More Port Stuff

A friend on Capitol Hill emails me:
Phones are lighting up all day over this Arab-US port purchase. The President fanned the flames and says he'll veto it..everyone's outraged..

My take: President turned up the volume to squeeze out any other media stories...like the one linking a Presidential meeting arranged by indicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff, Heritage foundation, and the President of Malaysia...

Two clever by half?

I reply: yes! You are!

Dr. Potomac has said everything that I would have, and made the bet that I would have...I hope you took them to the cleaners, Doc. Were the words "Capitol Grill" involved?

The only thing to add is that there is a good symposium at NRO on the "Port Deal". My opinion is basically a composite of those of James Carafano, James Robbins and Michael Ledeen, That is: it's pretty stupid to get worried about loss of American control over shipping after fifty years of abdicating control over all aspects of our maritime infrastructure; this firm does not control the security of the port, the Coast Guard does, and they need more funding; the Administration is obviously making nice to Dubai for the things they have done over the last several years (see James Robbins' list); no matter how smart this idea was for international politics and diplomacy, it was a very silly move to make in domestic politics...or, as Michael Ledeed puts it, "This is the foreign-policy equivalent of the Harriet Meiers nomination to the Supreme Court, isn’t it?"

Ouch. More seriously, is it possible to make the necessary international political moves to further the Long War while still maintaining domestic support? I think it, ultimately, unlikely. Thus the Long War becomes characterized by covert and military options, which cannot do everything...