damnum absque injuria

March 9, 2006

Sorry, Dubai

The port (ship language for “left,” which in turn is political language for “insane”) controversy seems to be over, except for a few ultra-port Senators who insist on holding a vote on a deal that is no longer in the works. The Demogogues, led by Hillary Clinton (whose husband advised the UAE on the deal) on the left and by Michelle Malkin (who literally wrote the book when it comes to “unhinged”) Michael “Call Me Savage” Weiner, got their way. That’ll teach them A-rabs to cooperate with the Great Satan.

UPDATE: Malkin links approvingly to Rick Moran’s post, in which Moran writes:

Sheik Mohammed bin Rashid al Maktoum may feel that he’s been double crossed but he shouldn’t blame the Congress or the American people. The blame is ultimately the Presidents’ to shoulder as are our other problems with border control and gaps in security at our airports.

Nonsense. This deal wasn’t killed by the President, but by popular hysteria, fueled by demogogues on both sides of the aisle who saw an opportunity to profit by scaring the crap out of everybody. I suppose that the President should shoulder some blame for failing to anticipate Congress’s opportunism or the American people’s gullibility, but the principal blame lies with us, not with our President for failing to cure our collective idiocy, and not even with the opportunistic Congressmen who preyed upon it. To the extent that the semi-secretive approval process makes some of our concerns legitimate, that problem was also Congress’s creation, and it was for Congress to fix. Better they should have done so a long time ago, rather than saying nothing for 20 years and then going postal as soon as a friendly Arab country came around.

UPDATE: It’s tinfoil hat time for those still looking for something to oppose. John Hawkins has an interesting take, though.

12 Responses to “Sorry, Dubai”

  1. Doc Rampage Says:

    Well, I can tell you that the president’s lack of concern about illegal immigration and PC-deranged airport security are the primary factors kept me from defending him on the Dubai ports deal. My first impulse is to assume that the people involved know what they are doing and trust their judgment. I’m a big believer in specialization and division of responsibility. But when they clearly aren’t trustworthy in related areas, I can’t entirely trust them in this area.

  2. clark smith Says:

    It’s for the best the UAE port deal unraveled. I can only laugh at hissy fits emanating from proponents of the port deal.

  3. Xrlq Says:

    Doc: I think it’s a stretch to say that just because the President sucks on illegal immigration (which he does) and that PC airport security sucks too (which it does), therefore, the bureaucrats whose job it is to review deals like this cannot be trusted to do their jobs right – or could be for 20 years, they just can’t be now that an Arab owned country is involved.

    Clark: laugh all you want, but don’t delude yourself into thinking that killing a perfectly reasonable deal is going to make our country more secure. Quite the opposite; it completely undermines the President on one of the most important issues on which he’s been the strongest. It used to be either you are for us, or are you against us. Now, thanks to a gullible public and a few hundred Congressmen running around with their hair on fire, the Bush Doctrine no longer applies to Arabs, or at least not to Arabs who weren’t already 100% in our camp before the President uttered that famous invitation. Either way, the message it sends to fence-sitting nations is loud and clear: either you were with us 10 years ago, or we’re going to treat you as though you are against us now, so if you were thinking of moving into our elite column now, don’t bother. Nice work, guys.

  4. John Lee Says:

    Not so fast guys…just because an Arab government makes an announcement, it ain’t necessarily so…

    LittleGreenFootballs linked to this post at the IRIS Blog:

    Dubai Port Capitulation Likely Fraudulent

  5. Editor Says:

    The moonbats have gone crazy over the Halliburton suggestion….I’ve got some posts up at http://www.beltwayblitz.blogspot.com.

  6. steve sturm Says:

    Always looking at the glass as half-empty…

    Instead of looking this as a kick in the teeth that will cause fence-sitters to not bother, why not look at it as encouragement for those fence-sitters to get off the fence and come all the way over to our side if they want to get all the goodies associated with being one of our friends?

    And rejecting the deal sends a great sign to those countries who are truly on our side in the GWOT (much more so than Dubai), who have just been shown that rewards such as this are saved for our true friends, that America knows how to distinguish between those who totally buy in and those who are doing the minimum necessary (UAE, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia)?

    And XRLQ: while VA did go for Bush twice, you don’t have to go overboard in supporting him for fear that your new neighbors won’t otherwise like you.

  7. Ben Bateman Says:

    X, you’ve got it exactly right. Many conservatives have embarrassed themselves with this, because the realities of international shipping are way over their heads. It’s sad.

  8. Doc Rampage Says:

    X, Ben put his finger on it: I don’t know anything about international shipping. That’s why I would tend to trust Bush and the federal government. But Bush and the feds have proven that they can’t be trusted in this area. Am I stretching to apply my skepticism to the bureauocrats involved in this decision? I don’t know. I don’t know how or whether they are related. I do know that I can’t trust the State Dept, I can’t trust the Transportation Dept. I can’t trust Immigration, I can’t trust Homeland Security, I can’t tust the FBI, I can’t tust the CIA. All of these departments and bureaus have screwed up for apparently political and PC reasons. And I can’t trust the President.

    Not that I opposed the deal, just that I wasn’t willing to defend it. I really wish I could just say, “Hey, Bush has been trustworthy in foreign policy, so just take his word for it.” But I can’t do that.

  9. Doc Rampage Says:

    By the way, I really did want to support the ports deal. Here is proof.

    In the end, I just couldn’t get behind it. The fact it, I trust Michelle Malkin on things like this more than I trust the president. That’s pretty depressing, isn’t it?

  10. pendelton Says:

    It’s funny how combining the words “Moslem” and “Arab” turns off the brains of most Americans. Saudi Arabia has been leasing 3 or 4 ports since the 1980’s and 11 of the 19 hijackers on 9/11 were Saudi citizens. In contrast, the UAE has contributed soldiers (some of whom have been wounded and died) to the gwot in afghanistan. Yet the UAE is denied the right to lease a port. Brilliant simply brilliant. I guess no one has ever lost money betting on the American Public’s ignorance and prejudice. And certainly no one can claim that the public is wasting any brain power thinking this one through. No doubt Hawkins is right from a political point of view, but I would add that the MSM once again proves its lack of expertise and its petty partisanship in the way the critics objections were handled and the way the program was initially presented. The true loser in all this is the MSM because we know for sure that they know nothing and will contribute no insight nor perspective. If you don’t know about the facts about Ports and how the leases work, isn’t that because the MSM failed to do even a modestly poor job of informing you and giving perspective? What a fiasco for the “professional” reporters and the “knowledgeable” and “experienced” journalists.

  11. actus Says:

    “who saw an opportunity to profit by scaring the crap out of everybody.”

    Isn’t that just awful?

  12. John Lott Says:

    The most amazing thing to me about this entire so-called “debate” is that I didn’t once hear a concrete example of how the sale would endanger port security. I just wanted at least one plausible example, but absolutely none was offered. It tells you something about the debate when people are so freaked out that the opponents don’t even have to offer an example of what might happen.

Leave a Reply

CommentLuv badge

Subscribe without commenting

 

Powered by WordPress. Stock photography by Matthew J. Stinson. Design by OFJ.