Goodbye Dubai

Bowing to ferocious opposition in Congress, a Dubai-owned company signaled surrender Thursday in its quest to take over operations at U.S. ports.

"DP World will transfer fully the U.S. operations ... to a United States entity," the firm's top executive, H. Edward Bilkey, said in an announcement that capped weeks of controversy.

Yawn. I'm really sorry I can't get fired up over this one, but the controversy never seemed to deserve all the ferocity. Sure, handing the ports over to a Middle Eastern country wasn't brilliant, but this incident was much ado about nothing. Despite making Patriot Act provisions permanent--just in time for President Hillary--we've yet to secure the borders or take security seriously. Oh no, the Arabs are at the ports! At least we know where to find them; this in opposition to the innumerable terrorists who have snuck across the Mexican border.

Anyway, the port deal is history, which might actually be a good thing. Bush has yet to use his veto, but he's gone to the well of republican royalism once too many times. The 2006 election is still a long ways off--relatively speaking--and it's nigh impossible to make a prediction over which party will be less incompetent so as to gain ground in the house and senate. However, who wins seems to be less of an issue than it would have been even a week ago.

Bush could be in trouble. It is possible that this port incident could have stirred up misguided neo-cons to what true conservatives have been saying for years now. Bush is not a conservative, and electing candidates of either major political party will end in the demise of this republic. Maybe conservatives do not understand just how deeply they have been betrayed, but this could be a turning point.

The one advantage to the Dubai port deal was that it would save the country money. The Bush administration is in bed with corporations, and though the president professes a belief in Christ, his actions profess a belief in money. I need not note what the Saviour Bush and I supposedly share had to say about serving two masters.

The Dubai incident is also emblematic of the problems inherent in an addiction to free trade. I have stated by belief in protectionism before, and it's entirely possible that I could be wrong that protectionism will usher in another era of American prosperity. Protectionism has not been practiced by our country in so long, the glowing predictions by Buchanan and others could fall short of reality. Yet addiction to free trade is suicide. There are certain jobs that Americans should do. American companies could certainly screw up at the ports, but I'll take damned yankees over those who would salute any other flag. Yet it is more than a matter of patriotism. For if the the citizens of this fair land play the part of Benedict Arnold, we can ensure they pay severely.

It is said that the chain is only as strong as its weakest link. Thus, without securing the borders, putting a priority on port security is not going to strengthen the national security chain substantially. Since Bush is a free trading plutocrat, he's not going to do away with the cheap labor that allows the corporations to pad their profits. Bush is either so naive that he thinks wire-tapping alone is going to save us or he is complacent. Or he is downright evil, a prospect so striking I can scarcely utter it.

Portgate could be nothing more than evidence that the blogosphere over-reacts to everything, but I do think it is something far bigger. I close with two predictions:

Joseph Farah says that if the Democrats gain a minority, Bush will be impeached, rendering Bush, not a lame duck, but a "dead duck". A floundering Bush administration, coupled with he rule--however brief--of President Cheney would suit Hillary nicely.

Michael Savage believes that the ports will be given to Haliburton. See above.

I'll be watching.