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
Point 2 - GW tried bring the Dems and moderate Pubbies to the table early and got his teeth kicked in. His new strategy is a lot more like shark fishing. Throw a bunch of sh!t over the side of the boat and when the shark comes up to feast, hook it. Shark loses.
sorry but I'm not buying into this is a great idea.
I have my beliefs as to why it is not a great idea for the nation and National Security. If one prefers to believe this is a great idea, that is one's own belief. I choose to be more cautious.
First off slick, I never said any such thing and if you want to go down that road, the Terrorists who attacked us on 9/11 spent more time in the USA than they did in the UAE.
Logic is your friend pal, try using some of it before making a fool of yourself here
Sounds like Dubai is behaving more civilized then many of our political representatives.
Couldn't have said it better myself...
I do have a pet peeve with this administration...I've had it for 5 and 1/2 years....they are always on defense, they wait until an issue becomes a political firestorm and then they react....it's hard to defend them when they take so long to defend themselves.....this issue has been out there for several weeks but the MSM and rats were too consumed with Cheney's hunting accident to pay attention...the WH should have brought this up 2 weeks ago.......and I do believe thay the President now has to come out and address this issue to the nation....
This acquistion was announced in NOVEMBER..it was in the business newspapers - apparently none of these congressional clowns read the business columns.
Yet no one says a word about a Chinese govt company running West Coast ports, or that there is a sizable Muslim population in Singapore (their govt company also runs W Coast ports)
Rush has been stellar. Steady, waiting for the facts, understanding that President Bush has NEVER let us down when it comes to national security.
I've been proud of him this week!
First it a port terminal not a seaport. Its 2000 ft of dock space leased to unload in NY. The NY Port (seaport) has 102 terminals Two that will be leased to Dubai. They are buying the lease from P&O. And second Arab countries have purchase port terminals for years. Here's one NSCSA.com. National Shipping Company of Saudi Arabia since 1979 and nobody has ever said a word. And last the US does not sell port terminals. They only lease them.
I for one am concerned. I'm concerned that China manages nearly all of the port at Long Beach. This is why I believe the politicians in DC aren't protecting this nation, and care little or nothing about National Security, but then that is just me...
When NYC, Pa and DC were hit, it was a hit on the whole country...we did not have to be there to feel it....and the whole counrty is fighting it...
Doesn't New Jersey have a very large Arab population, both Muslim and Christian? Corizine has announced he's going to sue to stop this deal.
China doesn't manage any U.S. port.
"Rush has been stellar. Steady, waiting for the facts, understanding that President Bush has NEVER let us down when it comes to national security.
I've been proud of him this week!"
So have I! . . . There's a reason he's NUMBER ONE!
It was actually a pretty damn big deal to all of us, but you must remember that they also came through Boston.
I'm not sure they'd do a worse job than what we currently have, but that's a different thread entirely.
I am no fan of The UAE, the arabs are no longer, if they ever were, the noble bedouins of the desert. I think most of them would just as soon stab any American in the back. It's that ROP you know. BUT...
Anything Schumer and the rest of the rats are against--I'm for. These people are ALWAYS on the WRONG side of EVERY issue. What more evidence could anyone with a brain need?
OK, now form an argument. And tell me how would it help our national security to alienate one of our best allies in the region?
then if that is the case my apology...but I am under the impression China or the ChiComs (sp) have the Long Beach port in CA. if I'm wrong then okay I'm wrong
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.