|
Karen, The reaction is entirely political.
Anyone would think we are in an election year. If The Coastguard would continue to handle
security, the Customs check shipments both here and overseas before they are
loaded. Tens of thousands of American longshoremen
would continue to do their work. However, there are a billion Muslims in
the world. We cannot stop terror unless we get many of them on our side. The
UAE is already friendly and is supporting us (though their leaders are on the terrorist
hit list. There is nothing that would sensibly to prevent
the deal going through – except next November. Harry From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Karen Watters Cole Also See Council of Foreign Relations Q&A on the Josh
Holland The Untold story behind the Ports
deal There's
a much bigger truth we're missing, behind the (clearly true) cries of racism in
the UAE ports controversy…the bigger issue here is how this story perfectly
illustrates the corporate-logic-as-public-policy behind
"free-trade," and
every Democrat who hides behind that euphemistic banner and is now whining
about this deal should have their noses rubbed in it. This deal is about
government procurement, one of the hottest controversies in the trade debate,
but one of which the general public is largely unaware. The This is about subjecting
governments to the same criteria that the private sector uses: efficiency,
cost-containment, etc. It happens all the time, it's the consistent goal of
those who represent us in trade negotiations and it's wrong. So let's skip the
xenophobia and talk about the larger issue here: democracy versus
corporatism. http://www.alternet.org/story/32637/ The NY
Times
reported today that the law governing this sort of deal, when "the acquiring company is
controlled by or acting on behalf of a foreign government," requires a "mandatory," 45-day investigation. That was never done,
and what's more, "Administration officials ... could not say why a 45-day
investigation did not occur." But here's the thing: it's not too late.
The President can still order the investigation. And Sens. Schumer (D-NY) and
Clinton (D-NY), along with Mayor Bloomberg, have asked for it. http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/007728.php Also from reader comments at TPM, much like we conduct our
opinions here: This is the moment when
the mask comes off, the curtain is pulled, and everyone—but especially Bush
supporters—gets to see the sad little wizard pulling the strings and
relying on his megaphone. Leave aside the question
of whether having our ports controlled by UAE will actually make us less
safe—I don’t like it, but I don’t have hard evidence. The
larger political point is that Bush has lived and died by the war on terror. He
has accused those he believed to be less zealous of, virtually, treason. Etc.
etc. Being a War President,
and the War on Terror itself, eclipses everything. Except when it doesn’t. The people who voted for
him genuinely believed that he would keep them safer than any alternative we
could elect. And now he’s blowing it all off, under the guise of
“fair play” for countries that have “played by the rules.”
Aside from the cribbing from The cynicism of his
defense of the port deal is just staggering. He’s not even interested in
pretending he didn’t know, or hadn’t considered the psychological
ramifications, etc. Not even a nod to “maybe we should review this one
more time.” Could be it’s
money—there is clearly some conflict of interesting running around the
Treasury Dept. But maybe they just
don’t care. It’s all been a show, from day one. Or, I should say,
Day 911. I hope this knocks some
sense into Republican heads. From what I heard on Sean Hannity today, perhaps
it has. I'm still interested in
finding out a bit more about just what this deal would leave the UAE company in
charge of. But what stands out about the president's talk tough statement today is that it really does amount to - "The fact we're
doing this means that we've looked into it and it's fine. So what's your
problem?" Here's an actual quote: "They ought to listen to what I have to say about this. They
ought to look at the facts and understand the consequences of what they're
going to do. 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. Again, I repeat, if there was any question as to whether or not this
country would be less safe as a result of the transaction, it wouldn't go
forward." In the most generous
reading, it's like he's insulted when we don't take his word for it that he's
got us covered. http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/007724.php |
_______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [email protected] http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
