More Port Fallout

I try to mix it up in here from day to day, but frankly the port uproar is too hot to ignore. Whether the issue is the disclosure that President Bush was out of the loop in the decision making process or how foreign investment issues interface with the port fracas to raise fresh trade concerns, washingtonpost.com readers debate the implications in our forums, in Emily Messner's The Debate blog and in Dana Priest's Live Online show on National Security, among other post.com venues. Here's a smattering of takes.

From Priest's queue, Peaks Island, Maine asks, "What exactly are the port vulnerabilities exacerbated by foreign ownership?" to which Dana Priest gave an equally compelling answer. She writes, "...the argument is that Dubai Ports World, the owner, would be able to relocate hundreds of employees to the United States to work on the port. Top managers sympathetic to Al Qaeda could force lower-level managers to allow in some AQ operatives who would be obtaining visas from the US with all the other, legitimate employees. Such "plants" would be nearly impossible to detect. Those people would then be able to establish lives here. And wait for the right moment. the mafia did the same thing to infiltrate the ports for smuggling purposes."

Messner's spirited defense of a Post Editorial defending the Bush administration's port deal as a non-issue met with resistance from some readers.

ErrinF takes issue with what she regards as Messner's sudden concern for global equinimity. "Emily was silent about 'knee jerk xenophobia' during the cartoon debates, but now she wants to apply it to the port situation. Fair enough, but I think she's barking up the wrong tree on this one...The security risk in this port situation is not that a foreign Arab country will run 6 of our largest ports, it's that ANY foreign country will run those ports. With the proposed deal, we're going from a private British company running the ports to a state-run UAE company running the ports. That's a foreign government running our ports when only private companies have done so before...There is a HUGE distinction."

Eric Yendall vociferously disagrees. He writes, "It is amazing how this trivial port MANAGEMENT issue has brought out the very worst in American jingoism, nationalism, and simple ignorance of the world. This has NOTHING to do with national security and secure borders. The reaction is simple ignorant, America-first hysteria. Why shouldn't a foreign firm run your ports? As the Post editorial points out the port operator is not responsible for port security...The message you are sending to the rest of the world IS harmful to your national security. You are saying in effect that American owned firms are agents of the US Government and should not be trusted by the governments and people in the countries in which they operate. That they cannot be good corporate citizens. Maybe Canada then should nationalise all American oil firms in Canada-like Exxon, Gulf and Chevron and, on the grounds of strengthening its own national security...Since no country has benefitted more than the US in the open trade and investment system you are not only shooting yourself in the foot but are too stupid to realise it."

All well and good, but please let's not call each other stupid on these posts. A civil, straightforward case for your view will suffice, and strengthen your position, whereas the berating add-ons are unnecessary.

As Republicans have so often schooled the Democrats, nuance usually doesn't work, even when you may otherwise be "correct." One reader calling himself Stop Bush's War on America states plainly that, "Bush may say he is fighting a War on Terror but to me it seems like Bush and his corporate cronies have declared War on America. Free Trade, CAFTA, Selling our ports, Tax breaks for the wealthy, Invading a country that did NOT have WMD's, Managing NOT to get UBL, Taking us from a record surplus to a record deficit - America's enemies need not do anymore more then watch us go down the drain-- Former Republican."

Much of the rest of that comment field is a link-a-thon, with apparent "citizen journalists," posting in with ample citations they deem worthy of public consideration on this issue. I can't vouch for the links presented, but it sure is a committed showing by the posters.

In the forums, the port storm brought over 500 posts yesterday, and the latest port news still has them talking. I've quoted enough, but take a gander over there if you want to peruse more views. I'm out tomorrow, so check back next week.

By Lindsay Howerton |  February 23, 2006; 6:29 PM ET  | Category:  Politics
Previous: Port Deal Debated | Next: Lampooning the Ex-Prez