Decision ‘08

More On - What Else? - Ports

The Washington Post examines one argument against the UAE port deal (that the President was negligent because he found out about the deal from the press) and finds it quite unconvincing:

Among many other things, the president’s job description requires him to keep abreast of economic and political developments around the world; respond to disasters such as Hurricane Katrina; oversee the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan; appoint people to run embassies and government departments; come up with solutions to the health care crisis, the education crisis, the energy crisis; and represent the United States at major international conferences. When he does any of these tasks poorly, the American people and their politicians are well within their rights to criticize him, as we often do, too.

On the other hand, the president’s job description does not include taking a personal interest in decisions about whether foreign companies based in countries that are America’s allies should be allowed to purchase other foreign companies that are based in countries that are America’s allies. This is particularly the case when such purchases do not have any discernible impact on American security whatsoever.

In other words, the White House’s “admission” that President Bush was unaware that Dubai Ports World, a company based in the United Arab Emirates, had purchased Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co., a company based in Britain — and thereby obtained management control of the business operations of six U.S. ports — strikes us as completely unnecessary. Why should the president know? Twelve government departments and agencies, including the departments of Treasury, State, Defense and Homeland Security, had examined the deal over a three-month period and found it acceptable. Perhaps the White House should have anticipated this week’s political storm and prepared for it. But because the objections are irrational, even that complaint is questionable.

On the other side of the coin, Rick Moran is upset about the tone of the deal’s supporters:

I don’t like waking up in the morning and discovering that I’m an “Islamaphobe” or “Un-American” for calling the Administration a bunch of rabbit heads for the way they’ve managed the unveiling of this idiocy. To tell you the truth, I resent it. It bespeaks a certain kind of intellectual laziness when the best one can do to counter an argument is to indulge in an orgy of name calling and finger pointing. Better to have the facts at one’s disposal and try and counter an opponent’s argument in a logical and rational manner.

Well, agreed…and for the record, I DID state (and do believe) that there is some racism involved in SOME of the opposition to the port deal. I certainly hope I never implied that that was the case for everyone’s opposition…there are principled arguments that can be made on both sides of the issue.

Having said that, there is a good deal of hysteria in the air, and it seems from my vantage point to mostly fly from the opponents of the deal…

2 Responses to “More On - What Else? - Ports”

1 megapotamus Says:
February 24th, 2006 at 5:36 pm
Kudos for WaPo on this one, especially in contrast to the NYT. Facts and analysis in Washington, hyperbolic and self-contradictory indictment from New York. I’m sure it isn’t easy for the eds at the Post on the cocktail party circuit. Two snaps up; in a circle!
2 Flopping Aces Says:
February 24th, 2006 at 11:26 pm
The Ports & The Hysteria

I think the most disappointing thing in this whole episode is the speed and ferocity that the right has began attacking Bush. I mean since 9-11-01 our President has unsheathed the sword and slashed at those who engage in terror and those who support it…