The UAE ports deal is probably fine, but the Left is going to follow the Right and oppose it anyway, because of the anti-Bush politics of the situation.

A thoughtful diarist at DailyKOS marches us through the reasons why it’s probably fine to allow a UAE emirate-owned company to manage 6 of our ports.

As I’ve been reading the websites on the ports issue, I’m struck that the left-leaning sites seem to be somewhat less concerned than the right-leaning sites.

It’s the Right who are fueling the opposition to the deal. Should the Left try to inject reason and real facts into the discussion, or should the Left stay the hell out of the way and let the Republicans tar and feather Bush?

The first excerpt below gives you a taste for the diarist’s reality-based dispassionate factual analysis. The reality might not be bad - not ideal perhaps, but not bad.

The second excerpt below is from a Comment to the diary, in which another poster gives you a taste of the left’s political attitude toward the whole issue. The left can make a lot of political hay out of this port issue, simply by letting the Republicans eat each other up over it.

Ports Redux - a DailyKOS diary

[SNIP]

First let’s get rid of the dead weight or irrelevant or wrong “facts”:

* Dubai Ports World (DPW) will be controlling our ports! - Wrong. That was and always will be the job of the (American) Department of Homeland Security, not just at the ports DPW would operate but at ALL ports nationwide.
* DPW is buying our ports! - No, they are just the port/terminal managers. The ownership remains in the hands of the American government.
* Bush is handing over our critical infrastructure to DPW! - No, being the manager of a port doesn’t make you in charge of “critical infrastructure”. The people in charge of the ports have ALWAYS been and will always be American law enforcement
* DPW will bring in a bunch of foreigners to take American jobs! - No, the majority of work at ports is conducted by American unionized longshoremen. This will not change if DPW is given the contract.
* I saw a picture of Bush holding hands with the Dubai royal family! - No, actually most of the photos I’ve seen on the blogosphere in connection with this story were of the Saudi royal family and Bush.
* Two of the 9/11 hijackers were from the UAE! - Yes and even assuming that’s accurate, so what? Show me the ties between the Dubai royal family and the 2 UAE hijackers and then I’ll get concerned.

Ok so those are the silly or irrelevant issues. Let’s get down to the meatier issues:

[SNIP —- the whole diary is worth a read]

———————————————

AND NOW FOR ONE INTERESTING COMMENT TO THE DIARY, SHOWING SOMETHING OF THE POLITICS IN PLAY —— :

I appreciate hearing a voice of reason and all, but I’m not really sure we want to be reasonable right now. There’s a big xenophobic element over on FreeRepublic, but there’s also a big “voice of reason” element, too, going so far as to cite today’s LA Times editorial supporting the deal, (along with the noted progressive voices of Rush and O’Rielly.) I’m inclined to think, though, that this may be a good time for a little non-politically-correct xenophobia. The whole Republican leadership has lined up in opposition to this deal. They’re listening to their constituents, who are saying, “Bush wants to put an Arab company in charge of some of our ports? Sounds like a stupid idea.” If they can get off the Kool-Aid for this, maybe they can loosen up on the whole congressional oversight/president above the law thing. And, to be honest, the idea of an Arab government-owned company running the commercial side of several of our largest ports really does creep me out. It’s not PC, but it’s a real feeling. I vote for some continued bipartisen opposition to this deal.