A Little Port Whine with the Nuts, Please.
By Winston Smith

This whole Dubai Ports World flambeau is funnier than watching a blind dog chase a three-legged cat, and for all the supposed sophistication of the well-tooled and oiled Karl Rove Message Machine, it has definitely lost a few sprockets.

If one takes away the knee-jerk response to which we’ve been programmed about the War on Terror over the last five years, if one forgets that P&O, a British corporation that will become subsidiary to a bigger fish, will still operate the ports, and if one considers all of the American assets owned by foreign corporations, it really is just another business transaction, one that would be rather ho-hum under different circumstances. Union stevedores and longshoremen will still man the docks, the cargo will still be (or not be) inspected by the Coast Guard and DHS agents, and DPW will still be operating the ports under U.S. law. There are a few lose ends, among them an accord that all corporate documents would remain in Dubai where they would not be subject to an American subpoena. Those things could become part of negotiations and thus may change if Congress has its way, but the reality that my friends on the Left, and those on the Right for that matter, do not see is that there really is no reason for this transaction to fail. Nothing really changes.

But, you’ve got to admit, it really sounds bad. Have Fox News and Randi Rhodes throw in a few sound bytes about terrorists from UAR smashing into the Towers and their bankers funneling money to Al Qaeda and it sounds like President Bush is laying bare our national throat to the maw of our tormentors. Some legitimate argument could be made that no important American infrastructure asset- an airport, rail system, or seaport- should be owned by any government, period. But that is not the law of the land today, is it.

Which brings up the subject: why is the President so concerned about any actions Congress might take? His approval rating is in the mid to high thirties and plummeting like a torpedoed ship, but he cannot stand for re-election so it doesn’t matter anyhow. Some cynics might argue that Rove has planned this all along so that the Republican congress can look like it is setting five years of partisanship aside for the good of national security, and if they should have to override a veto it would have to include Democrats and, should a veto not be overridden, it could be blamed on the “weak-on-security” Democrats. This could a real win-win for the GOP at a time when their political power is waning on the tides of scandal and war.

Besides, Bush can always issue a signing statement. According to the Boston Globe, when signing legislation into law, Bush “… routinely issues signing statements saying he will construe [the law] consistent with his own constitutional authority.” According to the Unitary Executive powers granted by then Reagan Justice Department lawyer and now newly-minted Justice Alito, "the president will get in the last word on questions of interpretation." So why not let Congress write a law that the President signs, but enforces within the parameters of a Signing Statement? Those parameters would allow the transaction to proceed. He need only go to Alberto Gonzales and have him draft the obligatory Statement as he has nearly 100 times before.

It is the paucity of these Signing Statements that illustrates the bubble Bush has lived in since the drug induced delusions of grandeur he developed in the bars and brothels of New Orleans so many years ago. This would be different than any other such legislation. With his other uses of the Statement, there can be some sort of concealment or obfuscation. For example, torture. If he’s real careful, he can have people tortured somewhere else in the world and claim, if discovered, that it was the work of some errant soldiers or marines or mercenaries- in fact, that seems to be exactly what he’s doing. But he can’t just sign a note then let BPW complete the transaction. Can’t hide that, and that, to me, is the vacancy of the signing statements themselves and the Constitutional vacuum in which they are created. He can only use them when there is a possibility of subterfuge; without such darkness and fog, a signing statement is nothing but a f-cking piece of paper.

This isn't a bump. It's a 'well done'.

My only real addition, seein' as I'm pretty much in agreement with most everything you posted on this, is that methinks P&O got outa the port management business 'bout 20 years ago and this is really 'bout ocean freight terminals, not ports, eh? 'Tis really just another tempest in a teapot that the news media keeps goin', but why I can't fathom.

Wonder if all them upset 'bout this issue realized DP was really just takin' over some warehouses with associated pier facilities and unloadin' equipment they'd be as upset? Journalists and other media types injected the idea DP was takin' over the management of ports and ain't bothered to correct it yet. Instead methinks they're relishin' in the feedin' frenzy whipped up by the misinformation they've foisted on the public.

Any feeding frenzy that eats George Bush and Republicans in the process works fine for me; too many MSM political feasts in the past have left him without any of the bitemarks he deserves.

Like I said in another post, Doc, the press got it wrong but for all the right reasons. They safety'd on the side of error, methinks, eh?

Very nice essay, WS.

And all the uproar is long over due. Bush has shut out the press and controlled the message for too long- it is payback time. It is the way the game is played (right or wrong) and Rove blew this one.
Couldn't happen to a nicer guy.

I have a theory that the whole uproar is the result of some closed-door machinations of Democratic strategists who have read the recent findings that Republicans are better appealing to voters' emotions (i.e., [/I]fear) and Democrats at voters' rational minds, and that the former is more effective at turning out the vote.

That this is the first shot across the Republicans' bow, in an effort to co-opt their strategies. In response, the Republicans have reacted in shock, saying to themselves, "Hey, that's supposed to be us doing that!"

That's why so many of them have jumped on board!

I doubt that there is too much to fear, here, that we shouldn't already have been scared to death about, as Gary Hart said last night on Real Time. He was referring to the sad state of security at our ports, already.

What this issue does, as Stephen Colbert is so fond of saying (satirically), is feel wrong!

Conspiracies to the very end, huh Peg?

I don't think the Democrats can coordinate a conspiracy of this magnitude; you couldn't herd that many blue cats into a room together to come up with one...

I think it's a hell of a lot easier to explain that the wheels are coming off the Republican bandwagon. You can only be duplicitous, you can only lie, you can only maintain the corruption for so long, then the whole fabric pulls apart from the gravity of it all. Suddenly the Emperor and his whole entourage are neehkid.

Methinks 'twas more a case of not doin' the research and fact checkin' needed to do good, clear, concise and factual reportin', eh? Even after this story's been 'round for what, a week now, they still're gettin' it wrong pretty consistently.

At least our local press finally admitted DP takin' over the company managin' the facilities that unload autos from car carriers in the Port of Davisville (Quonset Point) ain't exactly takin' over the port though, so maybe there's hope.

It does "feel" wrong.

There are surely many different angles to this story. But I am surprised at the 'blame' going to the press on this one; I think the press has been too lax in getting out the facts, too- but on about every issue since "is 'is' is ?" Now they are finally opening Pandora's box on the cronyism and the rest of the back stories by which this administration operates. It would be nice if the house of cards fell and left our real core values intact- I'd like to see our country again:
http://www.commongroundcommonsense.org/for...topic=50013&hl=
Take the time to read the above- the last few paragraphs, if nothing else. There may be a way out of this broader mess.

Pie, I'm on your side about most of this. The press has been asleep at the wheel since Clinton was sworn in for his first term. But Doc is right: if you are the press, you have to check the facts before you print them. The press leapt to a conclusion not based upon a critical analysis of the available.information. This was not done in secret; it has been in the business press since before Thanksgiving. The vetting process is essentially the same process used for the last decade- it is not a Bushco monstrosity posing as policy. The process included the addition of some reasonable safeguards, and DPW accepted them. Even DHS's concerns were addressed- a low standard I admit, but none the less, the transaction has been rigorously vetted.

Am I glad this is way out in the open, and doing incredible damage to this Administration? Gleeful extacy is too mild a term.

But is the MSM really doing their job?

As usual, the press (MSM) and our so-called government are in competition for the 'hearts and minds' of the US citizenry.

For the past year, the MSM has been taking a beating for their biased and/or non-existent objective reporting on the Bush administration. They are fighting back by keeping the ports issue in the forefront, although it will probably just gradually fade away. But the broad feeling will remain: that the MSM is really on the side of the American public, that you can trust them and they have the best interests of America in mind in every broadcast!

HA!!!!!!!! After the MSM recovers from their plummeting approval ratings, they will again become shills for the Bush administration and the Slugs so they can continue to drive this country toward a total dictatorship. And Winston is correct.....Bush doesn't really need to even be in this fight. He's already headed down the path where the prize at the end is "Worst President in American History". I don't think he can recover in 3 years, and, personally, I don't think he really cares. He's had his chance, he has a short attention span, and he's a failure. I think he knows it just as well as we do.

This MSM daily spectacles of outrage are just like the dramas and advertising offered by the networks for the nightly TV fare. If doctors are in the 'doghouse', dramas come out glorifying them and showing how noble they are and how (sob, sob) difficult their jobs are at times. If big business is suspected (rightly) of scamming the public, out prances Donald Trump to make business csars look downright homey and comfortable and possessing of senses of humor. When lawyers are suspect, several shows are released with their particular brand of angst explained and pardoned. Now....we're subjected to the spokespeople themselves trying to increase their own ratings.

Don't get me wrong, though. I appreciate good drama or comedy, but my taste runs toward the British productions of Rebecca Eaton more than anything the US networks come up with. Except for 'Boston Legal' that is. THIS lawyer show I absolutely love.


edit: spelling error

One of the most malignant manifestations of the last five years is the cynicism we have come to nurture with our anger.