The Port Dust-Up
Re: the dust-up about the UAE port deal: I kinda agree with Kevin Drum. That's more-or-less par for the course, of course--he's unusually reasonable for a blogger. Anyway, this is a tentative position...I know barely anything about this yet--I, like everybody else--never thought about any of this before this week. But one of the things I think Drum is right about is that this is all stirring up some pretty scary-sounding anti-Arab prejudice. (I heard Bill Mahr on CNN the other night sounding like a scarier and more xenophobic Pat Buchanan.)
Anyway, a deal like this deserves careful scrutiny, but it doesn't automatically strike me as unvarnished insanity. Other things being equal, I'd probably rather that we gave the deal to Finland or something...but I'm willing to listen to arguments about this. Bush thinks we should do x, therefore we should not do x is a fairly safe inference, but it isn't infallible. So we need to wait an look at the arguments on this one.
Hey, at least we're not giving a no-bid contract to Halliburton this time.
That's a step in the right direction, no?
Re: the dust-up about the UAE port deal: I kinda agree with Kevin Drum. That's more-or-less par for the course, of course--he's unusually reasonable for a blogger. Anyway, this is a tentative position...I know barely anything about this yet--I, like everybody else--never thought about any of this before this week. But one of the things I think Drum is right about is that this is all stirring up some pretty scary-sounding anti-Arab prejudice. (I heard Bill Mahr on CNN the other night sounding like a scarier and more xenophobic Pat Buchanan.)
Anyway, a deal like this deserves careful scrutiny, but it doesn't automatically strike me as unvarnished insanity. Other things being equal, I'd probably rather that we gave the deal to Finland or something...but I'm willing to listen to arguments about this. Bush thinks we should do x, therefore we should not do x is a fairly safe inference, but it isn't infallible. So we need to wait an look at the arguments on this one.
Hey, at least we're not giving a no-bid contract to Halliburton this time.
That's a step in the right direction, no?
posted by Winston Smith at
4:00 PM
8 Comments:
Would have helped scads if Congress had been included in the decision, if the normal 45-day discovery or whatever it is period had been observed, if Bush and Rumsfeld had actually known about the decision process, if there wasn't a big cronyism angle.
The important thing is that it's Bush's fault. As for the particulars, who cares?
Is Bush directly responsible for any bad decision his administration makes? No
Is Bush accoutable to the American people for any bad decision his administration makes? Yes.
That there are good arguments on both sides of an issue never seems to enter most people's heads. There is only bad and good.
The administration, and Bush himself in particular, works very hard at not demonizing the Muslim world, constantly trying to peel off the moderates from the fanatics, as he is doing here. In the end, this is the only way to avoid a global war.
I happen to disagree with him here for reasons that Adam Smith might approve of, that people tend to their own business with more care than someone else's, but this is not a "bad" decision as much as there might be a better and more necessary one.
"That there are good arguments on both sides of an issue never seems to enter most people's heads. There is only bad and good."
Tom,
I would only go so far as to say this is true, OFTEN. I wouldn't say it's true always. It's certainly true more often than rabid partisans will ever admit. ;)
In this case specifically, I believe there is some virtue in allowing the deal to go through.
However, that bit of virtue is greatly outweighed by the risk to our security in the present situation. I believe that the more closely connected some duty or enterprise is to our security, the greater wisdom in having the government do it. Or at least an entity closely and easily monitored by the government. The government, after all, is an entity one of whose express functions (according to its charter) is to protect us. A business, especially a foreign business, has other interests.
So just as I wouldn't allow a Dubaian (sp?) company to handle baggage at our airports, or manage our water supply, I wouldn't allow it to provide this function either. It's too intimately related to our security.
The things that concern me about this company in particular are that it was responsible for the ports through which AQ Khan's wares passed and that it is run by the royal government whose members have been connected to Bin Laden.
I would say that, at the very least, the 60-day (I think) hold on the deal suggested by a few senators should obtain in order to verify that adequate security can be guaranteed.
Well, I happen to agree with you across the board, LC, and precisely for the reasons you give. Our last discussion made me brush up on Adam Smith, and he is, as usual, correct.
That's not to say he can't be wrong, only that he's astoundingly often right. An amazing mind, and not only that, heart. Mind and heart combine to create wisdom, I think. There are those who love wisdom, and there's a name for such folk...
philosopher from:
philos = love
and
sophia = tenure
"That's not to say he can't be wrong, only that he's astoundingly often right. An amazing mind, and not only that, heart. Mind and heart combine to create wisdom, I think."
Agreed. The guy practically invented sociology. I just wish that these days we stayed truer to the principles of political economy he elucidated.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home