Monday, February 27, 2006


Obliged to counter public criticism of its Dubai Ports International deal, the White House was denied the use of their most trusted attack of "partisan politics!" due to the number of Republicans leading the complaints.
Nor could the Administration claim its critics were selling out on national security, as that was the crux of the objections.
What then could the propagandists come up with to attack their attackers?

All was revealed when on every single Sunday political show the question was posed that the criticisms of the port deal were based solely on "hysteria" and "bigotry".

Since September 11th the Bush cabal has counted on hysteria with dark claims of potential nuclear and biological attacks, releasing "terror alerts" timed to Bush’s dipping poll numbers and painting those who questioned policies and practices as unpatriotic, whilst Bush’s boosters in the media have never hesitated to label all Arabs "sand-monkeys", "ragheads", "Islamo-fascists" and dissident liberals as cowards and traitorsfacts that not one of the Sunday talking heads cared to note.

Having traded exclusively on fear, xenophobia and bigotry to maintain and promote their power and policies, the White House is now being hoisted by its own petard.

The hypocrisy of their argument is so transparent it would appear to be a poor political maneuver; but as long the op-eds and talking heads ignore the irony and hypocrisy the White House argument still works in their favor.

The Administration’s public defense of the arrangement obscures the larger issue that the DBI deal is symbolic of the White House’s modus operandi; ignore the public interest and exploit national assets and government resources to make private deals that benefit only the well-connected few.


Carl said...

The pundits have a point. Our objections ARE based on bigotry...

...these assholes are friends of the Bushes and that automatically makes them suspect.

Call it knee-jerk bigotry, but you'll pardon me if I cross the street anytime a Bush walks towards me.

5th Estate said...

I can't agreee with you there Carl---bigotry is a manifestation of fear,willfull ignorance absent of tangible evidence or experience ...

the knee-jerk reaction to anything and everything BushCo does is a manifestation of fear and knowledge founded in empirical evidence and informed experience.

However the politicians' decrying foreign management of US ports-- especially Arab management of US ports--DID strike me as being "reactionary" and therefore certainly akin to bigotry at first, particularly as the deal was immediatley and vociferously critized even as its opponents complained about having been kept ignorant of the specifics of the deal (and therefore unqualified to provide reasoned opposition.

But as it transpires what appeared to be a "bigoted" reaction based largely on instinct is actually being affrimed by reason and evidence as the details have gradually come to light.

Allowing an Arab ally of convenience to manage such such startegically sensitive resources as our ports is singificant, but equally significant are the facts that
1) the Administration downplayed the security implications
2)one of the heads of the Departments who supposedly gave unanimous approval claimed never to have heard of the deal (Rumsfeld)
3)the President who claims to be a "doer" and claims that his number one priority is to ensure the security of the US public supposedly only heard about the deal from the press
4)that none of the relevant Congressional committees was informed of the deal,
5)none of the Representatives for the states that were home to thye ports were consulted
6)the likely public reaction was clearly discounted.

Governments make two-faced expedient deals all the time, but this one completly circumvented congressional participation, public disclosure interest and used the public government to strike a private deal at the public expense.

In other words the political appointees of the Executive demonstrated once again and more clearly than ever their complete disdain for representative government and the will of the people and to exploit their positions for personal business gain.

There's no real bigotry in assuming the WhiteHouse is just a bunch of crooks when they consistently prove themselves yet again to be exactly that.

KEvron said...

i think you meant to say "prejudiced", 'tor.


Red Tory said...

Just out of curiousity, I wonder who initiated this transfer in the first place. Was it P&O or Dubai Ports World? Why did P&O want to sell? Was management of the ports unprofitable, and if so why? Many questions need to be answered.

The way the Bush administration handled this matter is yet another demonstration of their arrogance and gross incompetence.

5th Estate said...

Are you seriously suggesting , Red, that P&O somehow something something about something? Damn your trousers, sir!
And where I wonder is Greta Van Sustern in all of this? Ports, ships; isn't that HER area of expertise? Why isn't SHE asking Cathy Lee Gifford the hard questions?