OxBlog

# Posted 9:18 PM by Ariel David Adesnik

PORT SALE REALITY CHECK: After defending the Bush administration so unabashedly, I decided to check out what two open-minded bloggers had to say about the port sale. On the left, Kevin Drum writes that

I'm still open to argument on the Dubai port deal, but this is looking more and more like a mindless feeding frenzy to me. So far, I've only heard a couple of arguments against the deal that are even colorable...
If jumping on the Dubai hysteria bandwagon merely hurt George Bush politically and prompted some additional interest in port security, I'd be all for it. What do I care if the DPW/P&O deal goes through? But the whole thing feeds on a mindless anti-Arab jingoism that's genuinely dangerous.

If the first 20 comments are any indication, Kevin's readers agree with him on the merits but feel that Bush should be bashed regardless.

Moving over to the conservative side of things, Andrew Sullivan endorses Jim Glassman's statement that

Dubai - I don't have to tell you - is an Arab nation. Yes, two of the 9/11 hijackers were citizens of the UAE, but, then again, as Ivan Eland of the Independent Institute notes, Richard Reid, the attempted "shoe bomber," was a British citizen, and Jose Padilla, among others, is an American citizen (as was Timothy McVeigh). The UAE has been a staunch ally in the war on terror, training security forces in Iraq and helping to cut off the flow of money to al Qaeda.

In short, I feel I'm on pretty safe ground here.

(5) opinions -- Add your opinion

Comments:

The only reason that Bill Frist is opposing Bush on this matter is to score political points for his presidential run.

Frist has also been trying to reach out to bloggers with his interview with Glenn Reynolds on their podcast.

But, it is so obvious and transparent that Frist is just trying to position himself for the election. He's sleazy and it's not going to work.

# posted by

Nitin : 11:01 PM

The Port of Los Angeles is half run by communist Chinese... All kinds of foreigners run our ports. If people are gong to get indignant about that, why not get indignant about the nearly total demise of the U.S. merchant marine? Our labor laws and tax laws are especially foolish in every respect which has the slightest application to shipping by water, and there are disincentives galore for Americans who might want to engage in this business. Why not do something about the "flags of convenience?"

# posted by

Anonymous : 1:57 AM

Looking at the scorecard (and not giving Reynolds points for his flip flop) in your sample, this story might function as a pretty good litmus test for serious bloggers.

# posted by

Anonymous : 10:39 PM

Dude, if you want to make an argument, whether against Bush or for, I'd ask you not to label Andrew Sullivan as "open-minded." Even though I actually agree with him in large part about gay marriage, it's painfully obvious that that's pretty much all he cares about now.

# posted by

Anonymous : 10:03 AM

I never got any good answers about why having the PRC (through Hutchison-Whampoa) run the Panama Canal was a good idea.

A thermite grenade in a lock mechanism and we're down from a two-ocean navy to two one-ocean navies.

One hopes there's a backup plan lying around where somebody knows to find it. But a combination of greed (bribes) and ignorance seem more likely. Still, Reagan didn't need the money. Hard to say.

# posted by

Anonymous : 1:49 PM