The issue is "how should Democrats respond now?". There are several possibilities: (1) Agree with the xenophobes; (2) defend Bush from the xenophobes; (3) ignore the issue; (4) pivot to issues other than those raised by the xenophobes that this action raises.
So says a comment on one of Kevin Drum's posts on the UAE controlling port operations controversy. True enough. There is a good argument to be made that xenophobia is part of the controversy, and your respectful leftist anti-Bushie sorts are making them. And, I actually am sympathetic to those who suggested there is less here than meets the eye, putting aside the political fun. It is interesting that Drum referenced comments from all the port operators except New York. Are we chopped liver?
Anyway, four issues are involved: the law, cronyism, safety, and public opinion. A look at the comments suggests the law might not have been clearly followed, but on its own this does not shock, does it? Anyway, a core issue raised is the time period for review, which is not 45 days ... but within that amount of time. Congress also apparently is supposed to be notified in some fashion. This seemingly important provision -- consider NSA -- has not been emphasized. As to cronyism, the leftist suggests that is a red flag. How about safety? The fact that Rummy didn't know about it until last weekend also seems troubling. One responder claiming some special knowledge argues:
Port operations means scheduling ships, loading and unloading, operating cranes, providing fuel, and otherwise handling product (mostly containers, these days). Most of the containers are sealed before they're put on a ship, and Customs (not port operations) inspects about 5% of them. Those containers are then put on trains which may belong to foreign corporations, are offloaded in privately owned rail yards (in the city where I live, our choices are the Burlington Northern or the Canadian Pacific) and often picked up by immigrant truck drivers to be delivered to their ultimate consignee.
Although the culture of a port operator would affect efficiency, it would still be very difficult for the company to have a serious effect on national security.
I'm with another person on the thread -- surely this has some effect on national security. Sure, given governmental control and all, not as much as some might think. But, consider a security guard -- he a small cog and is overseen and has to follow set guidelines. Still, significant person, one who in day to day affairs really acts independently. Another person notes that we have had some real concern with UAE, even if they apparently are on board on the War On Terror. I assume so is Saudi Arabia. All the same, given their past, it is not irrational (or racist) to re-consider supplying them the contract. Also, the general sentiment that we should use this to bludgeon Bush et. al. for not adequately funding measures to deal with port security is fine. The idea that every single port matter will be under government control, however, is dubious.
As to politics, how amusing. The Bush Administration appears to look stupid here -- though I think giving the actually fearful Republicans in Congress a means to distance themselves from them in mid-term election has a "crazy like a fox" flavor to it. John Dickerson over at Slate suggests they look at the "long term" -- in the long term we are dead (out of power).
In the related area of public opinion, this also looks stupid. Let's say the two dissidents above are right ... Bush actually is right here (well, somewhat) ... clearly having it come out this way is ridiculous. The deal is clearly sensitive. If nothing else, Republican leadership sorts should have been warned. And a veto? Apparently, the torture measure was too stupid even for them, and they do not like to ever to admit they might be wrong. Interstate commerce? Heck, that isn't Congress' job is it? A difference of opinion that bipartisan congressional decision-making should determine? Funny!
It is notable too that Bush says we should trust the UAE, but not Congress or the courts (NSA matter etc.). Also, civil liberties, not worth it, but free trade? Most definitely ... cannot risk that! Anyway, since Bush was reportedly not involved in the actual decisonmaking here, he really gets no credit overall. More here.