ah yes, HM and DP, two other cases where hysteria and hype far outstripped rational thought.
In one case we seem to have gotten lucky, as in the end when the facts were actually known, sufficient cause was found to support having HM withdraw her nomination, unfortunately at a high cost to Bush and to conservatives who had jumped the gun and given ammunition to the left to use on other court nominees.
BP was simply a disaster for conservatives. Jumping into bed with Schumer, who's only purpose was to make Bush look bad and get one of the ports for his union-thug democrat contributers. And what single bad thing has happened in this country since DP took over the ports? Where is the continued outcry over the threat to our way of life that was certain to follow if the deal went through?
As for the Dubai Ports deal, there was a legitimate security concern with handing over an American port to a company based in a part of the world brimming with anti-American hostility, even though Dubai is an ally. Would we have permitted a firm based in France or Italy, with their large Communist parties, to have operational control over a major port during the Cold War era? Or a Spanish, Swedish, or Argentinian firm, where the neutral regimes had fascist or pro-German leanings, to do so during World War II? The questions raised in this matter were legitimate.