Osama, Saddam and the Ports: NYT Krugman

[livvy]

The storm of protest over the planned takeover of some U.S. port operations by Dubai Ports World doesn't make sense viewed in isolation. The Bush administration clearly made no serious effort to ensure that the deal didn't endanger national security. But that's nothing new - the administration has spent the past four and a half years refusing to do anything serious about protecting the nation's ports.

So why did this latest case of sloppiness and indifference finally catch the public's attention? Because this time the administration has become a victim of its own campaign of fearmongering and insinuation.>more

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/022406Z.shtml

[No DUplicitous DUpe]

1. Krugman is spot on, thanks for pointing his column out today, Livvy

I like this part...
snip:
"Mr. Bush shouldn't really be losing his credibility as a terrorism fighter over the ports deal, which, after careful examination (which hasn't happened yet), may turn out to be O.K. Instead, Mr. Bush should have lost his credibility long ago over his diversion of U.S. resources away from the pursuit of Al Qaeda and into an unnecessary war in Iraq, his bungling of that war, and his adoption of a wrongful imprisonment and torture policy that has blackened America's reputation."

[BootinUp]

2. Thanks livvy, and of course Paul K for another great opinion piece. n/t

[livvy]

3. You're welcome.

I'm a big fan. He seldom misses the mark. I was surprised to see Truthout post today's Op-ed so fast, but I'm glad they did.

[Beetwasher]

4. Nail Meet Hammer

Krugman nails it perfectly.

[regularguy]

5. Dude really knows how to sum it all up:

'But more to the point, after years of systematically suggesting that Arabs who didn't attack us are the same as Arabs who did, the administration can't suddenly turn around and say, "But these are good Arabs." '

[phantom power]

6. And by the way...

Let's not lose sight of the fact that maybe there are some solid reasons for not backing this particular deal.

THE RACE CARD. Tom Friedman says skeptics of the UAE port deal are "borderline racist." David Ignatius disagrees, saying we're straight-up "racist." I say bullshit. The argument being mounted is plainly contradictory. On the one hand, it's supposed to be illegitimate to worry about this because we can't discriminate between countries. On the other hand, it's supposed to be illegitimate because the UAE is a loyal ally in the war on terror. But if the second is the reason we shouldn’t worry, then we can discriminate between countries after all. And of course we can discriminate between countries when it comes to matters of national security. That's how national security is done.

And, look, ally or not, the UAE isn't a strategic partner of the United States in the way that the UK is. The number of countries who have British-style security relationships with the United States can be counted on one hand, if not one finger. We share intelligence with the British that we wouldn't share with Portugal, much less Dubai. An ally as close as Israel has been known to screw us over in defense and intelligence matters because, hey, countries have different interests. A private British firm operates in the context of the rule of law; a state-owned enterprise in Dubai . . . not so much. These are different countries in a thousand ways that have nothing to do with skin color. Pretending not to see the difference is childish and absurd. That a country hosts American military bases proves almost nothing -- we have bases in all kinds of places.

--Matthew Yglesias

http://www.prospect.org/weblog/archives/2006/02/index.html#009254

I'll reiterate a question that I've posed elsewhere. Current practices aside, what if we instituted a new policy that says certain jobs, such as port management, shouldn't be open to foreign countries--Britain, UAE, or any other country? Nothing at all personal, just good security practice. We can find other profitable ways to do business with them. Added bonus: we create American jobs, in a climate of rising unemployment. You don't have to be a xenophobe or an isolationist for such a policy to make sense.