Mike the Usurper wrote:

President Bush on Tuesday defended a deal that would let a United Arab Emirates-based company run some key U.S. seaports, telling reporters that he would veto any bill to hold up the agreement.

So it's not good enough for US companies to handle security at airports, but it's ok for foreign companies to handle security at docks? I'd love to hear the logic that allows both of those...

I'm not sure I understand you. The company in question is to be responsible for the day to day operational activities of the seaports but, as I understand it, that expressly does not include security components, which are handled separately, by DHS and private contractors.

Now, certainly I can see an argument being made against the deal in a few ways. One, i can see the argument that having a middle-eastern company running things could make it easier for potential terrorists to get in, under the guise of a regular employee. Seems like this company would want to self police that issue for purely business reasons, but the argument is there. The other reason, more compelling perhaps, is that we shouldn't be pouring money into countries that may potentially fuel terrorism. That's not something I can really analyze, but I don't see this deal being such a problem. Some (D)s are going to opportunistically, but weakly, oppose this on the principle that Bush is always wrong, and some (R)s will do the same on the principle that middle eastern people are all in league with Al Queda somehow. I'm not feeling it -- I see a tempest in a teapot.

RE: CNN.com - Bush says he'll veto laws to sell ports - Feb 21, 2006