‘Tone deaf’ doesn’t quite cut it

February 22, 2006

The more I read about the Bush administration’s Dubai port deal, the less clear the details seem to be. But to understand the uproar, it’s probably best to separate two things: the substance (which is murky) and the politics (which isn’t).

Substantively, Kevin Drum notes that Bush’s defense may not be as far-fetched as it initially seemed. We’re talking about a company that has been operating domestic ports for years, along with plenty of other foreign-owned companies that already do the same thing in the U.S. The workers at these ports are American union members now, and that won’t change. For that matter, the Coast Guard and U.S. Customs will still be responsible for security.

Indeed, fairly persuasive editorials ran in the Washington Post and the LA Times today, arguing that the “hysteria” over the port deal is misplaced. The NYT adds that the deal has been cleared by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, a body made up of officials from the Defense, State, Commerce and Transportation Departments, along with the National Security Council, to review foreign investments in the country that could affect national security. All said this deal was fine.

But this touches on an underlying problem: this defense is predicated on the notion that we should trust the administration’s judgment and competence. Even yesterday, when talking to reporters, the president sounded almost offended that anyone would question him. What Bush doesn’t seem to realize is that his well of credibility has run dry. “Trust me; the deal’s fine” just doesn’t work — even with Republicans.

The vaunted White House political machine has apparently lost its ear. “Tone deaf” doesn’t quite cut it — these guys seem utterly oblivious to the political landscape. The administration struck a port-management deal with a country that recognized the Taliban’s government and which was used by the 9/11 terrorists as an operational and financial hub. The deal was approved through a dubious bidding process, and without notifying Congress. When conservative activists, blogs, and talk radio went berserk, the White House told them to buzz off. When Republican lawmakers — including the House Speaker and Senate Majority Leader — expressed concern, Bush told them to shut up and get in line.

The monarch can’t believe his subjects would dare to even question one of his decisions. Bush is under the mistaken impression that he enjoys broad support and credibility, and he can convince people on the merit of his ideas by snapping his fingers. I can’t even begin to imagine what leads him to believe such nonsense, but the sooner he gives up on such a belief, the better it will be for what’s left of his political standing.

I’m not entirely convinced that the port deal is as ridiculous as it may have initially seemed, but I’m certain that the president’s arrogance and hubris have put him in an awful political position. Again.

February 22, 2006 at 9:23 am

CB, an excellent post that gets to the underlying issue with anything that W will try to do from here out. It must be the result of the Bubble. He doesn’t understand that outside the Bubble so many people now see through him (as many of us did from the word go). It is confusing to him not to be able to just get his own way 100% of the time. One wonders what it must have been like growing up with him as an older brother.

Also, this topic gives me a chance to introduce his new moniker: George Dubai Bush. It looks like the word “Dubya” if you read it fast.

When Republican lawmakers — including the House Speaker and Senate Majority Leader — expressed concern, Bush told them to shut up and get in line.

Seems to me he went a step or three further than that. What Bush actually said was a bit more arrogant:

But if they pass a law, I’ll deal with it, with a veto … they need to know that our government has looked at this issue and looked at it carefully.

He is speaking to congress here. When did they cease to be a part of our government?

This is a problem of perception and so far Bush’s response is guarenteed to exacerbate the problem. This is an issue that upsets the conservative base, a base that many Republicans up for election need this fall. Bush doesn’t seem to realize that they may very well stand up to him in this matter, that they don’t have anything to lose by trying to undo this deal. If this is the first thing Bush vetoes in his 5+ years in office? The wedge between the rank-and-file GOP and the White House will grow 10x.

Pass the popcorn.

This may be the only time I actually agree with Dubya on *anything* but a report on NPR this morning talking about the port in New Jersey pointed out that of the six terminals there, two are run by Chinese companies, one by a Danish company – the list goes on – made me think more about it. I believe on the west coast over 90% of the terminals are run by overseas companies.

I find it hard to believe after 6 years that they (Rove) suddenly became this tone-deaf.

I saw it mentioned somewhere, probably on Drum’s site, that it could be simply a means of providing political cover for Republicans to show their independence leading up to this year’s elections.

Seriously. Six years of extremely successful politcal maneuvering and suddenly they spring an idea that practically everyone disagrees with? I’m not sure I can buy that.

Two Points. (1) While I’d like to believe that there is some “cost” Bush will pay for this I just don’t see it. Bush has yet to pay a price for violating any number of so-called Republican principles. As for the idea that Republicans in or outside of government will stand up to him, well I just don’t see that either. Show me when this has happened; give me an example of people abandoning him. NSA — doesn’t look like it. I can’t think of anything but Harriet Meyers and there the result was we got someone smarter and probably more conservative on the bench. (2). How does driving a wedge between the White House and rank and file GOP help the Democrats? If the Republicans actually do stand up to Bush on this issue, it probably helps there re-election chances. I don’t see any reason to get excited and start calling for the popcorn on this one.

I agree with Kathy. The NPR report this morning was excellent. I’ll agree with Bush on this and his reluctance to not grant presidential pardons (so far).

“Trust me; the deal’s fine” has led to an amazing personal string of business and governing failures for the Shrub. Maybe since Bush has no way of being re-elected, the Bushites feel freer to cover their own asses rather than his.

I’ve also seen NPR, the NYT and WaPo carry Bush’s water for him before. They’re hardly “liberal”, “progressive” or even “journalistic”.

The commission the President mentioned supposedly includes Defense, but Sec’ty Rumsfeld has denied any knowledge of the transaction, the committee or any review.

Guess he missed the briefing on the talking points.

Re NPR this morning:
I walked into the office laughing about Dubya’s line about what a terrible signal this (blocking the transaction) sent.
Yes, he’s really keen about signals sent by actions his administration has done in the USA’s name. Like invading a country that posed no threat to us, torturing prisoners, undermining elected leaders (Chavez), oh, you can go on and on….

On another point, Rove’s strategy of painting all arabs with the same face (i.e. Saddam and the 9/11 perps) has come back to haunt them. Couldn’t happen to a more deserving bunch.

Really, this is an expression of the total lack of concern over port security in this administration.

We should of had foreign companies OUT of managing our ports years ago. We should stop selling them American companies that manage our ports.

Please, Bush. Keep it up! Try telling the American people that you are more concerned about U.S. Security when you won’t stop a UAE government owned company buying into our port management but will sic army intelligence agents on Quaker anti-war groups.

How can He suggest that we are being UNFAIR to Arabs in Dubai when he is throwing American Citizens into Navy Brigs for three years without trail and declaring anyone handed over to us by their local enemies as Enemy Combatants?

Frist and Hassert don’t have the gumption to simply say “No, this will not stand”. They want to just “review” the issue and maybe hope that the delay will scotch the deal.

The way Bush has handled the issue reeks of arrogance. The smart way to handle the issue would be to “invite in” congressional oversight and give the process some time (a.k.a. –“due process”). But, kings don’t consult; they just rule–no questions allowed!

In a few days, will we see Bush climb off his “high-horse” and open up the review decision to Congress?

Does any corporation have the interests of our nation over its own self-serving global economic advantage? American corporations are more than willing to outsource factory jobs, participate in expanding the national deficit and corrupt our political institutions.

We are worried about losing control of six ports when overlooked is real danger of the underlying multinational corporate take over of the entire government.

I’m also not convinced it’s the end of world if the deal goes thru — but boy is it fun to watch from the sidelines!

I am still not confortable with companies – especially those that are controlled by foreign governments like the UAE and Chinese (I assume the Chinese company has a government control aspect but I don’t know for sure). Just because there are situations like that currently going on doesn’t necessarily mean that we either want to continue the practice or that other companies/countries are a good idea.

John Snow’s conflict of interest alone make me wary, but add in this administration’s general attitude of giving corporations whatever they want and rewarding what they perceive as friends (whether they are is a different issue) leave me with zero confidence in this administration on this issue and makes me fall on the “this idea sucks” side of the conversation no matter the reality of the situation/deal.

And the pResident’s defense of the deal and how it was handled make me even more suspicious and resistant. It leaves me with the feeling that they are hiding something either inconventient or just plain bad.

Kathy,

I agree that on the surface at least there are reasonable arguments to be made in favor of allowing the deal. But as others have said here, it’s Bush’s response to being challenged (Trust me, because I said so) that gets him in hot water.

Who trusts them? They lie and then they lie about lying. Rachel Maddow pointed out this morning that Rumsfeld is on the secret committee that supposedly unanimously approved the deal, and yet he said that until this past weekend he knew nothing about the deal.

Not to mention the uneasiness most of us feel at the way the government is selling off pieces of us to the highest bidder…

The most interesting analysis I read about Cheney shooting a 78yo man in the face and why the media glommed all over it, was that it finally gave people a metaphor for the White House they could understand. The same is true here, but on a grander scale. After Kerry castigated the administration on port security during the elections and Bush blew him off, Bush is now willing to sell his Arabs friends, who are terrorist enablers, our nation’s first line of defense, despite governors, senators and congressman of his own party decrying the deal. He just doesn’t care. He can’t be trusted. He’s only in it for his cronies. That it’s actually probably not a bad deal, given the foreign operation of the ports already is irrelevant.

So that big-time committee “met” and “approved the deal” – except it appears that most of the top members of the committee weren’t around when the deal was approved (like Rummy, for one), and say now they were never told of the pending deal or the approval. And Idiot Boy didn’t know anything about it until the uproar came, by his own admission this morning.

And this does not demonstrate their total and complete incompetence???

As Michael Tomasky says over at Tapped, it doesn’t matter whether it’s a good deal in and of itself. It’s good to use against the Republicans. To me, it’s a good deal to rip off the right arm of the Republican Machine and beat them over the head with. “More Incompetence!”

And Idiot Boy doesn’t have the ability to make the righties stop screaming about this, so it’s a great tool to sow dissension among the fools and buffoons with. Why not let this become the signature demonstration that he’s now irrelevant?

A good tool in politics has nothing to do with whether it is actually good or not. Clinton had the ability to push back on the righties when they started screaming that the Chinese Commies were going to run the Panama Canal back in 1999, but Bush doesn’t have that ability now.

Anything that gives Bush grief and lets Republican expose themselves for the bridge trolls they are is a Good Thing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_arab_emirates

This is the Wikipedia outline of the UAE. Is the government elected? Yeah, by seven kings.

Has our State Dept “cited widespread instances of blue collar labor abuse in the general context of the United Arab Emirates” You betchum!

Do we want people with a record of abuse of blue collar labor managing OUR blue collar laborers? NFW!

Case closed.

I heard the NPR story this morning as well, but I thought its points were largely irrelevant.

While it is true that most of our ports are administrated by foreign-owned companies, how many of those companies are owned foreign entities that (a) don’t recognize Israel, but recognize the Taliban, and (b) have met with bin Laden? The UAE royal family has done both.

One other point about the UAE. The media keep saying that the UAE was, as CB himself puts it, “used by the 9/11 terrorists as an operational and financial hub.” It goes beyond that. Two of the 9/11 hijackers were born and raised in the UAE – the emirate of Ras Al Khaimah, to be exact — and one of them, Marwan Al-Shehhi, was the hijacker pilot of United 175, which flew into the WTC’s South Tower.

I’m not saying that two hijackers equals the mindset of a nation, but as others have noted above, the ports issue itself is overshadowed here by the issue of how Bush justifies his stance, and kisses off the issue of security when it suits him. He invaded Iraq, which produced no 9/11 hijackers. He’s stubbornly defending a multi-billion-dollar deal with the UAE, an “ally” which was the birthplace and home of two of the hijackers, and which to my knowledge never did any atoning or self-investigating because of it.

Comments are closed.