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?