Well, it may be a tempest in a teapot, but I think it bears more investigation. ONe problem is that they only inspect less than 5% of all containers that are shipped through our ports. Regardless of who owns the business, it needs tightening up. Another problem with the UAE is that they have been a conduit for terrorist funding and there were a few of them on the planes that crashed 9/11. I just don't trust them. Politically, I think Bush must have lost his mind. Less than 25% of the country trusts the Arabs and he's out beating the drum for them and amnesty for illegal aliens. I'll be glad when we get a real conservative in office again. I wonder if we could dig Ronnie up and just put things on autopilot?<g>

>
>This is a tempest in a teapot if ever there was one. It has been stirred up by politicians (both parties) in an election year. The only surprising thing is that so many people have fallen for it. You know I am no Dubya fan but I think he is getting a raw deal on this one. Some facts:
>
>We are not giving new business to the company in Dubai. They are buying the British company which manages the ports now, and we are entitled to a review process according to the contract. Operation of the ports will be virtually unchanged, with most if not all jobs remaining with members of the longshoremen's union. Security will remain the responsibility of the Coast Guard and U.S. Customs. If people want to say the whole subject of dock security is something that needs to be reviewed, that's fine, and I will agree with them. But turning over management of the docks from a British company to a Dubai company will not change the security level. There are six docks in NYC and four of them are operated by foreign companies (Hong Kong and Denmark). During the review process 12 federal agencies, including Homeland Security, were asked to sign off on the deal and they did so unanimously. After the initial protests, Dubya asked the same 12 agencies again if they were OK with it, and
>again they unanimously said yes.