Let's start with (surprise!) Glenn Greenwald. The excerpt below captures the spirit of a much larger post that is, as always with Glenn, a great read. As the movement in opposition we don't always get to chose our battles, but in this case we've been handed a political gift, and we deserve to stay the movement in opposition if we don't take it. This deal has split Bush from his base in a way that nothing - and yes, I mean NOTHING - we could have even done ourselves would have. Glenn explains:
| ...the serious split between the Administration and their formerly compliant Congressional allies is, for many reasons, the perfect framework in which to press for real Congressional investigations into the NSA scandal. The emergence of this sharp wedge between the Congress and White House, as well as the distrust of the White House which the port controversy is generating, create the ideal groundwork for agitating for Congressional investigations.
The principal argument which has been invoked by the President's apologists for suppressing investigations -- namely, that we should blindly trust the President on national security matters and that Congress has no business investigating the President's decisions concerning the "war on terror"-- is entirely obviated by the port controversy. In response to demands for an NSA investigation, it will now ring intuitively false for any Republican Senator to claim that Congress has no role to play, or that the Administration should be trusted with no oversight, when it comes to making decisions about how to defend the nation. After all, the spectacle playing out in front of everyone's eyes is precisely the opposite -- namely, Congressional Republicans are insisting that they need to intervene in the decision-making process of who will control our ports precisely because the Administration has exercised such poor judgment and cannot be trusted to operate without Congressional oversight. In many ways, this conflict between Congressional Republicans and the Administration is the perfectly constructed antidote for the noxious excuse we've been hearing (from Pat Roberts, among others) that Congress should not bother the White House about any decisions which the President makes relating to defense of the country[...] The fact that Congressional Republicans have stepped so publicly out of line, questioned the President's judgment with regard to defending the nation, and insisted that they have a serious and important role to play in exercising oversight concerning national security matters, is actually the most encouraging sign yet of the real possibility that there will be serious consequences for George Bush's decision to deliberately violate the law. We want to do what we can to help that process along. |
As I said, this is an enormous political opportunity, one that may not come along again, and we absolutely must take it. We cannot wait until the battle is one with which we are fully comfortable. All last year Bush slipped, but time after time he found a way to get back up. But now... now he's falling. And we damn well better make sure that he does not get back up.
As Publius points out, this isn't primarily a policy battle. It's first and foremost a political battle. But even leaving aside politics, the policy is still a questionable one. First, Publius:
| My fear is that giving Dubai control of the ports will give the company access to a host of extremely valuable information about our security procedures even if that information is just basic shipping logistics (where stuff comes in, when it’s inspected, what isn’t inspected, etc.). If the company has ready access to all this information, it only takes one disgruntled employee to share information in a way that could be harmful.
What’s critical to understand is that this situation could happen even if Dubai was infinitely careful. When you have a population that gives you 14% approval, and the employees are drawn from that population, there are a lot of potential weak links in the chain. It’s very similar to my fears about nuclear Pakistan. I don't think the leaders will give nuclear material to terrorists, but a rogue general could slip it to the bad guys without the leadership’s knowledge. |
That's where I was going with my "Raid on Entebbe" thought in the comments to a previous post this morning. Since you might have missed that, let me restate. When the Israeli's launched their incredibly successful raid to free the hostages held at Entebbe, historians widely agree that one of the reasons they were so successful was that an Israeli firm had built the airport where the hostages were being held. The Israeli commandos planned their raid with the blueprints of the actual buildings in front of them.
As Publius points out, all it takes is one disgruntled employee passing along the wrong information to the wrong people, and well... you can imagine the rest.
But the UAE are the good guys, right? Wrong. As Digby points out, the 9/11 commission report includes some sections very, VERY damning for the UAE royal family. Like, for example, that members of the royal family once flew to Afghanistan to meet with bin Laden himself. And that, had they not been there, we likely would have launched an airstrike targeting Osama himself.
Since so many people seem to think this is about race, let me make this perfectly clear. My objection isn't based on generalized fears, it is based on very specific ones. Like, for example, that we know members of the UAE's royal family have personally met with bin Laden in Afghanistan. Like, for example, that we know the UAE has served as a financial hub for al Qaeda for years. Like, for example, the fact that we know nuclear parts traveled through Dubai on their way to places we would have preferred they never had gone. That has nothing to do with race and everything to do with specific facts.
Which, of course, is why aside from policy questions, this issue is absolutely deadly for Bush politically. "You're either with us or with the terrorists?" This fails that test so miserably its hard to believe. Yes, of course, I realize that Bush's black and white formulation of the war on terror is idiotic. But I don't need to be convinced. The people who's minds need to be changed are the ones who STILL believe that. And they are precisely the same ones who are flipping out about this issue right now. Its called a wedge. It has been handed to us. We need to use it, and we need to use it now.
On this a diarist over at dKos just drills it. A diary like this would make Saul Alinsky proud:
| Bush invaded Iraq. The main point for invading Iraq wasn't so much that Saddam had already acted against us and needed retribution. It was that there was a possibility that Saddam could be a threat--and in a post-9/11 world, we had no choice but to change our strategy from deterrence to preemptive invasion--because you can never be too careful.
Bush got the Patriot Act passed through, despite wide concerns about civil liberties--whether or not the government really did have the authority to monitor your library activities, among other things. Why? Because in a post-9/11 world, you can never be too careful. Bush and Cheney authorized the use of torture--not just against terrorists, but against just about everybody. Despite this clearly new-fangled and rather un-American methodology, Bush had a ready excuse: it was a few bad apples, and in a post-9/11 world, you can never be too careful. Bush has repeatedly authorized domestic surveillance, wiretapping and data-mining, even in clear violation of the Constitution and Congressional statute. The defense? Ignoring any questions about whether or not the program is helping or harming national security, the justification is: in a post-9/11 world, you can never be too careful. Time and time again, this president has said that his highest goal, superceding all others, and even superceding any previous precedent of executive authority--is to defend the American people. He has shown time and time again that neither international law, nor federal law, nor the constitution, nor the Legislative or Judicial Branches of the Government of the United States, will prevent him from executing that duty as he and he alone sees fit. The Bush presidency has not really been the "fuck-you" presidency. Really, it has been the "I can act like a king because I do national security and after 9/11 you can never be too careful" presidency. And right here, it all comes crashing down. Because for many Bush supporters, it doesn't really matter whether Iraq helped or harmed national security. It doesn't really matter whether the domestic spying program assisted or hindered surveillance of suspected terrorists. It doesn't really matter whether the Patriot Act helps get new leads against terror suspects--because he's trying his best to do what he thinks is right, in their view, and if they agree with him on other issues, they'll be willing to forgive whatever mistakes have been made in his quest to protect the country, because he seems to care that much. The Portgate scandal is crucial because Bush has violated his own doctrine. When Bush said that we need to justify holding a Middle Eastern company to a higher standard, he showed that he in fact does not agree with the key point of his own doctrine: namely, that in a post-9/11 world, you can never be too careful. And regardless of whether DPW is a national security threat, the fact that Bush for whatever reason has not taken the same "whatever it takes to defend the American people" approach on this issue that he has taken on Iraq, domestic surveillance, the Patriot Act and torture--that fact paves the way for questioning the motives of the other activities I mentioned--because if Bush really took the "you can never be too careful" approach to everything, why didn't he stop the DPW deal? Bush has reneged the entire premise of his presidency. And it's now time for us to capitalize. |
Which is why this little bit of information is absolutely critical to the story. From MSNVC we learn:
| The White House said Wednesday that Bush was unaware of the pending sale until the deal already had been approved by his administration. |
Bush's defense is now that he was out of the loop. Just like he was out of the loop on the Cheney shooting. Just like he was out of the loop on... what else exactly? Again, over here on the left, we already know Bush is largely clueless. But we're not the ones who need convincing. Right or wrong, good or bad, Americans like to believe their presidents are large and in charge. In the end that's what the 2004 election was all about. For reasons I don't understand, a small majority of Americans felt safer with Bush personally in charge. This flips that script, and it does it on the one issue that Bush has always had on lockdown.
This issue is such an effective wedge Bush has even lost Tom DeLay:
| "Politically, for the president, it is a huge mistake for him to be defending this decision. The president will be overturned," said U.S. Rep. Tom DeLay, the former number two Republican in the House of Representatives. |
That quote comes from this article from Reuters. And correct me if I'm wrong, but that narrative reads "Bush on defensive as Democrats attack." When was the last time you saw a story written like that? When have you EVER seen a story written like that?
Now, as Digby notes, there are all sorts of reasons why we need to stay friendly with the UAE. Their ports are crucial, and they apparently have been helpful in the war on terror, meetings with Osama aside. I have no problem with that. But Bush - or at least Bush's rhetoric - does. With us or against us. Can't be flip flopping around. It's just much too dangerous a world for that now.
Except, in a big, huge, MASSIVE way, Bush just flip flopped, and he did it in a way that his base cannot ignore.
Politically Bush has been drowning these past few weeks. But here? Here we didn't even need to throw him an anvil. He reached out and grabbed it himself. And I'll be damned if I'm going to take it back from him now.
Damn I wish I had time for that Saul Alinsky post. Until then, here's a brief excerpt.
UPDATE: Somehow I missed Froomkin in my wrapup. Let's fix that now:
| Suddenly, it's Bush who is on the receiving end of scathing critiques that he is weak on terror and oblivious to post-9/11 realities.
The issue also revisits the touchy matter of his administration's competence. It echoes the ongoing sensitivity about the separation of powers and lack of congressional oversight. And when it comes to gut-level politics, Bush finds himself caught in the pincers between Republican prejudice and Democratic opportunism. Given the astonishingly bipartisan nature of the Congressional revolt, it's hard to imagine legislators backing down on this one. The traditional White House approach to rebellion within the GOP -- private arm-twisting -- may not work this time. So look for White House Plan B, which is to remain steadfast in public while crafting a private retreat that is ultimately spun as a Bush victory. Not once in Bush's five years as president has he gone to Plan C -- a veto. And while Bush threatened one yesterday, using his very first veto in the face of so much public flak would be a dramatic political defeat. Having that veto overridden would be a debacle. One question that kept coming up yesterday: Why is this so important to Bush? There's a lot of speculation below. Bush himself says it's about fair play. Some critics suggest he puts free-market corporate values ahead of literally everything else. Or could it be that the White House is concerned that any sign of backing down to Congress on anything right now would be seen as the official start of its slide into lame-duck status? |
Read on for all the answers...
--------
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: PORT AUTHORITY.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://blog.alexwhalen.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/486
Subscribe to this blog's feed
Leave a comment