Redstate

As you say, it's very hard to assess the ramificaitons of a non event, Leon, but this could wind up shaping policy in the region in ways we'll never know--I mean, we wouldn't know that the UAE decided not to host an aircraft carrier at port, or to allow training at an airfield, but such decisions would affect how we deploy in the Gulf.  I do think that if the congresspeople in question had tried to explain this to their consituents they would have understood, but they pandered to the knee-jerk response from day one.

Oh well--if this is the way they were going to behave then 'tis better done quickly, I suppose.

The Republican caucus in Congress is run by followers of polls, not leaders of men.

I'd be jumping for joy right now.  Rightly or wrongly, Dubai was and is an absolute cudgel for the Dems to clobber you with politically.  The sooner this story fades, the better.

From your point of view.  As for me, I'm mourning the end of an issue that let Dems get to the right of Reps on National Security for once.  Thanks for the memories, Dubai.

That republicans followed a wise course of action. This is not an issue to have a fight on.

for their hasty action?

Time will tell.

I'm thinking it far more likely that the American people will be made to pay in some way.

-TS

I was one of those who was open to the possibility that Rep. Boehner was a Shadegg-lite, but now I know better.

We are blessed with and adult President, who is willing to see the world as it is and try to make the best of it. We are cursed with Republican legislators who have no capacity to lead. They do not try to shape public opinion in a positive way, they only respond to the political winds. When the opposition hoodwinks the public, they go along with the gag. Unfortunately we also have some otherwise reasonable political pundits that are willing to go along with the "Know Nothings" like Patrick Buchanan

This is only about our credibility with the world as an honest place for foreigners to do business in.

If that's not something worth fighting over, then no economic issue is worth fighting over.

do you really think Shadegg would have held the line on this deal?  That is, tried to keep the R caucus from sinking it?

it can also be said this non-event seemed doomed from the start to remain a non-event.

While my hair still smolders from what I POSTED here earlier, politics not priorities have once again taken the day.

And as AcademicElephant also said HERE today there never really WAS a plan to seriously review the deal.  

The plan was to politicize and dramatize and pre-'06- election advertise for political positioning and advantage gaining.

I actually HOPE this "entity" is Haliburton...let THEIR hair catch on fire for a change.

I hope so.  If Shadegg was just going to govern by polls, then the Majority Leader election was just like one of those elections on Futurama:

John Jackson: Your ten-cent titanium tax goes too far!

Jack Johnson: Well, your ten-cent titanium tax doesn't go too far enough!

In addition to Neil's point, it's also an issue of offending a "vital" and "critical" military ally.  Do we have so many of these in the Gulf that we shouldn't bother to fight over it?

I think there were good arguments from both sides here but pragmatism won. I think we all know that free countries can still easily do business in America.

The blame for this can be spread around a bit, but I would tend to agree that the bulk of it can be heaped in the laps of our elected officials. This was one of those rare issues where I thought Bush was talking sense and doing the "nuance" thing well from a policy standpoint, but he handled it with the usual tin ear and stubborn petulance I've come to expect from him when he sets his mind on an outcome and meets resistance to it.

Ultimately, this issue boils down to one of attention span. The willingness of politicians to reduce complex issues to manageable sound bites, the contemporary success of the GOP in employing this to good political effect, and the unwillingness of most Americans to insist on better has come around to bite us all in the arse on this one. Were there legitimate grounds for reasonable people to be concerned about the ports deal? Sure. Was it a grave risk to national security? Probably not. Was there much Bush could personally do about it? Not really.

None of that mattered, because Democrats and Republicans alike were able to reduce the opposition platform to snack-sized, emotionally satisfying sloganeering that played to all the themes the Republican party has been so successful riding to victory these recent years, and those stuck defending it had to do so by getting into the details to demonstrate why no, this really isn't a big deal.

The American people are hardly sheep, and I'd like to see a level of discourse in the country that treats us all like the adults we are, people capable of weighing the nuances of complex issues. Unfortunately, the opposition for this was able to play the national security fear card, and it worked.

Hopefully we'll do better next time.

would that make Roy Blunt Robo-Nixon?

I think this was written before the transfer was agreed to, but it's ominous nonetheless:

http://thehill.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/Frontpage/030906/news1.html

a close look at AcademicElephant's link would indicate you are half right:

I think we all know that free countries can still easily do business in America.

Maybe they CAN easily do business...but what reasons do we give them to feel they SHOULD do business here?

I haven't seen the exit polls, but I'm pretty sure he won the Rovebot vote in the primary this week.

I wonder what those weak-kneed and hysterical Republican congressmen will say if the UAE should ever decide to retaliate and tell our naval ships and our aircraft to get off their naval and air bases. Given the stakes with Iran over their nukes right now and the closeness of those bases to Iran, this was not a real smart move. If we are denied the use of those bases, these poll-driven Republicans will rue the day come November.

consequence of the congress interferring in an open market trade is that the P&O will now have to sell to an American company at a considerable loss in value.  If this is the result of our congress's action, what else will drop in value?  The other foreign entity owned ports?  How about foreign entity owned defense contractors?  When will the mood change and allow free trade to re-enter the picture?  

I see this behavior as a knee jerk - wrong data action driven by the media and the public's admitted nervousness about Muslims.  I believe Muslims will indeed take it this way.  The net result may well be a number of commercial deals that in the end will lower our standard of living and maybe precipitate the next bear market.  I watch, and hold more investments in cash to see what will occur.

Regardless of what side most of the posters on this forum fell along, for the most part I'm proud to say that Redstaters treated this as a serious issue because of its potential ramifications for our nation and our alliances.

Your post on the other hand serves as a useful demonstration of the utter lack of seriousness that has come to typify a Democratic party that cares little for national security issues except as a political football for the next election regardless of what impact it has on the country.

Thank you for the reminder.

...could not express how disappointed and utterly ashamed I am at the way my country has acted in this matter.

Acting on emotion, a lack of information, and driven by polls our so-called leaders in congress, on both sides, have done a HUGE disservice to us all.

We have (perhaps) further eroded an imperative relationship with an ally and once again damaged our credibility in the region.

Make no mistake about it! The Middle East and the Muslim World were watching and paying very close attention to how we as a nation were going to handle this deal. We failed miserably!

The ramifications of this could be extremely harmful to furthering the GWOT and to US companies economically in the future. Boeing could take a hit. Our military could potentially be persona non grata in UAE run ports, and most importantly the "on the ground human intelligence" the UAE has provided in the past could dry up and wither away faster than you can say Overreaction or Election day!  

Most people will see this as a victory, look we blocked the deal, forget about it next week, and move on with their lives. Unwilling or too narrow minded to have taken in, processed, and seen the big picture.

Our ports are no safer today because of this! Just today there was a report of truck drivers working in the port of NJ not being fully vetted and cargo not being fully screened. BTW the cargo was a shipment of rugs from Iran!  Feeling safer?

I've long held the theory that 95% of people are uniformed gullible sheep and this deal confirmed my suspicions only the number my be closer to 80%

Hysteria, inaccurate and sometimes totally false reporting, and fear have ruled the day. Let's hope the Emirates don't follow our example!      

I'm disgusted with the way that certain pundits (Michelle Malkin, Ann Coulter, and Frank Gaffney in particular) have succeeded in crapping on a reliable ally.  I'm disgusted with the way that Republicans in Congress would not take the time to review the facts about the UAE.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad probably owes Malkin and the other fear-mongers a big debt of gratitude.

This is twice in the same week we've agreed (although I don't find this to be a golf clubs issue), but perhaps it's worth taking the time to consider that politicians usually don't act in this manner in the absence of some driving force.

I'm just saying.

This whole thing was a disgrace.  If I were the movers and shakers in Dubai (thankgoodness I am not) I'd start telling every American company to start packing their bags, and I'd start calling my chinese interpreters!

Its not that bad, get over it.

Shadegg was against the deal.

I ran into this idea before, and

I ran through a few options for who might be attempting to shape American feelings, but

I ran out of ideas.

Who do you think it might be?  North Korea?

    Its not that big a deal. OH! and BTW, if UAE is such a great ally, they will continue to be one because it is in their own best interest. I say this whole thing pointed out three facts.

fact 1) our port security sucks

fact 2) maybe we should look twice at all foreign ownership or management of strategic assets

fact 3) Beltway Republicans better understand that calling your base a bunch of ignorant racists is not going to get you anything except in hot water.

  Some of you on Red State haven't learned that lesson yet.

I was only suggesting that the driving force behind the Critters was the public.

"S@#$w you guys--I'm going home."

The difference in this case being, of course, that DP World was justified in so reacting.

This is really not a good headline as Iran heats up:

http://news.ft.com/cms/s/aaf675ba-afb6-11da-b417-0000779e2340.html

The public was horrified and disgusted by those show protests, complete with premade signs handily written in English for the American viewing public.

was probably the fact that a great many American citizens were against it.

Never get between a politician and his re-election.  You'll get steamrolled, no matter what side you're on.

Personally, I opposed it, as do I oppose foreign government ownership of the operation of any significant piece of American economic infrastructure, be it port, airport, railroad, toll highway, bridge, road, street, bus terminal, taxi stand, bus stop, pedestrian walkway, bike trail, jogging path, animal trail, forest meadow, or any 3x3 concrete square paving any part of American soil.

There is a fundamental conflict of interest involved in that ownership or control over operation that threatens our national security.  No foreign government should have any kind of controlling force over any part of our internal domestic infrastructure.

Period.

I'm assuming the 8 is in reference to your age not your IQ. You obviously have about as much understanding of the issues involved as the 80% ignorant, MSM following fools that chicken littled on this deal.

water and hand towels for out brave, moral congressfools.

 A number of comments seem to raise the spectre of UAE suddenly deciding that they will react like children, pick up their toys, kick us out of their treehouse, and pack it in as far as being one of our valuable partners in the GWOT. Yours is only the most convenient one to repond to so I'm not singling you out.

 1. If UAE suddenly kicks us to the curb over what amounts to a failed business transaction - which occur frequently and even sometimes because of government interference - then perhaps they are not such a staunch GWOT ally as we are being led to believe.

 2. As I said, business deals fall through all the time. Business leaders pick up the pieces and move on to the next best deal - and they don't burn bridges that may be profitable in the future.

 3. UAE business interests are freely operating in the United States in other ventures such as this (UAE based Istithmar buys 2.39 percent of Time-Warner, becomes 3rd largest holder) and this (Dubai Holding buys a $1 billion stake in DaimlerChrysler). I don't see a wave of "Go home UAE" engulfing these separate activities, so it's not like we're telling the UAE to shove off across the board.

 UAE probably recognize the political situation, and may be disappointed by it, but if we generally assert that they are a worthy ally, then let's also attribute a degree of maturity and insight to their leadership that would rule out such irrational reactionary countermeasures.

The FT.com article got one thing wrong: Frank Lautenberg is not a REPUBLICAN Senator.

What else might they have gotten wrong?

What did they get right?

is never a good thing. We ahve allowed the angriest, most neurotic people in this country- Schumer and Savage- set the agenda for this country. We shall see what the price of letting angry, ignorant cynical fools lead the way soon enough. President Bush has been ill-served by the majority he built and preserved. The nation has been put at risk in the Persian Gulf at precisely the time we need a strong, firm alliance with the UAE against Iran.

The biggest winner in this debacle has been Iran.

The mad mullahs are thanking Charles Schumer and Michael Savage and the rest of the reactionaries right now.

Just needed to vent.

I think most likely the UAE will treat this like any other business transaction that went south.

At least I hope so.

and hold that attitude. Next time the Beltway collides with flyover country it will kick you in the ass again. Or, you could swallow your pride and learn from your mistake.

I posted this on another thread, but it fits here:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,187307,00.html

Dubai Ports World statement:

"Because of the strong relationship between the United Arab Emirates and the United States and to preserve that relationship, DP World has decided to transfer fully the U.S. operation of P&O Operations North America to a United States entity," DP World's chief operating officer, Edward H. Bilkey, said in a statement, read on the Senate floor by Sen. John Warner, R-Va.

The company said its decision was "based on an understanding that DP World will have time to affect the transfer in an orderly fashion and that DP World will not suffer economic loss."

Since Congress (both parties) seems to have scared DP World out of acquiring rights to manage American ports, who will pay for the "understanding that...DP World will not suffer economic loss"? The American company which buys the right to operate those terminals, or the U.S. taxpayer?

This might be the best resolution possible for the UAE / Congress / President dispute over the ports deal. Republican members of Congress can cover their butts by saying that they "defended" the ports against the United "Arab" Emirates, President Bush may appear "defeated" at home, but he's not up for re-election, but he gets to save face by offering the American port contracts of P&O up for competitive bidding.

If Halliburton wins, Bush and Cheney will smell like roses, by simply saying that THEY approved the sale to someone else, but CONGRESS objected! Does any American company besides Halliburton do ports?

Hopefully, President Bush (or Secretary Rice) will be able to smooth over ruffled feathers in the UAE by telling them that the Administration DID approve the deal, and Bush himself did his part, but an American President is not a dictator, and sometimes he must bend to the will of Congress. According to the map posted down-thread, the UAE is a good place to have military bases in a conflict against Iran...

Time to put out a request for bids.

By the way, the diary that started this thread should probably be promoted to "recommended", due to the importance of this topic.

I wonder if we had to compensate DPW for reneging on an already done deal?  How much will it cost us to equip this US entity to take over the duties.  Are we going to have to buy out every foreign operator at US ports?

Or, instead of really trying to explain and sell it the administration and some Repub pundits just accused every one who had concerns of being  isolationists, ignorant xenophobes, and anti-arab bigots.

  See what that got you.

I was on the fence regarding the port deal, but this is certain: It was a lose-lose situation all around and guess what? We lost! All of us. Even opponents should understand that there's a trade-off to this victory, in the form of a rebuffed ally. We cannot know where it will come back to bite us.

Having said that, I'm looking forward for the ports to be run by Haliburton or Bechtel, although the scoop is that the Chicoms have the inside track. ;-)

Can you get an adult to help you with the syntax?(That's what sentence structuring is called so that people can understand what you mean. Also, what is my mistake?

At least the second time I've seen that mentioned in this thread as if it were a Known Fact.

Please elaborate.

of this alliance over a failed business deal of just one of their government owned companies, then they weren't that much of an ally in the first place.

What do they ever get right?  I just think it's a very unfortunate headline--particularly in Great Britain, particularly now--and it didn't have to be.

is to attack my grammer when you can't think of a suitable response. But thats OK, you will learn one day. People just don't like being pushed around and treated like crap, they tend to push back.

homeland security allotment since by preventing DPW from operating terminals in NY harbor, we can now declare the state safe. Chuckie has achieved what Bush couldn't for NY. The state can now declare a peace dividend, cut state taxes and pack up Hillary for California where she can make that state safe by getting rid of the Chinese and NAZI allies from Austria.  Chuckie can move to Connecticut and rid the state of the Taliban infiltration.

After all that, they can move to Argentina and hunt down former NAZI's, lest they enroll at Yale

Your 3 "facts" that are really just statemnts of ignorant opinion?

other Red Staters go back in a few days and reread what you have posted. Maybe then you can see how much you haave sounded just like a bunch of whinny eliteist, liberals.

A key element in President Bush's post-9/11 foreign policy is his distiction between the peoples of the Middle-east, and the evil regimes there.

Another element has been the persuasion of regional regimes, that is it much better and more profitable to be on our side, than it is to aid the terrorists.

Whoever started those made-for-television riots did so with the intention of inflaming anti-Arab and anti-Muslim sentiments in this country.

And now that the US has taken a stand against Dubai, we have sent two new messages to the region: we hate all Arabs, and we'll shut down any Arab company doing business in America whenever we feel like it.

The next time President Bush uses a State of the Union address to speak to a people in the Middle-east, they might remember this ugly incident and not really care what he says.

The next time Secretaries Rice or Rumsfeld speak with regional officials to get some help, they mgiht remember this incident and be less cooperative.

That's why Iran won today.

Between a business deal that falls apart and one that is killed by Congress. It would be entirely reasonable for them to take offense. They can certainly shift their spending away from American businesses and become less cooperative in the GWOT.

It will be treated by any other deal that gets killed by Congress in a frenzy of xenophobic politics. We will certainly pay the price somewhere along the line. The tact we took here sure makes Russia's exclusion of any non-Russian companies from bidding on oil contracts sure look more reasonable.

They're old fashioned. They take friendship seriously and they take insults seriously.

Are we behaaaaving like sheep or whinnying like donkeys?

Savage and Schumer set the pace by lying that the deal was about US port security and selling US Ports, and then spent days shouting down anyone who dared disagree with their line.

And mentioning that Savage is xenophobic is about as controversial as declaring the sky blue.

When the Republicans in Congress jumped into the Democrats' game with both feet, without even understanding the issue. When we play the Democrats' game, we lose. Every time.

I give the President credit for doing the right thing... though his responsibilities at POTUS didn't really give him a lot of ally-bashing wiggle room. Freed of that responsibility, I know which way Rove and Card would be pushing him... I wouldn't mind seeing both of them hit the bricks.

Schumer's position- Ayrabs and Moslems are killers in filthy sheets and must not be allowed to deal with the west- is the real position of the USA. Thanks to knee jerk and uninformed people, it can now be represented that it is.

although most liberals think "syntax" is a tax on cigarettes!

set the pace and frame the debate is the worst thing we can do for this country. Everytime they do, via the carter or clinton admin, we pay a heavy price in naitonal security later.

Now we are letting clowns like Schumer strut around and pretend to be patriots. What a charade the dems are getting away with.

It's darn close to the last straw if I'm not already there.

The UAE sent troops to Afghanistan.  They donated to the victims of Katrina.  If one believes Tommy Franks, the UAE provided intelligence that greatly aided the liberation of Afghanistan (the details probably cannot be divulged, and for good reason) in 2001.  They turned over one of the planners of the attack on the USS Cole.  A look at the State Department reports on religious freedom (linked to from my piece at Strategypage) shows that their record is commendable, even if it is imperfect.

Leon, that deserved some loyalty in return.  I don't expect much from Democrats, but I thought the Republicans would at least be willing to stand up to their base when it had a "DailyKos" moment.  But outside a congressman who was retiring, they went along with the pack.  They were willing to slap an ally in the face on the basis of fear.

I hope that the UAE is forgiving enough to just limit it to retaliation on a business front, and will not do anything that would infringe upon the effort to win the war on terror.  That said, they do have a right to reassess their relationship with the United States, given what has transpired.  The potential damage done by the Republican Congress after being incited by Malkin and Gaffney to our national security is far greater than what this deal would have been.

This is far different from past disagreements with conservative orthodoxy (like the Miers nomination and immigration).  This time, the conservative movement has, though some of the same forces that have led me to part company on those issues, risked our national security by alienating an ally.  That is something I cannot forgive easily.  I probably won't decide to sit out the 2006 elections until the Democratic nominee is undetermined - if it is James Webb, I'll be voting AGAINST him because he opposed taking out Saddam's regime.

There are times where politicians need to stand up to the "driving force" - and this was one of them.  Instead, the Republicans licked their fingers, stuck them int he air, and followed, rather than lead.  In doing so, they caused greater risk to national security than this port deal could have.  Should I reward that with my vote and my support?

You once wondered if I had principles I would not compromise.  Well, I hope this post will answer that question.  If the Republicans can show some backbone against fear-mongers like Malkin and Gaffney, who I believe pre-judged the UAE ethnic and relgious grounds rather than nearly four and a half years of steadfast support in the war on terror, I will come back.  But not until then.

If we're friends and you come over to my house how times can I insult you before you stop coming over? And if you stop coming over due to the insults, is it your problem? Does that mean you weren't really a good friend anyway?

This was personal. We killed the deal because they are Muslim or Arabs... take your pick. We did it in the most humiliating way possible. Now they are supposed to write that big check for all those Boeing aircraft when they can go across the street and pick up Airbus aircraft for about the same price? Is this supposed to make them more eager to cooperate on the GWOT when it opens them up to attacks at home?

we had on September 10, 2001. And that harbored Atta and the US banks he used, and taught Moussawi to fly and raised up Johnny Walker Lindh and Jimmy Carter and other traitors, like Hamdi and Padilla, and formed al qaida cells in Lackawanna and Detroit and Oregon and democrat congressmen that fillibuster to keep us from drilling for our own oil, and who provide Saddams defense lawyers with their talking points and who regularly give hope to the jihadists and deadender baathists in Iraq to keep on killing Americans and the universities that educate the taliban.

Thank God for Chuckie and Hillary and Peter King. NY is now declared safe and we have a peace dividend since the state will no longer need homeland security funds. Now lets get those Austrian infiltrators in California. Austria was an ally of Hitler before 12-7.

This time, the conservative movement has, though some of the same forces that have led me to part company on those issues, risked our national security by alienating an ally.

I would not pin this on conservatives. I don't think this issue broke along liberal/moderate/conservative lines at all. I'm not sure how it broke down... it had to result in the oddest collection of allies of all times... on both sides of the issue.

As bad as the Republicans performed on this issue... the Democrats were much worse. The Republicans were playing defensive politics with the GWOT. The Democrats were using the issue as a sword, salivating at the opportunity to cause some damage, no matter what the cost. That is reason enough to not take the ball and go home.

I have good friends with whom I have deep philosophical differences. We are still friends, because we have other interests in common.

Do we completely agree with the UAE? No of course not, We don't completely agree with Great Britain either, but we still love them!

The UAE, despite it's pre-911 attitude has been one of our closest allies in the GWOT!  IS this how to treat a friend?

I think not!

Knock it off, and you kids play nice.

I'm substantively in agreement with you here, so you get no argument from me on the legitimacy of your argument. And, if this is your rubicon, then it is.

Regards.

could also have opened up the pandora's box of the potential potency of an ugly type of populist nativist, protectionist isolationism that could really hurt this country across the board?

I have not been this ashamed of my country since the 90s. Dont get me wrong, the bushlied dems are a great embarrassment, but they dont speak for the nation in foreign policy.

But today, congress!!! the GOP congress conducted foreign policy and shamed us.

Also, I am for border security to regulate the # of alien workers for economic  and to keep terrorists out and also for enforcing trade agreements and profiling

but this had nothing to do with security. It was pure demagogery by most and it was ugly.

Certainly food for thought...

Since the Dubai ports deal was supposedly in the works back in November, and the CFIUS committee had been reviewing the deal for 45 days prior to it hitting the press, someone in the Administration (preferably with good ties to Congress) should have at least alerted the Republican leadership of the pending deal, and informed them of ALL the consequences (not just the perceived port-security consequences, but also the international-relations and military consequences) before this thing hit the press. Then the Republican leaders could inform their caucus, and prepare good arguments to use against Democrat demagoguery.

As it was, everyone in Congress was taken by surprise, and Dems jumped all over this to say that "Bush doesn't protect our ports by letting Arabs run them", and Republicans went scrambling for cover.

There may be valid reasons why President Bush approved the deal, but his big mistake was not explaining this to his allies in Congress before they were blindsided by the press. Even though Bush himself no longer needs votes, he needs a GOP majority to get his agenda enacted, and they need votes, so Bush needs to keep them in the loop.

You want the President to spend his time going over all the hundreds of thousands of contracts that the government has? You think Congress should be appraised of all of them?

The Republican House folded like a cheap tent.  Nothing was sold.  Some terminal leases were changed.  Eighty percent (80%) of all US terminal facilities are held and managed by foreign companies, generally shipping companies.  Will we now tell Singapore, Holland, Venezuela, China et ux to give up their terminal leases?  Out of 100 terminals in 15 major US ports the largest American holding is seven terminals.  The next largest American holding is for one terminal.

There is no honor or diplomacy in this embarassing action.

this wasn't just one of "the hundreds of thousands of contracts"...

You have to admit, someone should have noticed that this one was, well, HOT!

I give the President credit for doing the right thing,

Politcally speaking, I don't. Even if he couldn't bash an ally, he could have been a little more circumspect on how he went about supporting it, considering the public outcry. As Leon's tag line puts it "If you board the wrong train, it is no use running along the corridor in the other direction". To try and stop the train is suicide. There are many ways he could have handled this situation, there's no reason he had to pick the worst one.

In retrospect, sure, but not before the Democrats invented this issue with the help of the MSM. I do not want the administration to spend countless thousands of hours trying to play political damage control before there is any damage to control. They got more important things to do.

who just lost their largest customer to AirBus.  The ramifications of this will be huge.  Why Boeing wants to relocate to Hastert's district to do international business is beyond me.

Losing our strongest ally in the region on the verge of an inevitable conflict with Iran isn't the brightest move on the GOP's part.

They'll get what they asked for, I don't want to hear them whine or bitch about it.

Politics courses through every proposal, every business deal, and every aspect of every facet of national security policy.  Both sides have tried to politicize national security- don't get all high minded on me now that we've stumbled across an issue that works for the Dems for once.

2004 was all about the politicizing of national security.  That's all this is.  The rumpled feelings of a few UAE shipping magnates is not going to outweigh a political gold mine- and don't pretend that if the shoe were on the other foot (Dem president), we wouldn't be seeing the same thing coming from the conservative blogosphere.

I lay the blame mostly on Andrew Card's desk. This deal would have been a complete non-event if it had been handled in a professional manner by a professional staff. Bush was blindsided by the whole controversy and responded accordingly. The people that need to answer some questions are the people who are supposed to be doing the daily background work on such issues.

But the national security effects are what have me angry enough to possibly sit out 2006.

2004 was all about the politicizing of national security

NO Dumpkopf 2004 was ALL ABOUT national security!

That's why you lost! You didn't get it then, you don't get it now!

Of why we can't let a Democrat take the WH in 2008. It is that kind of thinking that will get us all killed.

at least spell the insult right.  Especially when the insult is related to my intelligence, or lack thereof.

It's just another act on the GOP's part, made out of cowardice, that will only show up to bite them later.  Yes, the polls may like them for this act now, but those memories will fade when the chickens come home to roost in the unemployment numbers 9 months from now.  Sort of the same way social spending has come back to bite them with the deficit.

If you work for Boeing, send me your resume and don't vote Republican this year.

This was headed in a bad direction for the Republicans, due mostly to a lack of information by the public. The best way out was to slam the door in the dems face, which is what happened.

My guess is the UAE will be fine, there will be ways to fix the problem. We do pay the UAE for port service of our warships you known.

All in all it was only a half billion or so of the total deal, easy to make up.

If they want a quick fix, a wholy owned US subsidary would work. Easy to set up, easy to run. Just send the profits to the UAE.

it won't happen again!

And quit doing business with people that screw them.

which is why all you see is the political opportunity of the moment, and not the long term ramifications to peace and economic growth around the world (a.k.a. hope).

You are correct, from you selfish self interest politcal power view point, the end is bad for you and your pathetic leader, Howard Dean.  But that's all you people see and I thank God I'm not one of you.

as you say, if you're a Leninist!  But some of us treat business and life in general in a non-political sense.  I know Howard Dean-moonbat-Dems don't understand that.

This is only about the so-called "war" on so-called "terror." If it was about something important like same sex marriage or the constitutional right to kill the unborn on demand, they wouldn't be playing politics with it.

Do you engage in the international business that drives this economy?  Have you done business in the Middle East?  Do you ever work with the movers and shakers that make the global economy turn or are the "issues to fight on" limited to the ones you debate with our dope smoking dorm buddies or beltway law firm pals?

I won't admit that it was hot. It's the sale of one foreign owned business entity to another foregin owned business entity, one of the assets of which is 6 or 7 leaseholds on cargo terminal facilities at US ports.

It is not significantly different than British Airways selling their leashold on a passenger terminal at JFK to Emirates Airways so they can move to another terminal. It's a nothing.

Saudia flys into JFK and Dulles. In order to do so they have to be informed of the security requirements for passengers, crew and cargo to enter the United States. This no more puts them in control of "airport security" than DPW would be in control of "seaport security" at Baltimore.

We should all consider it a honor to have lived through this experience. It is sort of a 21st Century Piltdown Man or Roswell Incident.

Simply. Unadulterated. Stupidity.

Tell that to the crew at Boeing that's going to lose their largest customer.  Tell them they need to shorten their attention span and put their careers at Boeing behind them.  Or are you another one of these "Republicans" that has spent their entire career in the beltway and/or in a law firm?

That was probably the most difficult thing for store owners in my hometown to deal with. If you didn't provide good service, people didn't complain to you, they just stopped coming and told their friends why.

then read it again.  Your rant is inappropriate!

This deal proves men of honor can come to reasonable dipolatic agreements and will ensure peace in our time.

Buckeye-

1. Howard Dean is a moron.  
   
   
2. Yes, the use of the Dubai deal as a political tool is leading to long term ramifications against "hope."  Unicorns and rainbows, too.

Zuiko-

1. Please don't tell me that abortion and same-sex marriage are not political footballs.
   
   
2. Not that you care, but I'm undecided on abortion.

Whether it's Schumer or Savage, Hillary or Coulter, one thing they all have in common is they do not directly engage in the international trade that has advanced world peace, human freedom and our cause, the cause of Reagan, around the world.  

Rather, they peddle in poltical opinion, not that there is anything wrong in that, per se.  It simply means they are detached from the realities of international commerce and what it does for global stability and the cause of freedom.  Their opinions in these matters are not credible.

Hey, that has a nice ring to it. Thanks Nev!

As bad as the Republicans performed on this issue... the Democrats were much worse.

Yes, but we expect that kind of behavior from dems/libs.

I over reacted to the first sentence of the second paragraph.  I'm just fed up with this being dismissed as something that does not have the potential to have serious consequences, something we can pretend will go away and not come back to haunt us in economic and national security ways.

I'm hoping that under the radar, behind closed doors, we've agreed to sell the UAE a whole bunch of F-16's or Aegis cruisers or some such thing to make up for the embarassment that the U.S. Congress caused us and them.

-TS

where the some reliable newspapers reported that the law congress passed enabling the commission which approved the deal prohibits the President from knowing about the deal until after it is approved?

On an issue of such moral consequence.  No, that can't be?

I keep forgetting to put in the sarcasm markers.

and I think you'd agree, is that the MSM turns everything into soundbites, which makes it hard for any substantive debate to take place. By the time you try to actually MAKE a point, the typical American has already changed the channel to see what's happening on American Idol!

1. I don't think you're a troll.

Please don't tell me that abortion and same-sex marriage are not political footballs.

2. I want to tell you that those are both very legitimate issues for some people. One of them, in particular, is one that keeps the person you're talking to right now awake at night sometimes.

That is what's frustrating about all of this.  Katrina, NSA INTERNATIONAL (not domestic, unless every international airport in this country needs renamed and AT&T was misbilling the calls) Spying, Cheney's hunting accident and this issue are all reduced to media sound bites.

The media no longer has a monopoly, but it seems they could spend the next 10 days reporting the moon is made of cheese and in 12 days they'd have a poll showing 55% of the country believes the moon is made of cheese.  Meanwhile, the Iranians are developing nukes and Congress is shafting one of our best allies in the region.

At this rate, the media is going to lead us all over a cliff!

Regards.

What would be even better would be a company set up as a joint venture between Halliburton and Wal-Mart!

1. Thank you.  I appreciate it.
   
   
2. When I said they were political footballs, I didn't mean they weren't important-hugely important, really, to some people.  They are to me as well, although I wish I kne