Dubai Ports World
Rarely do I agree with the Boston Globe, but here is today's lead editorial and, except for the two or three gratuitous shots at President Bush, I agree with the Globe. On the political spectrum, in the United States, the Boston Globe and I are pretty far apart. Yet, we basically agree on this issue. If anyone does not agree with a right-leaning taxpayer and a left-wing newspaper that agree with each other, then the person that does not agree just might be outside the mainstream (yes, an extremist).
Earlier this week, I made my first and only comments on the ports deal and my primary comment was the political tone-deafness of Sen. Hillary Clinton. A commenter asked me about my Michigan reference. Let me explain: As the students of Presidential politics know, the liberal media desperately wanted the Great Equivocator, Sen. John F. Kerry, to defeat President Bush in 2004. One of the tactics of the propagandists was to agitate the Arab-Americans such that they would support the Great Equivocator en mass (the liberals and Democrats are doing the stereotyping here, as they do with all ethnicities, races and religions; I think most Arab-Americans vote their wallets just like all other Americans). Anyway, over and over and over the polls came out of Detroit, you know, home to a "large Arab-American population", that said Kerry was going to clean up with the Arab-American vote. And, yes, the county that Detroit resides in (I'm not researching the name; forgive me; you can find it by googling "2004 presidential election" and choose the CNN reference that pops up and click your way through to Michigan) voted for the Great Equivocator by 300,000 - 400,000 votes. Kerry carried Michigan, and its 17 electoral votes, by about 150,000 votes. Conclusion by liberal extremists that wanted to think Arabs hated Bush: Arabs hate Bush. Fine, that knife cuts both ways. How is Sen. Clinton going to convince this voting bloc she's not a bigot? I can't wait to see the equivocations. The liberal media will, of course, do everything it can to assist the Senator.
Anyway, the lead editorial for the Boston Globe today:
No Port in the Storm; March 11, 2006
XENOPHOBIA -- an ugly isolationism with overtones of ethnic bias -- was the only winner this week when a white-collar American mob forced an Arab-owned company out of a deal to manage several US ports.
The Dubai-owned firm DP World, in the United Arab Emirates, was gracious in bowing to the bullying of Congress and the pleading of the Bush administration to end their pain. But the cost was heavy.
President Bush was a big loser, despite having a sensible policy. There was no reason for the administration to reject the deal under which DP World bought the management contracts for facilities in New York, Miami, and other eastern US ports from a British company. It was a small transaction in the global economy. Yet Bush and his aides should have known that demagogues would pounce on the news.
The deal should have been given a 45-day review that was more thorough and public than the one it received. Bush should have made sure that congressional leaders of both parties understood that the deal was not a major departure and would not undermine port security. But Bush did none of this, and he was bewildered when opposition erupted.
It is astounding how often bad news comes out of this administration, and how often Bush is surprised by it. On his heels from the start, Bush defended his policy but failed to rescue it, looking bad in the effort. Now, DP World's withdrawal may have stanched the bleeding, but it has left Bush weaker than ever.
Congressional Democrats also were losers for joining so gleefully in the anti-Arab fearmongering. Obviously thrilled that they were making Bush look inept on national security, the Democrats forgot to consider the global impact, or to check basic facts. Senator Hillary Clinton said, ''Our port security is too important to place in the hands of foreign governments," ignoring the facts that most US ports are now managed by foreign companies and that, under the DP World deal, security would still come from the US Coast Guard and the US Customs Service.
Congressional Republicans were instant losers when they mindlessly abandoned their president and scrambled to join the attack. Several pointed out that two of the Sept. 11, 2001, attackers had come from Dubai, but few noted that Dubai is among the strongest US allies in the Middle East, cleared by the Pentagon to receive some of the most sophisticated weaponry available.
Most troubling is the damage from the whole shameful episode to America's position in the world. If Americans distrust all Arabs, they will have little reason to return that trust. Bush warned against isolationism earlier this year, but has shown himself incapable of fighting it. (End of editorial.)
On Sunday, March 5, I wrote, " . . . the UAE ports thing is a big snooze for me. I don't write a blog for today's headlines or even tomorrow's. I can see further than the next news cycle. The tone deafness on the UAE port issue will come home to roost in the spring of 2008 when Hillary Clinton, the xenaphobic bigot, gets trounced in the Michigan Democratic primary by someone less bigoted. Trust me, I will be cutting and pasting this call into a post two years from now . . . well, provided I'm not a syndicated columnist for the Wall Street Journal." I'm ZACKlyRight . . . and first . . . again.
Rarely do I agree with the Boston Globe, but here is today's lead editorial and, except for the two or three gratuitous shots at President Bush, I agree with the Globe. On the political spectrum, in the United States, the Boston Globe and I are pretty far apart. Yet, we basically agree on this issue. If anyone does not agree with a right-leaning taxpayer and a left-wing newspaper that agree with each other, then the person that does not agree just might be outside the mainstream (yes, an extremist).
Earlier this week, I made my first and only comments on the ports deal and my primary comment was the political tone-deafness of Sen. Hillary Clinton. A commenter asked me about my Michigan reference. Let me explain: As the students of Presidential politics know, the liberal media desperately wanted the Great Equivocator, Sen. John F. Kerry, to defeat President Bush in 2004. One of the tactics of the propagandists was to agitate the Arab-Americans such that they would support the Great Equivocator en mass (the liberals and Democrats are doing the stereotyping here, as they do with all ethnicities, races and religions; I think most Arab-Americans vote their wallets just like all other Americans). Anyway, over and over and over the polls came out of Detroit, you know, home to a "large Arab-American population", that said Kerry was going to clean up with the Arab-American vote. And, yes, the county that Detroit resides in (I'm not researching the name; forgive me; you can find it by googling "2004 presidential election" and choose the CNN reference that pops up and click your way through to Michigan) voted for the Great Equivocator by 300,000 - 400,000 votes. Kerry carried Michigan, and its 17 electoral votes, by about 150,000 votes. Conclusion by liberal extremists that wanted to think Arabs hated Bush: Arabs hate Bush. Fine, that knife cuts both ways. How is Sen. Clinton going to convince this voting bloc she's not a bigot? I can't wait to see the equivocations. The liberal media will, of course, do everything it can to assist the Senator.
Anyway, the lead editorial for the Boston Globe today:
No Port in the Storm; March 11, 2006
XENOPHOBIA -- an ugly isolationism with overtones of ethnic bias -- was the only winner this week when a white-collar American mob forced an Arab-owned company out of a deal to manage several US ports.
The Dubai-owned firm DP World, in the United Arab Emirates, was gracious in bowing to the bullying of Congress and the pleading of the Bush administration to end their pain. But the cost was heavy.
President Bush was a big loser, despite having a sensible policy. There was no reason for the administration to reject the deal under which DP World bought the management contracts for facilities in New York, Miami, and other eastern US ports from a British company. It was a small transaction in the global economy. Yet Bush and his aides should have known that demagogues would pounce on the news.
The deal should have been given a 45-day review that was more thorough and public than the one it received. Bush should have made sure that congressional leaders of both parties understood that the deal was not a major departure and would not undermine port security. But Bush did none of this, and he was bewildered when opposition erupted.
It is astounding how often bad news comes out of this administration, and how often Bush is surprised by it. On his heels from the start, Bush defended his policy but failed to rescue it, looking bad in the effort. Now, DP World's withdrawal may have stanched the bleeding, but it has left Bush weaker than ever.
Congressional Democrats also were losers for joining so gleefully in the anti-Arab fearmongering. Obviously thrilled that they were making Bush look inept on national security, the Democrats forgot to consider the global impact, or to check basic facts. Senator Hillary Clinton said, ''Our port security is too important to place in the hands of foreign governments," ignoring the facts that most US ports are now managed by foreign companies and that, under the DP World deal, security would still come from the US Coast Guard and the US Customs Service.
Congressional Republicans were instant losers when they mindlessly abandoned their president and scrambled to join the attack. Several pointed out that two of the Sept. 11, 2001, attackers had come from Dubai, but few noted that Dubai is among the strongest US allies in the Middle East, cleared by the Pentagon to receive some of the most sophisticated weaponry available.
Most troubling is the damage from the whole shameful episode to America's position in the world. If Americans distrust all Arabs, they will have little reason to return that trust. Bush warned against isolationism earlier this year, but has shown himself incapable of fighting it. (End of editorial.)
On Sunday, March 5, I wrote, " . . . the UAE ports thing is a big snooze for me. I don't write a blog for today's headlines or even tomorrow's. I can see further than the next news cycle. The tone deafness on the UAE port issue will come home to roost in the spring of 2008 when Hillary Clinton, the xenaphobic bigot, gets trounced in the Michigan Democratic primary by someone less bigoted. Trust me, I will be cutting and pasting this call into a post two years from now . . . well, provided I'm not a syndicated columnist for the Wall Street Journal." I'm ZACKlyRight . . . and first . . . again.
posted by Zack at 7:45 AM
3 Comments:
bingo!
Another good post, but I think I miss Catalyst.
This one was really good!
Post a Comment
<< Home