A Portly Problem
The President has a weighty problem; his plan to hand over management of a number of U.S. ports to the United Arab Emirates has run up against hefty opposition-both from his own party as well as the Democrats. Many are accusing the President of being fat-headed (some of the Democrats would like to paunch him in the breadbasket)in entrusting control of shipping into American waters to an Arab, Islamic country. I`ve held my peace on this until the facts are in, and will continue to reserve judgement-to a point. I would just like to make some observations, based on my own particular view of things.
The President is probably looking at it from the standpoint of free trade; Bush is a great believer in free trade and international cooperation (one could say he is an internationalist)and, I suspect, he views this issue through the same prism he views the boarder issue; why shouldn`t a foreign country get the job if they come in with the best bid? (Why shouldn`t illegal aliens get jobs if they are willing to work for what U.S. employers want to pay?) Furthermore, giving an Arab nation this contract would show our goodwill and bonhomme to the Arab world, would show that we hold no racial or religious bias. Bush assumes, I am sure, that DHS will make certain that any cargo coming into the United States is safe, and that nobody will be getting off of those ships who shouldn`t be.
The President is, unfortunately, a product of his childhood environment, and George Herbert Walker Bush (his father) was a member of the country club Republican set; he believed in internationalism, the promotion of business interests, the correctness of governance by an insider elite, etc. (My own grandfather was such a Republican.) George W. has always worked with foreign investors, especially Arabs (according to Peter Bergen in his book ``Holy War, Inc.`` Arbusto, Bush`s oil company, was originally financed by the Bin-Laden family.) That Bush Sr. changed his tune after becoming Vice President to Reagan does not cancel out these earlier influences. I suspect the President is bewildered by this opposition.
On the opposite side, the arguments are many; how can DHS control what the UAE does with the ports, when most cargo goes uninspected now? Why is it necessary to put an Arab country in charge of U.S. ports, when it is clear there must be Americans (or at least Westerners) who would be just as capable? Can we risk it, even if the UAE honestly tries to act in our best interest? etc.
National security issues aside, I question the wisdom of hiring foreign companies to run basic American infrastructure. I am a believer in free trade, but I think that should not extend to management of our own internal affairs. Transportation systems, utilities, military defense, etc. should remain in American hands, and I`m willing to pay more to keep them that way. I am certain that, somewhere in this great land, there are people who could do a BETTER job than some arab conglomerate.
This is akin to hiring a Mexican company to run border security; they may actually TRY to do it but will probably not do it well. (I`m sorry I mentioned that; the President will probably propose this scheme now!) How about selling Pan Am, or Amtrac to Hugo Chavez? Some things should be done by Americans.
Part of the problems with the later Roman Empire stemmed from their farming out such services to outsiders. The Romans used Germans as border guards, for instance, and the Germans let every distant relative and friend into the Empire. This business is reminiscent of that.
In fact, we needed to tighten the security of our ports, and this proposal will do just the opposite.
Politically, this is turning into another disaster for the President. I hate to say it, but President Bush and his administration is dragging the Republicans and, by extension, the Conservatives down. He continually makes these bone-headed mistakes, continues to drive reasonable people away from his party. If the Democrats had anything going at all, the Republicans would be toast in the next election. Fortunately for the President (who would be impeached, otherwise) they have nothing to offer but lunacy and Bush-hatred. Still, the Republican base is not very happy, and the party will suffer for the President`s errors.
On the other hand, this has taken Dick Cheney`s attempt to asassinate a fellow hunter off the front page! This could be the Administration`s cleverest ploy yet!
If Bush had any sound basis for this decision, he needs to come out with it now.
The President is probably looking at it from the standpoint of free trade; Bush is a great believer in free trade and international cooperation (one could say he is an internationalist)and, I suspect, he views this issue through the same prism he views the boarder issue; why shouldn`t a foreign country get the job if they come in with the best bid? (Why shouldn`t illegal aliens get jobs if they are willing to work for what U.S. employers want to pay?) Furthermore, giving an Arab nation this contract would show our goodwill and bonhomme to the Arab world, would show that we hold no racial or religious bias. Bush assumes, I am sure, that DHS will make certain that any cargo coming into the United States is safe, and that nobody will be getting off of those ships who shouldn`t be.
The President is, unfortunately, a product of his childhood environment, and George Herbert Walker Bush (his father) was a member of the country club Republican set; he believed in internationalism, the promotion of business interests, the correctness of governance by an insider elite, etc. (My own grandfather was such a Republican.) George W. has always worked with foreign investors, especially Arabs (according to Peter Bergen in his book ``Holy War, Inc.`` Arbusto, Bush`s oil company, was originally financed by the Bin-Laden family.) That Bush Sr. changed his tune after becoming Vice President to Reagan does not cancel out these earlier influences. I suspect the President is bewildered by this opposition.
On the opposite side, the arguments are many; how can DHS control what the UAE does with the ports, when most cargo goes uninspected now? Why is it necessary to put an Arab country in charge of U.S. ports, when it is clear there must be Americans (or at least Westerners) who would be just as capable? Can we risk it, even if the UAE honestly tries to act in our best interest? etc.
National security issues aside, I question the wisdom of hiring foreign companies to run basic American infrastructure. I am a believer in free trade, but I think that should not extend to management of our own internal affairs. Transportation systems, utilities, military defense, etc. should remain in American hands, and I`m willing to pay more to keep them that way. I am certain that, somewhere in this great land, there are people who could do a BETTER job than some arab conglomerate.
This is akin to hiring a Mexican company to run border security; they may actually TRY to do it but will probably not do it well. (I`m sorry I mentioned that; the President will probably propose this scheme now!) How about selling Pan Am, or Amtrac to Hugo Chavez? Some things should be done by Americans.
Part of the problems with the later Roman Empire stemmed from their farming out such services to outsiders. The Romans used Germans as border guards, for instance, and the Germans let every distant relative and friend into the Empire. This business is reminiscent of that.
In fact, we needed to tighten the security of our ports, and this proposal will do just the opposite.
Politically, this is turning into another disaster for the President. I hate to say it, but President Bush and his administration is dragging the Republicans and, by extension, the Conservatives down. He continually makes these bone-headed mistakes, continues to drive reasonable people away from his party. If the Democrats had anything going at all, the Republicans would be toast in the next election. Fortunately for the President (who would be impeached, otherwise) they have nothing to offer but lunacy and Bush-hatred. Still, the Republican base is not very happy, and the party will suffer for the President`s errors.
On the other hand, this has taken Dick Cheney`s attempt to asassinate a fellow hunter off the front page! This could be the Administration`s cleverest ploy yet!
If Bush had any sound basis for this decision, he needs to come out with it now.
posted by Timothy Birdnow | 5:25 AM
2 Comments:
I would err on the side of caution. Just say no.
Despite what anyone says we are at war with Islam - not just the radicals. I don't think it wise to allow any Arab/Muslim control of something as vital as sea ports.
I sent the President and Sen. Coleman an e-mail to air my displeasure. If running the docks and the longshoreman is between the mob and the Islamists I'll take my chances with the mob.
Aussiegirl said:
Wonderful column, Tim -- you explained a lot about what makes George Bush and people like his father tick. I think you are right -- he is stunned at the reaction because he still has that mentality of -- just let us insiders take care of business -- you little people stay out of stuff you know nothing about. The whiff of elitism is becoming a stench. Stamping his little foot and threatening the first and only veto of his entire presidency over this deal is passing strange.
As for the mob vs. Islam -- I'll choose the mob any day -- they live here, their families live here -- they have a vested interest in not allowing a nuke to go off in those ports. They may be mobsters, but they are patriots and they are OUR mobsters.
Curiously, in this case as in the Miers case, Bush seems to reserve his greatest anger and pique for his own party, which betrays to me a kind of childish rebellious nature against authority.
While he's all Christian kindness and turn-the-other-cheek when it comes to tolerating the most humiliating kind of abuse from the likes of Kennedy et al., he positively bristles with arrogance and indignation if his own base dares to question any decision he makes.
These are not the hallmarks of a mature man, and may tell us a lot about why this man was a wastrel and a drunkard well into his 40's -- when he had a religous awakening and swore off the stuff. But a rich kid who wastes away a good portion of his young adult life shows some problem with parental authority. Perhaps that's why he only gets mad at his own party -- they are like his family and he can't take their disapproval or insubordination. Frankly, he worries me, and many things he is doing make no sense.
Post a Comment
<< Home