A Port Retort [Politics]

I don't think having foreign companies running our ports is a good thing in general, but the lefties have gone overboard on the issue-they have bent so far backwards, they can be easily charged with hypocrisy. For example:

• According to the left, Iraq was not a terrorist threat, and had nothing to do with Al Qaida ('cept for that Zarkawi guy, oops), but the UAE can't be trusted because they might be used by terrorists.
• According to the left, enemies such as Cuba should be "engaged" instead of isolated. But in this case, isolation is the prescription.
  
• According to the left, it is wrong to racially profile Arabs, so we have to strip-search Jewish grandmas at the airport--but the UAE is pre-judged to be a danger, and can't be trusted. And the left, who have never been strong on border security (strong borders are "racist" and "ethnocentric", suddenly want strong ports!
  
• If Bush had torpedoed the deal, and demanded that an American company got the job, there is a good chance that this is who would have won--can you imagine the outcry from the left, then?

Here are a few reasons why I think the UAE deal is a bad one:

• It is morally disgusting to me to support a country that promotes the spread of Sharia law. That's why I don't patronize Caribou Coffe, or shop at Loehmann's any more.
• I would rather that the business go to an American company, so more Americans can benefit from the profits.
• Infiltration of a UAE run port may be easier for Al Qaida operatives than infiltration of a British run port.
  

International relations is often a game of carrots and sticks. I suppose that Bush decided that in the case of places like Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and UAE, the answer was to offer carrots and only hint at the sticks.