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.