Daddy Bush and Dubai Ports

Bill Press is a syndicated columnist and his writing is distributed nationwide by Tribune Media Services. In addition he is host of a nationally syndicated radio show, as well as a published author. His column appears weekly in our local paper, the Lake Charles American Press. I bring all this to your attention so that you can appreciate his expertise on national politics, and the importance of what he said in today’s (2/26/06) column.

Mr. Press wrote about the taking over the management of our major east coast ports by a United Arab Emirates, government owned corporation. The ‘done deal’ was suddenly announced by the Bush administration, to the surprise of members of both the Republican and Democratic parties. I quote from the words of the columnist:

“Why would George Bush commit political suicide by acting so clearly against American interests? Follow the money! Who sold all their shipping operations to Hong Kong and South America to Dubai Ports? The Carlyle Group. Who’s already one of Dubai Ports’ biggest customers? Horizon Lines, the former CSX Lines, now owned by—you guessed it—the Carlyle Group.”

“And who stands to make a ton of money from all the business that Carlyle’s fleet of Horizon Line ships is going to do with Dubai Ports? Old Pappy Bush himself, who is a major stockholder in, and big time consultant to—the Carlyle Group!”

“Follow the money! Maybe the reason President Bush is willing to fight so hard for an Arab country against the United States is because he wants his daddy to make a lot of money out of the Dubai Ports deal now—so he can inherit it later.”

“Whatever the reason, this is just the latest in a series of monumental screw-ups by the Bush White House: Iraq; Katrina; Social Security; Budget deficit; Prescription drugs; Phone taps, and now selling our ports. More and more, George Bush and company are looking like the gang that can’t short straight—except, of course, when they go quail hunting.”

How come no one else is talking about the Carlyle Group and Daddy Bush’s investment? And how can the President claim that he knew nothing about the sale of the ports until after it was announced by the media? Didn't Daddy tell him? Does he really hold the American public in such low regard that he thinks we believe that disinformation?

Letter to the New York Times

Dear editor:

Re: Blast Destroys Golden Dome (Wed, Feb 22nd) Article states: In Baghdad, the American ambassador to Iraq, Zalmay Khalilzad, said in a televised statement that the attack on the shrine was a "heinous crime" deliberately intended to foment strife, and that the United States would help to rebuild the structure.

Isn’t it wonderful that Mr. Bush and Company want to rebuild a Shiite mosque, but not a penny for the Baptist Churches in Alabama that were burned to the ground. The president continues to worry more about other countries than our own. Guess there isn’t any oil in Alabama for Mr. Bush and his cronies in the energy business.

Port Security

Letter to the Washington Post

Dear editor:

Re: “Bush Threatens Veto Against Bid to Stop Port Deal” (Feb. 22nd, Page A1.) You reported that President Bush, in pushing his approval of six American ports being run by a company controlled by the government of the United Arab Emerits, said that the transaction was thoroughly scrutinized by administration officials, who concluded that it poses no threat to national security. Very interesting, but it raises many questions.

Are these the same administrative officials that thoroughly scrutinized the reports that there were WMDs in Iraq, giving an excuse for a pre-emptive war? Are these the same administrative officials that thoroughly scrutinized and denied reports of black planes taking individuals to secret prisons in foreign countries for questioning and torture? Are these the same administrative officials that thoroughly scrutinized reports and sat before Congress testifying that domestic wiretapping of American citizens would only take place with a warrant from the FISA Court? Are these the same administrative officials that thoroughly scrutinized studies that said the only solution for a future shortfall in Social Security funds was “personal accounts?” Are they the same ones now pushing for personal medical accounts?

So who are these “administrative officials” that missed the boat so many expensive and deadly times? Why trust them or Bush now? The first of four questions in the Jewish Seder reading at Passover asks, “Why is this night different from all other nights?” That question applies to the President and his administration officials on the matter of a foreign government controlling our ports. If their word was useless and wrong before, why should we trust their “thorough scrutinizing” now?

The Pen Is Mightier Than Ignorance

In answer to my letter to the editor on the president's State of the Union Speech (see previous post State of Disunity), a genius here in Lake Charles had a letter printed today in answer to mine. Of course I have answered in kind and hope the local paper prints it. First from him:
*****************
In response to yet another Bush bashing letter written by Sam Schoolsky, he talked about possibly being eavesdropped on and put on a black plane and sent off somewhere. What an awesome idea! I hope they also put Bill Press, Ted Kennedy, Charles Schumer, Dianne Feinstein, and the ACLU on the same plane. How wonderful and god-loving the country would be without all these negative folks always trying to bring down our president. The president's State of the Union speech was positive and upbeat. If it were not folks like the above mentioned, President Bush could do all the things to make us a better, safe and godly country. Do we need hidden prisons? Do we need spying? Do we need secrets? You bet. These methods have been successful for all of this country's years. The New York Times and anyone else talking about our country's secrets should be locked up. The secrets are our advantage to intercepting our enemies' plans and goals. We must do all we can to protect our country from another Sept. 11. President Bush is trying his best to protect us. If this means spying on me, then go for it. If you don't have anything to hide, then what's wrong with it? I think this country would be better off if negative comments were just kept out of our lives. I don't know how anyone with such a negative attitude ever enjoys life. As for myself and the rest of Bush believers, we're happy and we love life. We believe in God, and we believe in and back our president. Let him do his job and keep all the necessary secrets going on. What we don't know, we don't need to know. Get a life and move on.
***********************
And of course, my answer:

Dear editor:

Thank you for printing the letter from Phil Broussard (February 12, 2006,) showing what real lack of knowledge is truly like. Mr. Broussard’s rantings prove my point when he states, “What we don’t know, we don’t need to know.” Yes, ignorance is bliss, and sticking your head in the sand doesn’t help.

He suggests that I should be put on a “black plane and sent off somewhere, along with Bill Press, Ted Kennedy, Charles Schumer, Dianne Feinstein and the ACLU.” I am flattered to be in such esteemed company. Of course this is not original demagogic thinking.

Let’s see……Stalin sent dissenters off to Siberia (killed over six million,) Hitler sent the Jews to Auschweitz and assorted other killing camps (killed over six million,) Roosevelt sent thousands of loyal Japanese-Americans to internment camps during the Second World War, our government sent the Cherokee Nation from Georgia and North Carolina onto the “Trail of Tears” and onto barren reservations, the French Revolution sent thousands of dissenters to the guillotine, etc, etc, etc. Evidently Mr. Broussard, with his anti-Constitutional, bigoted, ‘love me or leave me’ attitude fits in well with these hateful scenarios. He would have made a faithful follower of the dictators of history who worked in secrecy and claimed to know better than anyone else, no matter how many died along the way. I think Pontius Pilate was the first of these.

God help us the day we lose our Constitutional rights that so many fought and died for during our country’s wars. In case Mr. Broussard doesn’t know it, that is exactly what our brave troops are doing in Iraq and Afghanistan, protecting our rights, including the right to dissent. Maybe Mr. Bush, in his way (that I happen to disagree with,), is defending these rights, but one of them certainly is not shutting people up as Mr. Broussard suggested.

Good Night and Good Luck

Submitted to the New York Times for an op-ed piece.

I have just returned from seeing the docu-drama Good Night and Good Luck, the film about Edward R. Murrow and his confrontation with Sen. Joseph McCarthy during the mid to late 1950s. To me it was a welcome review of history that I was familiar with, as I was in college during this period of time. It brought back memories of fear throughout our society, not only of the menace of communism, but of the menace of red baiting and accusations as practiced by the junior senator from Wisconsin. Lives and careers were destroyed by the senator and his committee when people in and out of government were wrongly, and without proof, accused of being communists, associated with suspected (and unproven) communists, or related to suspected (and unproven) communists. Belonging to an organization the Junior Senator did not agree with, would open the door to being publicly shamed on TV, without any recourse or chance to defend oneself.

The film makes me ashamed of how far we have not progressed during the past fifty years. Of course communism and the Soviet Union have all but disappeared, but the ignorance and fear that the illegal and demagogic search for communists and fellow travelers in this country has been reborn and replaced by the accusation of being a supporter of terrorism and giving aid and comfort to the enemy.

Today the attacking Senator McCarthy has been reincarnated in the words of Vice-President Cheney. The senator’s chief interrogator, Roy Cohen, has been replaced by Attorney General Gonzales, and columnist O’Reilly has been superseded by the likes of Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh. President Bush has not replaced then President Eisenhower, who stood up for due process and habeas corpus, which quite evidently the current administration does not believe in.

Look at our great country today. Even if you support our troops but not the pre-emptive war in Iraq, you are said to be soft on terrorism. If you are against unwarranted spying by the NSA you are accused of endangering our country, and opening the door for terrorists. Say anything questioning the actions of the president and you can wind up in prison without those rights guaranteed by our constitution.

What happened during the nineteen-fifties was terrible, but today we have sunk further into the abyss of bullying and demagoguery. We have learned nothing from history, and as the saying goes, “we are bound to repeat it.” The shame of it is that those people who need to see and learn from this film will never see it, and if they did, would not be capable of identifying themselves with it

Hamas Offers Peace

Letter to the Times of London

To the editor:

It seems the exiled leader of Hamas, as reported in the Feb. 8th edition, has offered recognition and peace to the State of Israel if the Jewish state will return to its pre 1967 borders. Well, if he wants to use unrealistic ancient history as a basis for determining state borders, I have a better idea.

Why doesn't he use the true ancient borders of Israel as described in the Hebrew Bible, including Judea and Samaria, and all so called Palestinians will have to move to their original homelands like Iran and Iraq? That's probably as likely as his ridiculous suggestion.

Not a Time For Partisanship

Dear editor:

Sen. Pat Roberts (R-KS), chairman of the Senate intelligence committee, attacked Democratic senators on the judiciary committee who questioned the legality of the president’s NSA warrantless, spying on Americans program. He stated, "I am concerned that some of my Democrat colleagues used this unique public forum to make clear that they believe the gravest threat we face is not Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda, but rather the president of the United States,"

At this juncture, without meaning to, he’s partly right. Probably the gravest threat to American constitutional liberties is President Bush. But on the other hand, he is wrong, as it is not just the Democrats. Many Republicans feel the same way and refuse to be the rubber stamp for the president that Senator Roberts is.

Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA), chairman of the judiciary committee, put it best, when he rebuffed Attorney General Alberto Gonzales for stating that the Constitution gives the president undisputable powers to conduct warrantless surveillance. He remarked that such an interpretation “is not sound” and that he, Gonzales, was, “smoking Dutch Cleanser.” He went on to say "I think there's a chance the administration might take up the idea of putting this whole issue before the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. . . . I think they are seeing concerns in a lot of directions from all segments: Democrats and Republicans in all shades of the political spectrum."

It is time for this administration, and its cohorts in Congress, to recognize the fact that Americans of all stripes and colors, including both Democrats and Republicans, are worried about their Constitutional rights of privacy, protection under the law, and a law abiding government, which the Bush White House, in this case, definitely is not. People have become tired of the president constantly overusing 9/11 and the fear of terrorism as a justification to act outside of and above the rule of law.

Senator Roberts and his colleagues should be smart enough to recognize that this is not a time for partisanship. Are they truly ready to give absolute loyalty to a failed president all in the name of party unity? Don’t they realize that by doing so they are destroying everything they were elected to “protect and defend?” Are they ready to give up their importance and power as a legislative branch of government? I hope not.

Justifying a Disaster

Dear editor:

Representative Bill Thomas (R-CA), chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, and architect of the Medicare Drug Plan, in an interview, defended the mess that seniors find themselves in trying to understand the dizzying array of 40 or more drug plans, with different premiums, co-payments and lists of covered drugs.

Having spent the better part of a week phoning, emailing, reading, and trying to find the best plan for me, I am utterly confused as to which plan is best for my needs. Seniors have been left with a mess that is a complex hybrid; a melding of government and private markets requiring intricate coordination among insurers, beneficiaries, and state and federal agencies. It is something like buying a car. No matter how good a deal you think you wound up with, you know in your heart you received the short end of the stick.

And how does Rep. Thomas justify this program? He has stated that “We got the bill we could get.” This is the same idiocy and justification that Sect. Rumsfeld spouted when he made the statement, “You go to war with the army you have.” The cost in human suffering in both cases is inexcusable.

President Bush, when running for office in 2004, extolled the virtues of this plan that was to be one of the hallmarks of his presidency. But it is such a disaster for those on Medicare, and such a huge gift and moneymaker for the drug industry, that he didn’t once mention it in his 52 minute State of the Union speech.

London Times Analyzes Bush

A great observation in the London Times on Bush's statement of America's "addiction to oil."

"The guy from Texas, whose energy bill gave oodles to big oil, made a feint to the green caucus. No one should be too alarmed. This president has never asked Americans to make any sacrifices in the war on terror; he has never vetoed a spending bill; he has never raised a tax; he has added more than $20 trillion to America’s long-term debt in a mere five years. He isn’t actually going to ask people to use less oil.

Last year, in the same address, he vowed to put men on Mars. Here’s my bold prediction: there will be Americans on Mars before there will be no Middle Eastern oil in the American economy. Almost as soon as the speech was made, the administration scrambled to reassure its Saudi friends/enemies/evil-doers/clients/partners that the president didn’t really mean it. That whole Middle East oil reference was “purely an example”.

As the president knows from personal experience the first thing an addict must do is recognize he has a problem. The second thing he has to do is change his own behavior. This president took five years to get to step one."

Of course someone should tell the writer that Bush is not from Texas, but rather from New England, as he just acts like a "gold ole boy." And Bush's only experience as an oil man is as a failed one (like his presidency) until Daddy had his Arab friends bail him out. Other than that, it's a pretty darn good evaluation.

George H.W. Bush Teaches George W. Bush

When Gerald Ford was president he did not want to have warrantless spying on American citizens. This position was fought by George H.W. Bush (Baby's father), who was head of the CIA, Dick Cheney, who was Sect. of Defense, and Henry Kissinger, who was Sect. of State. The following information has come out.

George H.W. Bush, then director of the CIA, wanted to ensure "no unnecessary diminution of collection of important foreign intelligence" under the proposal to require judges to approve terror wiretaps, according to a March 1976 memorandum he wrote to the Justice Department. Bush also complained that some major communications companies were unwilling to install government wiretaps without a judge's approval. Such a refusal "seriously affects the capabilities of the intelligence community," Bush wrote.

It must be genetic. And the cast of characters hasn't changed.

Isn't It Our Government?

Dear editor:

Whatever happened to the saying of President Lincoln that we should have a government “Of the people, by the people, and for the people?” That’s certainly not what we have today.

Yes, we do get to vote every two years for Congressmen, every four years for a President, and every six years for Senators, but that’s where it ends. We, the people, to coin a phrase, have nothing to say beyond that. Secrecy in government takes over and we are no longer part of the equation. Look at how our government is run today.

The Republican Party just this week chose a new Majority Leader for our House of Representatives. It was a closed door, secret meeting, with the American public left out. When one of our potential laws goes to a conference committee to hammer out differences between the House and the Senate versions, it is handled behind closed doors, with discussions being secretive. We are not allowed to know what is being traded for what, or by whom. When the Vice-President holds a round table discussion with energy company leaders to discuss our future, it is held behind closed doors and we can’t even find out who attended the meeting. Once again, we are not allowed to know, so privilege can be protected. Protected from who? Us?

These are just a few examples, and the tip of the iceberg, of how our government is run “Of the government, by the government, and for the government.” Where did we go wrong? When did everything within the beltway of Washington become the Kremlin? Why is everything in the name of ‘national security’ and we can’t be trusted with any information other than ‘spin’ and ‘I can’t discuss that?’ Why are we spoon fed half-baked information anonymously, rather than full disclosure?

It’s time for the windows and doors of our Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches of government to be thrown open and let the people in. It is time for us to demand that it is our government and does not belong to those people who walk those marble hallways in Washington, nor to the blood sucking, money supplying lobbyists who pay their way into those secret meetings.

Let’s not forget Mr. Lincoln and his words, so beautifully etched on the walls of his memorial on the Mall. Let’s have “a rebirth of freedom.”

Addiction

Dear editor:

President Bush, following his “State of Disunity” speech, has once again hit the road to campaign for his beliefs. The President will recap his top initiatives in a speech Wednesday in Nashville, TN, at the Grand Ole Opry. With all the planes and vehicles needed for so very many trips like this makes me wonder, WHO IS THE ONE ADDICTED TO OIL? Him or us?

Bush's State of Disunity Speech

Dear editor:

The president had his Cinemax 3D moment last night, and did all but hand out the special viewing glasses so that we would see his rose-colored view of the country and the world in his ‘State of Disunity’ speech. He truly believes that he can convince us that things are so just because he says so. Mr. Bush believes campaigning equals governing. Well, it doesn’t.

He spoke of America becoming “addicted to oil” and how we now have to find alternate sources of energy so that we can become self-sufficient and all but cut out the importation of oil. The ‘Oilman in Chief’ accusing Americans of being addicted is like the pot calling the kettle black. Where has he been during the past five years of his administration? How much money has he, his family, and his cronies in the White House made in oil and energy, personal profits during this period?

Mr. Bush spoke of the progress being made on the Gulf Coast since Hurricanes Katrina and Rita hit. What planet is he living on? He made that Hollywood production speech in front of St. Louis Cathedral, talking about doing “whatever is necessary” to make New Orleans even better than before the storms devastated the city. Just recently he visited again and patted his administration on the back for the accomplishments being made. Of course he didn’t visit any of the areas that are still rubble and have no plans to be resurrected. In fact now he has turned down the cities request for needed money. You’re doing a heck of a job, Georgie.

And what about all the freedom he has brought to Iraq and the rest of the Middle East in his march to spread Democracy? Sometimes we have to wonder who killed more people in Iraq, Bush or Saddam. While Hussein was a despicable dictator, did he kill more people than the total of Americans, British, and Iraqis that have died and been maimed since our pre-emptive invasion that claimed to be in search of WMDs? The president believes he has brought self-determination to the Middle East with elections in Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine, Iran, and Egypt. All he has done is replace dictators and oppressive royalty with religious fanatics bent on destroying the west. Doesn’t he realize that even Toto would know that the Middle East is not Kansas? Self-determination? W. believes in self-determination only if he is doing the determining.

What about some self-determination here in America? Mr. Bush has come up with a new version of “Don’t ask-don’t tell.” We are not allowed to ask and he will not tell. It is almost as if a bubble has been put up over the White House and all government departments, and no one is allowed to explain anything because of 9/11, terror, and presidential privilege. Once again, early in his speech last night, the president invoked these subjects as the basis for all he does. It has become the cornerstone for all of his failures and we, the people that elected him, have no right to question anything he does. Shh! It’s a secret. I guess that is compassionate conservatism.

I better cut this short. Big Brother may be listening via the NSA, and I might be reported to the Bush police, put on a black plane, and flown to a hidden prison in a foreign country for questioning over the next ten years.