Good to Know I’m in Good Company on the Port Deal
Instapundit’s Professor Glenn Reynolds, who appeard on our program last Sunday night to talk about his recent book “An Army of Davids” has written an article in today’s WSJ entitled “Early Warning System” in which he argues that the blogosphere has significantly helped to resolve the issue of ports by elevating the substance of the debate beyond hasty generalizations, demagoguery, and uniformed opinions. He also has some advice for the White House for the future.
I will admit that when the story first broke and I went on air and opposed the sale of the ports to the Dubai company. I had not done my homework thoroughly enough and will endeavor to educate myself more thoroughly prior to sounding off on the air.
It seems as though Professor Reynolds had the same “knee jerk reaction.”
Some bloggers, meanwhile, were having second thoughts. One of them was me: Although my initial reaction was negative, I started getting emails from readers — some of them longtime correspondents — who had experience with the UAE. One had served alongside troops from the Emirates in Afghanistan; another had spent time in Dubai. Some had worked with UAE ports officials. All were positive.Then Jim Dunnigan of StrategyPage explained why the UAE has been a good friend to the U.S. and is likely to be trustworthy here, and why this deal is in American interests. I found it pretty convincing. A lot of other bloggers, of all political persuasions, were reaching the same conclusion, even as the mass-media and talk-radio hysteria was still building. (To be fair, some Big Media like The Wall Street Journal and the Washington Post were weighing in with good sense.) As the National Journal’s Blogometer reported, “This movement was generally led by the intellectual right, and the intellectual left soon found itself in guarded agreement — the deal wasn’t as bad as it first seemed.”
Here is the full article (subs req).
In a related editorial also in the WSJ today (subs req) entitled “Ports of Gall” the editors explain how the new protectionists (mostly union backed Democrats) use national security as their cover.
Although Hillary has been one of the most vocal critics of the transaction, she was signing a different tune a few years ago:
“I also believe that winning the war on terror will not happen by military strength alone. This is fundamentally about America’s values and leadership. . . . The idea of winning hearts and minds has been derided by some. But I don’t think that we can overlook its singular importance. . .”
– Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, February 25, 200
When one looks at the primary opponents of this transaction they are almost all big time recipients of Longshoreman largesse in the form of campaign contributions.
And, lo, the New York Sun reported this week that “nearly every politician who has been at the forefront of the opposition to the Dubai deal is on the receiving end of some Longshoreman largesse” in the form of campaign contributions. They include New York Representatives Peter King (R), Jerry Nadler (D) and Vito Fossella (R) and Senators Clinton, Robert Menendez (D., N.J.), Chuck Schumer (D., N.Y.), Chris Dodd (D., Conn.) and Barbara Boxer (D., Calif.).
I have said all along that although Bush has not been conservative on borders, spending, and affirmative action, he has led capably and boldly in the face of constant criticism and attacks from the Defeaticrats in the War on Terror.
To take seriously the political criticisms of the DP World deal, you must also take seriously the notion that President Bush has suddenly gone soft on security. So the same Administration that’s criticized for being overly obsessed with terrorism suddenly can’t be trusted to vet a routine deal involving terminal management at a handful of U.S. ports. We can understand why some Democrats would want to make this case; the shame is that so many conservatives and Republicans have taken their political bait.
This UAE Port deal will go through and the protectionist labor backed doom and gloom liberals who are attempting to be perceived as taking a tough stand on national security will be seen for the political demagogues they have always been. The liberals who glom on to one potentially damaging story after another in their seething hatred of the Bush administration (Scooter Libby, terror suerveillance, Katrina, Cheyney’s hunting accident, etc… will eventually abate once the American public get all the facts. Then, they can turn their attention toward the next “scandal” they hope will lead to impeachment proceedings.
February 25th, 2006 at 2:56 pm
In my opinion, the overriding aspect to this argument is: No Arab Muslim country should have ownership or control over any key security element of my country.
I am NOT in favor of allowing the UAE deal to go thru, though so many of the “intellectual” pundits now say that the “facts” lead them to believe we should trust the UAE.
February 25th, 2006 at 3:19 pm
Do you ever blog about anything besides WSJ stories? They are subscription only. Its annoying..
February 25th, 2006 at 6:22 pm
Ron,
thanks for your comments. As I have stated repeatedly, security for the ports are under US Coast Guard and Customs’ jurisdiction. The Dubai port management company is in charge of managing the commerical aspects of the ports. Do you have a problem with the US military utilizing ports managed by this same company in the Persian Gulf? What are the substantiated known security risks that you can cite that Customs and the Coast Guard cannot control?
Annoyed, I will start branching out from the WSJ. I read it every day and do need to branch out. Thanks for your input. Cheers.
Gregg J
February 25th, 2006 at 10:04 pm
Is this security the 5% of incoming cargo that is inspected? Is this security inclusive of the UAE being granted full access to means & methods that they do not currently have? There are other “experts”, including Homeland Security, the Coast Guard & Customs who are concerned with the UAE deal. The choice between doing business, involving a key security fuction, between a British privately held company and a UAE Government owned company is no choice at all in my opinion.
No I do not have a problem with our military working out of UAE ports, nor do I have a problem with our military working out of Saudi Arabian ports, or out of Egyptian ports, etc. The UAE is working with us in the Gulf out of self-interest, not because they are our friends or allies.
Islamic extremists are our enemies, and I do not trust any Arabic Muslim country with my security interests.
BYW, I do not mind your using the WSJ as a source as I am a subscriber, but I would be, and am, annoyed when a subscriber($)only source is used, except for the WSJ, since that is the only online subscription I pay for.
Thanks,
Ron
February 26th, 2006 at 7:41 pm
Gosh, when I saw the title, I almost did not read it. I have not listened to too many radio talk shows for the past two weeks, since the only thing happening in the world is this purchase between UK and Dubai!
Please answer me this. How is President Bush legally entitled to stop that deal? Hmm?
I wrote this Friday. I know, I know. There are a lot of grammatical errors. Please excuse me this one time. lol. After all, it is my time. (LOL)
February 26th, 2006 at 9:49 pm
Rosemary, nice post. Couldn’t agree with you more. If only teh libs cared as much about not divulging our terror surveillence programs to the entire world as they supposedly “care” about our national security now. Please. They have done everything in their power to aid and abet the enemy throat cutters in a concerted effort to assure our defeat in Iraq for their own political gain. They care about nat’l security as much as they care about “human rights” (when they are not out defending late term abortion, opposing the death penalty for rapists and murderers, and opposing our liberation of millions of Iraqis who lived under a repressive murderous dictator for 30 plus years)
Gregg J
May 13th, 2006 at 9:38 am
So interesting site, thanks!
May 13th, 2006 at 10:00 am
I just don’t have anything to say right now.
May 15th, 2006 at 7:53 am
I’m really impressed!
May 16th, 2006 at 6:24 am
HI! I love this place!
May 16th, 2006 at 7:51 am
Hello Jane, great site!
May 17th, 2006 at 12:50 am
Best site I see. Thanks.
May 17th, 2006 at 9:22 am
So interesting site, thanks!
May 17th, 2006 at 9:26 am
Great website! Bookmarked! I am impressed at your work!
May 17th, 2006 at 7:04 pm
Best site I see. Thanks.
June 1st, 2006 at 11:16 am
Very good site. Thanks for author!
June 2nd, 2006 at 1:44 pm
I like your site
June 2nd, 2006 at 8:41 pm
I just don’t have anything to say right now.
June 3rd, 2006 at 4:16 am
Your home page its great
June 3rd, 2006 at 7:48 pm
HI! I love this place!
June 5th, 2006 at 2:25 am
I’m really impressed!
June 16th, 2006 at 1:27 pm
Great website! Bookmarked! I am impressed at your work!
June 18th, 2006 at 6:43 pm
May we exchange links with your site?
June 23rd, 2006 at 8:10 am
Your site is very cognitive. I think you will have good future.:)