The reaction to the ports deal from the so called paleo-to hell with them-cons is an intellectual travesity(sic).
It certainly wasn't "paleocons" that were vocalizing about that; it was the Republican party. The American Conservative or Chronicles Magazine weren't the ones who defeated the deal. I no longer read the yellow journalism of neoconservatism (it's pretty boring with all the mea culpas lately), but I suspect the opposition to the deal emanated from neoconservative talk radio or Pat Robertson.
Allthough I lack the historical knowledge of Sloanasaurus and don't know of "Guy Lusignan's march of folly from Jeruselam (sic) to Hattin," nor do I even know which direction to go from Jerusalem to get to Hattin, unfortunately, we are all becoming familiar with a "march of folly," and it wasn't the "so called paleo-to hell with them-cons" who provided the drumbeat for the march.
Buckley, Fukuyama, et al., to their credit, are withdrawing from the "intellectual travesty" which the neocons promoted, whatever their position was on the Dubai deal.
Sloanasaurus sounds like he may have been induced to have invested some money in Dubai Ports.