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 Rush is backing off, there is a reason. Betcha two weeks from now, only the Bush haters will be talking about this.
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....
Are you sure? I was of the impression she is against illegal immigration, not legal immigration.
Todays radio show was a disgrace. Hannity got his script, not analytically thinking (something I've come to believe Sean can't do) things through like a rational person and instead repetitively tried to press his points. It was nausiating. It's shows like today's that make me turn off the radio at 3:00 and not check in for weeks.
I also think President Bush has enough faith in the basic intelligence of the American people to know that most would want to find out the facts, and they are.
I think he knew how to articulate it, but he was waiting for the right time.
The Democrats have to be cackling in glee with what they've done. It's the smartest thing they've done in at least a decade.
Their problem is that facts, logic and reason will eventually prevail. Already we've seen numerous folks here admit that they reacted emotionally instead of logically to the news.
We'll always have some folks here who will seize any opportunity to bash Bush or Republicans. That's who they are. They won't change their opposition. But the rest of us will eventually reach the point where we want to hear what the security implications really are.
I think they're negligible, but I'm certainly willing to look at more facts.
I think most people in the country without a political axe to grind will reach essentially the same position within a few days.
Yes, though initially I identified with the hysterical opposition to the President (knee-jerk reaction), I am beginning the other side of the argument, and admit Bush might be right about this.
Bush didn't want anyone to find out the facts on this deal. He wanted to rush it through next week. If it wasn't for us, there would have been no debate.
Translation: Limbaugh is waiting to be told what to say.
This is a total no brainer issue. For anyone here who thinks that having a country that funneled funds for terrorism run our ports is a good idea, just change the name Bush to Clinton and tell me that your feelings would remain the same.
If this issue was out now and Clinton were President, Limbaugh and most here would be screaming impeachment. I don't care who it offends but having a country with ties to terrorism even being allowed to sweep the floors at our ports is asking for a bomb to go off in his neighborhood.
Here in New York we've had quite enough of terrorism to last a lifetime and now the idea to let the United Arab Emirates run the ports here in the very city that has already lost 3,000 lives is nothing short of criminal.
For those of you who feel otherwise, invite Arab countries to run your ports, police forces and firehouses. Hey, what have you got to lose.
No, I'm not sure about that, Just my opinion, she just comes off that way to me. And her labeling anyone who disagrees with her as "Rubber Stampers" is very juvenile and something I would expect from Cindy Sheehan, not a thinking conservative
Hannity is very vain and let the success go to his head.
Say you are walking down the street and accidently bumped into Rush Limbaugh. You both would probably say "excuse me" and be on your way.
The same thing happens except it is Hannity, both of you would probably say "excuse me", except, IMO, Hannity would say, "BTW, I'm Sean Hannity".
That's the difference I see in their personalities.
Hannity got his script, not analytically thinking (something I've come to believe Sean can't do) things through like a rational person and instead repetitively tried to press his points.
I had to turn Sean off today...he's had several people from the WH on his show explaining everything in detail, but he still doesn't get it......he also made me mad when he said he might change his mind if he knew that this was part of a plan to attack Iraq and the UAE would help us in that plan....like the WH or DOD is going to call him and tell him.....wise up Sean and use your head....
I agree, I switched my XM radio to Fox News and suffered through Shep Smith tha past few days
I think all of the President bashers are eating crow and licking their self inflicted wounds at this point.
Several of us have been pointing out what a great political and business move this is only to have the Malkin bots try to shout us down.
It's not working and I think all right thinking conservatives stand firmly behind our president.
Full steam ahead with the ports!
I think half the time they are half puzzled as to WHY it is actually an issue. They tend to act more like business people then politicians. It is both their greatest strength and their biggest weakness.
I too would love to look at the facts, but the problem is the facts are classified. There will be no open hearings on this deal, and if there are hearings "open" will not be the word. Facts are something not attainable when the information is classified. There is something terribly wrong with the manner in which DC is handling National Security. I am almost to the point of believing anyone other than those in DC could handle National Security better.
After all Hannity has taken a blood oath to be intellectually honest........../s
I think half the time they are half puzzled as to WHY it is actually an issue. They tend to act more like business people then politicians. It is both their greatest strength and their biggest weakness.
You are exactly right...but sometimes even I can see it coming, why can't they....darn it..
(Sigh!) Yup.
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.