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
When have New Yorkers EVER had a say about private business deals; especially deals concerning a BRITISH c ompany, being sold to one from UAE?
New Yorkers never even had a say in tearing down the original MET, the leveling of a bunch of buildings, and building a new one, plus a lot of other buildings. Neither did they have a say in the building of the UN. I can continue listings such things, but I do hope these examples are enough. :-)
Either you are VERY young, or you have NO idea at all, what is going on in the five borough of Manhattan. :-)
It wouldn't change their opinion...Bush is all evil.
It was, after all, Muslims who lived and worked in N.Y.C. ( remember the city is made up of FIVE boroughs ), who planed and carried out the first WTC bombing. They also have carried out and planned other terror type crimes; many of which have been prevented.
WHY HAVE YOU NOTHING AGAINST THESE MUSLIMS?
What about the terror cell that was found up by Albany? Most of them were born here, but does that make them "okay"; even though they were part of al Qaeda?
I'm REALLY getting tired of all of this.
I have a penchant for posting facts. :-)
I'm afraid you are right.
Many Mideast countries have investment in our oil ports. They have to lease the oil port terminal where they unload. NSCSA.com
You are right, some American (Christian) terroists attack Oklohoma City so no Americans should be able to own or lease a American port terminal. I call that being smart enough to learn a lesson after it is taught to me.
That was CWO's post to me that I quoted back to him and you quoted back to me...lol.
Isn't this fun. I'd say it's like shooting fish in a barrel but it's really more like giving them the gun and watching the fish off themselves.
Stop that! I am already doubled over laughing.
There is only reason for the continued hysteria. It's their agenda to disrupt.
(From a Marine Dad, no less.)
Highest regards!
.
I had to change my tag to include my son who just recieved orders for Iraq....
And I'm certain you have documented documentation reaffirming your contention?
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.