Add the UAE royal family, bin Laden, the CIA and Portgate, and stir
This piece is dated March 25, 2004, but it just came to my attention today, via Atrios.
While I'm on the subject of Portgate, there's been a good deal of hand wringing among some liberals today over how to deal with this story. They love the fact that it's absolutely killing Bush's image as our Great Protector. But, some are troubled by the apparent anti-Arab bias it seems to imply. They point out that a British company had been doing this before it was acquired by Dubai Ports and nobody complained about that.
I guess I see it somewhat differently. I don't like the fact that a British company was doing it either. I don't even think it should be done by a private American company. Some things just shouldn't be privatized, and in my mind port security is one of them. Look at the disaster that privitization led to with the airport screening people. The tendency in any kind of privatization like this that's on a contract to the government is to reduce the service rendered to the minimum, provide that service with the lowest paid and least qualified people you can find, and walk away with the profits. The problem is that once the contract is let, there is no competition, and, even at contract renewal time, government functionaries will find it easier to stay with the company they know than to re-institute a search for a better alternative. Maybe that's tolerable with something like a privatized DMV (though I'm not inclined to think so, even there), but it's not tolerable when it's our most vulnerable terrorist target.
So, at least in my case, this is not a case of anti-Arab bias. Meanwhile, I'll sit back and enjoy watching Bush go down in flames.
That certainly adds some spice to the Portgate story, doesn't it?The Central Intelligence Agency did not target Al Qaeda chief Osama bin laden once as he had the royal family of the United Arab Emirates with him in Afghanistan, the agency's director, George Tenet, told the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks on the United States on Thursday.
Had the CIA targeted bin Laden, half the royal family would have been wiped out as well, he said.
While I'm on the subject of Portgate, there's been a good deal of hand wringing among some liberals today over how to deal with this story. They love the fact that it's absolutely killing Bush's image as our Great Protector. But, some are troubled by the apparent anti-Arab bias it seems to imply. They point out that a British company had been doing this before it was acquired by Dubai Ports and nobody complained about that.
I guess I see it somewhat differently. I don't like the fact that a British company was doing it either. I don't even think it should be done by a private American company. Some things just shouldn't be privatized, and in my mind port security is one of them. Look at the disaster that privitization led to with the airport screening people. The tendency in any kind of privatization like this that's on a contract to the government is to reduce the service rendered to the minimum, provide that service with the lowest paid and least qualified people you can find, and walk away with the profits. The problem is that once the contract is let, there is no competition, and, even at contract renewal time, government functionaries will find it easier to stay with the company they know than to re-institute a search for a better alternative. Maybe that's tolerable with something like a privatized DMV (though I'm not inclined to think so, even there), but it's not tolerable when it's our most vulnerable terrorist target.
So, at least in my case, this is not a case of anti-Arab bias. Meanwhile, I'll sit back and enjoy watching Bush go down in flames.
posted by walldon | 3:17 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home