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
If my opinion ends up in the minority then the deal should stand. I admit that. Do you admit that if the tables are turned it should be stopped? Curious to see if you are honest. Let's find out.
Many thanks for posting facts!
Because you cannot stay on point and cannot respond coherently you feel the need to distort and smear what I have written here. Why is that?
If it gets turned down that it gets turned down, but if it does we will have burned one of our best Allies in this struggle and we will pay a price for it. And yes, I will give you all the credit you want
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
GOOD for one primary reason. The bash Bush opportunists will be shown for the political hacks and frauds they are. Ditto for some pundits and posters.
ROFLMAO, I'm glad to hear you have nothing against Muslims.
Senator Byrd had nothing against Blacks when he was in the Klan, he just didn't want them to have anything to do with West Virginia... It all makes sense now, Thanks for clearing that up
I bet some of his best friends are Muslims.
LOL
Oh Lord, maybe this will cause added grief...lol.
Surely a congressional hearing must be commenced immediately!
Cheers,
Mike
It wasn't conventient at the time for the Bush is all evil crowd.
It's now very obvious, that a whole lot of people can't think and that they are the robots, force fed with a script, which they repeat ad nauseum.
It is entertaining though. And the folks who are running with this red herring wonder why no one listens to them when it comes to politics.
First of all, you may have been in Manhattan, on 9/11, but how many friends and family member and acquaintances did YOU lose that day?
Many of us, who weren't in the area ( BTW, were YOU right by the towers, when they were hit? ), lost at least one person we knew and know many people who lost friends and family. It was a ripple effect. And then, there are people like me, who though they no longer live there, it IS our HOMETOWN and has been to many generations of my family.
And FYI...those damned terrorist LEARNED HOW TO FLY IN AMERICA; not in any Arab country.
Clinton ignored the FIRST bombing of the WTC and then did less than nothing to prevent another one, going so far as to NOT accept OBL, THREE SEPERATE TIMES!
And don't forget, dear, Manhattan was NOT the only target!
It's attitudes such as yours, that gives New Yorkers a bad rep. Were you even born there, or are you just a transplant?
The Sears Tower in Chicago WAS and still is a target; so are places in California, D.C., and goodness only knows where else!
Oh, criminy, don't let the Buchananites know!
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.