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
You need to understand the feeling of the people in the country, kind of like how Saudi Arabia talks out of both sides of their mouth.
Thanks for the clarification and agreed.
That is the main reason I like Rush. Agree or disagree, he never allows himself to be pressured into following the pack. So I know what comes from him, is what he believes after looking at an issue. Sometimes he knows about the issue, so he can readily give an opinion if its the news of the day. As with this deal, he didn't know the facts so he was cautious as he learned about. Had he still come out against, I'd still respect him for the manner he had arrived at his opinion.
I've absolutely no problem with anyone being against this. Only a problem with hysterics that contribute little but fear and emotion to the discussion.
Hear! Hear!! Wise words, Seaplaner! Thank you!
Then contact your local politicians and try and get them there if you think they will do a good job. We don't want them here. Should we have the right to prevent what we overwhelmingly don't want?
You need to understand the feeling of the people in the country, kind of like how Saudi Arabia talks out of both sides of their mouth
So he's in favor of a Muslim country having companies run things where he lives? Is that what you're telling me?
No need to wait. You already figured out how poor the analogy was.
He has no problem with Dubai, and we both live within 30 miles from the Port of Baltimore. I think if you are so scared of Muslims, you should move to Mars, cause there isn't any Muslims on Mars
And I agree. What ever happened to the notion of GETTING THE FACTS before making a decision? The U.S. Senate (and even some of my favorites on the net) is acting like a bunch of kids in a pool, each trying to out shout one another.
I would prefer that members of Congress showed some wisdom, especially considering the risk and consequences of offending important allies in the war on terror, thank-you.
.
.
I never called you an embecile. I called you an imbecile.
I would prefer that members of Congress showed some wisdom, a rare commodity in DC.
But if you didn't put in the contract that you could block the sale of the contract to anyone for any reason or no reason at all, you hosed yourself, assuming the consequences are bad.
Other grownups have looked at the situation and made the decision that the consquences aren't bad, and certainly not as bad as you think.
So, no, you don't have the right to prevent it. At least not as the law reads today.
Will the law be changed shortly? We'll see. There will be an attempt.
Do you understand that this has nothing to do with Hillary or Bush or anyone else? Probably not so I'll save my breath.
As for your claim that "We" "Overwhelmingly" don't want, after the majority of people have weighed the FACTS, the approval level has risen rapidly (when this pi$$ tsunami hit the continent.) to 37 % approve, 18% unsure (which means they busy weighing the FACTS) and 54% against. 54% is hardly "overwhelming" by the way.
In another day or two, as more FACTS come out, these numbers will change in favor of those who back the President.
While I never thought that before I do think that now. Yes or no.
If an overwhelming majority of New Yorkers do not want this to go through, should that matter?
One word--Medved. He's on during the same time as Hannity and he's extremely smart. If someone I'm listening to is a ranter, I always check in with Medved to get his take.
If you don't get him in your area, you can get him at
http://krla870.com/
Plenty of them sold after 911. Check out all the oil port terminals. Fact right in NJ. We own the ports and lease the terminals, in general, to shipping lines. Other wise you couldn't ship in or out the country. The US does not own any internation shipping lines.
What you need is a procedure called a "Cranium Rectumitus", it will do wonders for your vision, and your ability to smell the roses
Probably will continue to happen to Republicans - The MSM guys who buy ink by the barrel or control most of the airtime are the ones who decide what will be a firestorm and what goes on page 14B.
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.