Bush reasons that it’s OK to give control of the ports to the UAE because they’re a “trusted ally”. Have we forgotten so quickly who else was a so-called trusted ally as late as 1989? Surprise - it was good ol’ Saddam… I think the cartoon riots demonstrate the deep gulf between Western/Christian and Muslim thought (which have interestingly disappeared from the news since the mosque bombings!).

Sean basically has this one right: there aren’t a lot of good solid arguments against the DPW running our ports. I’m also hearing a lot of “ick, Arabs” stuff that’s pretty offensive. Remember, folks: if we turn into a nation…

At On Tap Marshall Manson wants us to “stop being paranoid and start acting like Americans.” There’s plenty of good…

The Bush Presidency will be known as the moment in time when America stopped subscribing to #2 philosophy mentioned above, and began subscribing to the #1 philosophy - that is to stop our reactive-isolationist-do-nothing foreign policy with terror committed by Islamo-fascists (see Jimmy Carter run), and take the war to them. Democrats are seething mad since they love laying down before the enemies of America since the Russian Revolution. When liberals claim Bush is doing nothing to protect the homeland, what they really mean is that we should we should stop defeating our enemies abroad.

The Dem philosophy was clearly pointed out in the last Presidential debate when John Kerry said the threat of terrorism had been “exaggerated” by the Bush administration. Terrorism, he asserted, was “primarily an intelligence and law enforcement operation that requires cooperation around the world — the very thing this [Bush] administration is worst at.” (nationally televised debate on January 29).

Which is more important? Reactively inspecting incoming containers in our ports streaming in from hostile countries? Or, could President Bush be consistently subscribing to philosophy #1 by focusing on eliminating the cargo from ever being shipped in the first place?

The Bush doctrine is that America will no longer wait to be hit. Everybody can get all twitterpated about who is running the ports if they want. And we all can agree that we do need to have security in our ports. The bigger issue, that Democrats hysterically want to reject and turn our attention away from, is what are we doing abroad to stop problem at the ports of the middle east.

That being our virutaly unguarded Southern Border?

I’ve heard some really bizarre comparisons of the Dubai Ports World deal with the Harriet Miers nomination. It is the height of ignorance to compare the Meirs flap to this. Meirs was wholly unqualified to sit on the court, where Dubai Ports has been involved in port management for some time. Who do you think runs the ports that the 5th Fleet routinely pulls into?

The knee-jerk reaction by so many to this deal boggles the mind. And this newfound sense of “security” at our ports is vastly overshadowed by the gaping hole that is our southern border. So while our open borders Congress hems and haws over a port deal, it ignores the single largest security flaw that the nation faces. Alas, there is hardly any discussion by any Senator about that major problem, let alone anything close to 1/1000th of the media coverage. Hell there have been more stories on the Cheney shooting than the massive amounts of incursions by the Mexican military supported coyotes and drug runners to the south or the Arabs posing as Mexicans who are crossing the border.

While everyone seems poised to jump on this issue without doing an inkling of research into the deal, there is hope that cooler heads will prevail. The biggest mistake I continue to hear is that Dubai Ports World will take over Security for the ports, and this is fully incorrect. Coast Guard and Customs have absolute control of the ports security, as well as the Port Master who is more or less the liaison between the Port Management Company and the governmental agencies who oversee all US ports.

I’m no big Bush supporter, but this assault on this deal reeks of xenophobia. We had no problem when the Brits managed the ports operations, but now we all of the sudden can’t trust anyone from the Middle East? This form of guilt by association is the hallmark of bigotry, prejudice, and ignorance.

Now if someone wants to raise valid concerns about the deal, do so and drop the emotional response. Words like “common sense” seem appropriate when looking at a deal of this magnitude, yet that same “common sense’ is wholly absent when it comes to our border policies.

There are in my view legitimate concerns to be raised over this port deal. UAE has been a valuable ally in the War on Terror to their own detriment, but their banking ties to Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups should send up very large red flags. Still this isn’t a nail in the coffin of this deal. The turnover of many US ports to this group is troubling in the fact that it will give them layout, and logistical details of our port systems that would not normally be made public to an outside company, and this is troubling as well.

I for one welcome a review of the deal, and I would like to see more security experts, not Congressmen, Media Pundits, and the rest of the MSM hackery’s opinions on this deal. I do not for an instant trust Congress when it comes out so quickly on a deal like this, because its obvious that no one there has had the time to review the deal or its implications. So step back, look it over, analyze and report, but don’t jump to conclusions immediately.