Portgate update: Exposing the incompetence of Bush's war on terror
Some interesting news and commentary on Portgate and the war on terror:
1) According to UPI, the U.A.E.-owned company at the center of Portgate, Dubai Ports World, is set to take over control of 21 American ports, not just six.
2) According to The New York Times, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey "will break the lease of a big container terminal at Port Newark" to block the takeover there. As well, the State of New Jersey is suing the federal government to block th deal: "New Jersey's suit argues that the federal Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, which approved the deal last month, has not provided Gov. Jon S. Corzine with the information he needs to protect the state's residents. By withholding it, the suit argues, the committee is interfering with the sovereign rights of the state provided by the 10th Amendment to the Constitution." Stay tuned on that one.
3) At The Washington Post, Dan Froomkin argues that "the port imbroglio threatens to develop real traction". Why? Because of both "the widespread outrage generated by the basic facts of the case" and "all sorts of worrisome and problematic things lurking just below the surface".
4) At TAPPED, Matt Yglesias responds to the charge that those of us who oppose the Dubai deal are racist or otherwise xenophobic: "Tom Friedman says skeptics of the UAE port deal are 'borderline racist.' David Ignatius disagrees, saying we're straight-up 'racist.' I say bullshit. The argument being mounted is plainly contradictory. On the one hand, it's supposed to be illegitimate to worry about this because we can't discriminate between countries. On the other hand, it's supposed to be illegitimate because the UAE is a loyal ally in the war on terror. But if the second is the reason we shouldn’t worry, then we can discriminate between countries after all. And of course we can discriminate between countries when it comes to matters of national security. That's how national security is done." Exactly.
5) At Newsweek, Michael Hirsh examines the war on terror's "clumsy leadership": "It is time to have an accounting of just how badly run, and conceived, this 'war on terror' has been." He doesn't think the Democrats are up to the task, but now is the time, if ever there was one, to rise to the occasion and challenge Bush and the Republicans on an issue that they consider their own, national security. More from Hirsh: "How then did we arrive at this day, with anti-American Islamist governments rising in the Mideast, bin Laden sneering at us, Qaeda lieutenants escaping from prison, Iran brazenly enriching uranium, and America as hated and mistrusted as it ever has been? The answer, in a word, is incompetence." And that's putting it nicely.
All good reading. Enjoy. I'll have more on Portgate throughout the weekend and beyond.
This may very well be the wedge we've all been waiting for. The full scope of the Bush Administration's misdeeds is coming ever more into focus.
1) According to UPI, the U.A.E.-owned company at the center of Portgate, Dubai Ports World, is set to take over control of 21 American ports, not just six.
2) According to The New York Times, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey "will break the lease of a big container terminal at Port Newark" to block the takeover there. As well, the State of New Jersey is suing the federal government to block th deal: "New Jersey's suit argues that the federal Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, which approved the deal last month, has not provided Gov. Jon S. Corzine with the information he needs to protect the state's residents. By withholding it, the suit argues, the committee is interfering with the sovereign rights of the state provided by the 10th Amendment to the Constitution." Stay tuned on that one.
3) At The Washington Post, Dan Froomkin argues that "the port imbroglio threatens to develop real traction". Why? Because of both "the widespread outrage generated by the basic facts of the case" and "all sorts of worrisome and problematic things lurking just below the surface".
4) At TAPPED, Matt Yglesias responds to the charge that those of us who oppose the Dubai deal are racist or otherwise xenophobic: "Tom Friedman says skeptics of the UAE port deal are 'borderline racist.' David Ignatius disagrees, saying we're straight-up 'racist.' I say bullshit. The argument being mounted is plainly contradictory. On the one hand, it's supposed to be illegitimate to worry about this because we can't discriminate between countries. On the other hand, it's supposed to be illegitimate because the UAE is a loyal ally in the war on terror. But if the second is the reason we shouldn’t worry, then we can discriminate between countries after all. And of course we can discriminate between countries when it comes to matters of national security. That's how national security is done." Exactly.
5) At Newsweek, Michael Hirsh examines the war on terror's "clumsy leadership": "It is time to have an accounting of just how badly run, and conceived, this 'war on terror' has been." He doesn't think the Democrats are up to the task, but now is the time, if ever there was one, to rise to the occasion and challenge Bush and the Republicans on an issue that they consider their own, national security. More from Hirsh: "How then did we arrive at this day, with anti-American Islamist governments rising in the Mideast, bin Laden sneering at us, Qaeda lieutenants escaping from prison, Iran brazenly enriching uranium, and America as hated and mistrusted as it ever has been? The answer, in a word, is incompetence." And that's putting it nicely.
All good reading. Enjoy. I'll have more on Portgate throughout the weekend and beyond.
This may very well be the wedge we've all been waiting for. The full scope of the Bush Administration's misdeeds is coming ever more into focus.
posted by Michael J.W. Stickings at
9:01 PM
1 Comments:
Just read the Newsweek article. Damn. As much as I like my blogs, one of their strengths is also their weakness: we get so much detail, it's easy to lose sight of the forest for the trees. But how do you refute an essay like this? I wish every supporter of the war - and every democrat running this year - would read it.
By
Anonymous, at 7:40 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home