![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
acroyearAnd its not because I think he's wrong as such; I think refusing Dubai blindly as some members of congress and industry want us to is bigotist and hypocritical. I agree there should be a more open investigation, as well as a more open description of if and how the DHS will improve security at those installations to help the naysayers relax.
However...
The problem is not Bush's stance. The problem is how Bush's stance played itself out.
The ideal mode by which things *should* happen is that the administration presents the facts and the possiblities to the president so he can make a quick but (theoretically) informed policy decision, and then the administration defends the President's decision to the other branches of government and to the public and media, and acts on it while the President gets on with making all the other important decisions and things he needs to do.
What seemed to have happened here, and signs are similar things have happened before in the last 5 years, is that the administration made the decision, informed the President after the fact, and now we have a President publicly defending a decision of his administration rather than the other way around.
Extremely ass-backwards. I have no idea if or how much this has happened to Presidents before (outside of military taking action in a war, often a tactical or strategic necessity), but in this instance, it disgusts me. Perhaps it does happen a lot more than I think, but in this case it continues to support the impression that we have a President acting as a figurehead for an administration (an administration where the Vice President has asserted more authority over things he has no right to than any before him), rather than an administration serving the goals and ideals of the President.
However...
The problem is not Bush's stance. The problem is how Bush's stance played itself out.
The ideal mode by which things *should* happen is that the administration presents the facts and the possiblities to the president so he can make a quick but (theoretically) informed policy decision, and then the administration defends the President's decision to the other branches of government and to the public and media, and acts on it while the President gets on with making all the other important decisions and things he needs to do.
What seemed to have happened here, and signs are similar things have happened before in the last 5 years, is that the administration made the decision, informed the President after the fact, and now we have a President publicly defending a decision of his administration rather than the other way around.
Extremely ass-backwards. I have no idea if or how much this has happened to Presidents before (outside of military taking action in a war, often a tactical or strategic necessity), but in this instance, it disgusts me. Perhaps it does happen a lot more than I think, but in this case it continues to support the impression that we have a President acting as a figurehead for an administration (an administration where the Vice President has asserted more authority over things he has no right to than any before him), rather than an administration serving the goals and ideals of the President.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-02-27 01:47 am (UTC)Not to mention that Bush's stance for the last administration and half has been "9/11! 9/11! 9/11! 9/11!" Everything from adverse press to the flushing of civil rights has been facilely explained with "If you don't agree, you're aiding the terrorists!" Bad press, someone else's campaign getting more votes? Raise the alert level!
And then he goes and does something that looks remarkably like handing the keys to the city to terrorists, whether he really has or not (I figure we're agreeing to disagree on that.) But he should hardly be surprised that after deliberately whipping up fear for years, the first reaction to this is hysteria.
I still wonder why any of this is in the hands of any foreign nation - security aside, why are we giving away this number of domestic jobs?
no subject
Date: 2006-02-27 02:11 am (UTC)For the same reason as always: they're cheaper than we are, and corporate shareholder value is the #1 value in this country, above any other type of loyalty or duty. It is, in fact, one of the few values that is legally asserted.
Keep in mine, this is Dubai (a UAE company) buying out P&O (a British company) -- these jobs, even if held by americans (they often still are, and the unions are generally unchanged since the 1920s), have been managed by foreigners for at least a decade.
just sayin'
Date: 2006-02-27 01:57 pm (UTC)