Though the usual demagogues have had a field day with the UAE-port story (as this Wall Street Journal piece demonstrates), there are some legitimate reasons to be suspicious of an Arab company running six of America's most heavily trafficked ports. Starting with the fact that we are at war with Arabs in Iraq (and with their co-religionists in Afghanistan), the idea of handing over our ports to those sharing the ethnicity and religion of our enemies just doesn't make a lot of sense to Joe and Josephine Six Pack. A couple of UAE natives took part in the 9/11 attacks. Might a couple more, working for this UAE company, attempt to sneak some dangerous materials--or dangerous people--into America through its ports? The nation already has served as a conduit for uranium enrichment centrifuges smuggled into Iran. Might it also curry prohibited materials into the United States too?

Sure, America retains the security of those ports. And the same company that runs those ports now will run them in the future--just under new, UAE ownership. But the people at war with us are primarily Arabs, and so are the people--for those unaware of what the "A" in UAE stands for--who live in the UAE. And, even if analogies to past wars don't completely work with Iraq or the war on terrorism, one would be hard pressed to imagine a scenario where FDR okayed outsourcing our ports to say, an Austrian company, during World War II. Heck, it's hard to see Bush the Elder outsourcing our ports to a Colombian company during his Drug War. So why, during a war against terrorism, should the president allow the outsourcing of our ports to a company run by Arab Muslims?

But the UAE isn't at war with us, and President Bush rightly points out that their government, if not their citizens, generally cooperates in the war on terrorism. Snubbing them might alienate one of the few governments friendly to the United States in the region. Reciprocation against American companies will be bad for business. And certainly there was no public controversy about foreigners running American ports when an English company began overseeing Baltimore, New Orleans, and other important commercial points of entry.

Talk of discrimination and double standards now that Arabs have taken control of that English company, however, rings false once one grasps that Arabs are not Englishmen and Englishmen are not Arabs. If it makes Arabs feel any better, few Americans would have favored outsourcing American ports to the English during the War of 1812.

Part of the outrage, one suspects, stems from the behind-the-scenes manner in which this deal has been conducted. Why on earth would the particulars of a government-to-government "business" transaction remain classified? President Bush says that Americans "don't need to worry about security" when it comes to this deal. Fine, but just to confirm that: could we--the people who "don't need to worry" about our own security--see the evidence that government officials saw to come to that conclusion?

Both sides of this argument make valid points. But for President Bush to brandish his veto pen on this issue, after presiding over the longest stretch without a veto since the 1820s, calls into question his priorities, his passions, and his prudence. To make a stand here, when declining in the past to make a stand on grounds so much more worthy, threatens to transform the president's image even among his staunchest supporters.

...the fact that we are at war with Arabs in Iraq (and with their co-religionists in Afghanistan),

Arabs? What about those who are supporting us in Iraq and Afghanistan. Are all Muslims the enemy? I thought this was a Global War On Terror. Do you have to be a Muslim Arab to qualify as the enemy? How about an Arab Muslim? This all sounds like an excuse to justify opposition to the deal using aspersions on Arabs and Muslims.

...the idea of handing over our ports to those sharing the ethnicity and religion

Handing them over? Will they build Mosques?

...just doesn't make a lot of sense to Joe and Josephine Six Pack.

Yea, Joe and Josephine ought to be deciding foreign policy between their six-packs and reruns of American Idol.

A couple of UAE natives took part in the 9/11 attacks.

Ever heard of Timothy McVeigh? What kind of Arab was he? Was he a Muslim? Or is there a threshold? McVeigh only killed 168 innocent people in Oklahoma City with his truck bomb.

Might a couple more, working for this UAE company, attempt to sneak some dangerous materials--or dangerous people--into America through its ports?

They might - with or without the ports deal. But according to an editorial in the WaPo today...

...since Sept. 11 the United Arab Emirates has been a valuable ally. Last year, according to Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon R. England, 56 U.S. warships, 590 U.S. Military Sealift Command ships and 75 allied warships were hosted in the United Arab Emirates -- at a port managed by the very same Dubai Ports World.

The WaPo also said...

And, in attempting to cast aspersions on the reliability of the United Arab Emirates, they reached back to its behavior before Sept. 11, 2001 -- a standard of judging under which neither the Clinton nor Bush administrations would fare all that well.

Sound familiar?

Sure, America retains the security of those ports. And the same company that runs those ports now will run them in the future--just under new, UAE ownership.

Did you know that the top manager for the Dubai Ports is American?

But the UAE isn't at war with us, and President Bush rightly points out that their government, if not their citizens, generally cooperates in the war on terrorism.

But but but they're all A-Rabs. And Muslims to boot.

Talk of discrimination and double standards now that Arabs have taken control of that English company, however, rings false once one grasps that Arabs are not Englishmen and Englishmen are not Arabs.

Yea, we never had to fight a revolutionary war to rid us of the Arabs.

Fine, but just to confirm that: could we--the people who "don't need to worry" about our own security--see the evidence that government officials saw to come to that conclusion?

Sure, and no doubt you will. Much is coming out every day and hearings are underway.

...calls into question his priorities, his passions, and his prudence.

Not the way I see it at all. He's merely protecting the Powers of the Executive granted by the Constitution that the congress, in their uninformed and grandstanding haste have tried to usurp. Good on him.

To make a stand here, when declining in the past to make a stand on grounds so much more worthy, threatens to transform the president's image even among his staunchest supporters.

Don't bet on it. Here's a good bet, though. Within a few weeks, this "crisis" will have totally evaporated and be forgotten. Even today, Hillary Clinton, one of the strongest opponents is backing away from the fight. Could it have anything to do with Bill Clinton's speech in Dubai last November where he said:

The UAE is a model for a genuine Arab, Islamic nation that houses all cultures and nationalities.

And also:

He praised achievements in Dubai under the leadership of President His Highness Sheikh Zayed bin Sultan Al Nahyan. He added that Dubai "is a story of success that ought to be narrated". Clinton commended Sheikh Mohammed for his achievements in promoting multiculturalism and economic development.

The jig is up, the scam revealed, the game is over. Another Leftist attempt at creating something out of nothing just went "Poof!"

Here's a quiz for you Michael: What religion and ethnicity did nineteen of nineteen 9/11 hijackers have in common?

A). Buddhist and Panamanian
B). Shinto and Swedish
C). Hindu and Mongolian
D). Muslim and Arab

Here's a quiz for you Michael

This supposed to illustrate...what? That Muslim extremist terrorists are Muslim? Profound!

No, Michael, it's not profound. It's pretty basic, which is why I'm puzzled that you don't get it.

Our enemies, in what you call the Global War on Terrorism, do not look like the General Assembly of the United Nations, as much as you might want them to. They are exclusively Muslim, and disproportionately Arab. Because Muslims and Arabs are at war with us, and not white supremacist speed freaks or Redcoat occupiers, it's not racist (but common sense) to pause when considering the transfer of operations at some of our largest ports to a company owned by Muslims who are also Arab.

There are some countervailing points, some of which you mention, some of which the main post mentions. But as a conservative, my gut reaction is to slow down and get things right rather than rush through a shady deal, i.e., literally a deal that is, in large part, obscured from the public's eye. Another conservative instinct, suspicion of of the state, also leads me not to reflexively trust politicians and officials without verifying what they say. George Bush, as the WMD intelligence debacle proves, is fallible.

BTW: as a gesture of goodwill, to quell your anxieties, the correct answer to the quiz was D). Muslim and Arab.

Methinks my gut conservative instinct tells me that Michael is a leftist crony who wants the safety and borders of our country destroyed from the inside out like any other Liberal.

Can someone explain why outsouring control of our ports to an islamic arab country isn't an example of pre 9-11 thinking in a post 9-11 world?

Mike, you are really talented at cutting and pasting. Your having a little trouble thinking though. You have yet to come to grips that we are at war with the radical Muslim world. You too easily dismiss the fact the the UAE was the home to three of the nineteen terrorists on 9/11. That money from the UAE has been funelled into terroist activities throughout the world and continues today. My question to you continues to be : Given the fact that we are at war with radical Islam does it make sense for a backroom to deal to be made that gives control of our ports to a nation that until very recently supported terrorism and Islamo fascist regimes without at least a chance for the American people to lay scrutiny to such a deal? Please quit trying to impress us with the cut and paste technique you seem to have trademarked and just answer. Thanks.

Dan,

I posted the comment below last night and it disappeared. Did you delete it? If not, you may be having server troubles. If you did, just let me know, I'll take my comments elsewhere.

No, Michael, it's not profound. It's pretty basic, which is why I'm puzzled that you don't get it.

I "get it" just fine. You think it is wise and reasonable to indict an entire race of people and a whole religion consisting of over a billion people for the deeds of a radical minority.

Our enemies, in what you call the Global War on Terrorism,

You imply that this is not a GWOT with that phrase. If you really believe that, get in touch with Cindy Sheehan right away.

do not look like the General Assembly of the United Nations, as much as you might want them to.

The only way I want our enemies to look is exactly like rotting corpses.

They are exclusively Muslim,... it's not racist (but common sense)...

It is racist. Look up the definition. And lots of racists excuse their racism with phrases like "It's just common sense." All Arabs and all Muslims are not our enemies. If you treat them as such because of their race, you are a racist. Couldn't be simpler.

But as a conservative, my gut reaction is to slow down and get things right rather than rush through a shady deal,

I too claim to be a conservative. But my literature on conservatism doesn't have a "slow down" clause. This is no shady deal. It was reviewed and approved by an inter-agency group with full disclosure by the companies. After the two companies settled on the details of the deal in November, they issued a press release to the world announcing the deal. As far as I can tell, the only details that haven't been made public are security measures - and they should be kept secret.

Another conservative instinct, suspicion of of the state, also leads me not to reflexively trust politicians and officials without verifying what they say.

There is nothing wrong with that sentiment. I feel the same way having retired from federal service after 35 years. But there are literally hundreds of negotiations, deals, etc., reviewed and approved by the inter-agency groups every month. You cannot possibly review them all. That is why they exist.

George Bush, as the WMD intelligence debacle proves, is fallible.

That is a red herring. Had you or I been made privy to the evidence of WMDs prior to the invasion of Iraq, we would likely have come to the same conclusion the Bush administration, the congress, the UN, and the coalition partners did - Saddam had WMDs.

BTW: as a gesture of goodwill, to quell your anxieties,

I have no anxieties about this deal. It will go through just as planned after much caterwauling and dramatics. The facts are out there and with the ongoing hearings now in progress more will become known in the weeks ahead. If I feel any emotion, it is probably disappointment at how quickly many of the professed conservatives were conned into making this into a "crisis" by the hapless Left whose only motivations are to help out the company in Florida who didn't get the bid (and contributes to all the loudest critics) and to try to convince people they are more concerned about our security. I always thought we conservatives were smarter than that.

Methinks my gut conservative instinct tells me that Michael is a leftist crony

You couldn't be more wrong. I am a card carrying Republican, and a strong conservative. The safety of our borders is as important to as it is to you. I just don't get conned so easily by the Left as you appear to.

Can someone explain why outsourcing control of our ports...

They already were outsourced. The company just changed hands.

Mike, you are really talented at cutting and pasting.

Thank you for your insulting remark and let me save you a little time in the future. I washed my hands of you and your inane comments in another thread and won't be responding to you further. I explain this because it appears you're too dense to figure that out.

Is this an example of Muslim Arab terrorists?

As someone who as seen the CFIUS process in action, (CFIUS was established by the Exon-Florio Amendment to the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988) I feel a bit more confident that any national security concerns have not only been addressed, but certain safeguards have been taken to address them. I wish I were at liberty to discuss this more, but in my own experience, and as Dan points out in his post, the results are often confidential and closely guarded.

I don't see why this is surprising. The CFIUS process is extraordinarily invasive, and requires details on the inner workings of the companies involved. Details that, under any other circumstances, would be considered propritary and confidential. Any resulting mandates that CFIUS may have placed on the companies would likely be confidential for the same reasons. I understand the desire to see these documents, but the US Government is only protecting the interests of the companines to protect their internal data, and I would say that it should NOT be made available for public consumption, at least not without the companies' consent.

But I do have to agree with Dan that this is, at the very least, terribly bad politics. Add to the fact that the press, who are widely perceived as extensions of the liberal agenda, had fallen on their faces over the Cheney thing, now are viewed as the heros here! They are the ones that made us aware, and even the PRESIDENT aware, of the risks here. The political fallout from this will be fun to watch.

Michael, I didn't delete your comment. It must not have posted. Your comments are welcome here.

If there is no "slow down" aspect to the conservative literature you are reading, it might be because you are not reading conservative literature (or not reading enough). You claim that my desire to vet this deal more thoroughly makes me racist. Would it have been racist to question a deal for Japanese to run our ports during WWII? After all, not all Japanese were our enemies.

In this post, you say "the facts are out there." In an earlier one, you say "Much is coming out every day and hearings are underway." Which is it? Are "the facts out there" or is there still information to come?

You write: "Had you or I been made privy to the evidence of WMDs prior to the invasion of Iraq, we would likely have come to the same conclusion the Bush administration, the congress, the UN, and the coalition partners did - Saddam had WMDs." Speak for yourself. We had not had a single human intelligence asset on the ground in Iraq for several years. Much of the intelligence was "an@lysis" and not actual intelligence. There was disagreement within the intelligence community. And if someone truly has WMD, I'm not sure that the best way to prevent their use is by invading his country.

Just as a general point, Michael: You seem to settle on a position and then think of ways to defend it. Why not reverse the order? Think first and then defend on what you've settled on. By not doing this, you end up retrenching rather than rethinking. With this mindset, you seem incapable of considering opposing positions or of granting any opposing points. You may see this as a sign of strength. As the comments suggest, most others see it as a sign of intellectual weakness and non-thinking. This, I suspect, leads you to such foolishness as suggesting that a guy who wrote a book called "Why the Left Hates America" perhaps should join arms with Cindy Sheehan and directing another reader, who had merely wished you "peace" and toned the rhetoric down, to stick that in a bodily orifice.

So I ask you: Is your writing therapy or do you write because you want to persuade? If it's the latter, my suggestion is to change your writing style because you are only persuading readers that you are a fanatic.

You claim that my desire to vet this deal more thoroughly makes me racist.

I did nothing of the sort. I said your remarks about Arabs and Muslims was racist. And it was.

?Would it have been racist to question a deal for Japanese to run our ports during WWII? After all, not all Japanese were our enemies.

You can't be serious. Japan declared war on the US. All Japanese were our enemy until the country surrendered. The comparison does not stand up to the slightest scrutiny.

In this post, you say "the facts are out there." In an earlier one, you say "Much is coming out every day and hearings are underway." Which is it? Are "the facts out there" or is there still information to come?

The facts are there. But now, due to the hearings, everyone will get to hear them without bothering to do much more than turn on the TV. But the facts were always there.

?You write: "Had you or I been made...

Well, I suppose you could have come to a different conclusion but everybody else agreed on the WMDs. And WMDs were not the only reason that we invaded Iraq. It just became a convenient cause for those who want an excuse to decry the invasion now. Saddam was routinely violating the terms of the Gulf War cease-fire by firing on US and coalition forces enforcing the no-fly zones. He harassed and prevented the UN weapons inspectors from doing their jobs. He was openly funding suicide bombers from Palestine with his checkbook. He was conducting genocide on the Marshland Arabs and the Kurds - and used poison gas to kill thousands. WMDs was just one of the reasons to invade Iraq. My belief is that George H.W. Bush dropped the ball when he didn't unseat Saddam in 1991. Had he done that, we'd not likely have gotten into this fight at all.

Just as a general point, Michael:...

I haven't been on this site very long but I notice that several people, including you, feel it more important to attempt to tell others how they should think rather than address the issues. As that seems to be a continuing theme here, I don't see it to be worth my time to continue trying to discuss the issues. But thanks for the advice. I will cherish it always.

This, I suspect, leads you to such foolishness as suggesting that a guy who wrote a book called "Why the Left Hates America" perhaps should join arms with Cindy Sheehan

You like to rest on your laurels? Here's an electronic pat on the back for you getting a book published. You insinuated that the GWOT wasn't one at all - just like Sheehan.

and directing another reader, who had merely wished you "peace" and toned the rhetoric down, to stick that in a bodily orifice.

Never met anyone who ends a conversation with "peace" who was anything but a Leftist nut case. They don't deserve respect - except from other Leftists.

So I ask you:

Condescend much? Nice knowing you. So long.

Sad to see you go, Mike. I'll drink a toast to you, while I'm sitting on the beach in Dubai in two weeks!

Dan,

Do you disagree with this deal because it concerns Arabs or Muslims? You seem to want to label the whole Arab/Muslim population as homogonous or like-minded. Since you like an$logies, then why would we trust any European/Christian company with our ports during WWII since we were at war with one? Do you feel that there is that much of a difference between an Arab company running a port and a Singapore company?

This is obvious a security issue (if there is an issue at all). If we are going to let foreign companies run terminals then let's focus our energies on that, not marginalizing a strong ally in the GWOT.

I disagree with the secrecy of the deal. Because it's not transparent, I can't say that I disagree with the deal because much of the information hasn't been made public. I understand the principle that Homer illustrated earlier--that companies retain proprietary information and the like--but this is not a deal involving a private company. Both parties involved are governments. Since our government is elected, the people who elected them have a right to know. Perhaps when we vet the information, people will be comfortable with the existing deal. I don't think people are comfortable with the "trust us" approach, as it hasn't worked out to well with this administration (see Iraq).

No large population is homogenous and like minded--even family reunions and political conventions. I think that your counterargument is a strawman, at least on that count.

I think you missed the point of WWII if you focus on religion. The people fighting us were not fighting us because of their religious beliefs. The people fighting us now are fighting us because of their religious beliefs.

Im sad to see Michael leave on such a sour note...he almost, almost made me cry like a little school girl with those comments he made.

A better an@logy for all this would be set during the Cold War. We obviously wouldn't let the Soviet's handle port security for us, but what if the proposal were to let a country with communist sympathies handle port security? Such a proposal would have been rightly shot down.

Not all Muslims in the Arab world are radical Islamic terrorists, but we can’t ignore that quite a few are, and many more are sympathetic to them (as poll after poll done in the Mideast shows). Port security is too vital a national security interest to pretend that Islam is getting a bad rap because of the actions of a few. It gets a bad rap because of the actions of a few and the support, explicit or tacit, from most of the rest. Someone here who knows more about Dubai can correct me if my assumption is wrong, but isn’t Dubai like most every other Arab city in that it’s workforce consists in great part of foreign guest workers from surrounding Arab countries (countries that are in fact hostile to the USA).

I’m also troubled that we would let any foreign country handle out ports. It was news to me that we even did.

So you feel that a country with a high percentage of Arab/Muslims should have extra scrutiny (since we weren't outraged when it was a UK company) because there is a chance of an extremist gaining info/power and using against the US. Is that a fair summary?

Would you feel the same way about Indonesia or India (India has the second largest Muslim community)? What about Jordan?

I think this is just misdirected hostility. If we are going to let foreign owned companies manage our ports then we should focus on security here, not who buys them (given a few exception, N. Korea, Cuba, etc). To me, anti-American extremism is just as likely in Singapore, India, or Spain as it is in the UAE. By trusting our bias (racial or religious profiling) we are leaving ourselves vulnerable (assuming our security is an issue).

Yes, your summary of my position is fair and accurate.

Your admission that some countries should get extra scrutiny if they put in bids to run American ports (Cuba, NK, etc.), shows that we agree in principle if not in specifics.

America has enemies, and it is not racist to say that North Korea is an enemy, or that all of the 9/11 hijackers were Muslim Arabs. It's also not racist to acknowledge that, 1). according to all reputable polls, the vast majority of Muslim Arabs have an unfavorable opinion of the United States; 2). the people committing terrorism against the United States in the so-called GWOT are all Muslim and a disproportionate number of them are also Arab; 3). That we are occupying two Muslim nations, one of which is an Arab Muslim nation and this is extremely unpopular both among Arabs and Muslims.

So I'm assuming you would react the same way if it were Indonesia, Jordan, Djibouti, Philippines, or Morocco?

Your points don't really make the point. We are unpopular with many countries outside the Muslim/Arab world because of Iraq, so points 1&3 could apply to any of those countries. Point 2 ignores the fact that the overall number of Muslim/Arabs actively or passive supporting our enemies is relatively small. It also ignores the fact that 10x that many Arabs/Muslims help us in GWOT.

Everyone wants to focus on the two UAE citizens that were part of 9/11 but ignore UAE's enormous support in the ongoing GWOT.

I just can't believe we're even arguing this point. "What do you MEAN you're worried about Arabs?" "What do you MEAN you're worried about muslims?" WTF???? This is as bad as Bush asking why a middle eastern company should be held to different standards than a British company. It's COMMON SENSE!

Have ya'll not been watching the TV or something? Riots and deaths over cartoons, Sunnis trying to start a war with the Shia, beheadings, murders of priests and christians, Saudi bombers trying to blow up the pipeline, Madrid, London, New York, Washington, Bali, all over Israel, Jordan, Indonesia, etc. And that's just RECENTLY! How many British terrorists have killed anyone in the last few years?

See, this is why we're gonna lose, man. It's the same thing as performing a body-cavity search on Grandma at the airport, while Mohammed breezes through to his seat in first class.

This is retarded.

We require Arab Muslims allies in order to defeat our Arab Muslim enemies.

I'm certaintly less than enthusiastic about the decision, but I'm tentatively in favor of it.

"Have ya'll not been watching the TV or something?"

No, actually I don't. If I did then maybe I would think Ab Garb incident is still going on, since TV=reality, right?

"I just can't believe we're even arguing this point...yadayadayada...It's COMMON SENSE!"

Look at the number of trans-national, anti-American terrorist. It can be measured in the thousands. Assuming that they have some passive supporters, at most we are talking about a few hundred thousand. Some sympathetic Arab/Muslim isn't going to risk everything unless they fall within this category. This is by far a very tiny group within a very large population.

"How many British terrorists have killed anyone in the last few years?"

All of the 7 July bombers were UK citizens. Two were born outside the UK (Jamaica and Pakistan) but moved to the UK when they were 2 months and 2 years (respectfully). I believe all the accomplices were UK citizen, but you can check on that.

A potential threat could just as easily be British as UAE as Filipino. There are very few nations that warrant instant suspicion (or lack there of). If we are worried about security then that is what we should focus on.

"See, this is why we're gonna lose, man."

We'll only loose if we manage to alienate ALL the Muslim/Arab population. Acting like all Muslim/Arabs are the same is exactly what we don't need right now.

Blah: No one has inferred that "all Muslim/Arabs are the same" on this thread. I have never heard anyone say that in any context. Why do you invoke an argument that, if it has ever been used, has only been used by really, really ignorant people? Is it because it's so easy to refute?

Of course, all Muslims aren't the same. Of course, most Muslims aren't terrorists. But with more than a billion Muslims, if even a small percentage are terrorists, or support terrorists, than that's a dangerous situation. The popularity of bin Laden and the Palestinian terrorist groups in the Muslim world suggests to me that a sizable minority of Muslims, particularly in the Arab world, are comfortable with terrorism (if it's aimed at their enemies).

I think the point that those skeptical of this government-to-government deal are trying to make is not that all Arabs or Muslims are alike, but that Arabs are not Swedes and Muslims are not Mormons. In other words, different cultures and religions have different attitudes towards the United States and we should take those attitudes into consideration when outsourcing tasks that involve national security vulnerabilities.

The UAE group may do a fine job with the ports. I just don't know because like the rest of the public, the nature of this government-to-government deal has been concealed from me. Right now I just want more information.

I would like to raise the maturity level of this thread with this comment to Michael. Wha, wha, wha, wha, wha, my name is Michael I lost an argument so know I am going to leave this site forever with my pompous attitude. Crybaby, crybaby, cry, cry, cry. Peace!

I just want to make a couple additions to this debate.

First, there is the underlying economic issue involved here. The Bush government, and most Republicans and conservatives maintain a staunchly liberal policy as regards trade, i.e., absolute free trade and so have no problem with the borderless nature of global capitalism. That is probably why a U.K. company ended up running these ports originally (they presumably made an offer that they could do it cheaper than American companies) and why, global buyouts and deals being what they are, a UAE company was able to takeover the Brit company and make a deal to keep these ports. Some on this thread have questioned the wisdom of foreign control of our ports period, they are implicitly pointing out that the "market" should not rule, but rather prudence and national interest should. With that sentiment I agree.

Second, Blah and others are making a really good point about this "GWOT" but keep missing the mark as it doesn't apply to this particular deal. The very good point, which even Ben-T mouthed (don't worry Ben-T I know you didn't mean it this way), is that to successfully defend ourselves against Islamic ***non-state*** radicals we must follow a course of isolating extremists and playing them off of moderate Arabs and Muslims, by supporting Arab and Muslim STATES. You may recognize this policy as rather similar to a policy of "containmen," which it is, and that will really work. It is the only way to give terrorists nowhere to hide and no p[opulaces to feed off. To that end, sure UAE has been a good friend. (Btw, to that end Iran SHOULD be an ally and not enemy number one, our treatment of Iran has been really insane. Ditto Syria, who was tripping over themselves trying to supply us with intelligence and help in the aftermath of 9/11). However, this point is immaterial to this ports deal. We are not talking about becoming "enemies" with UAE, nor are we talking about ceasing relations, trade, alliances with them or being ungrateful about their help as far as combating terrorism. This is a much smaller issue about our local ports. There is no reason, Blah and Michael to treat the axeing of this deal (which won't happen) as if it would be treating the UAE as some sort of rogue nation that we will be adding to our "to invade list" right after Iran and Syria.

Of course, to hear Ann Coulter and others speak of it you would think they are ready to carpet bomb Dubai.

"But with more than a billion Muslims, if even a small percentage are terrorists"

Most terrorist are men, with more than three billion men in the world, even if a small percentage are terrorist then that's a dangerous situation. Why should we be more suspicious of Arab country than African, Asian, or some South American countries where anti-American sentiment is high?

My whole point is that if we are going to allow foreign companies to manage the ports and then bring up security concerns, it shouldn't be focused on where the port management company is from. We are literally focused on the wrong end of the problem (that's if there is a problem). Let's beef up our intelligence and ability to scan for dangerous items. I don't see how changing management from UK to UAE or Singapore would change the likelihood of this threat. If they can get a bomb in using a UAE company they can do it using a UK company (moneytalks).

I don't really have a problem with wanting to know more info about the deal, if that makes you feel better. My problem is singling out the UAE. We do have allies, more than enemies, in the Middle East and we shouldn't treat them like this.

"We are not talking about becoming "enemies" with UAE...being ungrateful about their help as far as combating terrorism."

I never implied any of this except that it would be a slap in the face. It's like the police wiretapping someone in witness protection. I think that if they government did block this private transaction it would have a very chilling effect to our relationship with the UAE and other Arab nations (why risk the political backlash of working with the US if it's not reciprocated).

Does anyone know what the difference between managing a terminal at a port and a terminal at an airport?

I've though of this comparison, but I don't know if it holds up.

Emirates SkyCargo can operate an airline and potenially a whole section of an airport (terminal) and no one raises an eyebrow but they can't manage a port?

This issue has highlighted a need that our bloated and newly minted bureaucratically top heavy Department of Homeland Security should take into consideration when reviewing either airport or seaport operations whether or not governments of foreign countries are friend or foe.

Number one, any sensitive open entry point that could be a security breach should be run by a U.S. company. If this can't be the case, and an air or sea port needs to be managed by a foreign concern, we should at least be only allowing foreign companies from governments that we are friendly with us or who somewhat share our common goals.

In the post 9/11 world, this should be common sense.

"Why should we be more suspicious of Arab country than African, Asian, or some South American countries where anti-American sentiment is high?"

Beirut '83. '86 German Disco Bombing. Achille Lauro. Pan Am 103. WTC '93 Bombings. Khobar Towers. USS Cole. 9/11. LA Airport Attack.

Blah: these are a few of the terrorist acts committed against Americans during the last few decades. Notice anything? Muslim Arabs were behind all of them. Where is your comparable list of terrorism against the U.S. by South Americans that makes you as suspicious of them as you are of Arab Muslims?

Blah,

The UAE wouldn't be slapped in the face if this POLITICALLY INSANE deal (what this reaction surprises you?) hadn't been negotiated in the first place. Apparently Homeland Security had the good sense to object to the deal before it went down, Bush says he didn't even know of it, and as Buchanan wrote today, the bottom line is that Bush globalists have no loyalty to this country and are down with whatever company says they can do something cheapest irregardless of where their point of origin is.

Our muslim allies in the region, like UAE, wouldn't have been insulted if our govt had done the smart thing and simply passed over UAE to operate these ports. That could have been played on the down low and as a simple business decision, now due to Bush's complete incompetence the deal has become a fiasco.

Buchanan must be a 'flynnfiles' reader as I posted these same sentiments and opinions Tuesday.

Damn, I'm good!

Michael had some good points. the big question is why on earth is anyone other than a us. comp. running are ports. homeland security is ajoke. people come in and out of this country at will. the drug war is a laffer. and now a war on terror.and you cant even race profle. i love my country but i beleive its going down the crapper.

Bill Clinton involved with influence peddling for the UAE? I'm shocked, shocked!!

This is our government selling our security for a few $$$$

http://news.ft.com/cms/s/60414c4c-a95e-11da-a64b-0000779e2340.html