Hindsight is a beautiful virtue...

I admit I didn't get into much about the port debate. I have a post saved as a draft but not many seemed to really be focusing on to me what was a clear bias given the number of other foreign companies that have terminal operations in the US. The above article in the Washington Post, outlines some of what I felt as written by David Ignatius:

I suspect America will pay a steep price for Congress's rejection of this deal. It sent a message that for all the U.S. rhetoric about free trade and partnerships with allies, America is basically hostile to Arab investment. And it shouldn't be surprising if Arab investors respond in kind. One could blame it all on craven members of Congress, if the opinion polls didn't show that Americans are overwhelmingly against the deal -- and suspicious of Muslims in general. Those poll numbers tell us that America hasn't gotten over Sept. 11, 2001. If anything, Iraq has deepened the country's anxiety, introspection and foreboding.

To appreciate how cockeyed America's Dubai-phobia is, you have to spend a little time here, as I did this week. The truth is, this is one of the few places in the Arab world where things have been going in the right direction -- away from terrorism and Islamic fundamentalism and toward an open, modern economy. That's why congressional opposition came as such a surprise here. People in the UAE think they're America's friends.

Arab radicals will be gloating, admonishing the UAE leaders, "We told you so." But officials here recognize that they're in a common fight with us against al-Qaeda. And unlike some Arab nations, the UAE really is fighting -- reforming its education system to block Islamic zealots and taking public stands with the United States despite terrorist threats. They have created one of the best intelligence services in the Arab world, and their special forces will be fighting quietly alongside the United States in Afghanistan tomorrow, and the day after.

Now if Congress wants to change how terminal operations are done and demand that all of them are ran by US owned companies only? What happened would make sense. The fact that poll numbers from Americans that probably had no idea how many of these operations were ran by foreign companies showed they were against it should not have been the basis of action. I don't see this as a victory for those who are against Bush. I see this as a victory for misinformation and the Whitehouse could have handled this by presenting the facts. There were some valid concerns about this deal, especially in relation to Whitehouse appointments. So while I believe some of those who promoted this as a security/terrorism issue were wrong, I also have to say had the Whitehouse been more open from the beginning it could have been avoided.