Vitrovian Man
Props to shotfrog for giving my morning political kick-in-the-pants.
The "Portgate" dilemma, which seems to be the latest fad in a game of follow-the-shiny-scandal, has me confused to say the least. At first glance, it resembles the usual script followed by our partisan government: the administration makes a move, the opposition cries foul and commences the flag waving. In this case, the Rovian machine (so named for Karl Rove, as I learned today--deputy Chief of Staff and referred to as the "brain of Bush") has indicated that a shift of American port control may be on the horizon. The problem with this, as the Democrats (and this time around, many Republicans) have pointed out, is that the shift would be into the hands of a UAE (United Arab Emirates)-based company.
This strikes me as odd for several reasons. The timing is suspicious--just as I doubted old Bill for ordering an airstrike on Sudan prior to his impeachment trial, this seems like a media plot to take attention away from the wiretapping issue (which, by contrast, didn't surprise me at all, given George Sr.'s former status as head of CIA). More importantly, however, both parties are playing largely into a role-reversal that I didn't expect to see during this Presidency: the Democrat-led opposition claims that including the UAE in consideration for contracts such as domestic port operation--which involve a heavy dose of security clearances, military ops knowledge, and border control--is tantamount to handing America over to the terrorists.
I'll repeat that.
The Democrats are accusing Dubya of failing to provide an adequate level of national security from terrorist-sympathetic nations.
I think this came about in one of three ways. On a scale of probability from least to greatest:
a) the administration staff carefully examined the port contract status and determined that while neither America, England, or China (all formerly charged with control of our domestic ports) had the equipment and manpower to handle such a task, the UAE did;
b) Bush was going along his merry policy-making way (not policy-enforcing, as is the creed of the executive branch) and an uncharacteristicly prejudice-free decision came back to bite him unexpectedly; or
c) Bush is making a play fake at nationalizing port control.
I'm fairly sure this represents the administration's efforts to bring our nation back under our control. In a long chain of national security speeches, making an across-the-board announcement that America will seek to control her own ports once more may not sit well with the public. Bush is straddling the PR fence on too many issues to add another one now; so, in a carefully planned bluff, the administration claims to favor the UAE as the next big ship runner, throwing in such dramatics as Bush's intention to veto any legislation that would oppose this plan. When the fury of the opposition over this apparent change-step finally peaks, the administration "recognizes" the wisdom of the Democrats and announces its plan to fund American initiatives garnering the equipment and manpower needed to run our ports in-house.
It's a smart move. I sincerely hope I'm not giving the administration too much credit in its latest play for a political checkmate.
The "Portgate" dilemma, which seems to be the latest fad in a game of follow-the-shiny-scandal, has me confused to say the least. At first glance, it resembles the usual script followed by our partisan government: the administration makes a move, the opposition cries foul and commences the flag waving. In this case, the Rovian machine (so named for Karl Rove, as I learned today--deputy Chief of Staff and referred to as the "brain of Bush") has indicated that a shift of American port control may be on the horizon. The problem with this, as the Democrats (and this time around, many Republicans) have pointed out, is that the shift would be into the hands of a UAE (United Arab Emirates)-based company.
This strikes me as odd for several reasons. The timing is suspicious--just as I doubted old Bill for ordering an airstrike on Sudan prior to his impeachment trial, this seems like a media plot to take attention away from the wiretapping issue (which, by contrast, didn't surprise me at all, given George Sr.'s former status as head of CIA). More importantly, however, both parties are playing largely into a role-reversal that I didn't expect to see during this Presidency: the Democrat-led opposition claims that including the UAE in consideration for contracts such as domestic port operation--which involve a heavy dose of security clearances, military ops knowledge, and border control--is tantamount to handing America over to the terrorists.
I'll repeat that.
The Democrats are accusing Dubya of failing to provide an adequate level of national security from terrorist-sympathetic nations.
I think this came about in one of three ways. On a scale of probability from least to greatest:
a) the administration staff carefully examined the port contract status and determined that while neither America, England, or China (all formerly charged with control of our domestic ports) had the equipment and manpower to handle such a task, the UAE did;
b) Bush was going along his merry policy-making way (not policy-enforcing, as is the creed of the executive branch) and an uncharacteristicly prejudice-free decision came back to bite him unexpectedly; or
c) Bush is making a play fake at nationalizing port control.
I'm fairly sure this represents the administration's efforts to bring our nation back under our control. In a long chain of national security speeches, making an across-the-board announcement that America will seek to control her own ports once more may not sit well with the public. Bush is straddling the PR fence on too many issues to add another one now; so, in a carefully planned bluff, the administration claims to favor the UAE as the next big ship runner, throwing in such dramatics as Bush's intention to veto any legislation that would oppose this plan. When the fury of the opposition over this apparent change-step finally peaks, the administration "recognizes" the wisdom of the Democrats and announces its plan to fund American initiatives garnering the equipment and manpower needed to run our ports in-house.
It's a smart move. I sincerely hope I'm not giving the administration too much credit in its latest play for a political checkmate.