The Sale of P&O to Dubai

The current outcry over the sale of P&O to Dubai illustrates much about the administration. Bush's insistence that this is some straightforward transaction—the kind of thing that goes on every day in the business world and hardly merits Presidential attention—is absurd: the idea that the government ought not interfere in the takeover of a major infrastructure company by any party, much less a foreign government, without serious government involvement is an idea that most of us have rejected since the end of the gilded age. The claim that UAE has been an great partner in the "War on Terror" is equally absurd, but here I don't think Bush is technically lying so much as he is using doublespeak: if he means that the UAE has produced "terrorists" that he can boast about capturing, then he is right, but if he means that the UAE stands for what America stands for and supports our broad efforts against terror, then he is wrong.

Beyond the duplicity, the doublespeak, the incompetence and the cronyism, though, what is really troubling is the disregard for security. The rank hypocrisy of the President turning a critical element of our security to an entity like Dubai after that President won reelection on his supposed prowess at fighting terror is disturbing. It's so disturbing that an understandable reaction to this news would be to give the President the benefit of the doubt, and assume that the deal will not leave us more vulnerable, and that the administration has taken steps to ensure our security. Indeed, this is what the President is saying. But this President does not deserve such generosity. At no time during his stay in office has he demonstrated a commitment to governance, America, or any of our principles. What he has shown is self-interest and a commitment to his political allies. Here again, we see his character revealed: he puts his principle of rewarding friends and cronies ahead of the oath of office.

His actions in this matter make more sense if we assume that he thinks the office of the President is a monarch's seat. The UAE is a political ally of the President's, and they may cooperate with the United States on some things, but they are absolutely not in the same category as an ally like the United Kingdom. However, a monarch is the state, so we could assume that Bush makes no distinction between his personal allies and our Nation's allies.

We've had five years of this administration—in that time the country has backslid in almost every way, we've had an almost continuous stream of scandals, our political leadership has lost a war—in short, we should be completely desensitized to this administration's awfulness. Yet we cannot ever turn away in disgust because the only check right now on the administration's actions is the threat of public backlash. If we turn away from their actions—succuming to "outrage fatigue," as it were—we give them free reign to be even worse.

Many others have focused on the politics of this situation: the refrain seems to be that Bush is going "tone deaf." Others have have focused on the question as to whether we can trust Dubai. The most recent revalation is that Bush didn't even know about the transaction until it was (nearly) public. All of those things are noteworthly, but the heart of the matter is that Bush has betrayed the trust placed in him. He is richly deserving of the most intrusive scrutiny in this and all of his actions.

Treason and the Valerie Plame Affair

I just read Juan Cole's post Plame Wilson Had worked on Iran Anti-Proliferation. Briefly, Juan discusses the Neocon goal of war with Iran as a motivation for outing Valerie Plame.

I think the measure of how much this country has changed is evident here. Forget Harding or Nixon—Bush's is the worst presidency. We have this gang of Neocons who have taken over: Cheney, Libby, Hadley—I dither on whether to include Bush in this list. In any other administration, there would be little question but that these people would be prosecuted, incarcerated, and quite probably executed. Yet, because these people are part of Bush's political machine, none of them are under any serious threat of punishment.

I think that it is critical for Scooter Libby to be prosecuted and incarcerated, but remember what he is being charged with: obstruction of justice (among other things). This is a very serious charge, but I believe that we can infer that his actions have stymied the prosecutor's investigation into possible treason. I'm not saying that smearing Joe Wilson was some red herring; I do think the Scooter et al thought that they could kill two birds with one stone. As the prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald famously said, Libby "threw sand in the umpire's eyes." What the umpire failed to see, apparently, was treason by Libby, Rove, Cheney, and quite probably others. I don't include Bush in this list, not because he isn't culpable, but because the prosecutor can't indict a President; he can, however, indict the Vice President, to the best of my knowledge.

But how do these actions earn this Administration the title of "Worst?" After all, administrations have screwed up pretty badly in the past. But this administration does not believe in our system of government. More fundamental than our institutions, our constitution—more fundamental even than the idea of democracy—is the rule of law. The idea that the executive is bound by law goes back to the Magna Carta. The Bush administration has demonstrated that it does not believe in the rule of law. Citizens are being spied upon, the writ of habeas corpus has been suspended, congress is prevented from performing oversight, and a CIA officer's identity is illegally leaked.

In this last act, our intelligence operations inside Iran would certainly seem to have been damaged. This could lead to war with Iran. Regardless of the motives of Libby and his "superiors," his acts seem treasonous. We can only speculate as to what Libby's motives were, or who in the White House knew; with the current Congress, it doesn't seem we'll ever know much more.

I didn't really mean to start a blog, but no one was saying what I felt needed to be said. I doubt I'll post too often: I want to be careful to say what I mean to say, and I don't feel compelled to comment on every little news item. I'll try to keep my comments as objective and as fair as I can. I hope that what I write is worthwhile or interesting, even for someone who disagrees with me. I am not a reporter, but a commentator. I view blogging as the modern day equivalent of pamphleteering, so I take my words very seriously. I had never really considered writing a blog, but I finally couldn't take it. I voted against Bush both times, but I never imagined he'd take this country in this awful a direction. This latest news was the final straw; the War in Iraq is bad enough, but the thought that they might do it again is too much.