Krugman's "Osama, Saddam and the Ports" at truthout.org -- excellent

[understandinglife]

The storm of protest over the planned takeover of some U.S. port operations by Dubai Ports World doesn't make sense viewed in isolation. The Bush administration clearly made no serious effort to ensure that the deal didn't endanger national security. But that's nothing new - the administration has spent the past four and a half years refusing to do anything serious about protecting the nation's ports.

So why did this latest case of sloppiness and indifference finally catch the public's attention? Because this time the administration has become a victim of its own campaign of fearmongering and insinuation.

Let's go back to the beginning. At 2:40 p.m. on Sept. 11, 2001, Donald Rumsfeld gave military commanders their marching orders. "Judge whether good enough hit S. H. (Saddam Hussein) @ same time - not only UBL (Osama bin Laden)," read an aide's handwritten notes about his instructions. The notes were recently released after a Freedom of Information Act request. "Hard to get a good case," the notes acknowledge. Nonetheless, they say: "Sweep it all up. Things related and not."

So it literally began on Day 1. When terrorists attacked the United States, the Bush administration immediately looked for ways it could exploit the atrocity to pursue unrelated goals - especially, but not exclusively, a war with Iraq.

<clip>

More at the link:

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/022406Z.shtml

But there is, nonetheless, a kind of rough justice in Mr. Bush's current predicament. After 9/11, the American people granted him a degree of trust rarely, if ever, bestowed on our leaders. He abused that trust, and now he is facing a storm of skepticism about his actions - a storm that sweeps up everything, things related and not.

And, it's time for us to convert that "rough justice" into formal legal actions - by prosecuting the traitor and all his neoconster co-criminals.


Peace.

[stop the bleeding]

1. thank you - you rock!!! n/t

[phantom power]

2. I'm falling behind the curve.

Why is it OK that foreign companies manage our ports? I gather that it's been going on for a long time without any comment, but... maybe we shouldn't allow it? Nothing personal against those foreign companies. Maybe we can find other ways to do business with them.

[DemReadingDU]

3. Ports deal - Big Business

has nothing to do with terror, but more money for the wealthy.

Bush couldn't let this deal get away. He would veto it to ensure that his wealthy cronies would partake in the profits.

[understandinglife]

4. In_deed. Big business for the top 1%; and no real security.

Just check this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=511688&mesg_id=511688

And, we have no reason to think the other 15 ports in the deal have any radiation detection systems. In fact, folk who have been pushing for that technology to be installed are faced with nothing short of a "sisyphus-type" struggle.


Peace.