Cynical Nation

Barry,
I agree completely with you. It is obvious that you, as many others, voted for Bush because you thought he was best for the security of the country. I think this proves what I believed all along. This president is very weak on the war on terror. Believe it or not, the country would have been much safer if Kerry was president now. Or any other rational republican (i.e. McCain).

Blue, we do agree on this issue, but I'm afraid it doesn't necessarily "prove" anything other than that the administration can be shockingly tone-deaf on occasion, which we already knew. Kerry inspired *zero* confidence in me on the security issue, which is why I voted for Bush in 2004. I'm disappointed here, but that's a far cry from believing we'd be safer under Kerry. I'm with you regarding McCain, however.

Can someone point out to me exactly what the security issue is in allowing a UAE company (which, BTW, operates many of the ports out of which the bulk of shipping to the U.S. originates) sign the paychecks of the U.S. (union no less) employees of a British subsidiary that has been operating those same ports for years?

Contrary to some of the drivel that has been reported and posted in the media and on the 'net, this contract is about unloading container ships, not about providing security for anything. If the worry is that DPW/P&O will look the other way while Al Q'aeda ships a containerized nuke into the U.S. then won't we have to ban any Muslim, Arab or Afghani from working in any capacity on the docks?

Move along people, there's nothing to see here.

Believe it or not, the country would have been much safer if Kerry was president now.

Blue Wind: Would Kerry have supported the sale of P&O to DPW before he opposed it?

Barry, you are absolutely correct.

WF, I have a problem with the fact that this company is owned by the UAE, which has been sympathetic to terrorists in the past. Would you feel just as secure if Iran were the country that owned this company?

Your assertion that we would need to ban every Muslim or Arab is like saying that we can't legally prosecute members of organized crime because we would need to remove all Italians, Jews, Hispanics, and other races that participate in organized crime.

Bush ran on national security and now Hillary Clinton looks like a shrew hawk while Bush looks like a fool.

It is amazing to see that some people are willing to defend Bush, even when he takes actions that weaken the security of the country.

Independently of the security threat, why do we need a foreigh company managing our ports? This is the USA and I am sure there are American companies that can handle that.

Your assertion that we would need to ban every Muslim or Arab is like saying that we can't legally prosecute members of organized crime because we would need to remove all Italians, Jews, Hispanics, and other races that participate in organized crime.

No, Carmine, you've got it exactly backwords. My assertion is that it would be like saying that Italians can't participate in construction or carting because Italiam-Americans have been known to engage in unlawful activity associated with those industries.

Regardless of the history of the UAE and the Taliban, show me how allowing a UAE based operating company to unload containers jeopardizes the security of U.S. ports and I will reconsider my position.

Independently of the security threat, why do we need a foreigh company managing our ports? This is the USA and I am sure there are American companies that can handle that.

For Example...?

Halliburton. ;-)

"Independently of the security threat, why do we need a foreigh company managing our ports?" (BW)

You're kidding, right?!

Or are you feigning ignorance of the fact that the POSN Co. which was sold to BPW WAS/IS a FOREIGN COMPANY.

That is, a FOREIGN COMPANY was ALREADY RUNNING OUR PORTS!!!

Not only that, but England has a far more radicalized Muslim population than we do here.

I can see that you are nearly completely devoid of nuance, BW, which is what I'd expect from an admitted "anything this administration does is wrong" kind of guy. You've asserted in the most hysterical terms that this deal is a "security disaster" without backing that assertion up with one single fact.

I've proven that your stance is naive and simplistic by showing (1) the ports in question are ALREADY handled bya FOREIGN COMPANY, (2) that Dubai is an extremely western state, within a very Westernized and pro-American nation (the UAE) and (3) that the U.S. is still responsible for its own port SECURITY and controls who works here, as even workers in FOREIGN Companies NEED U.S. WORK VISAS.

I know you don't get the nuance in my own stance, which is NOT defending either "the hated Bush" or this particular deal, as I said, I remain skeptical, but open minded and see the facts for what they are.

America's Military war on terrorism has been prosecuted against the right enemies BW. Yes, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and the UAE all "recognized" the Taliban-al Qaeda Alliance in Afghanistan PRE-9/11 and yes, all of them backed away AFTER 9/11 and have sided with the U.S. & Britain POST-9/11.

Apparently you'd think the real enemies were Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and the UAE and NOT Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran and Syria, the nations Bush has designated as "the enemy."

On that score, sad to say, Bush is RIGHT and you are WRONG.

"I'm disappointed that some conservatives are resorting to playing the race card to defend the administration on the whole UAW port deal. They argue, essentially...that we shouldn't oppose letting brown-skinned foreigners do the exact same job that we've happily allowed white-skinned foreigners to do for years.

"I'm sorry, but that's exactly the same kind of PC (il)logic that says we can't do racial profiling of airline passengers. Crap like this is precisely the reason the public still doesn't trust liberals to deal adequately with security issues. When conservatives resort to the same tactics, it makes no more sense than when liberals do it, but also undercuts a core Republican strength." (Barry)

I agree 100%.

That is the most inane and desperate way to defend this contract. Had DPW been a Japanese company, we wouldn't be having this discussion either, as Japan, like England is considered a "safe Allie." Nothing to do with race.

It's not so much "tone deafness," it seems an inability, maybe an unwillingness, or even BOTH, on the part of some (most), in this administration to explain their actions.

Reagan was a great communicator, these guys, not so much. Reagan knew he had to sell his policies to the American people, these guys don't seem to get that.

It's a sad day when even I can lay out a better case for their actions than all those guys they have in thos fancy suits.

When I see arguments like this (the race card) or Bush imperiously pronouncing the deal "DONE," and will answer critics "with a veto," my skepticism is increased.

This issue doesn't require charges of bigotry/"racsism," it should be hashed out in an open session. They should have to make their case before the American people.

One of the key issues here, for me would be, "Are we at war with Islam or not?"

If we are, then racial profiling, wiretaps and surveillance based solely on ethnicity must be in and the Military war on terrorism should be expanded to include our "new enemies," and old Allies (Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qutar, Pakistan, Jordan and the UAE), forthwith.

If we are not and we are engaged in a struggle against a radicalized Islam or Islamo-cultism and we seek to divide the Arab/Muslim world into the radicals and the pro-Westerns, then we need to have a lot more nuance than folks like Blue Wind seem to want to exhibit.

As always, you draw your own conclusions and extrapolations that are VERY wrong. I am fully aware that a British company was managing the ports. All I asked is why do we need any foreign country managing our ports. Why not an American company?

I do believe that our real enemies are primarily located now in Saudi Arabia, UAE, and Pakistan, but they do not control the goverments of these countries. They have some influence though. I think going into Afganistan was the right thing to do and that Iran is a very dangerous enemy. Iraq was a weakened enemy that posed no real threat to us. There was absolutely no reason to start the Iraq war.

"WF, I have a problem with the fact that this company is owned by the UAE, which has been sympathetic to terrorists in the past. Would you feel just as secure if Iran were the country that owned this company..." (Carmine)

You probably should rethink that view a little bit Carmine.

Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and the UAE have all been key U.S. Allies and supporters in the war on terrorism. They along with Kuwait, Qutar and Jordan comprise the most pro-Western governments in that region.

There are certainly citizens of ALL those nations that support Islamo-cultism and international terrorism against the U.S. BUT NOT those governments. In fact, there are Americans here (American born Americans) who also support radicalized Islam and condone terrorism against the West - many "Black Muslims" take that exact stance.

We don't blame the American government for our own terrorists, be they Black Muslims, White Supremacists or members of ALF & ELF, so we CANNOT blame those governments for the actions of a small group of radicalized citizens.

Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Syria and the Sudan remain the primary enemies of the West in our war on terrorism, as ALL those nations are either led by radicalized Islamo-cultists (Afghanistan was and Iran IS), or by more secular pan-Arabic leaders (like Iraq's Hussein & Syria's Assad) that support and sponsor international terrorism as a weapon against the West.

On the other hand, Qutar, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and the UAE have ALL opposed that "Axis of Evil" and been key ALLIES in the war on terrorism. Not perfect Allies, to be sure, as many of those governments greatly fear being overrun by more radical elements in their own countries, but Allies none-the-less.

The contract in question is NOT for "Port Security," it is a contract for port operations, leasing dock space, unloading containers, etc.

One foreign Allie (Britain) was the origin of the company that previously did that work, now it's been sold to another Allie, an Arab one (Dubai Ports World out of the UAE), which claims that the workforce hired by the previous owner POSN Co ("mostly American, with a smattering of Brits") will stay in place.

We SHOULD look into this contract and vet it out completely, but the hysterical charge, in some quarters that a nation that has Allied itself with us in the war on terrorism, is an "enemy" merely because it is an Arab nation, seems shortsighted to me.

JMK, you and I often agree on many issues. I don't feel that trusting a company that is actually owned by a foreign government that has had ties to terrorism is such a good idea.

Let's put it this way. If I park my car in the worst part of Camden, NJ (a very dangerous city) and leave the keys in the car and the doors unlocked and the windows open, there is still a pretty good chance that the car will be there when I return. However, logic dictates that I should take my keys, lock the door, and shut my windows. Sure, the car might get stolen in both instances or it might be there upon my return. It is possible to conclude that locking the doors and taking my keys makes no difference. If someone really wants the car, they'll steal it. However, crime statistics and common sense suggest that taking logical and simple precautions will increase the avoidance of criminal activity.

Such an approach should be applied to the ports as well.

"As always, you draw your own conclusions and extrapolations that are VERY wrong. I am fully aware that a British company was managing the ports. All I asked is why do we need any foreign country managing our ports. Why not an American company?" (BW)

I don't know, and apparently neither do you.

I'd suppose it's because POSN Co outbid the other companies vying for that contract. That's how that sort of thing usually works.

Again, the contract in question is NOT for port SECURITY, it's for port operations. ALL foreign workers MUST get a U.S. work visa and the U.S. is STILL responsible for its own port SECURITY.

"I do believe that our real enemies are primarily located now in Saudi Arabia, UAE, and Pakistan, but they do not control the goverments of these countries. They have some influence though. I think going into Afganistan was the right thing to do and that Iran is a very dangerous enemy. Iraq was a weakened enemy that posed no real threat to us. There was absolutely no reason to start the Iraq war." (BW)

Well, you're wrong there.

"Our enemies" (adherants of radicalized Islam/Islamo-cultists) are EVERYWHERE. There's a large number of them in Europe, set soon to be expelled, I hope. There are many in Asia, in places like the Phillipines and Malaysia. There are many in Africa, from Morrocco to the Sudan and Nigeria and of course there are many throughout the Arab world. In fact, there are some right here in the good'ol USA!

Saddam Hussein was the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism from 1991 to 2003. For that reason alone, he was the right choice for the second front in this Military war.

Iran is a far less "dangerous enemy" now than Saddam's Iraq was. For starters, it has no known stockpiles of WMDs (nerve and biological agents) which Iraq had and failed to properly dispose of (thus the UN "Weapons Inspectors"). For another Iran's Military is a shadow of what Iraq's was.

Iran is a "serious problem" right now for ONE single reason, it's openly seeking to enrich uranium that can be used for nuclear weapons.

We are about to go through the very same scenario we went through with Iraq. They've been reported to the UN Security Council. Resolutions will be passed, weapons inspectors will be assigned and if they do the same thing Iraq did, ignore the Resolutions (Iraq ignored thirteen) and toss out the inspectors, the Military option will be tabled.

Again, I find it odd that some of the very same people who urged restraint with Iraq, now urge immediate action against Iran. Almost as odd as the fact that many of those who oppose the necessary racial/ethnic "profiling, I prefer "Pattern Analysis," here at home, for our home defense, now exhort a sort of ethnic profiling of who our enemies should be. You, for instance, would consider nations like Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and the UAE "enemies," despite their being Allied with America and Britain in the war on terrorism since 9/11/01.

The again, I always find such gross inconsistencies rather odd.

JMK,
You, as your friend Bush, appear to have a pre-911 mentality. If you find ok that a state-controlled company from a country (UAE)that recognized the Taliban and failed to cooperate on disclosing Bin Laden's accounts, should have access to our ports, what can I say. The good news for you is that beyond Bush, you have Jimmy Carter supporting your arguments. So you are not alone at least.

Carmine, that's a far better bit of reasoning than comparing the UAE to Iran.

Look, my initial reaction is to distrust all things Arab & Muslim post-9/11, and that is certainly my inclination here.

I do, however, see the nuances in this issue that make much of the reporting on this issue, not only wrong, but grossly misinformed and misinforming.

Some would have us believe that the contract that POSN Co. had with our ports is new.

It's not.

Moreover, POSN Co. IS also a FOREIGN company and England does have far more radicalized Islamicists living there, than we do here.

To date, we've been very specific about who our "enemies" are in this conflict - we've targeted Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, Syria and a few others.

Pakistan (guilty of global nuclear proliferation), Saudi Arabia, Qutar, Kuwait and the UAE have ALL been allied with the U.S. & Britain in the war on terrorism.

It's been argued that much of the 9/11 monies were chanelled through the UAE.

The UAE is a Mid-Eastern banking haven, much like the Cayman Islands. So, much of the monies DID go through there, BUT they also went through Germany and embarassingly enough, the United States, as well!

Is the UAE trustworthy enough to be entrusted with some part of our port operations?

Frankly, I DON'T know.

That's why I remain skeptical, but open on this deal. I really can't say whether it's a good deal or a dangerous one.

Some have said it's given Democrats a chance to look strong on national security - after opposing the Patriot Act, Guantanimo Bay, the NSA wiretapping of domestic communications to international portals - I don't see it. I do see the hearings for this providing a forum for demanding that Democrats who now reflexively oppose this, to take a similarly consistent stand on all other aspects of our righteous and necessary war on terrorism.

After all, up until now, many Dems acted as though there was NO NEED for any global, especially Military war on terrorism!

You, as your friend Bush, appear to have a pre-911 mentality...The good news for you is that beyond Bush, you have Jimmy Carter supporting your arguments. So you are not alone at least." (BW)

Again, since you fail to understand any nuance at all, I'll repeat what I've said from my very first post here, "I remain skeptical of the contract, but I DON'T dismiss it out of hand on mere conjecture," as you clearly have.

I know it's hard, if not impossible for you NOT to assume that anyone who puts forth facts that don't support your reflexive anti-Bush viewpoint is either a "neocon" or "Bush pal," but the sad truth is that most people who subscribe to any such "Appeal to the Man" (ie. your "Anything the Bush administration does is wrong") is generally far more often wrong, than right, simply due to the surrender of critical thinking involved in accepting such an "Appeal to the Man" viewpoint.

Stratfor Security also considers the deal "of minor concern," so their position is far closer to mine, ("It is a concern and should be looked into and vetted") than Carter's blanket endorsement is, since I've never either endorsed or condemened this deal.

A good counter-argument:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110007999

That is a great article CRB.

It makes three major points, all touched on, in these comments;

(1) Yes, some of the 9/11 hijackers were UAE citizens. But then the London subway bombings last year were perpetrated by citizens of Britain, home to the company (P&O) that currently manages the ports that Dubai Ports World would take over.

(2) Critics also forget, or conveniently ignore, that the UAE government has been among the most helpful Arab countries in the war on terror. It was one of the first countries to join the U.S. container security initiative, which seeks to inspect cargo in foreign ports. The UAE has assisted in training security forces in Iraq, and at home it has worked hard to stem terrorist financing and WMD proliferation. UAE leaders are as much an al Qaeda target as Tony Blair.

(3) Dubai Ports World would be managing the commercial activities of these U.S. ports, not securing them. There's a difference. Port security falls to Coast Guard and U.S. Customs officials. "Nothing changes with respect to security under the contract," Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said yesterday. "The Coast Guard is in charge of security, not the corporation."

And they make an interesting conclusion, “So the same Democrats who lecture that the war on terror is really a battle for "hearts and minds" now apparently favor bald discrimination against even friendly Arabs investing in the U.S.?

“Guantanamo must be closed because it's terrible PR, wiretapping al Qaeda in the U.S. is illegal, and the U.S. needs to withdraw from Iraq, but these Democratic superhawks simply will not allow Arabs to be put in charge of American longshoremen. That's all sure to play well on al Jazeera.”

The deal should be looked at and fully vetted in an open session of Congress, but hopefully NOt with the view that every Arab nation is "the enemy."

Wow, first Cheney shoots his buddy in the face and then the president shoots himself in the foot.

It's so much fun to live in interesting times...

I'm not sure this ports contract is a mistake by the Bush administration.

It reamins to be seen.

Certainly, it's a very complex issue.

The fact is the contract is a commercial contract, involving port operations, NOT port security, which, of course, remains the responsibility of the U.S.

The charge that this could be a way for terrorists to infiltrate the country is a canard. ANY & EVERY foreign worker must have a WORK VISA from the Dept of Homeland Security. Moreover, this contract has been filled by a FOREIGN Company for years.

The UAE has been one of America's most stalwart allies in the war on terrorism.

Anyone opposing this, must find some real reasons to scuttle it...and NOT merely because the UAE is an Arab country. It's not a black & white issue.

The UAE has been one of America's most stalwart allies in the war on terrorism.

How can you say that? The UAE was 1 of 3 countries to recognize the most brutal regime on earth at the time: The Taliban. The same people who recognized the Taliban are still in power. The UAE did NOT cooperate with the US in identifying Bin Laden's accounts. If thats what you call "best allies", who are our enemies???

You make a very simple case very complicated. The deal is SHAMEFUL and clearly against the interests of the country. Thats why BOTH republicans and democrats condemn it. It has nothing to do with politics.

As usual, you're wrong BW.

The UAE abandoned and alienated Afghanistan's Taliban government even before 9/11/01 and immediately joined with Britain and the U.S. in the Military war on terrorism.

What the WSJ said is very true, "the UAE government has been among the most helpful Arab countries in the war on terror. It was one of the first countries to join the U.S. container security initiative, which seeks to inspect cargo in foreign ports. The UAE has assisted in training security forces in Iraq, and at home it has worked hard to stem terrorist financing and WMD proliferation. UAE leaders are as much an al Qaeda target as Tony Blair."

Those are the facts.

The pro-Western governments in the Arab world are Qutar, Kuwait, the UAE, Jordan and Saudi Arabia. Non-Arab, but Muslim nations whose governments are also pro-Western are Turkey and Pakistan.

Moreover, the contract in question (1) has nothing to do with port security, it's a commercial contract only, (2) DPW has said that it has no plans to change the current staffing now involved with POSN Co. which is "overwhelmingly American, with a smattering of English," and (3) ANY & EVERY foreign worker must get a work visa from the U.S. Dept of Homeland Security.

Saying that and acknowledging that the issue is a very complex one, which some folks (including yourself) insist on looking at simplistically, I stand by long held stance, "The deal should be looked at and fully vetted in an open session of Congress, but hopefully NOT with the inane view that every Arab nation is "the enemy," by dint of merely being an Arab nation.

JMK,
Ok...keep living with the illusion that Saudi Arabia, UAE and Pakistan are our allies. It is your right. They may well be allies of the Bush family (at least Saudi Arabia), but not of the country.

You probably haven't kept up on such things, so I'll let you know that EVERY ONE of the nations you mentioned have sided with the U.S. & Britain in the Military war on terrorism.

Pakistan has offered tactical, logistical and military support along the Afghan-Pakistan border, Saudi Arabia's government expelled OBL TWICE, the last time in 1994, freezing his assetts there. They have also supported the U.S.'s efforts in the war on terrorism since 9/11 and "the UAE's government has been among the most helpful Arab countries in the war on terror. It was one of the first countries to join the U.S. container security initiative, which seeks to inspect cargo in foreign ports. The UAE has assisted in training security forces in Iraq, and at home it has worked hard to stem terrorist financing and WMD proliferation."

Yes THEY, along with Qutar, Kuwait and Jordan are allies with America at this point and Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Syria and the Sudan are our REAL ENEMIES.

If you want to dispute those facts, you'll have to come up with your own facts, not the conjecture you've offered so far.

JMK, this ports contract may not be a mistake by the Bush administration, but the way it's been handle to date sure is.

"JMK, this ports contract may not be a mistake by the Bush administration, but the way it's been handle to date sure is." (BOB)

On that point I agree 100% Bob.

In fact, you COULD, without much, if any exageration, say that "the way they've handled everything" (poor communication, an inability or unwillingness to explain or sell their case to the American people) has been problematic and mistake prone.

Aside from their doing nothing on the borders, little on reining in the growth of domestic spending and coming late to pushing for alternative energy sources, the biggest complaint I have with this group is their inability/unwillingness to communicate effectively.

To those who have an innate dislike for this administration and all things Republican, it comes off imperious, and to many others it comes off as bungling and clumsy. Neither is a good image to project.

Allies/Not Allies aside, I'm upset that this whole thing seems to me to be just a simple case of cronyism.

I am upset because having DPW lease these terminals means that they have a greater chance to get things through security than they would if another company was in charge of unloading containers there. I am upset because I don't trust the UAE, and maybe that's just being crazy on my part. The fact remains, however, that it sure looks like P&O's acquisiton by DPW is OK'ed by the White House because their board is just part of the whole making-rich-people-richer network. I firmly believe that increasing the wealth of the already wealthy is much more important to our current administraion than security ever could be.

"I firmly believe that increasing the wealth of the already wealthy is much more important to our current administraion than security ever could be."

Finally after 29 comments someone actually nails it on the head. Bravo OTTami.

That's the real problem here - regardless of whether this is good or bad for the United States was never the primary motivation here. It's all about behind the scenes deal-making. Same as usual. Now I don't think that the Bush administration would knowingly sell our security - I just think they're a bit too arrogant to believe that there could be one.

Intellectually I understand the woeld of mutinational corporations and how Dubai fits into the mix, however I am still not comfortable with handing over any fuction at our ports to a moslem nation. There are too many security gaps in our ports that we know of, and this seems like it just opens the door to exploit them even more.

Maybe it's an unfair reaction, because it is obviously a case of profiling, but like it or not profiling is part of any police/security operation whether they admit it or not.

QUOTE:
"I firmly believe that increasing the wealth of the already wealthy is much more important to our current administraion than security ever could be."

Finally after 29 comments someone actually nails it on the head. Bravo OTTami.
UNQUOTE

So a British firm owning the 30-year lease that no American company even wanted to bid on in 2000, being purchased by a UAE firm in an open offer, after having been vetted by a 16-member review including the Departments of State, Homeland Security, Commerce and the Maritime Board, is evidence of some kind of clandestine deal instigated by the current American administration to enrich the wealthy while betraying our security as a nation?

I'll have some of what you two have been smoking, please.

No GZ, I think plainBill just nailed it on the head; "So a British firm owning the 30-year lease that no American company even wanted to bid on in 2000, being purchased by a UAE firm in an open offer, after having been vetted by a 16-member review including the Departments of State, Homeland Security, Commerce and the Maritime Board, is evidence of some kind of clandestine deal instigated by the current American administration to enrich the wealthy while betraying our security as a nation?"

It's true that no American firm sought to bid on that contract and it can also be argued that a foreign nation, with a serious terrorist problem of its own (last year's London bombings were carried out by British citizens) has ALREADY held that port SERVICE contract.

Both port security and work visas remain under the control of the U.S., thus SECURITY remains a responsibility of the U.S.

The UAE has been a strong Allie in the war on terrorism, but the ports contract deserves to be scrutinized and vetted in an open session of Congress, but the idea that "we can't trust any Arab nation," isn't correct, at least not at this point...not yet.

OK, agree or disagree, I don't care, but stop spelling "ally" wrong. Please.

That action (defending the Dubai deal) of the Bush administration proved

Either that the Bush administration does not really care about security OR that the Bush administration is completely corrupt.

It is either one or the other.

The defenders of the decision of Bush to support this shameful deal make fool of themeselves. This action of Bush is simply indefensible.

"Either that the Bush administration does not really care about security OR that the Bush administration is completely corrupt." (BW)

AGAIN, (1) the ocntract is a commercial SERVICE contract, port security and controlling who works at our ports are STILL U.S. responsibilities and (2) A foreign company from a country with a subtantial "terror problem" (last year's London bombers were British citizens) of its own, already had that contract, (3) over 80% of ALL U.S. port service contracts are in the hands of foreigners, as few U.S. companies are involved in that any more. Even Haliburton didn't bid on the contract in question when it last came up and (4) "the UAE's government has been among the most helpful Arab countries in the war on terror. It was one of the first countries to join the U.S. container security initiative, which seeks to inspect cargo in foreign ports. The UAE has assisted in training security forces in Iraq, and at home it has worked hard to stem terrorist financing and WMD proliferation."

Those are the FACTS BW. The contract is NOT related to security, a foreign entity ALREADY services that port service contract and the UAE, which has assisted in training security forces in Iraq, was also one of the first countries to join the U.S. container security initiative, which seeks to inspect cargo in foreign ports - that container security initiative IS a vital part of our security procedures and we already trust them with THAT.

You've offered no reasons why you think the UAE is an "enemy" of the U.S. because there are no reasons. It's not the case.

The UAE, like Qutar, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Pakistan and Kuwait remain among the pro-Western Arab nations that have supported America's war on terrorism.

It would be great if there were American firms seeking to fill this void, but there aren't.

The ports deal will almost certainly be re-reviewed, but I seriously doubt the outcome will be any different.

JMK - the fact is that regardless of whether this deal is good or not, safe or not, or whether the government has done it's due diligence or not is secondary to the almighty dollar.

That is one thing about the Bush administration that is crystal clear.

The problem with that charge in regards to this issue is that there is not a single shred of evidence that anyone in the Bush administration unjustly profited off the POSN Co contract, nor the recent sale of that company to DPW.

You need some proof of personal economic gain coming before all else before that charge can be taken seriously.

When the POSN Co from England (a country with its own "terrorist problem" - last year's London bombers were English citizens) bid on that contract, NO American companies put in a competing bid.

Something like 80% of America's ports are serviced by foreign companies.

This became an issue because the Long Shoreman's workers Union didn't like the deal and fears that DPW will try and do the offloading with fewer Union workers. The issue has since been framed a security issue, but as Time magazine noted, "U.S. ports are owned by state authorities, and the workers who actually offload the ships that dock there are the same unionized Americans who belong to the International Longshoremen's Association, regardless of which company hires them. Dubai Ports will not "own" the U.S. facilities, but will inherit the P&O's contracts to run them, with no changes in the dockside personnel or the U.S. government security operations that currently apply to them."

DPW uses fewer Longshoremen in its operations, most probably to cut costs and increase profits. That's why such firms can outbid most, if not all, U.S. firms.

Accepting the low bidder is a net economic advantage to ALL Americans.