I know, this is a generalized anti-Bush rant, which I usually try to abstain from, given that others do them so much better than I do. But it's not getting quite as much play on the blogs as I could wish, so I'll put it out there:
Threaten to kill Georgie's dad, get invaded.
Give Georgie's dad $1 million for his Presidential library, get the contract to manage all America's ports.
Just bidness.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
So, why am I not surprised by these factoids? It never ends with this bunch, like a malignancy they seem to be everywhere doing their damage. WTF did Bush 41 do? You could house his presidential achievements in a storage POD. And with Bush 43 everything will be redacted, so neither one of these sob's need a library.
On another thread on my other site, someone asked whether, in light of talk of a "deal" on ports, I was still glib about the port deal not going through, as I had indicated over at Glenn Greenwald's great Unclaimed Territory.
I'm moving my response to that comment over here, because it's a more appropriate place.
The news of a "deal" that I've heard about is this, from today's NYT:
If an agreement is completed, the state-owned company, Dubai Ports World, will "voluntarily" ask the Bush administration to pursue the lengthier, deeper investigation that Democrats and Republicans in Congress have been demanding since controversy over the transaction erupted at the beginning of the week.
The White House plans to portray the action as the company's own decision, giving administration officials a face-saving way of backing away from President Bush's repeated declarations in recent days that there is no security risk in having the port terminals operated by a company controlled by the emir of Dubai, part of the United Arab Emirates.
I suppose I'm not as confident as I was that no deal will go through. My current thinking is basically:
1. I doubt a deal will go through before the election. If one does, it'll be with a lot more safeguards than the old one had, and might actually be safe -- at least as safe as our current system is, given that our current system is ridiculously unsafe as well.
2. Someone else at Unclaimed Territory made a great point, which is that they may stall until after November then push it through over anyone's objection. That's a real possibility.
3. If the ports deal does go through with Democratic support, that will give us even more ammunition with which to identify and go after the Vichy Dems, and reclaim our role as a progressive rather than accommodationist party.
4. In the end, though I say this with both caution and misgivings: I believe the Bush administration and its cronies in Congress who apply no restraints on its activities are more dangerous to American lives than even the ports deal is. Bush already has sent thousands of our kids to die in an unnecessary war against a country that had no connection to the war on terror; that's over 2,000 Americans killed because of Bush's ineptitude. He's not protecting our ports, FEMA is a mess, our first responders still can't communicate with each other, on and on.
So I suspect that America will gain more safety from having the ports deal go through over the People's objections, and having the People finally wake up and re-establish checks and balances, than it would lose from having the UAE control the ports.
In other words, while I wouldn't be willing to let the deal go through and endanger the American people just so my party can gain political advantage. But in this case, I think the political advantages actually ARE safety advantages -- that even the ports deal isn't as bad as continued Bush supervision of homeland security.
Somehow I don't think this is reassuring, is it? There's not much that happens in America anymore, with this crowd in power, that is. And I suppose that's precisely my point.
Post a Comment