I have been following lots of information on the “let’s sell control of our busiest ports in major metropolitan areas to a hereditary oligarchy” arrangement. Stepping back to get some perspective on this, I keep seeing more and more and liking it less and less.
Recalling that John Snow, head of the board that made this unanimous decision, is the former head of CSX and still holds some (for certain large values of “some”) CSX stock.
According to Mr. Snow’s most recent financial disclosure form (available here) Mr. Snow “received CSX-related income of $72.2 million last year, with $33.2 million of that in a special retirement pension.”
Now, the UAE is an ally, we’re told. But not just ours:
UAE royals, bin Laden’s saviours:
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.
And then we have this:
Guardian Unlimited | Special reports | The ex-presidents’ club:
Carlyle has become the thread which indirectly links American military policy in Afghanistan to the personal financial fortunes of its celebrity employees, not least the current president’s father. And, until earlier this month, Carlyle provided another curious link to the Afghan crisis: among the firm’s multi-million-dollar investors were members of the family of Osama bin Laden.
and I can’t find a link to the bit about Condi Rice’s speech on the morning of 9/11 where she was going to go on about missile defense — she who said the the use of airliners as missiles was “unanticipated” — to an audience that includes members of the bin Laden family. But I remember reading it and realizing we were at the mercy of fools.
The bin Ladens keep Osama at arms length even more strongly than the Bushes keep Neil. Not that I think we should embrace them but a bit more transparency — some reminders that the very people who claim to have our interests at heart are a lot closer to these sheiks than they want us to know — would help.
So:
- The UAE — not a business based there, but the government of the UAE — will control ports up and down the East Coast and some major transport installations related to the “war”
- This arrangement personally enriches a member of the board who approved the decision
- The SecDef claims to have has no knowledge of this, other than what he heard in the news (what, he has the same briefers as Chertoff?) even though he voted to approve it (how else to interpret a unanimous vote?)
- The UAE was a part of the 9/11 conspiracy, with some of the hijackers being based there and some of the financial operations being run there
- Osama bin Forgotten used the royal family of the UAE as human shields: if they are allies, why couldn’t they be made aware of that and given a broad hint to choose their friends more wisely, perhaps even to go home ASAP?
I dunno. It seems kinda hinky to me. What do you think?
Just think what a real journalist could do with a little more time and resources?