Port Controversy

I find it a bit inconsistent that the President, who's willing to break laws in the name of National Security and doing everything he can to protect the homeland from terrorists, now adamantly supports a state-owned company from a country with 9/11 complicity to own some of our very vulnerable ports.

Defending his decision, he says, "I want those who are questioning it to step up and explain why all of a sudden a Middle Eastern company is held to a different standard than a Great British company. I am trying to conduct foreign policy now by saying to the people of the world, `We'll treat you fairly.'" Well, Great Britain, headquarters for the company that now owns the port, was not complicit the the planning and execution of 9/11. Great Britain is not located in the most unstable part of the world. While the current UAE government may be pro-Western, how can we be sure they will be on our side in ten years? Or ten months? I feel pretty comfortable that the British government is pretty stable.

Most of the bin Laden family in Saudi Arabia are very pro-Western, but would we sell them a railyard or an airport?

I'm all for free-trade and globalization and the democratizing effect they have on the world, but this seems real damn risky. I am sure that it is an overstatement to call the UAE the fox and our ports the henhouse...but it's not that much of an overstatement.

My second area of confusion is that Bush usually doesn't come out so forcefully on something until it's been politically vetted. I don't see anybody saying anything good about this. It looks like a bipartisan loser. How is Rove going to spin this into an election year plus for Bush like he did with the domestic wiretapping scandal?