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
I take exception with being against this deal as being 'to the right", how is losing a key ally in that region "on the right"?
Security measures and precautions at the ports are classified, therefore no facts will be shared in "open" hearings, unless there are leaks. Therefore "good luck" in attaining facts.
>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<
Oh no the secret is out.He has always been this way.
Even if the Dems lose on this, which I think they will, they are going to take note of how successful it was if even for a short time.
If they can pull some other similar issue out just before the elections, they'll do it. Conservatives will jump off ship in droves.
I must say that I'm shocked to find that you live 1500 miles or so from the place in question. You're a classic NIMBY.
LOL< Absolutely the same stuff
Rush has said the same thing...
So we might as well make it easier for them then.
I didn't say it...George Stephy said it.
I guess they consider not letting ANY foreign country have anything to do with our ports is the stronger national security stance.
THAT is the legislation that Hillary and Menendez are proposing that NO foreign country be able to purchase the rights to do business at the ports, just as the airlines are now as far as I know.
Rush had the luxury of not allowing himself to get swept up in this ground swell of hysteria and handling the subject calmly and rationally. Now he's not in the position of having to admit he was dupped and trying to defend his position.
The classified security matters at the port are not shared with the port operator, so I don't understand your objection.
Let the a-rabs deal w/ the tony soprano types
The port deal simply a bid for who gets to handle the Longshoreman - an example of another "job" American's don't want
Also, does anyone know the last year that an American company actually owned a port - anywhere?
Rush and Tony Snow have been the two voices of reason this past week...neither on jumped on the hysteria bandwagon...
True. I love John Gibson on Fox but today he sounded like such a thumb sucker. First he admitted that all the arugments for the port deal were reasonable. Then he blabbered on about "Why does the deal have to be with the UAE." Which is so lame.
Which of these doesn't belong?
Ben Stein:"....Anyone?....anyone?....anyone"?
neither one of them....proofread befor you post....
You have no clue what a classic NIMBY is then. If you can find one statement where I said it's fine for DP in your state, but not in mine, then you'd have a point. But you can't and you won't.
Keep struggling, and when you get one of Rove's talking points to Rush, be sure to post it here.
I do not believe this statement, and besides even if the statement is true, it opens the door for observation(s). The moose have demonstated their willingness to pull the knife slowly. This could be another case of the moose's same tact.
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.