Tuesday, February 28, 2006

I Don't Buy It.

Over the past week and a half, Bush loyalists have attempted in vain to make the case that opponents of the Dubai World Port deal are simply caving into xenophobia and prejudice.

My answer? Yes, we are.

We are clearly demonstrating a suspicion of Middle Eastern countries, their state-owned companies and the people they employ; and we are definitely prejudging people who are most likely completely innocent and bear no ill-will towards our country.

I believe we should be suspicious and we should be prejudicial in this particular instance. After all, we are talking about control over the ports of entry into this country.

Let me be clear. I am not singling out people of Arab descent nor am I training my sights only on the Middle East here. I honestly felt equally uneasy when i learned that this deal transferred control of our ports, not from an American company, but to a British one. Of all the jobs to outsource to any foreign country, port security should not be on that list.

And, if the government is going to allow a company owned by a foreign state to run our ports, ruling out the birthplace of two of the 9/11 hijackers does not seem to be such a bad idea. There are, after all, dozens of companys worldwide that could provide the same service. Why not choose, say, a Japanese company? An Australian or a German corporation might be better choices, if we're going to outsource this.

Besides that, it's not just the "where", but it's the "who" and "why" of the deal that should make us all suspicious.

Secretary of Treasure John Snow is the former chairman of CSX, a transportation industry giant. Coincidentally, CSX was acquired by DPW not so long ago. Moreover, the President's new appointee to the Maritime Commission, is a man named David Sandborn, who is the former Director of Operations for none other than DPW.

It's cronyism all over again. And there is far more that I have yet to substantiate. There are ossible links to the Carlyle Group (ergo, the Bush family and former Secretary of State James Baker, not to mention the Bin Laden family itself).

So, the question I would raise is this. Even if you don't believe this is the worst decision the Bush Administration could make with regards to port security, can you honestly argue that it is the best? Let me ask you this. The next time you board a plane, image that you see a tall Arabic man in traditional dress enter the cockpit. You ask the flight atttendant about him and she informs you that he is your pilot. "Oh, I know what you're thinking," she says, "but he's really nice and an excellet pilot." Whether or not it's right, would you maybe feel like the airline could have chosen a different pilot?

Better yet, if your state's governor appointed former FEMA head Michael Brown to direct your state's department of Homeland Security, wouldn't you feel like maybe a better choice could be made? Even if Brownie claimed to have learned a great deal from is mistakes?

The thing is, this deal was not motivated by providing the United States with secure ports any more than my feelings of tepidation have anything to do with xenophobia and prejudice. It's all about the money and who knows who in the corridors of power. Maybe the President can try to make the case that his critics are practicing racial and ethnic profiling here, but I have news for Mr. Bush. I'm not buying it, and neither is 70 percent of the American poulation.

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home