me. This is a business deal and half the adminsitration are business men. And that statement about "experts" comes from a guy who still thinks you pronounce Qatar as "Cutter".

If McClellan is being honest, then Bush must be impeached- just because he's an damn idiot who refuses to read a newspaper. How can you run a country without reading????????????? Sounds like the ENRON guys.

You know, I am really struggling these days because I look around at work, at the news, and in society in general and I am really bummed. I bust my butt every day (and you all know where I work) to solve problems. I take what I do seriously. And I am told not to be so serious. Not to worry so much. But I am also told that what I do is serious for national security. But I am not supposed to take that seriously.

I watched seven episodes of Yes, Prime Minister and it suddenly became clear. No one is really intested in solving problems. That is an idealist notion- that we work to solve problems. You can see that in how homeland security has been handled since 9/11. Nothing has really changed. And you know that because of Katrina. They just shuffled the deck. We just work so the power elites can maintain the status quo and cover their own back sides. I am just pissed off at the constant absurdity of what I see and hear on the news and in my work. This port issue is a prime example of that type of absurdity. 

// posted by USWest

Dr. Strangelove said...

?'amil shahn as-sufun fil-minaa'

Anonymous said...

Damn, if that's how long it takes to say stevidore in Arabic, they may not bother infiltrating the ports. 

// posted by Raised By Republicans

Anonymous said...

Dr. S, that's a long, long word. What does it mean, "He-who-puts-great-loads-on-hump-of-sea-camel?"

I am amazed that Bush keeps saying things like "My government vetted this. You're supposed to trust us. Sure, I didn't know about it, but it was vetted. Don't worry your pretty little heads about this." That's the whole arrogrant, patronizing view. No, Mr. Bush, we don't trust you. You have lied about Iraq, terrorism, 9/11, Katrina, Social Security, and everything else under the sun. Nobody with a brain would trust you.

Didn't SOMEONE say to his or her spouse, "So, yeah, we're talking about letting an Arab company run the ports, no biggie" and then hear "Whaaa?" And that "Whaaa?" didn't alert them to a potential PR program?

Bush must be impeached. 

// posted by LTG

Anonymous said...

CNN.com  has a story with the headline "Bush: 'People don't need to worry about security'"

The Democrats need to sream bloody murder about this. For 5 years the Republicans have said that Americans had to think about nothing else! Now when it might be inconvenient to their wealthy oil shiek friends, we're to stop worrying so much!!

Between this and the Ambramof thing and Cheney's top secret Energy Policy conference, this whole mess makes Tea Pot Dome look an innocent misunderstanding!

Bush must be impeached! VOTE DEMOCRAT! 

// posted by Raised By Republicans

Dr. Strangelove said...

I think it means, "official freight worker in the port."

Anonymous said...

Why can't the Republicans get their act together on this? If Republicans joined Bush, they could squelch this as 'no big deal.' They're taking aim at their collective feet, Cheney-style. 

// posted by LTG

Anonymous said...

I posted this   before and it mustn't have come through.

Saying Stevedore in English was no small thing. It comes from "along-the-shore-man" that was shortened to Longshoreman.


And LTG, to think that someone in this sexist, misogynistic, male dominated administration would talk his wife at all much less care what she had to say is assuming too much.
 

// posted by USWest

Anonymous said...

I'll go on record as saying I'd never marry a woman unless I could trust her engough to talk about such things.

To me the whole point of long term relationships is the ability to share one's successes, failures, hopes and worries. Why bother getting married if all it means is hiring some sort of prostitute/maid on a long term contract?? 

// posted by Raised By Republicans

Anonymous said...

I want to go on record as saying that I specifically said "his or her spouse" because I didn't presume the official was a man. But, in this administration (a few tokens like Rice excepted) that's probably true.  

// posted by LTG

Anonymous said...

Regarding Republican unity: Harriet Miers, warrantless wiretaps, now apparently selling the sacred cow of national security. The wheels are coming off, policywise. Either that or it's a brilliant charade, seeing if they can pull off the culmination of their media swindle.

See, if the Bushie Republicans are arguing with the Congressy Republicans, they represent both sides of the issue! Fair and balanced reportage will have a representative of _each_ camp, and all the whining about media bias will go away.

Regarding the value of marriage: not to characterize anyone's relationship in particular, but surely no one here would drop dead if they were to discover some marriage of the current administration was based more on "sharing one's successes" and stopping there. Having a yes-man (or woman) who'll also sleep with you: it might not be what YOU want out of a long-term relationship, but I'm sure it's enough for some people. 

// posted by Bob

Anonymous said...

LTG, Rice is single as was Meirs. So I am not sure what female being is left in the administration with a spouse to talk to. But I know you weren't specifying. I was trying to be funny. 

// posted by USWest

Anonymous said...

Really, there's no Mr. Rice? She's 52. I just assume that conservative women generally feel the absolute need to get married. So, she's not on the "Family Values" train? Interesting. Very interesting.

 

// posted by LTG

Anonymous said...

But do conservative men tolerate women with her assertive personality? I doubt it. I bet she was married once and he left when she started making more than he did.

I have some more thoughts about this port thing. The emerging GOP "conventional wisdom" is that who owns the ports doesn't matter because what really matters is who runs security. The mainstream media is, of course, trying its best to get the GOP talking points lots of coverage. But I contend that port ownership still matters.

I agree that who runs security is important. But what the GOP isn't telling you is that most of the security at our ports are private security (aka rent-a-cops) who are hired by the companies running the ports. Sure there are customs officers etc but the day to day walk around the port on a beat stuff is handled by the rent-a-cops. What's more as we have seen throughout this administration, there is very little oversight of how policies get implemented - largely because of the trend towards privatization. When oversight is low and the amount of delegated responsibility is high, who you selected to take over the responsibility is very important. The screning process becomes very important.

Here is my question: Do any of the Republicans slowing coming to the defense of the President really believe that the UAE government and it's state owned enterprises like this port management compnay aren't completely penetrated by Al Qaeda agents, fundraisers and other sympathizers? 

// posted by Raised By Republicans

Anonymous said...

I'd bet they're applying for jobs right now. Get your DWP ID, and you're in business. 

// posted by LTG

Anonymous said...

There is also the possibility that the spouse in question said, "Port security? You're changing the subject! Why haven't you taken out the trash?"

Since I am practically an expert on celebrity spouses and progeny, I will mention that Condoleeza Rice has never been married. Neither has Ann Coulter.

-Seventh Sister 

// posted by Anonymous