Posted on 02/23/2006 6:13:09 PM PST by new yorker 77
The conventional wisdom on the Dubai Ports World deal seems to have shifted in the last 24 hours. In the blogosphere the focus has jumped from its initial target -- the agreement itself -- to a new and familiar one: President Bush. For instance, Glenn Reynolds has decided:
I don't think there's any real security issue here, but I think the Bush Administration needs to launch a full-bore effort to explain what's actually going on, something that they still haven't really mounted...
I will admit that my knee jerked on hearing this story, and that I should have waited to learn more before offering an opinion. In my defense, I'll note that I gathered more information and changed my mind. Still, mea culpa.
But (and this is a separate point from the merits of the decision, or of my take thereon) it wasn't just me -- there were an awful lot of knees jerking on this decision, and the White House, or somebody, should have foreseen that. That doesn't get me off the hook, of course, but it doesn't reflect well on them, either.
James Lileks retreats somewhat as well:
The Bush administration may well be in the right, but they have handled this poorly – the remarks about vetoing any Congressional efforts to block the sale may have been aimed at Congress, but they splashed right in the face of the voters. The crafty response would have been to acknowledge the worries, assure a complete and total review and disclosure, and let the facts speak for themselves.
Meanwhile Tim Cavanaugh offers examples of some points he thinks Bush should have made. Like Reynolds, he says the DPW deal "doesn't involve port security, and if opponents think there's a security risk they haven't provided any evidence for that." But according to Cavanaugh, Bush is in trouble because he was caught flat-footed and unprepared to argue such straightforward points. He asks:
Who could get out of this fix?
I'll tell you who: NAFTA-era Bill Clinton, that's who! Explaining stuff like this is what Bill Clinton lived for. Just think back to that Clintonian love of factoids, that congenial explanation of the benefits that you, the listener, will directly receive, that enthusiastic drive to get you to share the president's love of policy minutiae. Clinton was great at this stuff because, whatever else he was, he was a man of the people. He understood (as Bush does) the benefit of a barrier-free market that might leave, say, Dubai Ports World providing services to American harbors. And he knew that populist panics are stupid and almost always wrong. But unlike Bush, he realized that populist panics come from deep within people's hearts, and that you have to respect that.
Critics have raised some serious concerns over the DPW deal, and it is clear that Bush made a mistake by brushing off these concerns. To be sure, there is a strong opposition that will not be won over so easily on the merits of the agreement (see Malkin, Hewitt, Huffington). So far, though, it is the pundits who are doing the backtracking, not the President.
Posted by Nick Nordseth on February 23, 2006 04:45 PM
Rush isn't backing off.
If you've listened to him all week he took the position of researching the issue before committing to a position. Which is what I did, since I knew little of the deal and nothing of ports. Most of the rest took the position of hanging the admin in conservative MSM. He behaved responsibly when one doesn't know all the facts. Wish so many others had followed the same lead.
I totally agree with you. I honestly believe that GW has done what he has felt deep down inside was the right thing to do for America for the last five years. This is no different. At this point in a presidential career, when a president normally is concerned about building a legacy, similar to the Slickmeister, why in the world would GW change course and do something radical that is not good for America? He wouldn't because Miss Laura would slap the siht out of him. When someone has problems with a foreign nation nation creeping into everyday American life, all they have to do to remind themselves of globalization is look at the label on their collars. It may not be right, but that's the way it is........
None whatsoever. Even the Saudis own a similar concern in a U.S. port.
I just heard that Dubai is willing to delay part of it's 6.8 Billion Dollar deal so everyone can be reassured that they will not be a threat to anyones security
Alan Colmes is the same way only worse. He's become like a wonk. No thoughts of his own, just talking points.
I had him turned off by about 3:15 (not my custom to do so) and played a CD of classical music done on traditional Russian instruments.
Listening to Sean today was more depressing than annoying. His entire argument was one of fear. Tony Snow's analysis is more holistic and speaks intelligently of what is likely to happen if the deal is quashed as well as if it goes forward.
I also heard that the hearings will be accompanied by flash cards, crayons for taking notes, a nap, and cookies and milk on break.
They really sound like some shady characters Check this out
LOL
I turned him off at 3:20 PM (in my office and my reception area) . . . We listened to Frank Sinatra instead!
I just heard that Dubai is willing to delay part of it's 6.8 Billion Dollar deal so everyone can be reassured that they will not be a threat to anyones security
That's great.....but will this make the rats happy....
Hmmmmmm..........I think that's what's called 'delusions of grandeur' jimbo. You may want to rethink that position.
you are saying that not one US company rents a terminal on US soil? I find that hard to believe
They are giving the critics time to hang themselves. I wonder why the same people shocked over this deal haven't been concerned at all that a Saudi company already has operations in one of our ports?
Sounds like Dubai is behaving more civilized then many of our political representatives.
Terrorists aren't really looking to take out farms and trees. They are after the economy of the U.S.A. We remain the central target while people in the rest of the country can tell us that there is nothing to be alarmed about.
Maybe if you lived here and experienced it first hand instead of through the idiot box you'd understand the issue a bit more clearly.
They got out of the business. Just like our merchant fleet; at the end of WWII it was the largest in the world. It was pretty much gone by the mid-70s. The unions pretty much drove them out of business...and it's the unions that are pushing this issue.
They are, assuming this deal goes through, the LEAST likely country in the world to attack us.
See Post #114, CWOJ nailed it
thanks for the link...very interesting
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.