Unfortuanately, the American public has an attention span of a bug, unless it concerns celebrities. As soon as Paris Hilton or Jessica Simpson hit's the news again, this will be all forgotten. As for Congress, it's an election year comming. What better way to generate some free publicity, by showing you how concerned they are about your security. Let the UAE funnel some 'contributions' into the DNC and GOP and see how fast they do a 180.

Fitz

We call that spin in the UK.

It's a trap. Let them think the doors are open to catch the jihadists when they make a move.

I have a problem with this one as well. I think Bush is making a mistake.

-S

The whole thing smells from start to finish. CFIUS is headed by Treasury Secretary Snow. In 2004 when Snow was an executive officer with CSX, they sold their port operations to DP World. Also David Sanborn who is the Presidents nominee to head the U.S. Maritime Administration was also DP World's Chief of operations for Latin American & Europe. If the press keeps digging, i wouldn't be surprised if there isn't a money trail leading somewhere.
Right now, the Bush administration is probably saying, "Find out what Paris Hilton is up to and tell the press".

Fitz

Considering that it seems that the UAE's main strategic objective is making money, rather than exporting Islam, I feel that the threat is minimal at best. If it was Saudi Arabia, Iran, etc, who was looking to acquire this British company, then I would have a strong disagreement with it. Also, look at this logic. Bush is even threatening to veto the threatened stopping of this deal. If there was a great or moderate risk of a terrorist attack happening due to this deal, why would Bush risk his political future by keeping this deal afloat? I see this as a state run business looking to acquire another business with assets in the US. A business run by a state that we have had good relations with since the early 70s, which is much more than what one could say about the other state looking to acquire these ports, China. This is all a political stunt, which will harm us strategically. Angering a friend of ours in the Middle East, and at the same time saying that we do not want to engage with the Middle East economically are not good messages to send. And this is coming from a man who would be quite toasty if Al Quada sets off a nuke in New York harbor.

Nothing I quoted above disagrees with this.
Based on what? Feeling? Here are some feelings:

"First, the deal will outsource port operations not just to any "foreign-based company"--but to a state-owned entity based in a known transit point for al Qaeda operatives and a key transfer point for shipments of smuggled nuclear components sent to Iran, North Korea and Libya. Second, of course, there's no such thing as a perfect defense. Should we never subject any Mideast companies or individuals to heightened scrutiny because it would offer "no security guarantees?"" - Michelle malkin

But let's cut to the chase. Jihad Watch's Hugh Fitzgerald:

"Meanwhile, CAIR is attempting to bludgeon Congress by claiming that opposition is "anti-Arab bigotry." Let them try to bludgeon. But if Bush shows he cannot figure out that many people in this country are far ahead of him in comprehending the nature and menace of Islam, and at this point it is doubtful that he can, he should simply get out of the way, shut up, and not dare to use that veto. We are all getting fed up with his obstinacy and inability to figure things out, and to respond coherently, articulately, cleverly. I don't care that he came out of Andover and Yale knowing nothing. That's his problem. But he has been President for five years. His inability to come to grips with Islam, to stop being sentimental about a "world religion," can no longer be hidden or explained away. The large-scale presence of Muslims in the Lands of the Infidels, behind what they themselves have been so clearly taught to regard as behind enemy lines (the lines of Dar al-Harb, as opposed to Dar al-Islam) has everywhere created a situation that for Infidels is much more unpleasant, much more expensive, and much more physically dangerous, than it would be without that large-scale presence. Bush cannot bring himself to even think a thought like that, or to begin to study Qur'an, Hadith, and Sira as those whose duty it is to protect us should be doing. He should have been devoting his time not to reassuring the UAE, or calling its ownership as innocuous as would be such ownership by the British, but instead he ought to be moving heaven and earth to rally NATO around Denmark (remember "an attack on one member of NATO will be considered an attack on all"?), and to standing up for, reminding the Western world of, the principles of individual liberty enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and every one of which is flatly contradicted by the Shari'a. He should be having the Pentagon and the State Department (not its Arabists, but its Europeanists) and the C.I.A. figuring out how to campaign, as they once did in Western Europe (remember the Congress for Cultural Freedom and Encounter magazine -- the best use of C.I.A. money conceivable) undertaking a vast effort of pedagogy to counter, and end, the influence of the Islamintern International at the U.N., at the E.U., in the European press and television, and in halting, and even reversing, the jihadist presence in the Lands of the Infidels.

He doesn't have to say it all quite the way it has been said above. But he has to grasp its undeniable truth."

:dead: OUCH! :dead:
But I thought Saudi Arabia was America's "staunch ally"?! :shifty:
What political future?
Pointing out that China is less reliable does not by definition make the UAE reliable enough.
It is anything but a stunt.
Nonsense. A ton of potentially strategic national harm is being avoided.
The US is heavily engaged with the ME and has been for decades. This deal is one in a million.
Tough.
Would you repeat that a little louder? I don't think you heard yourself. :hmm:

Well said Avon Lady! The simple fact of the matter is, the truth is going to hurt a bit, but it is the truth (and yes - it will offend Muslims everywhere, but I think it is in our best interest to start offending Muslims everywhere so that they can learn to deal with it, much like a child learns to deal with pain). We are all infidels and so we must defend our infidel nature I would think! :)

-S

I wouldn't quite call it Islamophobia or bigotry, just ignorance.

Ignorance indeed. Once again, from Michelle Malkin (if only you had bothered to read):
And here's a nice little bedtime story about the UAE's DPW:
Charmed. :nope:

Innocent until proven guilty...man you guys are nuts.The terrorists have truly succeded if you think allowing this company to take over the day to day activities of some ports in America is making America less secure.Get flipping real....If terrorists want to get something in here then I'm sure they could use one of the probably hundreds of tunnels used for transporting drugs into this country thru Arizona, New Mexico, or Texas....or if they want to take a more secinic route they could lesiure thru Canada's some 1000's of square miles of borders...or use any of the other many many ports of which America proudly boasts of only 5-7% of all cargo ever actually being cracked open and being checked.

To unfairly single out this country simply because of being a "Muslim" country is as hillbilly as an Alabama KKK club.Makes me ashamed to be an American when susch non-sense like this is going on.

Like looking under the bed for the boogy-man....Evil is in your hearts...not under the bed....NO FEAR!

And please don't come back with the obvious bla bla bla about ignoring the threat from Muslims extremists...yes there are bad people in the world who do bad bad things....most of them are your neighbors or brothers or mom and dad.

We'll give you another chance to think it over. From the Wall Street Journal:
Blah blah blah. :shifty:

Looks like it is on hold for now.

Nuff said.

Qatar and the UAE are competing against each other for the "neutrality" niche. The Switzerland of Arabia. They'll trade with anyone, without any moral convictions or jurisprudence. And it stands to be a lucritive niche if America ever gains independence from arab oil.

I don't blame them. It's a sound business strategy. America will continue using ports for import/export, long after we stop tankers from arabia/persia.

The final issue on this is that the UAE government will have hire/fire power over any dock workers. If they bribe the right people, they can even evade the Department of Immigration's review of their worker immigration status. Specifically, the UAE can be hiring Al-Qaeda operatives to be working right there when The Shipment rolls in. A most convenient circumstance.

I was ignorant of foreign companies "leasing" our ports. I would imagine there's a whole damn other bunch of port management companies that need to be re-evaluated, as well as this one. This is just one company that happened to catch headlines, giving all us Americans a quick look at the entire system. At the entire port-lease system, not just this one state-run company.

I am appalled.