Bloodless Coup

I can see defending Bush on this on the basic merits of the business at stake. It might not make a lot of difference who the corporate owners are, and surely improving port security in general is a much graver concern than the corporate ownership of who's administering port operations. And sure, it's important at times like this to be fostering ties with the Arab world, not coming across as simple-minded xenophobes. Doing so in this context does hurt us, sure.

BUT: We I'll (possibly) cross you on 3 things.

1) Even presuming Bush is right on the merits - he's done a horribly weak job of making that case. I know he's used to not saying more than "trust me" and just expecting everyone to follow him. But someone at 1600 needs to have the guts to tell him that the people don't trust him anymore and he might actually have to spend some energy learning details and giving a more full and responsible explanation for his decision here. He's done himself no favors by getting it in his head that being president means you don't have to explain yourself. And his aides fostering that monarchical tendency has been a big problem - and it's no wonder it's now biting him on the ass.

2) The UAE might be playing nicer, and be more "moderate" than our bestest buddies the Saudis - but it wasn't too long about they were serving in the role of the Taliban's bankers, and they still have lots of warm fuzzy laws like the execution of homosexuals on their books. Should we foster ties with those we can work with - sure. But I have yet to see the White House make much of an argument for why we should judge the UAE that way. Can it be done - maybe. But I'd like to actually see it done.

3) While I get where you are coming from, I'm surprised you can blame the Democrats for pursuing this. It's a political slam-dunk of astonishing proportions (link the White House to big oil, Arab allies, who are tied to the Taliban and home to some of the 9/11 hijackers ...). And when you work in the inside Washington lazy oversight and scratch-your-back economic ties and revolving doors to post-9/11 fears - it was an act of astonishing stupidity (well, "astonishing" in a different presidency) that the Dems were offered this big a political opportunity. Is there a bit of ugliness to the way they've used it - sure. But I don't think all the fears they raised were unwarranted, and it's entirely predictable they'd highlight this.

Baltar,
I'm completely with you on this, one hundred percent. In fact, I took the opportunity to post my first myspace political blog on the subject. I'm not voting for anybody who was part of this, and I was glad to see Lieberman standing by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs when he said the same thing Bush did.

Bro,
Can't we all just get along? Regarding your first point, this assumes that Bush would have foreseen this to be a big political fight rather than the average, everyday port sale. So are you saying that Bush made a big mistake in assuming those in the Senate and Congress were not a bunch of gutless, corrupt, cut throat, or simply racist types who would take this opportunity to show their true colors? I'm not arguing this whether or not the ones opposing this deal are those things, only whether or not it is fitting for a President to make that assumption regarding senators and representatives of his as well as the opposing party, and how that assumption would set him up for failure. Also, Bush may well have intended to speak out more formally on this issue during the 45 days set aside for consideration, but the UAE responded to Congress jumping the gun after about 12 days and attaching the ammendment to the spending bill, showing to all those who doubted that they had no interest in the consideration they claimed was necessary.
On your second point, I agree that the UAE retains some backwards policies, but what is the precedent here? Do we not do business with countries that have backwards policies? We'd have to stop doing business with ourselves if that were the case. Are we going to stop doing business with the Swiss because in the past they did banking for organized crime? The White House was likely intending to make the case for the UAE, but they thought they had 45 days.
And I find it hard to stomach your last point. You criticize Bush for being Machiavellian, but you suggest Democrats should be completely hypocritical on the issue of racial prejudice so that they can score political points with the reactionary racist voters? Neither Democrats nor Republicans have criticized this with the talking points of past UAE behavior, they've gone straight to the "Arab: Bad Arab!" Lieberman deserves props for not sinking to their level.

Armand,

I'll agree with your #1, though I'll argue the aspects of this are irrelevant/extraneous to the policy aspects of the deal. Yes, the "selling" of the deal by 1600 was awful; so what? That shouldn't affect the merits themsevles. As for #2, I think we either need to decide that were capitalist (thus, anyone can invest/buy/sell here) or were going to attach morality to our foreign policy (first two years of Carter?) and start not only denying UAE investment opportunities, but stop buying oil from the Saudis, punish the Israelis for human rights violations, ditto the Chinese, etc, etc. I'm not arguing we can't have that sort of policy, only that we (traditionally) haven't, and this administration doesn't make any noises like it wants to attach morality to foreign policy decisions. Thus, if we're capitalist, then they get to invest. (Besides, isn't the "conventional wisdom" that increasing capitalism in a repressive place one channel for pushing democracy? Richer people have more time to worry about laws and rights, and richer people have more interest in where their tax dollars go, both of which lead to popular pressure for more democratization. Thus, if you want the UAE to be omre democratic, we should encourage this sort of stuff, in a theoretical sense.)

As for #3, I'm not surprised the Dems made a push on this (when was the last time they could be on the "right" (in a polling sense) side of a natinoal security issue and Bush wasn't), but I'm saying that since they were wrong on the policy side of this, this political/PR push they are making doesn't really help them. In other words, when you can be right (cronyism, NSA spying, Scooter Libby, Katrina, etc.) on an issue, then hammer the Prez endlessly. However, when you are "wrong" (and the Dems are on this), don't jump on board just to score political points. Look at it this way, the Dems are now on record as being in favor of (basically) racially profiling foreign investors. How could that hurt them in the future? I argue it can't be good, and they should have looked before they lept at this one.

I don't have time to respond to this now - hopefully tomorrow I will. But I would like to quickly respond to one Morris line:

"Neither Democrats nor Republicans have criticized this with the talking points of past UAE behavior, they've gone straight to the "Arab: Bad Arab!"

That's complete B.S.

Look I don't know how Lou Dobbs or the other TV shouting matches are covering this story b/c I don't waste my time by watching their poorly informed incitements. But the critics of the deal, both Republican and Democrat, most definitely HAVE been talking about the past behaviors of the UAE and why they are, potentially, a country we should worry about (their gusto for capitalism notwithstanding). If it was Morocco or Jordan buying the ports it would have been a quite different matter. Of course we do business with all kinds of noxious characters, dictators, murderers, committed Communists (yet for some reason not those leading Cuba) - but there is still no doubt a sliding scale of "bad", the end of which some people can legitimately raise points over (should we start trading with North Korea?) - and to me the UAE's ties to the Taliban regime were pretty far toward that end of the scale.

Bro,
Marc Sandalow disagrees with you:
The result was an extraordinary bipartisan consensus to stand up to President Bush and shut Arabs out of U.S. ports, killing a deal that security experts generally agreed presented no threat....
"There is a cycle of backlash against foreign ... investors at times of insecurity in the U.S.,'' said David Marchick, a Washington attorney and co-author of the soon-to-be-released book "U.S. National Security and Foreign Direct Investment.''
"This episode will hurt U.S. interests because we're alienating one of the few Arab countries that has actually cooperated with the U.S. in the war on terror,'' said Marchick, a former Clinton administration official....
"The Democrats just out-Roved Rove,'' said James Zogby, president of the Arab American Institute, describing congressional pressure to scuttle the deal as "shameless, absolutely disgraceful behavior.''

If, as you suggest, it would be different if Morocco or Jordan were buying the ports, then why the push for legislation to ban all foreign-based companies from running US ports? It's xenophobia, plain and simple. I'm not going to defend their economic relationship with the Taliban, but if you've been keeping up on recent events, you know that we've been launching airstrikes against Taliban and Sunni forces from the UAE. Seriously, if we're going to actually base who runs port security on the biggest threat to us, then why do we let a Chinese company run a port in Long Beach? I admit we need to have high security standards, but if they're good enough for Israel, isn't that saying something?

I'm just saying that I think there's something to the idea of giving thise more scrutiny than the administration gave it (be it Bush, Kimmit, whoever - it's striking the number of people who claimed to not have been informed or seriously thought about the move - yet the administration's immediate response to critics wanting more scrutiny was basically "F-You! Do as we say!"). Congressional oversight isn't necessarily a bad thing - certainly the Framers didn't think so.

And I've never advocated banning all foreign companies from operating US ports. I've no problem with letting the French run them. :) But if you are talking about companies tied to the governing elites of states that have rather mixed records on the "allis" front, say the UAE and the PRC, let's actually give dealings with those states closer attention.

As to the latest bit of rampant nationalism/xenophobia you are mentioning - it's likely that the Bush team should have been paying a wee bit more attention before letting Duncan Hunter (R-CA) rise up to head the House Armed Services Committee. He's one of the most xenophobic, nationalist figures on Congress on economic issues (and I'm not exaggerating at all) and this isn't likely to be the last time he crosses the White House on issues tied to foreign states and firms.

For the record I went with the "Crony! Bad crony!" argument.

Bro,
I have no problem with Congress looking into this. My problem is that they asked for 45 days, then quit after a week and a half. They weren't interested in deliberation, in overcoming groupthink. If they were honestly interested in these things, they would have taken the time given them.
Binky,
Are you sure you're not thinking (Arab) Crony: Bad (Arab) Crony! I know the Democrats love sticking it to Bush over his foreign cronies, but why is it that the links they focus on the most are his links with the (Arab) Saudis and the (Arab) UAE? It comes across as anti-Arab fear mongering.

Harriet Myers is an Arab?

Bush Saudis: 3.4 million hits.
Bush Harriet Myers: .4 million hits.
Where's the focus?

Huh? What does that have to do with me? Because it is, after all, all about me.

UPDATE: A DP World subsidiary has been running a Miami port for who knows how long. It's a good thing the Congress has been keeping a close eye on threats to our ports. Maybe if they'd taken the 45 days they asked for, someone would have figured this out, before being a dick about it. Or maybe not:
"It is the American people's understanding that Dubai Ports World promised to relinquish control of all U.S. ports," Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., said Monday. "If that is not the case, we will move our legislation immediately and force them to do just that."

harriet m_i_ers + harriet myers = ~6.5m hits.

i don't even know what side this observation puts me on, but since the misspelling is rampant i thought i'd point out that the searches out to be combined.

harriet m_i_ers + harriet myers = ~6.5m hits.

i don't even know what side this observation puts me on, but since the misspelling is rampant i thought i'd point out that the searches ought to be combined.

Moon,
Bush Saudi (as in the Bush Saudi connection) + Bush Saudis = 36 million.