"An ignorant mix of anti-Arab sentiment, anti-any-foreigner feeling, terrorist panic and domestic point scoring are creating some very misguided objections."

... Like, say, burning embassies, murder and rioting?

Pot. Kettle.

I actually think that Bush had planned this one. Basically what is happening is that Bush is shifting anti-muslim sentiment onto the Democrats. Bush spent the last 6 years convincing us that the muslim world was the cradle of all evil and all of conservative world has goose-stepped in place. Now Mr. Bush is coming out and looking like the nice guy in the Muslim world and I unfortunately think that some are buying the bull. Bush is shiftless and not someone who is looking out for the betterment and safety of our country he is supposed to be running. He is only out for himself and this latest act has proven it.

First of all, please make this important distinction: DPW is totally owned by the UAE government - it's not a multinational corporation owned by citizens of various countries. In other words, it's more like a government agency than a corporation as we're used to thinking of corporations.

Second,does anyone know what other ports besides those in the US are affected by the acquisition of Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company? It might give us some perspective if some other western country which has been threatened by terrorists has worried about this issue.

After all the things that this administration has gotten wrong, it is just too sad to see them getting hammered over a rare decision where they got it right. Unsurprising, no doubt, given how they have politicized national security (or at least the perception of security). But sad none the less.

For me the issue is not that the ports will be run by an Arab company but that fact that company is owned by an Arab government that recognized the Taliban and that has played a large role in the financing of terrorism. Why in the world are we allowing a foreign government to oversee what we all recognize to be a horribly exposed port system? Somehow the war on terror is enough to justify wars, torturing prisoners, to deny basic rights to US citizens, to justify spying on US citizens and god know what else Bush is doing; but it is not enough to prevent a foreign government from taking control of our ports?

In response to Dee Dee's question, England's biggest port will also be affected as will ports in France, Belgium and Canada, among others.

So in England, a country that has suffered a terrorist attack on its own soil more recently than the U.S., there is virtually no concern about this takeover, yet in the U.S. its has ignited a political firestorm. If this UAE-based company is such a security concern I would have expected to see more concern in other countries as well.

The UAE press has got this right. Bush is right. This is a corporation/agency winning a contract on its merits. Dubai has the best port operations in the world. And if we are someday going to implement better safeguards at ports of entry, best to have the most efficient and competent organization at the helm.

The fact that paranoid Lefties can conceive of any fantasy before accepting that Bush has got something right is not a surprise. The idea that we tolerate raving lunatics like Chuck Schumer in the Senate is another matter. Throw the bum(s) out. We need friends in the Arab world, and they are there waiting to do business with us. They don't hold it against us that we recognize states like Israel.

One small point. Congress is not seeking to block this action. Congress merely wants to delay it so that they may look into it more closely. This is simple responsible governance. Bush says, "trust me -- everything will be fine." Congress, in response is merely saying, "OK, but how about we take a quick look at that first." This is what Congress has been needing to do for the past 4 years or so. Reassert that, yes, it is a co-equal branch of government, too.

I cannot find any reference in any news article that ports in England, France, Belgium and Canada will be affected by this acquisition. For example, an article in Canada's Globe and Mail (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20060220.IBPORTS20/TPStory/TPBusiness/) makes no mention of it. Would someone mind giving me a link to information about this?

All I can save for the republicans is if they hand these ports to this Dubai company and anything, anything at all, happens at one of these ports from now on there will be hell to pay politically. The Republican party would be finished in this country.

As for the claim that "this is a corporation/agency winning a contract on its merits", that's a lot of crock. The people who made this decision did it in total secrecy w/o even following the 45 day wait mandated by the law, w/o even informing their superiors and congress. Not only that, the guy who worked for this company is now supposed to head the Federal Marinetime Administration or something like that. This is pure big business and cronyism with total disregard for the people's security or even their sense of security in these troubled times.

Here's a link to a map of the ports owned by P&O that would presumably be acquired by DPW

http://portal.pohub.com/portal/page?_pageid=71,207408&_dad=pogprtl&_schema=POGPRTL

Close enough to Baltimore, I think it's interesting that in the Post's Political discussion today with Shailagh Murray the subject of the legality of the approval of this wasn't even mentioned. Kind of interesting that the supporters of this deal don't even care anymore that Bush doesn't even bother to go through the motions. And Ms. Murray doesn't seem to see a distinction in the corporate identity of this entity being a nation.

this is the politics of globalization with an infused mix of bigotry against arabs.

now i think people and politicians in the US can understand the feeling of people in other (mostly developing) countries when they too protest the take over of important firms/industries by US multinational corporations. [who would decry an imminent take over with accusations of increased CIA / US meddling in local affairs etc - the same theme harked by the politicians across america - "security"]

i support bush on this one, if one is to be trusted to be an proactive player in the global economy & a keen preacher of open markets, then america has to lead the way by example.

the argument about security is a moot point because ICE-DHS would still be in charge.
the argument about UAE as a supporter of terrorism would be akin to accussing germany of being a supporter of terrorism because most of the 9-11 terrorists were based in Hamburg.

politicians (on both sides) are just trying to play on people's emotions and concerns.

To say that this issue is the product of "paranoid Lefties" is the height of ignorance. The brouhaha started with right wing talk radio; at this point it seems that opposition to the deal may be one of the only truly bipartisan issues in DC in the last few years.

>> They don't hold it against us that we recognize states like Israel.

WTF? Where do you think all that Middle Eastern hatred shown on TV everyday toward the US come from? Or 9/11? Or all the IEDs directed at American troops in Iraq? Israel is not at the root cause of it? Perhaps it's Bush's invasion and occupation of their land? Which?

>> they are there waiting to do business with us

By running the biggest cartel on earth to suppress supply and squeeze every oil dollar out of our pocket? Oil price triples in the last 3 years no?

What infantile yappings!

This bigotry claim is so tired. Why do so many still react to it?

It is naive, in my mind, to believe that a large company, like this port company, can be responsible for the thoughts and beliefs of all their employees. It is wrong to allow a company with ties to a country that has been the source of terrorist intelligence, planning, funding, staffing, etc., to have control over our inter-continental shipping. A main vein of supplies into our country.

Before we let this deal proceed, we need to make sure that they WILL NOT have the ability to compromise our security. If other countries have been immune to scrutiny then lets not throw up our hands and NOT scrutinize this deal, let's revisit the existing ones.

As for Bush's motivation, hmmm... let's see, could it be... oh, I don't know...maybe ...SATAN! Ooops, no wait, I mean, MONEY! Bush's education plan is heavy on testing which requires a publisher like a campaign donor like McGraw Hill to publish the tests, his Social Security reform involves financial firms to manage the money adding jillions in fees, his Medicare plan doesn't allow the same bulk discounts you get at Costco, his war plans have no definition of victory or workable plan but the military and oil industries set world records for making money, and on, and on, and on, and on................

Bush isn't about free markets, he's about promoting whoever pays to get promoted.

http://www.bernards.blogspot.com

Two weeks ago George was in LA telling us we need to worry about Arabs flying airplanes into the tallest building on the West coast. This week he's telling us we don't need to worry about Arabs running our ports on the East coast. This is just too much for us dumb Americans George! Which version of Kool Aid we/you drink George? Rove's or Snow's?

I don't understand how having a UAE company overseeing harbor operations endangers those areas any more than at present. They aren't responsible for physical security and they don't do cargo inspections. Ships delivering cargo from questionable origins, or questionable ships in general will still be searched and monitored by US federal agencies who are currently performing those services. That won't change one bit, and if anything will increase as a result of the new ownership. What, do you think running the harbor will allow someone to load up a UAE ship full of weapons and sail it into Baltimore b/c the UAE runs the harbor? Duh.

Stop listening to our jackass President, and our idiot, self serving members of Congress and start thinking for yourself. One job we won't ever have to outsource is making a giant mess of our own country b/c no one is doing it better than us.

We shake our heads at the actions of a few unscrupulous characters manipulating the masses during the whole cartoon mess. The masses don't care for the details, react on emotions and are silly little pawns.
Sound familiar?

I'm beginning to think my knee-jerk reaction was right. I have no doubt that Dubai Ports does an excellent job of running major ports across the world. I took a look at where their current holdings are located and didn't have a problem with most of them. The one that caused me the most concern is the one located in Djibouti. This is very close(in a global sort of way) to Yemen which is not a country friendly to the United States. It doesn't take much imagination to come up with a scenario here that spells trouble for America.

It's common knowledge that every container brought to our ports is not inspected. The Coast Guard might be patrolling our waters, but they aren't personally eyeballing each container that arrives on a ship.

When the Bush administration lied us into war they put Cheney and Rice out with their famous "we don't want the next smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud" speeces. Well, let's just say we don't want the next smoking gun to be a container full of Ricin or Anthrax loaded onto a train or truck headed into the heartland, or your favorite large metropolitan area,triggered to spread its poisonous cargo to as many people as possible. Sound far-fetched? So did four jets being used as bombs to take out The World Trade Center and The Pentagon. Even Condi couldn't imagine that happening.

This has nothing to do with racism. This has to do with taking every single precaution necessary to protect our country from future attacks....even if it does hurt the feelings of a few billionaires in Dubai.

Ooops...not that the Yemen government isn't friendly with the US, but we aren't very popular with the regular folk. I didn't mean to misrepresent our relations with Yemen.

Certainly, among some people, bigotry is an element in the port controversy. However,it is an element all over the world. Look at the religious violence taking place in Iraq. We recently had some Christian churches burned down in Alabama, but Muslims were not envolved or accused. I am not aware of any Mosques that have been burned down in America. Most Americans have a great deal of respect for every religion. Religion was so respected by the founding fathers that it was made an individual right in the Bill of Rights which government is not allowed to touch. In deed, it was so important that it occupies first place in the Bill of Rights.
However, this port controversy is a combination of some bigotry, reaction to the outsourcing of jobs overseas, the insourcing of undocument and documented workers to drive down wages, the loss of vital industries overseas, general insecurity brought about by 9/11, "Free Trade", and the gradual decline of the Middle Class who built America. Frankly, terrorists would be wasting their time attacking the U.S. as we are about to implode anyway.
Europe is going through the same problems, but their nation states, along with their high standard of living, and jobs are disappearing with the European Union. Outsourcing for them began with the European Union.
Is President Bush to blame? Yes, in part, he is to blame. His election campaign has hyped the war on terror in order to be re-elected. We must stay the course under his leadership in order to "win" the war on terror. Of course, terrorism increased with his preemptive War in Iraq. He keeps waving the bloody shirt in order to be re-elected. However, I do not believe he has any personal prejudice himself. It is "politics". Within the United States, he and the Republicans have made major contributions to the decline of the Middle Class and the U.S. as a country. He didn't invent "Free Trade", but he has maximised it for the wealthy and multinational corporations. Lrage profits combined with low wages!
I think that the U.S. is still a good investment for Arab countries, but I would go for manufacturing or anything that produces a lot of jobs. I would recommend that they first invest in Arab Countries. Take care of your own people first!

Any international media mention Bush's remaining committed to the deal, or give him any credit for it? It's the right stand to take. The complaints about the deal are a dangerous mix of paranoia, bigotry, and political opportunism. It's pathetic to watch.

Sometimes I wonder if we need saving from politicans more urgently than terrorists. And I say that sitting in Baghdad.

The number of Post reporters who agreed in their chats today that this is all about jingoism is kind of disturbing. The difference between a publicly owned British based company (a country which has a pretty good record on fighting terrorism) managing U.S. ports and a UAE government owned company (a country which has a very mixed record on fighting terrorism) managing our ports. Calling the UAE an ally in the "War on Terror" is not exactly definative as a number of countries with pretty questionable terror fighting records have won that label.

And speaking of the UAE's record on terror--from a 2004 article
"The Central Intelligence Agency did not target Al Qaeda chief Osama bin laden once as he had the royal family of the United Arab Emirates with him in Afghanistan, the agency's director, George Tenet, told the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks on the United States on Thursday.

Had the CIA targeted bin Laden, half the royal family would have been wiped out as well, he said."

http://in.rediff.com/news/2004/mar/25osama.htm

The IRA was supported financially by Americans (largely out of Boston) for years. Does this make the American governnment a supporter of terorism?

Bush is right on this issue.... though as usual wrong about how the deal was done... The security card shouldn't be played here, but its ironic that its being played against the group who overplayed security issues for so long in order to sell their stupid agenda. Doing little but create fear and waste lives, money and credibility in Iraq...

On the other hand, America is just once again coming to terms with globalization. Something American culture and education system aren't preparing Americans for...Global competitiveness means that the average American won't so well off in the future.... Been sold a bill of goods huh?

Stop electing idiots...

Dave Bob:
"For me the issue is not that the ports will be run by an Arab company but that fact that company is owned by an Arab government that recognized the Taliban and that has played a large role in the financing of terrorism."

Hmmm. the United States was at the forefront of supporting the Mujahideen financially and militarily, during the Afghan war. It had no qualms in supporting a dictator in Iraq (Saddam), and supplying him with money and weapons (some suggest biological and chemical weapon expertise as well) to use against the Iranians. Are we supposed to overlook the ham handed hypocrisy of U.S policy (that has caused so much instability and bloodshed in the world), while condemning other governments for not taking action against groups and individuals that the U.S itself was not extraordinarily alarmed about at the time?

Another attempt but the Conservative (Bigoted would be a pretty good synonym nowadays) right to raise the Arab/Muslim terrorist bogey to rally support amongst a constituency that is just plain ignorant and refuses to learn, or is incapable of doing so. I am really getting tired of trying to explain, to a majority of republicans/conservatives I come across, that the Middle East is not the major source of U.S oil imports (U.S politicians using the phrase "reduce dependency on Mid-East Oil" probably has a lot to do with ingraining that thought in peoples heads, another example of bigoted vote rallying (or is it the rallying of Bigots for votes?) Those people probably still think I am a heathen infiltrator sent by a scimitar twirling Sultan to lull the American people into complacency.

Hmm... I sort of like the idea of being a scimitar twirling Sultan...I think I figured out my Halloween costume for this year.

We interned Japanese and Germans during WW2. We look back and say it was wrong but I doubt main stream America had any problem with it at the time. Today we are being called racist for reacting to the "Port" controversy. We are suppose to love all people and treat them fairly. Paleeze!As Bush once said "We are at war" "We will track down the terrorist and anybody who harbors them" We have seen how few moderate Arabs stood up against the recent firestorm in response to the cartoons. We are seein radicals gets elected in countries that actually have democratic elections. And we continue to do business with the kings and queens of repressive countries that are stabilized by huge petro dollars we give them. Why would we not react the way we are. When moderates get control of the Mideast then maybe we would be less reactionary. Until then I cannot believe and patriotic right wing person would blindly follow Bushing line-in-the-sand veto threat instead of starting impeachment proceeding tomorrow.

Politicians like Senator Clinton demonstrate their unfitness to hold any office in our government. They make no effort to weigh the advantages and disadvantages of an issue but advocate a position which they believe is popular.
Their only interest is getting votes.

It's amusing hearing these politically-correct liberals fall all over themselves explaining that their opposition to the port deal is absolutely not racist- they're just concerned about our country's security. Why aren't they equally concerned about the security threat posed by many of the millions of illegals who cross our borders every year- oh no, that would be racist.

Dee Dee:

"First of all, please make this important distinction: DPW is totally owned by the UAE government - it's not a multinational corporation owned by citizens of various countries. In other words, it's more like a government agency than a corporation as we're used to thinking of corporations."

You got that wrong.

It is a company that is OWNED by the government but it is RUN like a corporation.

It is not run as a government agency.

DPW like the very successful Emirate Airlines which is also government-owned. Their goal is to MAKE MONEY.

http://www.time.com/time/asia/magazine/article/0,13673,501050328-1039765,00.html

The government has a lot cash from oil (public money) so it is using in building corporations.

Bigotry may be an issue in some people's minds but what is loud and clear to me is that after the American people have lost so many lives and had their tax money taken for the purpose of defending the country against Arab and Islamic terrorism,how could anyone possibly think that we would sit still for this and that it's bigotry? That's just glib, empty-headed thinking. We have every right to be very uncomfortable with this decision. No foreign countries or companies should be manning our ports in this time of war. And especially when this very war has created the proliferation of enemies around the world. I think everything should be done to put the ports back into the hands of Americans, especially those who are desperately in need of jobs. Charity begins at home - too bad if you think it's isolationist. What matters here anyway?
haven't you heard that.

Rather than make accusations of bias, wouldn't it be nice if the power brokers of the Persian Gulf could look in the mirror and say, "Arabs have an image problem. What should we do about it?"

Of course many Arabs read anti-Arab bigotry into this, even if there may be legitimate security reasons for America to pay special scrutiny to ownership of ports facilities by any state-owned foreign corporation. Yet the ease with which Bush was able to lie to the U.S. public by deliberately conflating al-Qaeda with the former Iraqi regime, would rightly lead any educated and honourable Arab to conclude that this man was willing and eager to play to the all-too-prevalent bigotry and ignorance of mainstream America in order to further his pursuit of a war of choice on the basis of a lie. If Bush was able to sell this twaddle to America, surely, then, America must be ignorant and fearful of, and bigoted toward, Arabs in general. Hardly an unreasonable leap.
So now the U.S. is now in a no-win situation. Any move you make with implications for the Middle East will be inevitably be seen in the worst possible light throughout the entire Arab world. Add those to the other major world regions (like Latin America) where Bush has totally discredited your country.

Rather than making idiotic acusations of jealousy for U.S freedoms and values, wouldn't it be nice if the power brokers of the West could look into the mirror and say, "The West (Americans) have an image problem. What should we do about it?"

Th West really needs to start looking at his as a two way street. The other aproaach has only fanned the flames of extremism and provided ammunition for bigots in the Middle East. As a response the bigots and the islamophobes are pouring out of the woodwork in the West as well.

Liberta
"Why would we not react the way we are. When moderates get control of the Mideast then maybe we would be less reactionary."

I hope you realize the irony here, as you berate one of the few moderate regimes and countries in the middle East. One that actually welcomes foreign ivestors and culture. Forgive us Muslims for wondering what the "Great Satan" actually desires from us, and when it will be placated. Apparently being 'moderate' is not enough anymore.

Apples and oranges Zain; what does the foreign policy blunders of the past have to with ensuring the security of US soil now? Nothing, of course. But in case you wonder the ownership by the UAE is an issue because of their complicity in terrorism. However, I should have made clear that I am astounded that a company owned by ANY foreign government is allowed to manage such sensitive areas as our nation's ports. If another government can do such a great job, as Bush claims, then why can't the US set up corporation to manage the ports? Or better yet, why doesn't the US government do it itself? Baying about globalization of free trade is non-starter because we are dealing with a company owned by a foreign government, not some "multinational" corporation. So, yes, the fact that this particular company is owned by the UAE does indeed add insult to injury and it has nothing do with racism.

This is plain bigotry. Where was the uproar when the ports were managed by the British-owned firm? Its jealousy mixed with racism and is underscoring America's intolerance around the world. This company could probably provide better security than the Department of Homeland Security. The fact that an Arab firm is successful enough to expand around the world seems to be insulting to most of America. Its a shame that most of America cannot have a more open mind.

Dave Bob:

"Apples and oranges Zain; what does the foreign policy blunders of the past have to with ensuring the security of US soil now?"

Perhaps I was not clear enough. My intention was not to compare past U.S foreign policy blunders with current U.S security concerns, but rather to illustrate the fact that when you start judging other countries by their past actions don't forget that the United States (and for that matter most West European countries historically) comes out with pretty filthy and bloody hands. The United Arab Emirates does not even come close to having indulged in the sort of activities that would cause censure and rebuke. If you were to judge by past actions (slave trading, colonial occupation, apartheid, genocides...) you would probably have to isolate the majority of the world and the U.A.E would still come out squeaky clean.

My other point is that the few concerns about the U.A.E's activities you do have are not justified because they occurred at a time when the United States did not view those activities, or the individuals who conducted them, with any sort of alarm. Did the U.S contact the U.A.E and ask them to stop the funneling of money from certain groups or individuals? Did they ask the U.A.E govt. to monitor their activities or detain them? Were there not organizations operating in the U.S itself that were funneling money to terrorist groups and were not shut down or even investigated until months after 911? Did the hijackers not get past U.S intelligence and security and roam free for months? Why are you holding others accountable to completely different standards? This is not to imply that all Muslim countries have spotless records, but to ask the West, Americans especially, to stop painting all Muslims/Arabs with the same brush. This type of bigotry and stereotyping is exactly what infuriates me about our Mullahs. The actions of a few become by extension the faults of the entire West.

"If another government can do such a great job, as Bush claims, then why can't the US set up corporation to manage the ports? Or better yet, why doesn't the US government do it itself?"
That's easy! Bush would probably appoint a horse racer, Texas rancher, or strip club owner (you can never tell about these conservatives secret sides...). You would have a fiasco along the lines of the Katrina mismanagement. He might even go along with James Dobson and Pat Robertson and appoint an anti abortionist to also ensure that the smuggling of millions of dead aborted babies out of this country by Godless atheists is halted.

RQlLfVUtmiVQc tM736JEG9C39V8 4YasucF6bchR

I would like to comment on the incredible contradictions in which the authorities seem to be falling regarding "national security" matters.

On February 23 the Washington Post reports that a prestigious Indian scientist, Dr. Goverdhan Mehta, was mistreated at the US consulate in India, who accused him of being a liar, and refused him a visa to attend a conference in Florida, to which he was invited by a university. It seems that Dr. Mehta has been several times in the US (the last time was in 2005). This issue has also been widely reported in the Indian press.

On the other side, on February 26 the New York Times reports (see article "The Freshman" by Chip Brown) that a former Taliban representative, Mr.Sayed Rahmatullah Hashemi (who was in the US in the year 2000, on a tour representing the Taliban regime),is currently enrolled in a 4-year degree program at Yale. He seems to have been sponsored by a CBS reporter, Mr. Michael Hover and (I am quouting from the Times article), Mr. Rahmatullah "applied for a visa at the United States Consulate in Peshawar in July 2004. With his Taliban-era paperwork, he was referred to the embassy in Islamabad, but within a couple of weeks he received a B2 prospective-student visa".

My question is: what type of criteria is the government following?

hello