Damned if we do and damned if we don't?
-- Updated: Move me to the Pro column
Color me more confused as time goes on.
Has White House bungling and Democratic misdirection created a major kerfuffle where there's no need for one? From the New York Sun:
On the Waterfront
Somehow, it doesn't add up. Senators Menendez, Clinton, Lautenberg, Schumer, Dodd, and Boxer are up in arms over the Bush administration's decision to allow Dubai Ports World, a company owned by the United Arab Emirates, to take over operations at ports in New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami, and Philadelphia. So are Reps. Vito Fossella and Peter King. One has to wonder, what makes this group, not particularly known for its hawkishness - in some cases known for abject dovishness - suddenly more hawkish than President Bush? It turns out their objections look to be less and less about American national security and more about plain old politics and political money and a labor union notorious for its ties to organized crime on the waterfront.
[Read on here.]
Jim Geraghty:
SO THE UAE DOESN'T HAVE ANY SAY IN PORT SECURITY? WHAT'S THE BIG DEAL THEN?
My fellow bloggers… we’ve been snookered. ...
The controversy over this port sale have been driven by a great deal of vague, ominous and sloppy language thrown around by lawmakers, the media and bloggers. Had this discussion been marked by precision and a focus on just what was at stake, this would not have turned into the brouhaha it did. One almost wonders if the misleading language was deliberate.
[Read on here.]
Glenn Reynolds:
[T]his is a perfect storm of bungled PR by the White House (which has forfeited much trust because of its excessive friendliness to the Saudis and limp response to the Cartoon Jihad, as well as general perceived laxity on homeland security and immigration), coupled with generalized anxiety about how things are going on the terrorism front. The White House should have had the facts out quickly, and should be on top of things now. It's not too late, but there's already considerable Congressional upset. You can respond to that sort of concern with facts, but not with a mixture of "trust us" and charges of bigotry which has been the White House's main tactic so far.
John Hinderaker:
The UAE Port Deal: What Are the Facts?
[...]
Earlier this evening, the administration took a step toward that kind of a PR campaign by sending out emails that relate some basic facts about the DP World contracts. Here are some excerpts: [...]
... [T]hese sound like cogent points, don't they? If there is an argument that permitting the DP World transaction to go through as planned will compromise our security, what, exactly, is it? Maybe the argument has been made, and I've missed it by virtue of being out of touch for a few days. But so far I, at least, haven't heard any facts that would negate the force of the administration's arguments.
Pamela at Atlas Shrugs has an excellent post in favor of the deal here. California Conservative, who was originally strongly opposed to the port sale, has changed his mind. Alexandra von Maltzan is still opposed, but seems to be softening up a little Michelle Malkin is still strongly opposed.
I don't see a good way out of the situation. Having an Arab-state-owned company in charge of any portion of our port operations feels wrong at such a deep down gut level that I just can't persuade myself to be comfortable with it. I know W says it will be just fine. W also thinks an amnesty is the solution to our illegal immigration problem. Onthe other hand, if the deal gets scuttled at this point it's definitely going to generate fresh hatred for the U.S. in the Mideast, which we also don't need. Damned if we do, damned if we don't.
***
Sister Toldjah has an excellent post in favor of the deal here.
***
Dafydd just moved me to the "pro" column. Do Not miss Dubya and Dubai: the Rest of the Story?
***
The DP World Port Sale: Overblown Fears
Daveed Gartenstein-Ross
In an election year, it certainly makes for a powerful rallying cry: "They want to turn our port security over to Arab states!" Indeed, politicians on both sides of the aisle have already been leaping to skewer the administration for approving the Dubai Ports of the United Arab Emirates (DP World) taking over the operation of six U.S. seaports. But moving beyond the politics of the situation, the fears surrounding DP World's purchase appear overblown.
First of all, ...
[Read on here.]
***
That UAE Port Management Controversy
by Yehudit
A conversation on my email list goes in the "You don't want to play poker with George Bush" file: [...]
[Read on here.]
***
See also: Sissy Willis, Dr Sanity, A. J. Strata. Big Dog
***
Don't miss Greyhawk's latest Open Post.
|
