Quotes du Jour on the Dubaiya Ports Debacle

Herewith a multitude of voices on the crash and burn of the Dubai Ports World deal to run six major U.S. ports, which was withdrawn yesterday when Karl Rove (not President Bush himself) determined that Congressional opposition was too intense for it to succeed.

Gregory Scoblete (*) at G-Scobe:

You really have to hand it to Congress - they can't fulfill their crucial oversight role, write coherent legislation or spend your tax dollars wisely. But they sure can demagogue.

To be honest, I'd trust Dubai with my ports before I trust Congress with my wallet.

James Ridgeway in The Village Voice:

By declaring today that it will give up its interests in U.S. ports, the United Arab Emirates may spare President Bush the immediate embarrassment of a political defeat at the hands of his own party in Congress. But it won't take the spotlight off the U.A.E. royal family's ties to the Taliban and Osama bin Laden.

The New York Times in an editorial:

Even if the battle over DP World is headed toward a resolution, our ports remain dangerously vulnerable to terrorist intrusions. Any politician who harangues about the United Arab Emirates without fighting for more money and more attention for overall port security is posturing for votes, not protecting the country.

Byron Williams at Huffington Post:

Do you really believe that standing up for six ports can erase the damage that six years of providing the president with a free "reign" has caused on the domestic and international fronts?

If successful, all you have really done is beat a weakened president at his own game. You have used fear to appear strong on national security.

The Hartford Courant in an editorial:

Never mind that the United Arab Emirates, which owns the company, has sent troops to fight alongside ours in Afghanistan and complied with all of Washington's antiterrorism initiatives. Never mind that the UAE has played host to the largest base port for U.S. military ships abroad. Over several weeks, the country was roundly denounced as a rogue state, an Islamist fascist entity and a home base for terrorists.

Falsehoods repeated often enough sometimes become articles of belief. The theme at the House Appropriations Committee Wednesday was that members were compelled to respond to the demands of their constituents.

Their first job, however, is to show leadership. Their responsibility is to enlighten - to distinguish facts from phobias.

The saddest part of this sorry episode is the failure of Congress to address genuine security concerns, such as beefing up Customs and Coast Guard operations at all ports and ensuring that goods entering the United States are inspected, preferably at the time when they are loaded on ships abroad.

David Ignatius in a Washington Post op-ed piece:

I suspect America will pay a steep price for Congress's rejection of this deal. It sent a message that for all the U.S. rhetoric about free trade and partnerships with allies, America is basically hostile to Arab investment. And it shouldn't be surprising if Arab investors respond in kind. One could blame it all on craven members of Congress, if the opinion polls didn't show that Americans are overwhelmingly against the deal -- and suspicious of Muslims in general. Those poll numbers tell us that America hasn't gotten over Sept. 11, 2001. If anything, Iraq has deepened the country's anxiety, introspection and foreboding.

The Wall Street Journal in an editorial:

The Dubai episode has been a debacle of the first order, and while the Beltway is toting up winners and losers, the rest of the world is shaking its head and wondering what's going on. The world's largest economy and its ostensible political leader seems to be sneering at the very foreign investment that has been crucial to its prosperity. Let's hope it was a momentary hallucination, and not the start of a larger protectionist binge.

The Los Angeles Times in an editorial:

One has to wonder where this will end. Should a Saudi-owned airline be denied landing rights in the United States because most of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudis? That's the logic used by opponents of the Dubai Ports World deal, who fret that two of the hijackers came from the UAE and that its government supported the Taliban before the invasion of Afghanistan. Never mind that the UAE is a key ally and a hub for U.S. military operations in the Middle East.

And KikoKimba right here at Kiko's House:

The aborted Dubai ports deal brought out the worst in America and is a rare occasion when I sided with President Bush (in principle, if not the manner in which he handled the entire affair).

The deal again revealed our deeply xenophobic streak. It betrayed widespread ignorance of the extent to which the global economy has insinuated itself into our lives and arguably made them better. It showed that Congress is more interested in scapegoating and fear mongering than taking principled stands. And perhaps most importantly, it showed that four and a half years after the 9/11 attacks, we are unable to have a serious dialog about what homeland security entails and what actually needs to be done to secure the homeland, including our vulnerable ports.

(*) Hat tip to Glenn Reynolds at Instapundit.

* * * *

Horror of horrors, it turns out that a Dubai-based company has another big deal with a U.S. company . . . er, actually it's the U.S. Navy. Details here.