Russ Baker: 'The incestuousness (of the Bush WH) boggles the mind.'

[bigtree]

Appointees Guarding The Henhouse

Russ Baker
March 06, 2006
http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2006/03/06/appointees_guarding_the_henhouse.php

{snips}

. . . the Dubai Ports deal is clearly another of many instances in which this White House invited either the Wily Fox or the Corrupt Klutz into Henhouse Management. From mine safety to agriculture, drug benefits to communications policy, it’s always the same with this gang: the defiling of lofty missions. Since Bush appointed and then forced out qualified and fair cabinet members like Paul O’Neill at Treasury and Christine Todd Whitman at EPA, there have been four categories of acceptable hire: political crony, industry hack, corrupt apparatchik and destruction-minded ideologue.

With George W. Bush—in case after case—hiring practices constitute a blatant nose-thumbing at the public that put him into office. We saw that most recently with FEMA, where Bush first appointed his campaign manager, Joe Allbaugh, a man with no appropriate emergency or management experience. He then installed as his successor Michael Brown , a man who had never managed more than two people, and whose career pinnacle was investigating misconduct at horse shows.

Here are just a few of the more egregious examples from the Bush record:

Bush’s first mine safety chief, David Lauriski, resigned in late 2004 after CBS' 60 Minutes revealed that his agency had improperly awarded no-bid, single-source contracts to coal industry companies to which he was tied. Lauriski also tried to push through changes in coal dust regulations that miraculously benefited only his former employer—even other mine operators were opposed.

Thomas Scully, the man who served in the Bush Administration just long enough to implement the badly-flawed Medicare Drug Benefit , came from a job with the hospital association and left directly to the drug industry.

David Safavian , the head of the White House Office of Federal Procurement Policy was a former lobbyist and Hill staffer with no prior experience in government contracting; he has since been arrested in connection with the sprawling corruption investigation surrounding lobbyist Jack Abramoff, an old friend and colleague. His expertise was the getting of contracts for politically powerful outfits.

more: http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2006/03/06/appointees_guarding_the_henhouse.php

[applegrove]

1. I can see the argument for integration of the economies of the middle

east with the USA. I just don't get why the ports. There is already so much in the way of petro-dollars in the USA. The issue seems to me to be a distribution of wealth in the middle east. And I don't see how selling the ports to elites helps at all.

[bigtree]

2. UAE is a feudal monarchy, pure capitalism with no legislatures

to sour the deals and no democracy that would carry any public protest. Also, they're like Saudi Arabia with their US weapon's purchases, planes and stuff. It's just business with the Bush regime, with a good bit of militarism mixed in. UAE will be a base of operations for whatever military meddling Bush aspires to, Iran, etc.

[applegrove]

3. Just like Quatar. And you know, after 9/11 it was not a bad idea

to change military bases to outside of Saudi Arabia - since Koran says explicitely no. Koran also says explicitly that Israel should be about where it is. There have to be bases there. Just not so sure about how this deal is going to help democracy in the middle east. As if neocons are going to somehow be for the nationalization of the UAE port corporation in the future by the people of the UAE. I don't see how this improves the lives of the UAE people. And helps integrate those lost middle easterners who get lured inot Jihad due to poverty and the radical islamist leaders who give sustenance to the poor - at a price of activating them into intolerant people bent on getting rid of all things modern. Perhaps they think that by luring petro-dollars to investment of things like "ports" where no american billionaires want to be - they are playing sort of a "okay - you buy our junk business since ports are going to crash in 20 years when the cost of fuel becomes excessive". So perhaps that is the tactic.

I don't understand why the USA would not be taking back its ports seeing as how the biggest future threat is a dirty bomb.



Aside from the security issue - I don't understand why more petro-dollar investment in the USA is a good idea.