.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

Sundries
...a sweatshop of moxie

Monday, February 20, 2006

Alarming

People often complain that Conservatives give President George W. Bush a pass on many issues, simply because, to these critics' way of thinking, they are all goosestepping idiots in love with power politics.

This despite the rumblings since Day 100, about his high-spending, big government ways, anathema to Milton Friedman's ilk.

This despite the regretful, legal guest-worker programme suggestion, which was predated by a desperate rise in illegal trafficking of immigrants, during his term thus far.

This despite the incredible outcry of disbelief, that occured during the Harriet Miers' nomination to the SCOTUS.

Amongst many, many cricisms levelled at this President, by his own like-minded supporters.

It's just that if you're with Bush 43 even a little, such people dismiss you ENTIRELY -- and that's at the root of our nation's political divisiveness.

But here is my latest qualm regarding what has happened during this Administration, and it's a doozy.

For it shall be written, that in the second term as President of George W. Bush, his Administration authorised a company from the United Arab Emirates to take control over his nation's 6 largest sea ports.

Sea ports which include that of Miami, a few minutes away from where I live, I hasten to add.

I'm sorry, but this is pathetic.

Not everything has a sticker price on it in this world, and most especially, ports of entry of the world's largest super power, currently engaged in a bitter war against a deadly organisation of religious fanatics intent on destroying said country.

Sea ports which receive and hold large containers, randomly checked by already too-crooked officials.

Sea ports which will have to be supervised, manned, and screened by said company.

Now, throwing a blanket of suspicion on every person from the area in question, is not for those of more trusting natures.

But I don't have a trusting nature.

I have a philosophy formed by and nurtured historically by that of Realpolitik.

And I think Bismarck would blanch in horror, today, if he found out we as a nation ceded control of our ports, to this company.

It's almost as if in the middle of WWII, FDR allowed America's ports to fall into the hands of an Italian company. Or a Japanese one. Or...

What do you think would've been history's judgement on him, if he had done?

I can't suggest what you should do, but I am contacting my local representatives forthwith, with this question lurking hauntingly over it all.

11 Comments:

  • I don't think all the facts are out on this just yet; O'Reilly has promised some more disclosures on his show this (Monday) evening so we'll see. But having been an employee of a large Federal Bureaucracy, I can attest that this kind of thing is business as usual. Of course, with the War on Terror, we don't want things to be business as usual and, if it is, it seems alarming that the Bush administration would have such a tin ear about this. (Then again, he did manage to nominate Harriet Meiers, didn't he? Yikes!)

    At first blush, I don't much like this either. But I'm waiting for more information.

    By the way, if I can suck up a bit here, I greatly admire what you've posted in the comments over at Althouse regarding religion and conservatives and Rush Limbaugh. Couldn't've said it better myself so I won't even try.

    By Blogger Pete, at Mon Feb 20, 07:35:00 pm GMT-5  

  • Okay, didn't catch O'Reilly so I haven't been given my marching orders. So I'm still vaguely against this thing. More when I know more.

    By Blogger Pete, at Tue Feb 21, 06:16:00 am GMT-5  

  • Is THIS good enough reason to oppose this sale? I mean if the worst foriegn policy president of the 20th century likes it, it must be bad.

    By Blogger sonicfrog, at Tue Feb 21, 12:30:00 pm GMT-5  

  • PS. I think Carter supports it, because opposing it would undercut his Camp David legacy, the only real foreign policy bright spot people remember.

    There is a concern that no-one is yet talking about. What will the backlash be from the refusal? Arab unification in demanding Middle East base closures?

    By Blogger sonicfrog, at Tue Feb 21, 12:35:00 pm GMT-5  

  • I don't think all the facts are out on this just yet; O'Reilly has promised some more disclosures on his show this (Monday) evening so we'll see.

    I saw the programme, and the chap he had on, was very well spoken and made me feel SLIGHTLY better.

    But still. I haven't all the facts yet.

    But having been an employee of a large Federal Bureaucracy, I can attest that this kind of thing is business as usual. Of course, with the War on Terror, we don't want things to be business as usual and, if it is, it seems alarming that the Bush administration would have such a tin ear about this. (Then again, he did manage to nominate Harriet Meiers, didn't he? Yikes!)

    Yes...

    I didn't realise though, that unlike the Harriet Miers fandango, he didn't actually approve this sale.

    It was done by a government panel, in charge of such things -- and in fact, Bush was probably blindsided by this decision, as much as we were.

    At first blush, I don't much like this either. But I'm waiting for more information.

    By the way, if I can suck up a bit here, I greatly admire what you've posted in the comments over at Althouse regarding religion and conservatives and Rush Limbaugh. Couldn't've said it better myself so I won't even try.


    Oh great, thanks, Pete!

    And saying a nice thing to someone is wonderful!

    Sucking up would only be the case, if you stood something to gain by it -- and unfortunately, I can't give you anything but love. ;)

    Cheers,
    Victoria

    By Blogger vbspurs, at Wed Feb 22, 12:14:00 am GMT-5  

  • So I'm still vaguely against this thing. More when I know more.

    From what I have learnt:

    The UAE are our best allies in the area, and to deny this sale would be close to alienating one of our few good friends in the area.

    I'm happy they're our allies, but after 5 years of carefully reworking the security infrastructure, I don't think we can afford to let terrorists infiltrate the port authorities around the US.

    Because it's not the short-term we should be thinking of, at all.

    Cheers,
    Victoria

    By Blogger vbspurs, at Wed Feb 22, 12:18:00 am GMT-5  

  • Is THIS good enough reason to oppose this sale? I mean if the worst foriegn policy president of the 20th century likes it, it must be bad.

    Hey Sonicfrog. :)

    Thanks for posting on my blog, and sorry, due to my busy week, I haven't been able to personally respond until now.

    As for your very interesting link, I am flabbergasted.

    As the article in the Miami Horrible states, this issue has cut across party lines, making me strange bedfellows with President Carter...

    But it also notes, what I just wrote about quite coincidentally, that my Representative, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen [R], asked the same question I did:

    Sure the UAE are our friends now, but what about tomorrow?

    Indeed.

    Cheers,
    Victoria

    By Blogger vbspurs, at Wed Feb 22, 12:22:00 am GMT-5  

  • There is a concern that no-one is yet talking about. What will the backlash be from the refusal? Arab unification in demanding Middle East base closures?

    There is another concern about this matter, which few people are touching on.

    Allow me to be cagey here, as I will be posting something on it on the blog tonight!

    Cheers,
    Victoria

    By Blogger vbspurs, at Wed Feb 22, 12:23:00 am GMT-5  

  • Alarming?

    Hardly. This is "business as usual" for the Bush Government. More than likey it is a pay-off to the UAE for allowing US warplanes to be stationed there since the unprovoked attack on Iraq. Or was it Al Qaeda? Well, whoever had the WMD's...or oops! didn't.

    Bush is threatening to veto legislation to block the sale, so his promise to "pay-off" the UAE seems more important than his promise to uphold the US constitution and protect the american people.

    Bush must be "prioritizing" again.

    VL

    By Blogger vergelimbo, at Wed Feb 22, 01:22:00 am GMT-5  

  • As pete's said: the facts aren't all in yet. On its surface this is not a good idea. Yet, from an interview I heard on the radio yesterday, this is not a Port take-over.

    If the caller's assertions are true, Port security is not involved. Instead, the Arab company will be involved in operations of a portion of said Ports. Seemingly this is how it's done at those Ports by other companies.

    If, however, Security is involved, I'd say, "No way, George!" (pronounced in the Spanish way!)

    By Blogger benning, at Wed Feb 22, 03:05:00 am GMT-5  

  • Victoria,

    Thanks for reporting on what O'Reilly said. I also have it on good authority that last night (Tuesday) O'Reilly gave an endorsement of the deal. So it looks like I've got my marching orders.

    Still, it's a political nightmare, isn't it? I'm curious to see how it all plays out but, being safely here in Oklahoma, I don't feel our ports are threatened. Clearly that's a different matter for you all down south.

    By Blogger Pete, at Wed Feb 22, 07:47:00 am GMT-5  

Post a Comment

Who linked Here:

Create a Link

<< Home


 




Advertise on blogs
British Expat Blog Directory.