Is That Legal?

Agreed. I love the rationale our legislators are using. Two 9/11 attackers were from UAE, and they used a UAE bank to transfer money, ergo we can't do business with them peeple.

I am waiting for our solons in Congress to announce that because John Walker Lindh and Jose Padilla came from the U.S., and because the 9/11 attackers used an American firm, Western Union, to transfer funds, that we can't do business with Americans either...

Jerks. Both sides.

Some people are just tainted by the fact that the only images they see of Arabs is on the news, and usually that has to do with violence and mayhem. I have lived in both the midwest and eastern washington, and while I want to be careful to not fall into stereotypes, these areas are not very diverse and it makes it hard for some people in these areas to understand how people can be different than the average red-blooded American.

I think it is a shame that this is still possible in this day and age but I guess somethings will never change. Hopefully, people will wake up, but until that day we must respect everybody's opinion and hope that eventually education changes the landscape.

Al Maviva says: "JERKS. BOTH SIDES."

I'm struck by that comment because it sounds like Al is saying "both parties do it". That's GOP's usual go-to defense to every policy screw-up unless Bill Clinton's name can be used directly.

And I find it especially interesting because Eric referred to some good ol' authentic American -- not a self-described Dem or Repub -- using a despicable term to describe Arabs.

In any case, I'm against the UAE getting involved. Not being a risk-taker, I don't see any reason to depart from Bush's "you can't be too careful" rule here.

To be fair, I'd take control over the ports from all non-US companies. And I'm not interested in the cannard about the US will still control security, so who cares who manages the ports.

Not only have I no faith in this administration's ability, capacity, or commitment to port security -- not unless there's money in it for the GOP.

But at this point only 5% of the cargo is checked.

Who handles the other 95% of the cargo?

Right . . . the company that "manages" the port. That will be the UAE if not booted.

My concern is that someone somewhere in the management chain at UAE company that would take over the port can secure visas, or false identification documents, or passports for a wannabe-terrorist who otherwise couldn't get into the US. Or maybe, some lower level fellow lets hot cargo not among the 5% go through.

While that scenario could happen if a British or even American company ran a port, I go back to my "I'm not a risk-taker" rule.

Moreover, risk issues aside, Bush/Cheney/Rove are now reaping the harvest of the reflexively scarred American psyche they've worked so hard to sow since 9/11.

They've so hyped the terror threat against America, what the hell did they expect.

Bush and Cheney toss around mushrooom-cloud images like popcorn at a kid's movie. And Rove stands up a month ago to say, "terror, terror, terror . . . we can win another election if we just scare the daylights out of America by saying terrorists are everywhere and only George Bush can save us."

It seems this administration has justified almost all of their absolutely awful policy decisions by tying them clearly to terror. (The Medicare Drug program is an exception; they just lied about the cost to get that through.)

Now, these folks get to see how successful they've been at so weakening America's will.

It's really sad.

Marietta, you want to cripple commerce in the U.S., insist that only U.S. persons and U.S. companies handle shipped goods. There are hardly any US flagged commercial vessels, very few U.S. national commercial sailors, and worse yet, nothing other than the thin white line of the Coast Guard to secure our ports - most of which aren't comprised of a "dock," but of dozens, to hundreds of miles of clusters of docks. The Port of Philadelphia is extensive in this manner; so is the Port of Baltimore; so is the Port of New Orleans. At some point, if the U.S. assumes the entire duty of securing all inbound ships and cargo, it becomes a serious physics problem. How much money, and how many people, can you throw at the 9 million or so inbound containers each year? Sea-Land cargo containers are roughly the size of a large semi truck's trailer. They don't unload, inspect, and re-load themselves. At some point, the notion of cooperative security agreements involving certifications from foreign ports of origin become a practical necessity. Well, unless you're of the mindset that Homeland Security can do a better job with cargo screening than, say, air passenger screening. I know, I know, it's all Bush's fault that the TSA sucks. I for one am looking forward to a Democratic administration to prove you right, but I'm not holding my breath, because I don't think the 100% standard that you expect is anything like reachable. And frankly, I'm not sure I want to live in a country with the security apparatus that could make that happen.

BTW, I know we're getting upset about a UAE company purchasing a company that owns a franchise to operate "X" number of slips in a half dozen ports. Assuming that your legitimate concerns come from the fact that it is the UAE that owns the holding company that owns the port operations... Does anybody care about all the middle eastern (government owned) companies that have similar agreements with local airport authorities for landing and gate privileges? I know that a cargo container with a nuke is Chuck Schumer's favorite nightmare scenario right now (as it is the union reps' favorite scenario, for some reason), but based on what I've seen in my admittedly anecdotale experience, you can do an *awful lot* of damage with an airline. Yet nobody is saying anything about Yemeni, Jordanian, Saudi, Singaporean, Egyptian, and Malaysian airlines flying in and out of the country all the time. Couldn't they find an American carrier to fly to Dhahran?

Ahh, never mind. You stick to your talking points about how Bush is selling the security of the U.S. down the river to benefit Halliburton or something, I'll stick to mine about how the A-rabs just cain't be trusted, and between us, we'll make sure these uppity Emirians keep their sheisty hands off of our ports.

I share your concerns regarding the xenophobia. Linked you on this post in the roundup today at Us and "Them"

So the comment worth quoting is not the two or three that decry the xenophobia and oftentimes anti-Arab rhetoric of those opposed to this deal. No, the comment worth quoting is the one that argues that we should not do business with the UAE because, even though the same dangers might exist with an American or British company, this is an Arab country and we should take a no-risk approach. Ironically, that argument has a more than a passing resemblance to the justification used to round up Japanese-Americans in WWII. But wait, the commenter also bashes the Bush Administration, go to the head of the line! That's sad.

Professor Muller, my previous post was far too polemical, and for that I apologize, so let me explain in more measured tones my disappointment. I appreciated your post noting that much of the language being used in the UAE ports dispute was troubling, if not frightening, and would expect nothing less from you. Several of the commenters shared that viewpoint and vision. Imagine my surprise, then, when you quote not from these thoughtful comments, but from the one that esseantially argues that, if the company is from the UAE, there's too much of a risk involved, and we should boot them. Yes, the comment blasts the Bush Administration, but isn't it the Bush Admnistration here that is making the point that we cannot be seen to be adopting a "No Arabs Need Apply" rule in the United States? Isn't that the same point you were originally making?

It is not unreasonable to want the guardians of the ports to be stakeholders, who have more to lose than just a business deal. To insist that they be citizens, not Arabs, Chinese, English or even Canadian. To think that the best protectors for the ports would be the Coast Guard and/or Customs, not a corporation. We have seen the results of too many of Bush43 business deals to believe that they suit the purposes of any but the kleptocrats.

Would Bush43 and his crew be willing to outsource their Secret Service protections? Would we want them to?

That's funny. As I recall the 2004 election, the Democrats insisted that, in these dangerous times--and they did emphasize the dangers of these times--the Democrats were the better choice. They didn't discount or deny the dangers. (Only their approach, not their rhetoric, indicated a lack of seriousness.)

In all of the current administration's rhetoric about terror, I don't recall any of the racist cant we've seen over this mess.

(I do love the old Medicare-cost-estimate story, because, as so often is the case, it doesn't have much of anything to do with reality. It's the story of an administration expert with one set of estimates, opposed by a CBO expert with another set, and both, as it turns out, were wrong. Too high is the current guess. Maybe someone isn't clear about the meaning of "lie".)