A short and smart piece by Glenn Reynold on the op-ed page of today’s WSJ (remember, there’s a weekend edition now), on the blogs and the ports:

When the story first appeared, bloggers were overwhelmingly negative. My own reaction, on Feb. 12, was “color me unimpressed.” Other bloggers were more pungent, but the story got little attention in the national media, which were mostly preoccupied with the Cheney quail-hunting story. … Some bloggers, meanwhile, were having second thoughts. One of them was me: Although my initial reaction was negative, I started getting emails from readers — some of them longtime correspondents — who had experience with the UAE. One had served alongside troops from the Emirates in Afghanistan; another had spent time in Dubai. Some had worked with UAE ports officials. All were positive. … As I write this, it’s not clear where the rest of the debate is headed, but there are already some useful lessons for the White House. First, blogs make an excellent early warning system. The White House, unaccountably, seems to have been blindsided by the furor over this deal, though most people’s gut reaction was negative. As with the many bloggers like me who changed their minds, gut reactions can be overcome by evidence — but the White House should have taken advantage of this early warning to have its arguments in order. It didn’t. That’s the second lesson: The White House should not only have read blogs, but responded to them with information and arguments, rather than waiting for blog readers to weigh in.

For what it’s worth, that roughly describes the arc of my own thinking on the ports–initial skepticism, but growing acceptance as I learned more about the deal, especially from the blogosphere. The Reynolds piece is unfortunately for subscribers only at the moment. Maybe WSJ will put it on opinionjournal tomorrow.