-- by Battlepanda
It doesn't happen often, but I happen to think that Bush is right on "Portgate" -- if we let a British company run those ports for all these years, there is simply no reason not to let a UAE company run it now. Like the Drumstir sez:
Would we really be any safer if P&O were acquired by a Singaporean company? Frankly, the real scandal is that we're not already handling port security as if every port management company in the U.S. had a member of al-Qaeda on its board of directors.
Exactly. Remember that the customs and the security side of the operation is still going to be the responsibility of Homeland Security. The UAE is an ally. Allies, especially strong, friendly allies, are precious in the mideast nowdays. We should wecome the opportunity to do them the way big solid. I don't think that the government-run Dubai company will be doing anything but meticulously and obsessively protecting the security of the ports they run. After all, in doing so they will be protecting their own financial interests, as well as their interest in not getting their country razed by the U.S. military if they do mess up. As for the "bad apple" fear, remember that the 7/7 bombers were British, born and bred. Unless you want to advocate religious profiling for all port employees, fearing a company just because it is from the Middle East just does not make sense.
Of course, politically, Bush have stepped in the doodoo bigtime. His erstwhile cheer-squad is turning on him. Not that I'll be shedding a tear for him. As a commenter chez Publius quipped " Live by symbolism, die by it. Petard, hoist." Pass the popcorn.
