What do you think of the port issue John?
I simply don't understand it, so was trying to stay quiet until I got a better hold on it. And I just blew up breakfast arguing with my wife that it's still a mystery.
Let's see if I can get my fragments listed.
1. The Bush folk have done a terrible job with port security. The Benjamin and Simon book, The Next Attack, is only one of many bits of evidence on that score. Ports just seem to be at least as wide open as pre 9-11. And we can all imagine just what sorts of things could be brought in thru vulnerable ports.
2. Who "owns" ports? Up until this moment, I assumed the relevant states or federal government "owned" ports and the various shipping companies simply leased spaces and outsourced loading and unloading. And the states and/or federal government provided what security there is. I was wrong.
3. So, right away I'm in the most unfamiliar of territory with the "ownership" question. Next question, then. What does "ownership" have to do with providing security? Something, surely. But what. What, more precisely, should we worry about here? And should we worry more if that "ownership" is in a British company's hands, as nebulous as that sounds, or in the Dubai government's hands, as worrisome as that sounds.
4. Given the fundamental political strategy of the Bush administration, approving this transfer of ownership, seems as strange as states righters like Scalia and Thomas voting against the Florida SC and in favor of Bush in the Florida primaries. Well beyond curious. Raises issues of who wins and loses here. I don't know but there must be large, large sums involved. It raises all those issues of the ties between the Bush family and the Saudis, etc. Who knows where that goes.
5. It looks to be a brilliant political strategy on the part of the usually inept Dems. Got my attention. |
