Review of Port Deal Will Leave Decision to Bush

NYTimes

The Dubai company seeking to take over some terminal operations at six American ports formally asked the Bush administration on Sunday to conduct a deeper investigation into security concerns surrounding the deal. The request will leave President Bush in the politically delicate position of having to personally approve or disapprove the takeover.

Oh, fucking swell. That's like making the head of an arson ring the Fire Chief.

But Democrats balked, insisting on their original demand that Congress should have the final say over the deal. Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York, who joined a bipartisan group of senators on Friday in calling for a quick vote on legislation requiring a 45-day review, said Congress, not the White House, should make the final determination.

"We still believe that the report also has to go to Congress, that as much of it as possible ought to be public and that we would have the right of disapproval," Mr. Schumer said in an interview. "That is part of our legislation. That is constitutionally valid; you can have the right of disapproval."

Mr. Bush has vowed to veto any bill giving authority over the deal to Congress, rather than to the executive branch.

Congress, there had better be enough left in your sack to make you stand tall on this and override that twerp. I don't really care if you only do it because elections are coming up and you want to keep your plush jobs. The time has finally come for you to earn your money for a change.

I don't care how strategic and profitable our relations are with the UAE. Keep it overseas. I don't trust 'em as far as I can throw 'em, given their prior terrorist connections. I trust them almost as much as I trust Bush to do right by the American people. In other words, I trust them not at all.

UAE is a big arms buyer

From IPS News Agency:

The United Arab Emirates (UAE), the centre of a growing controversy over its proposed management of U.S. port terminals, is one of the world's most prolific arms buyers and a multi-billion-dollar military market both for the United States and Western Europe.

The delivery of 80 U.S.-built F-16 E/F fighter planes -- described as one of the biggest single arms packages to a Middle Eastern nation and finalised back in March 2000 -- is to be completed only in 2007.

U.S. President George W. Bush's threat to veto any attempts to block last week's deal permitting a state-owned UAE company to take over the management of six U.S. port terminals has underlined the significance of the political and military relationship between the two countries.

In other words, Bush's family and friends are getting richer and richer and the Hell with us.

"If I had to hazard a guess on the potential impact of the current imbroglio, there will be increased interest on the part of the UAE military to move to further arms source diversification" -- and away from relying too heavily on the United States.

I think I am beginning to see the light: The UAE pays cash. The same Military-Industrial corporations that are making a bundle off U.S. taxpayers via the criminality in Iraq have found a customer and are getting a ton of our oil payouts as well. This has Carlyle Group (aka Daddy Bush and his buddies) written all over it as does this:

Connecting Dubai Ports World, the Carlyle Group, CSX, John Snow, and David Sanborn

This is too convoluted for words. Just go read. We may have to change our name to the United American Emirate. It looks like we're not only being sold out and down the river, but we're being bought with our own money.

We're the gravy train, and Bush doesn't want to fuck it up. At first, he was gonna keep it quiet 'til it was too late to stop it, then claim he didn't know about it. Now that it's been made public, he has to do whatever it takes to make it happen. He's got his orders.

I bet they keep the negatives...

A BuzzFlash analysis of the port deal:

Which leads us to a further profoundly disturbing thought.

Maybe the Bush Administration, whose so called task force on the Dubai contract met only once, is really shoving this outsourced, kinky contract down our throats (and remember we are paying taxes to be betrayed by the Judas in the White House) for another reason.

Maybe the sheikhs of Dubai and the United Arab Emirates have some nasty goods on Bush, Cheney, the Carlyle Group, Halliburton (you name the corporate crony relationship) that the Bush dynasty can't afford to be revealed because it involves illegal financial transactions and questionable geopolitical agreements.

In short, maybe the national security of America is being blackmailed.

I wouldn't doubt it a bit, but, damn, Clinton was a lot more fun.

Good. God.

Found this via Atrios:

...

Bremer knew nothing about Iraq. He had never been there, did not speak Arabic, had no experience in dealing with a country emerging from war, and had never been involved in "nation-building." During the two weeks he was given to get ready, he recruited a senior staff including several retired ambassadors, a former assistant secretary of state for administration, and a high-powered Republican Washington lobbyist. Only one of his recruits had any background in the region.

...

The chaos on the ground in Iraq was matched by chaos within the Bush administration in Washington. President Bush decided on war with Iraq shortly after September 11, and from late 2001 planning for the war was underway. But the President never addressed the big issues of how postwar Iraq would be governed. Would the United States run a prolonged occupation as it had done with Germany and Japan? Would it hand over power to a provisional Iraqi government? If so, who would be in that government? What would be done about the Iraqi military and the Baath Party?

...

Bremer says that Bush "was as vigorous and decisive in person as he appeared on television." But in fact he gives an account of a superficial and weak leader. He had lunch with the President before leaving for Baghdad - a meeting joined by the Vice President and the national security team - but no decision seems to have been made on any of the major issues concerning Iraq's future. Instead, Bremer got a blanket grant of authority that he clearly enjoyed exercising. The President's directions seem to have been limited to such slogans as "we're not going to fail" and "pace yourself, Jerry." In Bremer's account, the President was seriously interested in one issue: whether the leaders of the government that followed the CPA would publicly thank the United States. But there is no evidence that he cared about the specific questions that counted: Would the new prime minister have a broad base of support? Would he be able to bridge Iraq's ethnic divisions? What political values should he have? Instead, Bush had only one demand: "It's important to have someone who's willing to stand up and thank the American people for their sacrifice in liberating Iraq." According to Bremer, he came back to this single point three times in the same meeting. Similarly, Ghazi al-Yawar, an obscure Sunni Arab businessman, became Bush's candidate for president of Iraq's interim government because, as Bremer reports, Bush had "been favorably impressed with his open thanks to the Coalition." [my ems]

...

So explain to me again why this bunch shouldn't be in jail?

And if you want to know how to foment a successful insurrection, read my story The Captains (yes, I'm whoring but it's relevant and it's free). Sure it takes place 200 years in the future, in another galaxy, but the principles are the same.

Class Act

Our esteemed colleague and all around good dude RJ Eskow. Observe a case study in ethics:

...I found a comment which linked to Factcheck.org. Following the link, I found enough evidence to convince me my statements about Cheney's personal benefit were wrong.

...

When you make a mistake, you acknowlege it and go on. You don't hide, scrub, or revise. You 'real' journalists get it yet?

It's about time...

We got another one.

Unpreparedness

The Guard is in trouble.

WASHINGTON, Feb. 26 - Governors of both parties said Sunday that Bush administration policies were stripping the National Guard of equipment and personnel needed to respond to hurricanes, floods, tornadoes, forest fires and other emergencies.

...

The governors said they would present their concerns to President Bush and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld on Monday. In a preview of their message, all 50 governors signed a letter to the president opposing any cuts in the size of the National Guard.

"Unfortunately," the letter said, "when our National Guard men and women return from being deployed in foreign theaters, much of their equipment remains behind." The governors said the White House must immediately re-equip Guard units "to carry out their homeland security and domestic disaster duties."

...

After Iraq, the response to future disasters will be about the same as it was to Katrina. Do you think most of these Guardsmen who come back from Iraq will re-up or get out after facing family or financial ruin doing something they didn't sign up to do? It's a good bet the Iraq War has already destroyed the National Guard and the active duty force is next.

Thanks to ReddHedd for the link.

99 to 1

Picking up on Fixer's post, Paul Krugman localizes it a little:

So who are the winners from rising inequality? It's not the top 20 percent, or even the top 10 percent. The big gains have gone to a much smaller, much richer group than that.

A new research paper by Ian Dew-Becker and Robert Gordon of Northwestern University, "Where Did the Productivity Growth Go?," gives the details. Between 1972 and 2001 the wage and salary income of Americans at the 90th percentile of the income distribution rose only 34 percent, or about 1 percent per year. So being in the top 10 percent of the income distribution, like being a college graduate, wasn't a ticket to big income gains.

But income at the 99th percentile rose 87 percent; income at the 99.9th percentile rose 181 percent; and income at the 99.99th percentile rose 497 percent. No, that's not a misprint.

The idea that we have a rising oligarchy is much more disturbing. It suggests that the growth of inequality may have as much to do with power relations as it does with market forces. Unfortunately, that's the real story.

Should we be worried about the increasingly oligarchic nature of American society? Yes, and not just because a rising economic tide has failed to lift most boats. Both history and modern experience tell us that highly unequal societies also tend to be highly corrupt. There's an arrow of causation that runs from diverging income trends to Jack Abramoff and the K Street project.

And I'm with Alan Greenspan, who - surprisingly, given his libertarian roots - has repeatedly warned that growing inequality poses a threat to "democratic society."

It may take some time before we muster the political will to counter that threat. But the first step toward doing something about inequality is to abandon the 80-20 fallacy. It's time to face up to the fact that rising inequality is driven by the giant income gains of a tiny elite, not the modest gains of college graduates.

That's pretty technical shit fer this ol' dumb-ass country fuck, but I think I can sum it up: The rich are getting a lot richer, the poor are growing as a class because of it, and the rest of us are getting lower in the water.

There's lots of economic opportunity in Uganda, though...

More on Impeachment

Lewis Lapham in Harper's on Impeachment:

The Conyers report doesn't lack for further instances of the administration's misconduct, all of them noted in the press over the last three years - misuse of government funds, violation of the Geneva Conventions, holding without trial and subjecting to torture individuals arbitrarily designated as "enemy combatants," etc. - but conspiracy to commit fraud would seem reason enough to warrant the President's impeachment. Before reading the report, I wouldn't have expected to find myself thinking that such a course of action was either likely or possible; after reading the report, I don't know why we would run the risk of not impeaching the man (my em). We have before us in the White House a thief who steals the country's good name and reputation for his private interest and personal use; a liar who seeks to instill in the American people a state of fear; a televangelist who engages the United States in a never-ending crusade against all the world's evil, a wastrel who squanders a vast sum of the nation's wealth on what turns out to be a recruiting drive certain to multiply the host of our enemies. In a word, a criminal - known to be armed and shown to be dangerous. Under the three-strike rule available to the courts in California, judges sentence people to life in jail for having stolen from Wal-Mart a set of golf clubs or a child's tricycle. Who then calls strikes on President Bush, and how many more does he get before being sent down on waivers to one of the Texas Prison Leagues?

Whatever prison the Chimp ends up in, I guarantee he'll play catcher, baseball diamond or shower room, mox nix.

Put down your coffee...

..and go read all three pages of Ironic Times.

Frequently Asked Questions About Vice President Cheney Shooting A Guy In The Face With A Gun

Will Durst with more on the Chweeney shooting.

Q. Don't you think its time for the liberals to lay off this and move on to more important affairs of state?
A. Point well taken. They should promise not to give Dick Cheney's lack of moral judgment a single second more attention than was given to Bill Clinton's.

Now that would be money well spent!

How're we doin'?

Not so good:

We keep hearing from our Wrong-Wing Wregulars about how well the economy is doing. There is only one real way to know if this boast of theirs contains any merit, and that is by comparing the US economy to that of other nations. I do this, beginning below the fold.

But I warn you. What you are about to see has to be a Bu$hCo Top Secret, for the facts aren't matching the rhetoric coming out of the White Lie House. Reading this information just might get you sent to Guantanamo, or at least one of the new KBR 'detention' facilities as an Enemy of the State!

Here's a good sampling of the health of the world's economies:

...

A long but good read over at Left Coaster.

Chutzpah

WASHINGTON - Wal-Mart's chief executive told America's governors Sunday that he needed their help to make healthcare more affordable and accessible for the retail giant's 1.3 million U.S. employees because the company couldn't do it alone.

Lee Scott said Wal-Mart's healthcare costs had risen 19% in each of the last three years and that it was a matter of time before it, and other businesses, would not be able to sustain rising costs.

...

When I saw this on TV this morning, I thought it was a piece on The Onion. All I can say is; are you fucking kidding me?

Ports...once more

Dave Johnson makes the entire point:

I want to make a comment on the "UAE port deal" controversy. We invaded Iraq based on less evidence of al Queda and other terrorist ties than there is of UAE ties. Yet, the Bush crowd insists that we have nothing to worry about from handing control of our ports over to the UAE.

...

That's what it's all about, ladies and germs. The Chimp can't have it both ways. What was it? "You're with us or against us." Even if the UAE were harmless, which they're not, this deal shouldn't go through because they certainly haven't proved they are 'with us'. Just because they let us dock our ships in Dubai, doesn't mean we have to throw them this bone. Like Gord says: If they "...wants to open a chain of Al Qonvenience stores, that's one thing. Fine. Let 'em..." But by golly, don't give 'em the keys to the front door.

Parallels

I'm reading a book titled The First Battle: Operation Starlite and the Beginning of the Blood Debt in Vietnam by Otto J. Lehrack.

I got this book as soon as I saw it because it happened while I was in the Corps, and I knew a lot of guys who were involved in Starlite. They rotated from Vietnam to Camp Lejeune, North Carolina, where the 2d Marine Division was guarding the Atlantic coast against the VC. Corporal Gordon was doing his usual magnificent, heroic job of bringing up the rear from his command post at the Area 6 EM Club..

Operation Starlite was the first major combat by American forces against Main Force VC and effectively took them out of action as large-unit combatants for the rest of our involvement there. The PAVN, aka NVA, took over the role afterwards.

Mr. Lehrack brings up issues that are analagous to Iraq. I'm not sure if he meant to, because the book was published in 2004, and he conducted lots of interviews with American and Vietnamese (both sides), and that must have taken time. My guess is that he was in the final turd-polishing editing when the Iraq war started. Here's a few quotes from Chapter 2, "America Touches The Tar Baby":

...Johnson could not appear to be weak. He was a Texan, dammit,with all the pop-mythology baggage that the label carried. He regarded himself as a macho-man. Some months after Johnson's election, at a small White House meeting, Supreme Court Justice Arthur Goldberg asked the President why we were in Vietnam. Johnson unzipped his fly, pulled out his penis, and said, "This is why."

[...] The corner was turned when Lyndon Johnson asked for, and Congress naively gave him, a blank check to conduct an undeclared war in Southeast Asia.

Not everyone within the administration was sanguine about America's prospects in Vietnam. As early as 1963, John McCone, director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), expressed doubts to President Kennedy about the efficacy of American efforts. His view of the adventure in Vietnam was that it was based on "complete lack of intelligence" and "exceedingly dangerous..." His views were dismissed as "out of step with policy."

There's a lot more, and I'm sure you recognize some key words that are being used today in relation to Iraq. The point is that both wars were started with lies for political gain, and that folks who tried to slow things down were pooh-poohed. Personally, I think this administration is far worse than Johnson's.

The chapter on parallels about the end of both wars is yet to be written, but I definitely see history repeating itself: a tremendous loss of life and treasure for no gain.

Calling bullshit...again

McCain is on with Little George and says that more and more Iraqi battalions are capable of fighting on their own. Ummm...no, asshole:

...

Then a few weeks ago we heard that after all these months of training it was again admitted that there was still but ONE IRAQI batallion capable of fighting on its own without the United States help.

Progress.

And the news gets even BETTER a few weeks later when you find out a few weeks later that there are NO IRAQI batallions capable of fighting on their own without the United States help.

...

He is such a lying sack of shit Bush whore. His prior service be damned, he should be thrown in jail with the Chimp and the rest of this corrupt crew.

And just a side note. The 'roudntable' discussion this week did not include Katrina Vanden Heuvel. This week, all the little guests sit in awe of George Will instead of telling him where to get off.

Update:

Hell of a balanced lineup on Press the Meat too:

Sen. John W. Warner (R-VA)
Rep. Peter T. King (R-NY)
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R-CA)

Love that 'liberal media'.

Calling bullshit

Scott Shields on healthcare:

...You know all of those stories Republicans tell us about why American healthcare is so expensive? You know, malpractice awards are too high, that we don't ration our healthcare, that our healthcare infrastructure is just better, etc, etc. Well, according to an extensive study published last year in the journal Health Affairs, those stories are (surprise, surprise) not true. [my em]

...

It's time for universal health care now, for all our citizens. A large percentage of people in this country are one catastrophic illness away from financial ruin. The only thing the current American health care system is good for is enriching folks who already have most of the money. I'm sorry, but health care should not be a for-profit endeavor. If you're going to med school to become a doctor, you should be doing it for noble motives, not as a way to get rich like lawyers do.

Nuff said...

It says a lot about our country that Clinton was impeached and Bush has not been. The idea that a sexual indiscretion is more significant that entering a war under false pretenses, flagrantly breaking the law on domestic surveillance, and presiding over an immense squandering of national treasure is, frankly, ludicrous. I had a rather unhealthy personal hatred of Clinton in the 1990s, primarily because he was a draft dodger who had become Commander in Chief. Every US military death in Haiti, in Somalia, in Bosnia was a moral outrage. Now, though, I'm faced with a C-in-C who also evaded meaningful service and has ordered thousands to die in a war based on a lie. Clinton balanced the budget; Bush broke it.

[Link]

And just a gripe

I got a problem with people wearing the uniform when they didn't serve. Now, I wear BDU pants to work every day, instead of the usual blue mechanic's uniform pants, because I like the abundance of pockets (I can jam tools and parts in 'em) and they're comfortable and durable. I still wear some I was issued 25 years ago. I love 'em.

I realize that the kids wear 'em as a fad nowadays too. I got no problem with that because they're kids and I remember what it was like to be cool when you're young. The problem I have is grown people giving the idea they actually contributed to the defense of this nation when they haven't. You don't know how many people come up to me and ask where I get my stuff. I tell 'em, 'the hard way, I enlisted'.

Now, I also realize it's a petty gripe and there are much bigger fish to fry, and it probably doesn't even warrant a post here. But when I saw this...



If the guy hadn't done his best not to serve, it probably wouldn't bother me as much.

Pic courtesy of Karena.

Update:

Christine looks at this idiot's speech to the American Legion on Friday:

...

But I know you guys aren't as gullible as his audience there in Washington today. We all know it's not freedom he's spreading, but imperialism. Imperialistic anal rape is what he's spreading. Painful, non-lubed, hold still and take it or I'll kill you ass fucking. Plain and simple.

...

Katy lies...

You could see it in her eyes...

At Pensito Review:

Over one year ago, PR reported on U.S. Rep. Katherine Harris (R-Stolen Elections) trying to divest herself of the same illegal contributions which former California Representative Duke Cunningham is going to jail for accepting.

...

After the employees complained about coercion, Harris offered - in the style of the DeLay-linked - to return the payola. Now the horse manootey is hitting the fan, and Harris' new name is in legal circles is "Rep. A."

...

It comes around. Hope you have a pleasant stay in Danbury, honey, though you should probably face a firing squad.