The article is an EDITORIAL. It was written to make a point. What you call invective is simple argument for the point being made. The article is well written and cites examples of free trade panics in the past.
2. WSJ thinks only of money and the market. They don't give a damn about the country or anything else. They love "free" trade and massive illegal immigration because it puts money in the pockets of the big investors.
Class warfare won't gain you many converts on this board. Why is it that interest of big business are always deemed at odds with the interest of the country. Most people either work for or invest in big business.
3. The Port deal was bad Politics and Bad for security.
The deal had nothing to do with securtiy. Bad politics is only in the eye of the beholder. The dems certainly want it to look like bad politics.
4. UAE is not run by little kids, who will take their bat and go home because their feeling were hurt. They support us in Gulf for *THEIR OWN INTERESTS*. They will continue to do so.
And in this case their interests were trumped by stupiditiy. I'm sure they also invested a tidy sum in the feasibilty of the deal. Message: don't bother to consider investment in the US. We don't want you. Reply: we'll take our money somewhere else. Of course that won't be overt.
6. To base public policy on "what kind of message it sends" is stupid. Every decision sends any number of messages, and every "message" is received differently in different countries and by different people.
What do you think the Bush doctrine is based on? "You're either with us or against us?" Excuse me but isn't that a message that all policy with regard to the WOT is based on?