As was pointed out, your comment that we have to assume that “everthing is bad” after 9/11 is absurd.

We can’t assume everything is bad. Some things have nothing to do with security. It depends on the position. If everyone who knows what they’re talking about seems to think that the crane operators for cargo terminals do not have the direct relation to security that most people seem to think that they do, then I don’t see why we should do anything more than our normal security review. If that includes this 45 day review, then they should have done that also.

If “everything” is assumed to be bad, then I guess that we should mandate that McDonald’s workers should be strip searched when they show up for their shifts every day. Hey, it’s post 9/11. We can’t take any chances.

I think that the fact 95% of the containers at ports aren’t searched is a problem and I think that the people who search them should be subject to a very thorough security procedure. The Dubai company won’t be doing that job, and until I hear evidence that their job presents more of security threat or that the current security procedure was inadequate in some way, I think that this is overblown and based on misperceptions.

In this case, I think the DPW deal would not increase the threats to our ports. But I do think our port system is a weak link and if this debate leads to a real examination of our port security, then I’m glad it came up. Otherwise, I can’t figure why it’s ok for Hugo Chavez to opperate some ports but not ok for an Arab ALLY to do the same.

Turn off Rush and find a brain.

The fact that THIS contract has received so much scrutiny is curious. There is certainly bigotry involved–certainly not by principled critics like Justin, but people like Malkin butter their bread with xenophobic rhetoric and I find it hard to believe this is anything more than the same from Malkin and her ilk.

This is no doubt true, but just as I agreed with her on the crescent shapped 9/11 memorial, I think she’s making some very good points now. And it’s not just rhetoric. Sure, she wraps herself in it quite often, but she’s come up with a lot of valid points, as have I.

Now an Israeli company says it think UAE is fine. Done business there for years. On CNN right now.

Interesting. I’d like to hear more about this. However, what Israel think is cool and what we think is cool are two different things. Still, if you can find more, please share.

The reason we haven’t heard anything to prove that the port deal is bad (other than the Israeli boycott support which, as I understand US law, is a deal breaker, and alleged ties to terrorism, is because a 45 day review (that I believe is required by law) was not done. If that had been done and the result was that everything was hunky-dorey, then we probably wouldn’t be having this discussion.

How is that not enough to kill this deal? Just because the leaders of the UAE will not be physically guarding the ports doesn’t mean that there is absolutely no threat.
A government that has supported terrorism will have intimate knowledge of our port security.

So, even though I tend to agree with Jeff B. that I haven’t really heard anything specific about why this would be a really bad idea, I resent the fact that this administration is propagating the notion that it’s OK to deal with the Arab world as long as it’s good for Bush’s pocketbook, but nevermind worrying about the Arabs’ silly human rights.

The fact that THIS contract has received so much scrutiny is curious. There is certainly bigotry involved–certainly not by principled critics like Justin, but people like Malkin butter their bread with xenophobic rhetoric and I find it hard to believe this is anything more than the same from Malkin and her ilk.

But I do agree that this deal shouldn’t just sail through unexamined. But nor should a lot of the other port deals.

Until I hear an expert say this is a threat, I am just assuming that this is much ado about nothing.

Again, for the reasons I’ve pointed out, along with others, the UAE should have no business running anything in our ports, period.

Justin, I agree with your point that calling people bigots because they want to look into this security issue is absurd. No matter where the company is from, if the company’s role could affect our security, they should be investigated.

Still, I haven’t been impressed with the evidence that this is a threat. It’s my understanding that they would be doing little more than operating cranes. I have heard a shows on NRP, PBS, and other cable news shows interview port security experts who say that they have heard of no expert claim that a company could breach security by operating cargo terminals. I still haven’t heard an expert say this is a threat.

Until I hear an expert say this is a threat, I am just assuming that this is much ado about nothing.