Might the Bush Administration be a victim of its own rhetoric? After four-plus years of inundating the American public with orange alerts, duct-tape recommendations, mushroom-cloud scenarios, and Operation TIPS, did our government really believe that the American people would stand for Muslim Arabs running our most important ports? The United Arab Emirates company hoping to run the ports of New York, Baltimore, New Orleans, and three other American cities has withdrawn its designs. The shady government-to-government deal prevented the public from getting a clear look at the issue. Without light, the public turned up the heat. The result? Congress listened to its constituents. The president championed an unpopular cause and lost. And Muslim Arabs now know that the feeling is mutual. Whether the result of the controversy is just is almost beside the point. Americans don't feel secure having a company, run by people of the same religion and ethnicity as those who attacked on 9/11, administer six of the nation's most important ports. Would Americans have thought differently without several years of state-induced paranoia? Probably not. Reality has been frightening enough. No need to put the blame on fear-mongering.

This whole issue is absurd. We get "outraged" when a specific foreign company takes over instead of any foreign company....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hutchison_Whampoa
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PSA_International
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peninsular_and_Oriental_Steam_Navigation_Company

What about Arabs/Muslims running airport terminals? http://www.skycargo.com/ournetwork/worldwideoffices/worldwideoffices.asp

Well Blah, this shouldn't be dismissed as an arguing point. maybe this highlights the need for us to be looking at all potential security risks that involve foreign ownership.

More troubling than Bush's support of giving the goverment of UAE the thumbs up to run our ports is the lengths he was willing to go get it done. He was willing to use his one and only veto to maintain this shady deal. Justice Stevens is on the verge of retiring. This would have clearly led to more lost votes and lost seats. The potential opportunity to cash in on a Stevens retirement would have been squandered.

Blah: That's a typical liberal response. We say X is wrong, and liberals retort: "Oh, yeah, but X happens here, here, and here, too!" OK. But is that supposed to be your argument that X isn't wrong?

Isn't the issue here just that the Bushies are willing to go to incredibly costsly lengths to do things only tangentially related to our national security (Iraq), but aren't willing to do very very basic things at home, like tighten up immigration or exercise _common sense_ regarding who controls points-of-entry to the US.

I'm getting so sick of these guys flag waving while they work to undermine our economy and national security by giving up our sovereignty in the name of global economics.

Question, if it's o.k. to bag the UAE ports deal, are they going to re-think the Chinese running 2 ports in California? The Chinese see the U.S. as an enemy, where the UAE doesn't. Yet, the UAE is out and the Chinese are still in buisiness. A bit of a double standard?

Wm.: Sometimes double standards are justified. Have several Chinese citizens (and others with the same religion and ethinicity) been involved in a recent attack so on US civilians? If we took a poll focusing on Chinese attitudes toward Americans, do you think it would show any real support for murdering random US citizens? You must not remember the Arab Muslims dancing in their streets when 9-11 happened.

In this case ethnicity and religion matter. Why? Because hatred of us (not just Americans, but Westerners, Christians, Jews) is highly correlated with a particular ethinicity and religion. To ignore this fact is to either be incredily naive, or to be posing politically.

Understood, at the same time, to generalize is also lazy thinking. Also, the Chinese are more subtle than Arabs. It's the height of hypocrisy to scream and shout about UAE and not China.

"to generalize is . . . lazy thinking. . . . the Chinese are more subtle than Arabs."

Ha! Unintentional I know Wm., but it still made me chuckle. I understand the point you are making despite that humorous slip-up.

I've never claimed to be anything but Human. Although there are those who challenge that claim! LOL

asdf,
My point was that we shouldn't consider "Port Abort" an advancement of security in this country. I would support either no foreign company (US managed only) or (most) any foreign company with a real increase in security here. Since security isn't being increase and foreign companies can manage our ports then I would say this was a complete waste of political "outrage". At best we have managed to keep the status quo and at worst we were able to piss on one of our strongest allies in the GWOT.

Skeptic,
If you want to be taken seriously, I would suggest laying off any over-generalized labeling. I don't see how you can be opposed to UAE but not China or Singapore running US ports. If you are really concerned about SECURITY then let's focus on SECURITY.

Since you think that Arab/Muslims have such a strong correlation with anti-Americanism then should we allow them in our military and intelligence community? They have been a valuable tool in fighting the GWOT (just as the UAE) but since we know this ethnicity is more likely, then can we take that chance? Also, shouldn't we be considering interment camps for these people? I mean based on their ethnicity we know they are very likely to hate and want to kill us.

blah: "I don't see how you can be opposed to UAE but not China or Singapore running US ports." There are dignificant differences, regarding likelihood of terrorist sympathies. I also think that Arab-Muslims from Arab countries should be looked upon very skeptically when allowed into our intelligence agencies or higher positions of our military. Why does that seem such an unserious position? "Internment camps"? Strawman.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think most conservatives supporting the pres on this one would also be supporting him if he took the opposite position.

"There are dignificant differences, regarding likelihood of terrorist sympathies."

If terrorist were the only concern with national security then your point might have some traction.

"Why does that seem such an unserious position?"

Because it's counter-productive to treat allies as enemies or at the least not trying to differineciate between the two.

""Internment camps"? Strawman"

Shouldn't "Bushies" start taking a "common sense" approach to security.

"Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think most conservatives supporting the pres"

I don't know. I don't need to look to the president or anyone else to know this was a bad idea. Did you oppose the port deal because the president supported it?

...blaahhh.

I've split this entire weekend between Dubai and Abu Dhabi, and I must say that this topic has come up in every meeting I've attended. Sadly, our UAE friends (and they are our friends) are not taking this well at all. They are putting their normal reserved face on this, but everyone universally expects that contracts will start to be lost and business with US companies will quietly go away, or be awarded to other bidders.

I'm not going to debate all of the very good points that have been made, both for and against the deal, I only want to add this: The UAE is doing exactly what we want the rest of the Muslim world to do. They are becoming, very rapidly, more westernized; and, if the spectacle that is Dubai is not evidence of this, then I don't know what is. I hope we've not sent a negative message relative to their progress.

Thanks Homer. Very good insight.