Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

The Boomerang

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
 
WilliamPitt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-27-06 03:24 PM
Original message
The Boomerang
The flap over the United Arab Emirates taking control of several American ports, the subject of much hot talk over the last several days, is born of several factors. It is only partially about global economics. America's trade relationship with the UAE is the third largest in the Middle East after Saudi Arabia and Israel, so the gospel of "free trade" is definitely in play.

This flap is also only partially about national security. There is, of course, concern that a nation connected to the 9/11 attacks will manage several vital entry points to the country. There is also the quid pro quo aspect to this deal; the UAE docks more American warships than any other Middle Eastern nation, and the thinking apparently goes that if they can do this safely, they can manage ports over here.

By the by, this UAE deal is also about standard issue straight-out-of-central-casting Bush administration cronyism. Two major players in the establishment of this deal were John Snow and David Sanborn. Snow, the Treasury Secretary, was chairman of the CSX railroad firm before joining the administration. In 2004, CSX sold its international port operations to Dubai Ports World, the UAE-backed company tapped to run our ports, for $1.15 billion. Sanborn used to run Dubai Ports World's European and Latin American operations. He was tapped last month by Bush to head the US Maritime Administration. Convenient, that.

So there's some economics, some national security concern, and some good old fashioned insider horse trading going on here, but none of these alone or combined tells the whole story here. The administration has swallowed a 45-day "review" of this deal, so as to temporarily avoid the need for Bush to veto any legislation blocking it, and so as to avoid the very real possibility that his veto could be overridden in congress. In the interim, we can take a look at what is truly motivating the noise surrounding this issue.

The true basis of the scandal is based upon two things: politics, and the boomerang.

The politics part is easy. Democrats, ever fretting over looking "weak" on national security, are going full hawk on this deal to make Bush and congressional Republicans look weak on the issue of protecting America. Given the fact that very few Americans know much of anything about how our ports are managed - it bears noting that a large number of our ports are already managed by foreign countries like China and Singapore - it is a tactic that has some traction.

There is also a legitimate security concern that cannot be overlooked. The deal, when originally announced, had Dubai Ports World taking control of six major ports. In point of fact, DP World will be taking control of 21 American ports: 11 on the East Coast from Portland, Maine to Miami, Florida, and 10 on the Gulf Coast, from Gulfport, Miss., to Corpus Christi, Texas. Calls to ensure that security will not be compromised in this process are well founded.

Republicans, on the other hand, are yelling about this ports deal in order to put some daylight between themselves and a congenitally unpopular president during a midterm election year.

Are they nervous? Bet on it. David Horowitz hosted his Restoration Weekend in Phoenix last weekend, an annual right-wing confab where conservative banner-carriers gather to plot the overthrow of church-state separation and Roe v. Wade. According to reports, the attendees this weekend are seeing blood on the moon.

"We have to acknowledge we have a President who is not popular," said former congressman Pat Toomey, head of the Club for Growth, during the weekend festivities. "The war in Iraq is the 800 lb. gorilla in the room and a major downturn could drown anything we do. We won in 1994 because we promised small government and going into the 2006 elections this is key idea we have abandoned."

"I feel the Republican Party in my state and nationally is a party that has lost its way," said former Colorado state senator John Andrews. "We need to find our way back to a reason to vote Republican."

"I believe these scandals are the end of the 1994 Revolution," said conservative congressman John Shaddeg, in reference to Jack Abramoff. "All this seriously threatens the Republican majority. It might be hard to shrink government as we promised. But it's not that hard to be honest and we haven't."

"The demoralization of the base is real," said Missouri Lt. Governor Pete Kinder. "I hear it everywhere."

So there it is. Both parties are making hay off this ports deal to position themselves for the midterm elections. It isn't much of a political surprise that the Democrats are attacking the administration over this, but it is telling indeed to see Republicans running scared from the president they have stapled themselves to for the last five years.

Which brings us to the boomerang, the real reason why this ports deal has become a scandal.

Since September 12, 2001, George W. Bush and his administration have used every available opportunity to scare the cheese out of the American people in order to get what they want. Fake elevations of the security alert to cover political messes, plastic sheeting and duct tape, mushroom clouds, weapons of mass destruction, and all cloaked in a none-too-subtle message that all Muslims and every Arab nation are to be feared and reviled - this has been the ticket for the passing of every budget, the basis for every campaign, and the establishment of the false rationale for an invasion of Iraq.

Some have claimed opposition to this ports deal stems from anti-Arab racism. If this is true, that racism can be laid upon the doormat in front of the White House door. When a president spends every day of five years terrorizing his own people about potential attacks from west Asia, frightening them on an hourly basis for no other reason than that it makes the populace easier to govern, a degree of anti-Arab racism is bound to flower.

In short, the administration bought this scandal with five years worth of hard propaganda work. Observed from a distance, it should not surprise anyone that this issue has blown up on them. It is a wonder, frankly, that the administration didn't see this coming. They didn't and here we are.

There are a lot of boomerangs flying around these days. The invasion and occupation of Iraq was begun on false premises. It has caused the deaths of 2,293 American soldiers, the grievous injury of tens of thousands more American soldiers, the deaths of thousands of Iraqi soldiers and police officers, and the death and maiming of tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians. It disgraced the United States across the globe when pictures of torture in Abu Ghraib prison were released. It has ruptured the federal budget to such a degree that basic, vital services are being cut to pay for it.

And now it has led to the doorstep of the civil war that so many have warned about. The bombing of one of Shi'ite Islam's holiest shrines in Samarra last week has led to an explosion of sectarian violence across Iraq. Worse, the Shi'ite-Sunni divisions which exist in nine Middle Eastern nations, including Kuwait, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Egypt, could be exacerbated to the point of violence by what is happening in Iraq. In other words, we are looking at the real potential of a regional conflagration over religion that will make the Catholic-Protestant carnage in Ireland look like a quaint tea party by comparison.

That is a boomerang which could wind up smacking us all in the end.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
fooj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-27-06 03:27 PM
Response to Original message
1. PNAC...
the blueprint for it all.

Peace.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LisaLynne Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-27-06 03:36 PM
Response to Original message
2. The end is too true.
It's getting caught by the massive backlash that's starting to worry me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JuniperLea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-27-06 03:36 PM
Response to Original message
3. Worse case scenario
We've talked about it at length, yet I don't recall anyone discussing what should be done if Iraq becomes involved in a civil war. Has Murtha, or anyone, talked about such contingency plans? There is no question but that we must get out of there... NOW!

As for the "racism". I really, really hate that word being used in this issue.

I would like to answer W's question: Is there a difference between Britain running our ports or Iran running them.

No. There is no difference at all. Had Great Britain facilitated the attackers of 9/11/01, I would be furious about them running any of our ports as well.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leveymg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-27-06 03:37 PM
Response to Original message
4. They've lost their last issue -- terra war -- Bush-Cheney base is gone
Edited on Mon Feb-27-06 03:52 PM by leveymg
Will -

After the shooting and Ports embroglios, the public is now ready to wave bye-bye to Dead Eye Dick and the Boy King. Fitz can go ahead and issue the sealed indictments now, without real fear of a backlash.

Confidence in the War on Terror has also fallen sharply. - Rasmussen
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/2006/War%20on%20Terror_...
39% Say U.S. Winning War on Terror
36% Say Terrorists Winning


February 27, 2006--Just 39% of Americans now believe the U.S. and its allies are winning the War on Terror. That's down from 42% earlier this month and from 44% in January. With just one exception, this is the lowest level of confidence ever measured by Rasmussen Reports.

Even more dramatic is the fact that 36% now believe the terrorists are winning. That's up five points over the past two weeks and up ten points since our January survey.

A plurality of women and a majority of Democrats now believe the terrorists are winning.


- Mark



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Witch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-27-06 03:42 PM
Response to Original message
5. You hit the nail on the head again, Will.
Can you posit why they DIDN'T see this coming, then?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stellanoir Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-27-06 03:47 PM
Response to Original message
6. a brief aside
Edited on Mon Feb-27-06 03:48 PM by stellanoir
funniest post I've read regarding this very tricky matter was

"Give all the ports back to the mafia. . .they tend to work things out amongst themselves."

Can't recall where I saw it.

But in all seriousness one can't run around for years projecting "evil" onto one third of the global population then killing and torturing those who are mostly innocent and then wish to maintain one's familial and lucrative business loyalties with the elites in their culture.

It's nuts.

Boomerang it will indeed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
babsbunny Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-27-06 04:09 PM
Response to Original message
7. It is an honor to read your posts!
:thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ItsTheMediaStupid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-27-06 04:10 PM
Response to Original message
8. I'm shocked they didn't see the backlash as well.
The wingnut noise machine has spewed hateful "Islamo-Facism" propaganda for the last five years. Joe Sixpack has been condioned to associate Arab with terrorist, period. Yes, it's racist, but it's been drilled into the heads of the white male republicans for years now. It fits with all the other covert racism the GOP uses.

Now they expect the public to accept that these same "ragheads" will be running our ports?

Has BushCo achieved a level of hypocrisy so deep they couldn't see this coming?

Did they think Joe Sixpack would believe that the UAE are "good A-rabs," since BushCo co-signed the deal with them?

The racism of it is disgusting, but the corner that the pugs have painted themselves into is hilarious.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftstreet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-27-06 04:22 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. I'm shocked the corporate media let this get on the tv "news"
Seems odd to me.

Normally this would have slid right under the radar - isolated in a few newspaper items and blogs.

:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AntiFascist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-27-06 05:15 PM
Response to Reply #8
11. The distinction that the Bush administration makes is pretty clear...
the good Arabs are the ones that have all the money, the bad ones are all Arabs (Shiite and Sunni) in addition to the Iranians, who are so easily stirred up. The connection they probably don't want you to make is the economic disparity between the two groups.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ItsTheMediaStupid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-28-06 10:39 AM
Response to Reply #11
14. Yeah, those damned poor people always causing problems
For the rich and privlileged:sarcasm:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cleita Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-27-06 04:27 PM
Response to Original message
10. What about the twenty one ports alledgedly owned by the Moonies?
I hear this on the radio this morning so I don't know how accurate it is, but being that it was Sam Seder who brought this up, I think it's pretty accurate. You know it's one thing for a foreign religious organization to own an American newspaper, but should they be in charge of some of our national assets, particularly the ones who manage entry into this country?

My problem with this whole deal is not private companies being given contracts to run our ports, railroads and airlines, but that "foreign" companies, and in the case of the UAE a foreign country, are being given these contracts. I don't care how friendly they are. I don't consider the UAE that friendly to us underneath it all.

But strictly from an economic POV, letting foreign companies and countries own your assets lets the money that should be put back into our economy flow out. This is the signature of a banana republic.

Foreign companies go into another country to run their railroads, mine their ores and oil, their agriculture and anything else that they can get their hands on. The money flows out of the country with the exception of some of it that officials and dictators take as bribes for a good business environment for both parties. The problem is that the citizens of these countries get practically nothing but some underpaid and dangerous jobs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wordie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-28-06 05:32 PM
Response to Reply #10
17. I've read that most US companies abandoned the ports business quite
some time ago, because the profits are only long-term ones, and our corporations are only looking to make a quick buck.

Most of the really big players in the industry are foreign; it's only when you get down to #8 or #9 or so that any US companies show up. So what were we supposed to do, exactly, since the only other company bidding on the contract was Chinese.

Or perhaps all us progressives would prefer if Halliburton were to run it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cleita Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-28-06 07:41 PM
Response to Reply #17
20. We should just nationalize them then and let the government
run them, preferrably the state governments where the ports are located. I think Congress could allocate federal funds to help out. No foreign government should own our assets that are also security risks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wordie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-28-06 08:42 PM
Response to Reply #20
21. It's been said before, but this isn't an "ownership" sort of thing:
It appears that the deal is more for what amounts to a terminal within each of the ports, and its more of a lease, rather than a sale.

This thread has a lot of information:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x493956

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cleita Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-28-06 08:52 PM
Response to Reply #21
22. Thanks for posting the link. I was looking for it earlier and
couldn't find it. :-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
marions ghost Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-27-06 06:40 PM
Response to Original message
12. excellent
:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zippy890 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-27-06 06:58 PM
Response to Original message
13. yes, it all stinks of politics
"Both parties are making hay off this ports deal to position themselves for the midterm elections"

good article
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wordie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-28-06 05:35 PM
Response to Reply #13
18. You know, that's so true! Where are the *leaders*???? eom
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kentuck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-28-06 10:43 AM
Response to Original message
15. And don't forget that John Snow is now Chairman of CFIUS...
the group that approved the "sale"..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WilliamPitt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-28-06 11:28 AM
Response to Original message
16. Link to final
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mmonk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-28-06 05:48 PM
Response to Original message
19. Good one. I like the use of a boomerang to describe it all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 26th 2024, 01:13 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC