"Port-igate"
Thank you Steve for my very first comment! I’m warning you ahead of time – I can be verbose…
First off, my remarks from yesterday were in no way intended to bash the military. I have a cousin currently stationed in Iraq, an uncle who was a marine, and several friends who were, are, or will soon be enlisted. They know they have my love and respect.
The change of heart I was referring to was more related to my level of confidence in Bush and his administration. I felt good about voting for him in the last election because of his stance on certain moral and economic issues that were important for me and I was certain that if there were strengths that he was lacking, they would be compensated by the proven abilities of his cabinet, most notably, Powell and Ashcroft. It was disconcerting to say the least when they promptly resigned.
The liberal slant in the media (that has become more blatant since the last election) has played only a minor part in my waning confidence in the President. The bias has made mountains out of some molehills of course. But it has also brought to the public eye some issues that would not have otherwise been discussed. It’s probably true that if Clinton were in office, we wouldn’t have seen 24-hour coverage discussing exactly what went wrong with the war and Katrina, etc. But the administration can’t really fault them for that when they’re acting shady. It’s like yelling at a cop for not noticing other bad drivers when you’ve been pulled over for speeding – true, but not relevant at the moment.
One of my problems is that there are too many instances (direct from the horses’ mouths) where the government uses the words “didn’t realize”, “weren’t notified” or gives an outright denial (then confirmation). The port issue is the straw on the camel’s back for me.
A deal of this magnitude would take months if not years to go through. But the panel didn’t even use the entire 45 days allotted to review the sale. Grannies are being felt up at airports in search of bombs and we just learned about the domestic spying program, but this didn’t raise any red flags?! None?! And it if is the case that they didn’t know about it until now, why threaten to veto plans to stop or even delay the sale until due diligence is performed?
While its true that most of our ports are run by foreign companies, they weren't countries who sided with AQ in the past and have dubious relations with them now. While the UAE government has been helpful to us since 911, is it outside the realm of possibility that some people who would be employed by DP World would be less US-friendly than their bosses?
Unlike the airport where a potential terrorist has a face and there is some level of interaction with security personnel, we rely on agents to inspect tons and tons of cargo – tracked by technology which can, if someone is motivated, but tampered with. According to a homeland security official, port security agents can only reasonably inspect 5% of the cargo that comes in. I’ll give them 10% to account for a few good days… That’s not enough!!
Supporters of the deal like Bob Dole, Fox News and the Wall Street Journal have suggested that we let it go through to save face and foster harmony with the Arab world, but just monitor them extra carefully. Is that really much less insulting to Arabs? To me, that’s like a shop owner telling a black person, “we’ll let you N****r’s buy from our store, but we’re going to follow you every where to make sure you don’t steal anything”!
I hate the feeling that this is all about money and the potential for big businesses to earn more money, but I fear that is the case. What is the point of sending our boys and girls overseas to fight and possibly die to protect us, when we leave all of our doors open at home? I think it’s a slap in their face.
First off, my remarks from yesterday were in no way intended to bash the military. I have a cousin currently stationed in Iraq, an uncle who was a marine, and several friends who were, are, or will soon be enlisted. They know they have my love and respect.
The change of heart I was referring to was more related to my level of confidence in Bush and his administration. I felt good about voting for him in the last election because of his stance on certain moral and economic issues that were important for me and I was certain that if there were strengths that he was lacking, they would be compensated by the proven abilities of his cabinet, most notably, Powell and Ashcroft. It was disconcerting to say the least when they promptly resigned.
The liberal slant in the media (that has become more blatant since the last election) has played only a minor part in my waning confidence in the President. The bias has made mountains out of some molehills of course. But it has also brought to the public eye some issues that would not have otherwise been discussed. It’s probably true that if Clinton were in office, we wouldn’t have seen 24-hour coverage discussing exactly what went wrong with the war and Katrina, etc. But the administration can’t really fault them for that when they’re acting shady. It’s like yelling at a cop for not noticing other bad drivers when you’ve been pulled over for speeding – true, but not relevant at the moment.
One of my problems is that there are too many instances (direct from the horses’ mouths) where the government uses the words “didn’t realize”, “weren’t notified” or gives an outright denial (then confirmation). The port issue is the straw on the camel’s back for me.
A deal of this magnitude would take months if not years to go through. But the panel didn’t even use the entire 45 days allotted to review the sale. Grannies are being felt up at airports in search of bombs and we just learned about the domestic spying program, but this didn’t raise any red flags?! None?! And it if is the case that they didn’t know about it until now, why threaten to veto plans to stop or even delay the sale until due diligence is performed?
While its true that most of our ports are run by foreign companies, they weren't countries who sided with AQ in the past and have dubious relations with them now. While the UAE government has been helpful to us since 911, is it outside the realm of possibility that some people who would be employed by DP World would be less US-friendly than their bosses?
Unlike the airport where a potential terrorist has a face and there is some level of interaction with security personnel, we rely on agents to inspect tons and tons of cargo – tracked by technology which can, if someone is motivated, but tampered with. According to a homeland security official, port security agents can only reasonably inspect 5% of the cargo that comes in. I’ll give them 10% to account for a few good days… That’s not enough!!
Supporters of the deal like Bob Dole, Fox News and the Wall Street Journal have suggested that we let it go through to save face and foster harmony with the Arab world, but just monitor them extra carefully. Is that really much less insulting to Arabs? To me, that’s like a shop owner telling a black person, “we’ll let you N****r’s buy from our store, but we’re going to follow you every where to make sure you don’t steal anything”!
I hate the feeling that this is all about money and the potential for big businesses to earn more money, but I fear that is the case. What is the point of sending our boys and girls overseas to fight and possibly die to protect us, when we leave all of our doors open at home? I think it’s a slap in their face.
posted by the singleton at 11:10 AM
2 Comments:
I would feel more comfortable with having my "enemies closer" if I thought that security was tightened in the right places. I am not convinced of that...
The security we have now is due in part to America’s hyperactive suspicion about foreigners. Even though I’m a black woman, you’ll rarely if ever hear me speak out against profiling. It’s politically incorrect, possibly morally reprehensible, but it has worked for us.
I think there is more of an opportunity for the ACLU and other groups to lobby against necessary security measures if they are perceived as being our “friends”. It’s much harder for them to gain public support for their causes if the beneficiaries are “those people from ___”.
Congress and whoever has malevolent intentions will also have more of a chance to fly under the radar if there are legitimate reasons to collaborate and established lines of communication.
I’m sure you could talk me under the table with “half your brain tied behind your back”, but you should know that I DO research and form an opinion based on what I understand as the truth. The past is full of men and women who were well informed, very passionate but in the end were found to be very misguided. We’ll have to wait for some distance to let us know if we are as well.
Not offended at all!! I was just telling Emi that I've enjoyed sparring with you.
I wouldn't doubt that there are those who want a total upheaval of our government. Some very influential people were in high dudgeon over the last election and there are more and more books and articles about how the religious right needs to be crushed.
It will be interesting to see how the country changes in the next 10-15 years.
Cheers!
Post a Comment
<< Home