I mean just the thought of it is incredible enough. The LA Times has earned it's reputation as one of the more liberally slanting newspapers, but in a recent series of editorials, it has nicely skewered the left's criticism of the Dubai Ports World issue, including a few very choice comments for California's own US Sen Barbara Boxer(d). The issue should have died out, as the truth of the proposal became clear. Indeed, as noted by Sister Toldjah, many conservatives have begun changing what was a nervous and skeptical mindset into growing support as the facts begin to be made clear. No, the Arabs have not taken over the mightiest ports in America. Swarthy men are not unloading our ships and planting suitcase bombs in our imported toasters. The Teamsters and Longshoremen still control the loading, the Company only over sees logistics. Customs and the Coast Guard still maintain security. The Democrats however, seeing this as a pollsters cash cow have tightened their gripe on the misinformation machine and have jumped on their band wagon with all gun's firing. And people are buying their fear tactics. Barbara is one of the many fear slongers seeing this as a Golden Ticket. The facts are simple, this is a non story. Even the UAE has respectfully asked for a delay and review just to appease nervous xenophobes. (See here for a good collection of informative links on the disinformation:

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/la-ed-ports22feb22,0,4937386.story?coll=la-news-comment-editorials Port hysteria WHEN MEMBERS OF CONGRESS TAKE homeland security seriously, it's a welcome development. Unfortunately, Tuesday's bipartisan hissy fit over the Bush administration's approval of a Dubai company's $6.8-billion deal to manage six important U.S. ports is neither serious nor welcome. At first glance, Dubai Ports World's acquisition of the British-owned Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co. looks troubling: Do we really want a company from the United Arab Emirates, one of the only countries that recognized the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan, acting as the maritime gatekeeper for New York, Miami, Philadelphia, New Orleans, Baltimore and Newark, N.J.? After all, ports could be appealing and vulnerable targets for terrorists, handling about 2 billion tons of freight each year, only 5% of which receives close inspection. The remaining containers are vetted through an informal process that emphasizes faith in "trusted shippers." The problem is that blocking the Dubai deal wouldn't do a thing to change any of that. It only provides members of Congress an opportunity to talk tough and pander to the terrorism-rattled xenophobe in us all. Dubai Ports World, like the foreign companies that already run the majority of key U.S. ports; including 80% of the terminals in Los Angeles; does not own the points of entry. It is a contractor that coordinates logistics. And most important, it's not in charge of security. (emphasis mine) Port operators work with U.S. security officials (port police, the Coast Guard, the Department of Homeland Security) in charge of preventing terrorism. This week's hubbub diverts attention from a pressing and genuine debate over what those agencies really need to do to keep our commercial harbors safe. Compared to airport security, port security is woefully underfunded and undeveloped. A paper written by former Coast Guard Cmdr. Stephen E. Flynn in the current issue of the Far Eastern Economic Review calls the system a "house of cards." Flynn argues that any terrorist worth his salt could simply seek out a well-known "trusted" shipper's containers to stash his deadly contraband. He calls for a slate of inspection-oriented reforms, including the adoption of better screening technologies. Who owns the companies that operate the ports isn't the point; it's how those companies work together with federal and local authorities to keep ports safe. And the Department of Homeland Security has a long way to go before it figures out how best to get that done. To be fair, congressional calls for transparency in the bidding process make sense. And any attention paid to port security is better than none at all. But by focusing on the nationality of a respected ports operator, instead of scrutinizing questionable policies or providing tangible suggestions for making the nation safer, members of Congress have once again shown their unerring knack for irrelevance when it comes to matters of homeland security.

• There will be no changes in the present security procedures. This company takes over port management only, not security or loading operations.
• The UAE has been a consistent ally in the war on terror.
• Dubai Ports World already operates ports around the world including Australia, China, Korea, Malaysia, India, Germany and Venezuela. They are experienced and have a very respected reputation. If there are issues, let some of those countries step forward and let the record be known.
• They currently operate military ports for the US and have had a consistent record of secure operations.
• We have many ports in the US already under foreign management; in fact the six ports involved are presently under British management, so the whole concept of *foreigners* running our ports is already a well known scenario. The fact that the Government of the UAE itself has ownership of this company is not necessarily a deal breaker to me, if they can be shown to be a trustworthy government, and even then it's still essentially moot because they will not have any actual control over port security. That, as I mentioned before, is still maintained by the Coast Guard and the US Customs Service.

for the moment I am undecided but leaning against it. It is not like we don�?t already have a heavy foreign presence, but the amount of this one is kind of concerning. What also concerns me though is that this could be knee jerk xenophobia. So I want to know more, and like I really want to see someone say *why* it is a good thing. It better be something more persuasive then cost.

If Bush wants this to pass, and there are no real negatives to it as he suggests, then instead of fighting words, he ought to be addressing the concerns with disclosure and information. on the Tony Snow show they dismissed it as reactionary, and while I think that may be overly simplistic, I also thing the reaction is hysterical on the face. So open up people, and lets discuss what is really going on here. If, as I heard today, the ports remain the property of the states, and the security remains with the Coast Guard and the TSA, then all we are talking about is administrative control and operations. I do imagine the unions are concerned about maintaining their positions there as well. So what would the good and bad here be? I have too many questions remaining to form an opinion yet.