Joe Scott 3: The Body Politic

Arab Co. Control of U.S. Ports?

19 February 2006 |permalink | email article

The Bush administration is defending approval of a $6.8 billion sale that gives a company in the United Arab Emirates control over six major American ports. The White House considers the UAE an important ally in the fight against terrorism.

It is another myopic rationale for how President Bush parses the war on terrorism. Islamic nations like the UAE and Pakistan are considered to be on our side. But are they? Why is Pakistan so deliberately ineffective in hunting down Osama bin Ladin?

Note that the FBI considered the UAE an important operational and financial base for the hijackers who carried out the 9/11 attacks against the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Note also that UAE was one of only three nations to recognize the now-toppled Taliban in Afghanistan and a key transfer point for shipment of smuggled nuclear components sent to Iran, North Korea and Libya by the now-pardoned Pakistani scientist, Abdul Qadeer Khan.

A secretive U.S. government panel that considers security risks of buying or investing in American industry, and includes representatives from key federal departments, could have asked W. to block the purchase. But it unanimously agreed that the transaction should not be halted.

Shipping terminals in New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia will be affected by the sale to Dubai Ports World. That the Homeland Security department, which has listed major ports along the East and West coasts among top terrorist targets, signed off is less than satisfactory based on its poor performance record on Katrina.

(On CNN today, HS chief Michael Chertoff defended the deal, said the Coast Guard is in charge and the subject is “classified.” Rep. Jane Harman, D-Calif., ranking member on the House Intelligence Committee, citing the Los Angeles port, demanded briefings.)

Equally astonishing is that the president, who insists 9/11 mirrors his view of radical Islamic terror, has not been pressed by the mainstream media to reconsider the White Houseís earlier approval of DP World.

Sen. Robert Menendez, D- N.J. told the Associated Press, which broke the story, he will introduce legislation to prohibit companies owned or controlled by feoign governments from running port operations in the United States. Sen. Rick Santorum, R.-Pa., facing a tough re-election fight, has urged the president to prevent the sale.

Cheney: Why Not Full Disclosure?

16 February 2006 |permalink | email article

The vice president accidentally shot a friend while quail-hunting on a Texas ranch early last Saturday evening. The president was informed third hand; the White House waited almost 24 hours instead of issuing an immediate response. The rest is like a bizarre remake of ìWag the Dog.î

The prominent Texas attorney, well known to the president, was treated at the scene by Secret Service agents, transferred to a local Corpus Christi hospital, had a minor heart attack and is now recovering.

The Secret Service informed local police, a guest said it was the victimís fault and Dick Cheney, too busy to comment, decided the ranch owner should first give the story to the local newspaper Sunday morning. The story was posted on its web site at 1:30 p.m. and news agencies get it an hour later.

At 6:30 p.m. Saturday, Chief of Staff Andrew Card Jr. told the president about a hunting accident involving Cheneyís party. At 7 p.m., after speaking with the ranch owner, Karl Rove broke the news to George W. Bush. The presidentís consigliere, aware of the political ramifications, wanted the White House to issue a brief statement. But there was none because Bush was weak and Cheney insisted on complete control.

That Bush would defer to the famously reclusive Cheney when the administration is already far down in public opinion, and under siege on almost every domestic and foreign policy issue, reveals more than anything else that the vice president is really the shadow president. Think absolute executive power, CIA leak case, neocons, Iraq, energy task force secrets. The list is long.

It confirms my belief that Bush 41 and his closest associates wanted Cheney on the ticket to baby sit Bush 43 but, boy, how that strategy has backfired. Privately, Republicans are concerned Cheney is toast ñ a joke and no longer a political asset. 

ìStar Warsî filmmaker George Lucas best captured Cheney, saying this week in the empire Congress is irrelevant ìbecause the emperor controls everything.î Asked who the emperor might be, he said, ìItís not who you think. The emperor works behind Darth Vader.î The implication was Cheney would be cast as the behind-the-scenes-villain.

Yesterday, Cheney finally bowed to White House pressure. Reinforcing his disdain for mainstream media, he gave an exclusive interview to the conservative Fox cable network. Appearing contrite, he accepted full responsibility for the incident, insisting the delay was for ìaccuracyî in reporting but expressed no regret. Whoís buying it? 

Basic instinct matters.

The Troubles in Iraq

13 February 2006 |permalink | email article

Condi Rice downplays the key role played by the radical Shiite cleric Moktada al-Sadr in the unexpected nomination of Ibrahim al-Jafaari to continue as Prime Minister in the next Iraq government. Jafaariís retention appears to confirm the growing strength of anti-U.S. fundamentalists within the new Iraqi Parliament.

How naÔve is Rice? Has she forgotten that the messianic Sadr led two violent uprisings against the U.S. occupation and the interim government in 2004, controls the largest bloc of seats within the Shiite alliance and recently visited Iran and Syria and is reported to have expressed solidarity with their hostility to the U.S.?

Jafaariís retention is a stunning setback for secular forces in Iraq and a fresh blow to President Bushís dream of democracy. A moderate Islamist with strong ties to Iranian leaders, he is criticized for failing since taking office in 2004 to significantly improve security in Iraq, permitting abuse and allowing death squads to the kill Sunni Arabs by the Shiite-dominated government.

The failure of the expected nominee, Adel Abdul Mahdi, a member of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution, makes power sharing with the main Kurdish and Sunni groups more difficult. This is especially the case if the alliance led by the former interim prime minister, Ayad Allawi, whom the U.S. favors, is excluded from the cabinet.

Anything short of a stunning compromise, as insurgent violence continues unabated in and around Baghdad, is certain to spark anew the bitter debate on selective U.S. intelligence to justify a conclusion that the president decided to attack well before the March 2003 invasion.

Paul R. Pillar, the former CIA official who coordinated U.S. intelligence on the Middle East from 2000 until last year makes credible arguments, dismissed by Republicans as ìpre-war intelligence myths,î in the upcoming issue of the journal Foreign Affairs.

*  The administration ìwent to war without requesting ñ and evidently without being influenced by ñ any strategic-level intelligence assessments on any aspect of Iraq.î
*  It ìrepeatedly called on the intelligence community to uncover more material that would contribute to the case for war,î including information on the ìsupposed connectionî between Hussein and Al Qaeda, which analysts had discounted.
*  Intelligence community assessments before the invasion indicated a postwar Iraq ìwould not provide a fertile ground for democracyî and would need ìa Marshall Plan-type effortî to restore its economy despite its oil revenue.
*  The first request he received from a Bush policymaker for an assessment of post-invasion Iraq was ìnot until a year after the war.î
*  That assessment, completed in August 2004, warned that the insurgency in Iraq could evolve into a guerilla war or a civil war. Bush, who told voters during the 2004 campaign that the mission was going well, described the assessment to reporters as ìjust guessing.î