Centerfield

You’re absolutely right that we need to find a way to examine this deal on its merit and not the xenophobic hysteria that seems much easier, and more prevalent.

Rather than deal positively on foreign policy, this administration has relied on fear mongering, and now it bites them in the rear. I believe that much of this administration’s strategy for governance has been too dependent on negatives; fear of terrorism, homophobia, fear of high oil prices, etc.. We need to find a way to moderate the Republican strategy and find motivations in the positive forces this country is capable of.

I’m working to bring a moderate voice to the Republican discussion here in Oregon by running for President. I’ve spelled out a platform that is much more true to the Republican principles of minimal governance and avoids the activist conservative social issues that seem so attractive to the zealous right.

Please visit my site at www.smithforpresident.com

Michael Smith
Moderate Republican for President

Good luck to you, sir.

You’re absolutely right that we need to find a way to examine this deal on its merit and not the xenophobic hysteria that seems much easier, and more prevalent.

I think a lot of people would have been much more amenable to this idea had we followed the same advice when the discussion was invading Iraq. While I think the port deal is much ado about nothing from a security standpoint I find it chuckle worthy that many of the same people who had no problem fanning the flames of xenophobic hysteria when the subject was an invasion that they seemed determined to justify are now calling for reason and calm in the face of a port deal to which they seem unusually committed.

No I don't think that's applicable at all, Rick. The supporters of the war were not saying "Iraq is an Arab country, so we must take it over." Both the President and other supporters of the war (including Congress) had very specific reasons behind their justification, though the reasons may have varied somewhat from one person to the next.

Also, like Reagan seeking arms control deals with the Soviets only after rebuilding our dilapidated military, circumstances change over time and in reaction to our own activities. What is an acceptable risk/benefit trade-off today may not have been had we sat on our hands and ignored Saddam's continued defiance of the U.N. and attacks on our forces in the no-fly zone.

This thread is a test of the endurance of the port hysteria. How many comments will it take before those asking for calmness and rational review are accused of being admin stooges?

Rafique, I agree with what you say about the port deal, but I am agnostic on your contention that most Americans are not acting as hysterical xenophobes. For Coulter (and maybe LGF as well, not a visitor), it's just business as usual, and the business is marketing righteous sermons to the willing choir. I don't even believe that Coulter believes much of what she says. It's a schtick. I think that inside, she views herself as a special type of entertainer, a primal-scream facillitator who helps people cleanse their souls by getting angry and then blaming someone else.

But I don't see all that much calm in the genpub. I'll be looking to polls for a better gauge of whether views have shifted. The last I saw, over 80% of the cats were still in the trees. I remain convinced that this was a visceral response. Such responses appear to be transient. The fear will subside on the surface, but all it's really doing is nestling back down into the gut as it gets written over by everyday concerns.

If and when the deal goes through, Americans are unlikely to riot, but if asked, they'll continue to express deeep misgivings about it. So it will remain an ingredient for politicians whose campaign brew includes a note of complaint against the admin for incompetency in national security. With the polls where they are now, a couple of vague lines about this in a speech can be counted on to get 2/3 to 3/4 of the heads nodding in agreement that "it's time for these guys to go." as long as the speaker can craft an appearance of semi-competency.

LGF became the anti-jihadi fearmonger channel quite a while back. It's mostly nothing but anymore.

The compelling reason is that the UAE is an arab country with ties to terror that participates in the arab boycott of Israel. But of course I'm just a racist and xenaphobic. The arabs cry racism and discrimination at those who oppose this deal, but the UAE itself participates in the racist and anti-Semitic boycott of Israel. Another arab double standard.

Michael Smith I will never vote for a candidate that wants to get even cozier with the arabs. You won't get my vote. Whatever differences I may have with the religious right, at least they have moral clarity when it comes to the Middle East, unlike wishy washy appeasers who think if we make nice with our enemies they will be pacified. I have no use for those that make a moral equivalency between Israel and her arab enemies, or actually believe Israel and not the islamo-fascists are responsible for the troubles in the ME.

On principle there was nothing bad about the idea of transforming the arab-muslim world, but this culture simply cannot be brought into the 21st century.

No I don't think that's applicable at all, Rick. The supporters of the war were not saying "Iraq is an Arab country, so we must take it over."

PatHMV

No but what was happening was a lot of talk of mushroom clouds over New York, wild tails of extensive stockpiles of generic “Weapons of Mass Destruction”, coy inferences (but carefully couched) that Saddam was behind 9/11 (not to mention the anthrax attacks that have completely dropped off the radar), and completely overstated connections between Iraq and Al-Qaeda. It was the idea that Saddam was working so closely with Al-Qaeda that the moment Saddam had WMDs he would start supplying the terrorists with them.

Were there sober voices among war supporters, sure, but the administration was complicit in allowing the most hysterical and speculative information to go out completely unchallenged because it suited their marketing plan for the invasion. The ties between Saddam and Al-Qaeda were not even as strong as those between the UAE and Al-Qaeda, but in one case the mantra was “better safe then sorry, we better invade” and in the case of the UAE it’s “the ties are so insignificant that it should not derail the port deal”.

Again, I restate that I’m not against the port deal because I do not believe that the security threat to the US is there. But then again I never thought that the contact between Saddam and Al-Qaeda was a significant reason to invade. You can find ties between all Arab countries and Al-Qaeda if you look hard enough, just like you can make a pretty good case that there are “ties” between our government and groups like the Mafia.

The Bush Administration (and their cheerleaders) were the ones who created a climate of fear against all things Arab despite the proclamations of Islam being a “Religion of Peace”. That is what is biting the administration in the ass, not some kind of racial hysteria. It is people applying the exact same logic that fueled the * popular support * for the invasion that was tacitly approved by the Bush administration in getting John and Jane America on board the invasion train to the port deal. Where was all this nuance when the administration was trying conflate Palestinian suicide bombers with international terrorists groups like Al-Qaeda?

The administration is reaping exactly what it has sown here and frankly I’m pretty amused at the about face from many who have turned from rabid anti-Arab “9/11 changed everything, let’s round them up and intern all of them” jihadists to “Hey these are the good Arabs, we can trust them” appeasers. Again I really don’t care about the port deal but now that the fear mongering is coming from the other side of the isle all of a sudden it is becoming dirty trick politics.

And one last unrelated point, there was a long list of reasons that one could give as to why removing Saddam Hussein from power would be a good thing (many I agreed with). But that never ever meant that invading Iraq was a good idea even if removing Saddam was.

The Bush Administration (and their cheerleaders) were the ones who created a climate of fear against all things Arab despite the proclamations of Islam being a “Religion of Peace”. That is what is biting the administration in the ass, not some kind of racial hysteria.

Dude, they're the same thing! I've got no problem noticing the irony that the GP's attitude climate, the on ethat is now harming the admin, is in fact the selfsame one that they've fostered. But that doesn't mean that it's NOT racial hysteria. It is. It's xenophobia, pure, and simple. And what's more, I think it's a stretch to imply that Bush created it. It was latent, post 9/11 it became apparent, and Bush simply nourished it. He wasn't alone. My sense is that post 9/11 just about every intellectual and political opportunist out there spun 9/11 as a rationale reinforcing their worldview.

We have met the enemy, and he is us.-Pogo

Why do 80%+ of Americans agree with those knocking the President for this deal? We must learn to mend relations with moderate Islam to win hearts and minds, but we need to bring to light the lack of progress this administration has made in regards to our homeland security. Unfortunately, it looks as if we are being biased towards Muslim countries, yet this attantion has brought up the fact that things must change.

Why do 80%+ of Americans agree with those knocking the President for this deal?

Reflexive Islamophobia.

I expect one outcome of portgate is a renewed perseveration with the idea that we've inadequately boosted our homeland security.

Maybe so. My question to all those who raise this issue is this:

What specific changes to our national security processes do you advocate, how much safer do you expect each these changes to make us, and how much do you expect them to cost?

Now perhaps you may not be able to provide a wealth of details on each of these fronts, but do you at least have a decent IDEA? If you can bring the discussion no further than complaining that what has been done so far is inadequate, then you are just one of the nellycats whining from the tree you've been scared up into by the specter of the islamic boogeyman who are coming to get you.

Don't look out that window, Osama Bin Laden is on your porch.