Bob McElvaine looks at the way the UAE port deal has further eroded Bush's political standing: Mr. Bush ... Brought to the Bar of Poetic Justice (Finally) by Robert S. McElvaine History News Network 03-06-06. He writes:
“Remember 9-11” is finally coming back to bite the Bush Administration. A week after Vice President Cheney reminded us that this administration doesn’t know what it is shooting at, we found out that it also does not know who is shooting at us.
President Bush says canceling the Dubai deal would send the wrong message to the Muslim world.
Let me see if I have this straight: Torturing Muslim prisoners; holding them without charges; calling for democracy in the region and then trying to undermine the winners of a democratic election in Palestine; invading a country in the region on the basis of selective, misleading intelligence and with most of the world opposed to the invasion . . . the list goes on. None of that sent the wrong message to the Muslim world, but saying “No, thanks,” to letting a company run by the government of a country from which two of the 9-11 terrorists came, which provided some of the funding for al Qaeda, and was one of only three nations that recognized the Taliban regime—that would send the wrong message?
And this is what Mr. Bush will use his first veto on?
But the administration insists that the port deal does nothing to increase the threat of terrorism. That’s an interesting argument. It boils down to this: American ports aren’t safe anyway. Only 2% to 5% of cargo coming in is inspected anyway. Much of the general public did not realize this fact. Now they will. And that information will do nothing to reinforce the belief that the Bush Administration is keeping America safe.
Bob doesn't rule out the possibility that the UAE port deal can be structured in such a way that it really would be a secure arrangement. But his article is focusing on how the genuinely spotty record of the Bush administration on "homeland security" is catching up with them.
Although, as the prescient Tom Tomorrow suggests, those Republicans who find their loyaly to Bush a bit rattled by this deal can still find ways to shake off their doubts.
2 comments:
I was amused at the veto threat too.
And I agree that the real security issue is probably not whether this Dubai-based company manages the ports, but the fact that almost nothing has been done by Bush since 9/11 to deal with the security threats to our ports.
One could add mass transit, chemical and nuclear plants, and public health to areas of vulnerability neglected by Bush and his DHS hacks.
Neil
It's unusual that entering his sixth year as President, Bush has never yet used the veto.
But I guess when you have an authoritarian party in charge of Congress along with an opposition party that is afraid to oppose (too much of the time), the veto isn't that necessary.
Post a Comment