The UAE/US ports issue is causing an enormous disturbance in the force. President Bush has doubled down, and still is threatening to use his first veto if Congress passes legislation to block this deal — a deal that he was made aware of only days ago! As one who has trusted GW ever since his taking office, I am really at a loss for words here, so let me give you some opinions from heavy hitters in the Blogosphere that are currently tearing up this debate.

Michelle Malkin has a comprehensive collection of negative reactions, and has this to say about the Wall Street Journal’s positive slant on the deal:

First, the deal will outsource port operations not just to any “foreign-based company”–but to a state-owned entity based in a known transit point for al Qaeda operatives and a key transfer point for shipments of smuggled nuclear components sent to Iran, North Korea and Libya. Second, of course, there’s no such thing as a perfect defense. Should we never subject any Mideast companies or individuals to heightened scrutiny because it would offer “no security guarantees?”

Can the Journal editorial board be that dense? Well, this is the open-borders editorial board that routinely misstates immigration law, resorts to pathetic ad hominem attacks on immigration enforcement advocates, and believes that since we can’t deport all illegal aliens in the country, we shouldn’t deport any and just amnestize them all instead.

And that’s almost mild compared to her take on the rest of it.

Jim Geraghty, writing at TKS on NRO, is backing down from his own recent heated rhetoric and encourages others to take a deep breath, look at the facts, and open up a little to the possibility that GW has not suddenly lost his mind, as many bloggers have wondered.

Look, I know I’ve been beating the drum on a “tipping point” on Islam’s reputation lately; we’re seeing the fallout here. It’s perfectly legitimate to question or object to this deal because you have doubts about the UAE, or because you don’t like foreign management of U.S. ports, or because you don’t think the administration reviewed it properly. But I keep hearing, “I don’t want Muslims/Arabs running this.”

It’s a free country, and you’re free to come to that conclusion. But if your objection to Dubai Ports Authority is A) the religion of the owners or B) the ethnicity of the owners, you cannot and should not be shocked that even staunch conservatives are saying “Hey, this is Islamophobia or anti-Arab discrimination.”

And I hate to pull a Cheney and put some birdshot into somebody on my own side, but when someone purportedly of the same ideological ilk suggests that the proper response to this deal is a revolution against the government, it’s time to let off the rhetorical safety and let fly. Ladies and gentlemen, La Shawn Barber!

Perhaps more dangerous than our open borders is the United Arab Emirates, rumored to have connections with Al Qaeda, controlling six U.S. ports. Isn’t there something in the Declaration of Independence or other document about creating a new government when the old one isn’t working anymore?

Yeah, La Shawn, let’s throw some tea into Boston Harbor and start over! Yeah! Violent revolution, baby! Let’s make Sue Myrick’s arguments look well-informed, detailed, comprehensive, rational and compelling!

In an earlier post, Jim declares, “My fellow bloggers… we’ve been snookered.”

But whether Michelle Malkin and those that strongly agree with her or those of lesser objections such as Geraghty see a cooling off of this discussion, Lileks puts it best for me in this post at his Screedblog.

Because it feels immediately, instinctively wrong to nearly every American, and that isn’t something that can be argued away with charts or glossy brochures. It just doesn’t sit well. Period. It’s one thing for an Administration to misjudge how a particular decision will be received; it’s another entirely to misjudge an issue that cuts to the core of the Administration’s core strength. That’s where you slap yourself on the forehead in the style of those lamenting the failure to request a V-8 in a timely fashion. Doesn’t matter whether it was a deal struck between the previous administrators and the UAE; that’s not how the issue will be seen. And it certainly doesn’t matter once the President gets all stern on the topic and insists he’ll veto any attempt to keep the deal from going through. At that point, millions of previously resolute supporters stand there with their mouths open, uttering a soft confused moan of disbelief.

I’m definitely moaning — and still disbelieving . . . (db)

Technorati Tags: UAE, U.S. port sale, Bush Administration, Michelle Malkin, Jim Geraghty, NRO, James Lileks

This entry was posted on Thursday, February 23rd, 2006 at 1:09 pm and is filed under G.W.O.T., When Right is Wrong. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.  |   Print This Post  |   Email This Post

Recently Posted:

• Two More Pro-Global-Warming Scientists Become Sceptics — Is Hell Freezing Over Yet?
• Merry Christmas Y’All — 2011!
• Pearl Harbor Day — the USS Oklahoma — a Post Redux “x” Five
• More Climategate 2.0 Shenanigans . . . What Else Would We Expect?
• Concrete, Sustainability & The EPA — A Nasty, Expensive Mix — Oh, Ya Betcha!
• Climategate 2.0 Emails – Real & Spectacular?
• Chemtrail Of The Day
• Giving Thanks to Our Veterans On This Special Day
• Victor Davis Hanson On The Upcoming Presidential Election
• SEIU Siphons ‘Dues’ From Michigan Medicaid Payments