Gotham Gazette
Gotham Gazette Web
Baruch School of Public Affairs

email this article

most emailed articles


Politicking at the Ports
February 24th, 2006

In the current controversy over allowing a Dubai-based company to take control of several American ports, the Bush administration is reaping what it has sown, writes the New York Times in an editorial. It is seeing chickens come home to roost, and “if the administration is in trouble with Congress, it’s long overdue.”

The editorial is one of three on the Times’ op/ed page today which says that the port deal may not really undermine public security, but the Bush administration deserves the political headache. It has, after all, set itself up for this by stoking public fear of terrorism to irrational levels, and then consistently eroding public trust by acting secretly and dishonestly whenever the opportunity arose.

“The administration argues that the ports deal was thoroughly vetted, and that proper safeguards are in place to prevent any possible security breaches,” the Times writes. “That argument might hold if the White House had a good track record on these kinds of sweeping assurances.”

Bush deserves what he gets, writes Thomas Friedman. The president has constantly accused Democrats of being soft on terrorism, and it is only natural that they would jump on a chance to use the powerful “giving our ports away to the Arabs card” against him. Paul Krugman agrees, writing that there is a certain “rough justice” in the fact that the administration “has become a victim of its own campaign of fearmongering and insinuation.”

In the New York Post, John Podhoretz blames Bush for not having the sense to kill this deal for political reasons long ago, saying that he should have known that it would make him look weak on terrorism. (Podhoretz adds that “the objections to the ports deal may be bogus as a matter of policy, but they’re potent as a matter of politics,” and that is, of course, what matters.)

In the Daily News, Charles Krauthammer writes that the deal might harm national security and should have been stopped earlier, but that it is too late to stop now because it will harm relations with moderate Arab states. He says he sympathizes with Bush, and accuses the Democrats of being “shamelessly hypocritical” to gain political points off this issue.

“If a citizen of the UAE walked into an airport in full burnoose and flowing robes, speaking only Arabic, Democrats would be deeply offended, and might even sue, if the security people were to give him any more scrutiny than they would to my sweet 84-year-old mother,” he writes.”But when that same Arab, attired in business suit and MBA, and with a good record running ports in 15 countries, buys P&O, Democrats howl at the very idea of allowing Arabs to run our ports.”

By Joshua Brustein on February 24, 2006, 4:23 pm
In category: Gotham City, Waterfront
Recommend this entry via: stumble upon | digg | del.icio.us |

Leave a Reply