Apparently, questioning whether the UAE should run our ports is "racism" against arabs, but racial profiling at airports, racial profiling in wiretapping, tossing innocent arabs into prison at Guantanamo, and blowing up arab civilians on the off chance that they live next to terrorists is all perfectly ok.

Call me crazy, but a little skepticism about turning over the control of a very sensitive domestic asset to a foreign company in an unstable region seems like a reasonable precaution. I don't know the background here, but $100 says this particular company has ties to the Bush family or one of his major supporters.

This deal points to the many problems existing with the management of the ports. My husband works on container ships and I have often visited the ports of Los Angeles and Oakland. The security measures are modest, almost lackadaisical. The general operations seem highly vulnerable. The companies that operate the ports need to be subject to closer scrutiny and regulation than has been indicated so far by Chertoff's generic reassurances without specifics. It is no comfort to this sailor's wife that the Bush administration would object so strongly to questions about the terrorist connections exhibited by Dubai.

In my opinion, none of our ports security should be handled by foreigerns. Just because we do business with other countries does not mean we should let them be responsible for our countries security. Once the terrorists used planes, a few have been caught at Mexican and Canadian borders, is it really to hard to guess that they may try ports next? Or what about nuclear plants?

I don't see why this is hard to understand, companies outsource operations to private companies all the time. I for one, work for a company that serves a very large bank, we pay their bills, monitor their buildings heating and cooling controls, take control when a new bank will be built, ect. You know what we don't do, security. Security is handled by former FBI, police and sheriffs that have been hired by the Bank for prevention of crime and securing an aftermath of a bank robbery, rape, domestic dispute, ect.

If a Bank refuses to let an outside company handle their security, that they trust enough to do everything else, why can't the United States do the same? Why can't an agreement be, we will sell you the port with the condition that we will hire our own security which you will be billed for.

How about SECURITY is the USA's job, running the port can be theirs.

I am stunned by Bush's pomposity in this latest political fiasco. Again, he is showing himself to be astonishingly insincere about something he knows (or should know) is of great concern to every American. Today he says:

"I can understand why some in Congress have raised questions about whether or not our country will be less secure as a result of this transaction ... But they need to know that our government has looked at this issue and looked at it carefully."

To what is he referring when he says "our government"? His administration, of course. Apparently he doesn't even consider Congress ( both parties, even!) part of "our government". (And never mind the various state governments who are legitimately concerned.) It should be insulting not only to Congress, but to every American, that he is so dismissive. After we have had to endure all of his vapid posturing about national security, his remarks today are beyond comprehension.

And despite the legitimate concerns about security, that is really not the biggest problem with this story. Whether or not it can be shown to be secure as Bush claims (still a big question), the concerns about it are real -- and important to people -- and our own president should not be allowed to dismiss them with such obvious contempt. This is our government, and we deserve to be involved in it. We deserve to know what the president knows about it, and I don't see how his usual excuses about "compromising security" could possibly apply here. "Trust me" certainly doesn't cut it here.

I hope Congress has the conviction to slap him down this time.

Watching "The Situation with Tucker Carlson" on MSNBC Monday night, I was dumbfounded when Brad Blakeman, former Deputy Assistant to President Bush had this to say. (From the transcript on MSNBC's website):

BLAKEMAN: Well, this is—they're an ally. Our government looked fully at this, the 12-member panel of the Foreign Investment Council.

And there is no stronger defender of this country than the president of the United States and the cabinet which comprises our executive branch. You think they're going to surrender the security of our ports to an entity that will do potential damage to the United States? This is a contract for a logistics company.

CARLSON: No, no. And I don't—I don't think the president or anybody working in White House or even the U.S. government wants to see the United States harmed by foreign forces. Of course not.

But the argument that, “Hey, it's the government. They say is it's OK, let's trust them,” kind of evaporated after the Iraq invasion. This is the government that I, among others, trusted to find weapons of mass destruction, and they totally blew it. Why should I trust them in this case?

BLAKEMAN: No, they did not blow it. This was not a war over weapons of mass destruction. This was a war based on a dictator...

CARLSON: OK. I'm sorry, Brad. Without getting—I don't want to reargue Iraq. Very specific point and this is this. Hold on. They said there were WMD in their country. We invaded; there were no WMD.

BLAKEMAN: There was WMD in that country. He used it against thousands of his citizens. We just haven't founded it.

I don't know about anybody else, but I don't remember a strong outcry of support for removing Saddam Hussein because he was a dictator. But I do remember a whole lot of rhetoric involving WMD.

When the furor over the port deal continues to roil, I predict the administration will back down on its support of the Dubai company. Then, in a magnanimous gesture, it will proceed to turn the contract over to a good old American company...Haliburton!