WaPo & LAT support GWB

Both the Washington Post and the
Los Angeles Times have editorials supporting President Bush and condemning the Congressional firestorm about the Dubai purchase of P & O. The LAT says:

Compared to airport security, port security is woefully underfunded and undeveloped. A paper written by former Coast Guard Cmdr. Stephen E. Flynn in the current issue of the Far Eastern Economic Review calls the system a "house of cards." Flynn argues that any terrorist worth his salt could simply seek out a well-known "trusted" shipper's containers to stash his deadly contraband. He calls for a slate of inspection-oriented reforms, including the adoption of better screening technologies. Who owns the companies that operate the ports isn't the point — it's how those companies work together with federal and local authorities to keep ports safe. And the Department of Homeland Security has a long way to go before it figures out how best to get that done.

Even Jimmy Carter, a personage who comes under much derision from this particular blog, comes out on the right side in support of GWB’s approval of this purchase. Although Carter might waffle out of his current stance, given his track record.

When I worked in the Middle East, recycling petrodollars was the order of business. Now, as the US comes under more dependence from this region’s oil supplies, we are supposed to reject doing business with our allies in the troubled region. Smacks of Arab-bashing. The always hypocritical Democrats, ever indignant about ethnic or racial profiling, toss their objections to stereotyping aside to wax indignant about the purchase. No surprise there.

But free-marketers like Frist and Hastert should know better. Gutter politics does make strange bedfellows again and again, as when Bill Frist, Hillary Clinton, Hastert and Schumer all are under the covers together in this fight.

The always-wrong New York Times disgraces itself by taking numerous cheap shots at Bush for having cabinet members with ties to big business. This would sit better if the NYT had not heretofore consistently labeled GWB some sort of obsessive madman on security issues. But the NYT has for a long while now been unmoored from all pretense of journalistic consistency and editorial integrity.

The WSJ lets loose on both mugwump Republicans and Dems, but especially Dems!

As for the Democrats, we suppose this is a two-fer: They have a rare opportunity to get to the right of the GOP on national security, and they can play to their union, anti-foreign investment base as well. At a news conference in front of New York harbor, Senator Chuck Schumer said allowing the Arab company to manage ports "is a homeland security accident waiting to happen." Hillary Clinton is also along for this political ride.
So the same Democrats who lecture that the war on terror is really a battle for "hearts and minds" now apparently favor bald discrimination against even friendly Arabs investing in the U.S.? Guantanamo must be closed because it's terrible PR, wiretapping al Qaeda in the U.S. is illegal, and the U.S. needs to withdraw from Iraq, but these Democratic superhawks simply will not allow Arabs to be put in charge of American longshoremen. That's all sure to play well on al Jazeera.

Actually, the NYT did have one suggestion which could damp down the silliness and political posturing. The CFIU department in Treasury has a 1993 amendment calling for an extra 45 day extension on inquiries if the foreign investment is by a "foreign government," which is the case in this transaction.

How about a time-out so that a more sane and balanced dialogue can take place?