I'm sorry, but any company whose name is an acronym for the sexual act of double penetration does not deserve to be taken seriously

More to the point, it strikes me that this brief article is wrong to the point of falsehood.

Now, perhaps I'm the mistaken one. But as I recall, the Democrats (as usual) sat out the Dubai Ports controversy. The President took most of his heat from his own Republican caucuses in the House and Senate.

It was the Republicans that lead the charge, not the Democrats. It was the Republicans who cried loudest and longest, not the Democrats.

Setting that aside, there were serious concerns with the Dubai Ports deal in terms of both reasonable national concerns, and with national security aspects. It is frankly offensive to simply mischaracterize these reasonable issues as xenophobia.

Mmmmmm... I concur with Valdron. The Democrats sat back and let the Republican Caucus "eat their own" on this one. It also wasn't necessarily a bad thing to question the circumstances and players in the award of the contracts. Whilst the rhetoric may have veered toward xenophobia, the initial reaction to a state-owned company from a country with an unfortunate history of financially supporting terrorist and terrorist-related organizations was reasonable. Let's remember that there was zero congressional oversight on the deal prior to it being the news fodder.

Quick backgrounder from some years in insurance: the certification if from Lloyds and is based on an ISO standard adopted in July 2004. All major port managers will be certified eventually. It's a cost of doing business in the age of terrorism. Once more, certification impacts insurance premiums, and, as we see with the flashy press release from DPW, can also serve of PR.

I don't know this for sure, but I would guess DPW is first to be certified since they hired Lloyds to consult on compliance with the ISO section. This does not diminish Lloyds certification. Just an observation that DPW was keen to announce their "firstness."

Okay, I was struck by Architect's reprimand to Valdron: "I don't know what planet you're living on but as i remember it, our party piled on with the xenophobia. the republican opposition was largely a reaction to what Democrats were saying. It was clearly wrong and you should have the courage to say so." So I jumped in The Wayback Machine (I googled) and read the press coverage during February and March 2006.

I'll have the courage to say that the Democrats cleary piled on. As Tim Russert suggested the Dems did this to burnich their national security credentials. Still, what was more striking was the vitriol of the Republicans. From the Washington Post, February 22, 2006: "Dear Mr President: In regards to selling American ports to the United Arab Emirates, not just NO but HELL NO!" Rep. Sue Myrick (R-N.C.) wrote to Bush in a one-sentence letter. Both the Senate and House Leadership also opposed the deal, as did the Republican governors of New York and Maryland.

To read more of this article for free click here http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/22/AR2006022201609.html

Also I reviewed two NYT's editorials from February 24th and March 2nd, both suggesting that the xenophobia and racist angle originated from the Whitehouse. Granted, they're editorials, but they are also contemporaneous to the period being discussed.

It might actually be more ironic that the xenophobia and racist angle has actually permiated the institutional memory of the DPW deal so that in retrospect we all just accept that opposition to the deal was grounded in bigotry. A quick look around at the press of the day indicates the problem was more in how the White House handled the situations. As Scott McClellan remarked during a press conference at the time, "This is one where we probably should have consulted with or briefed Congress on sooner."

So, Valdron, do you have the courage to say that you were vaguely almost wrong, but sort of right too? And Architect, you might want to borrow my Wayback machine before getting so aggressive. You can find it at www.google.com.

ROTFL. Vaguely almost wrong? Never! If I'm wrong, I'm wrong, and there's no vague almosts about it.

Okay, so the Democrats did pile on with the Republicans, rather than sitting the issue out. And the evidence seems to show that Chuck Schumer kicked the thing off.

So, I'll fall back and argue that despite Mr. Schumer's initiation, it was principally the Republicans who picked up the ball and ran with it, who screeched loudest and longest. And I'll argue that the Democrats simply played catch up, and piled on after the Republican dissidents had defined and set the terms for the issue. Most of the Democrats who opposed Dubai Ports were simply 'me too.'

I mean come on, John Kerry, Mr. "I was for it before I was against it" and Hillary Clingon, Ms "Flag Burning amendment"? We're not talking politicians here who like to rush out and stake positions. They're all about nuance and following the herd.

Generally, speaking as a Canadian, the notion of foreigners gaining or having control of the commanding heights of our economy or of key strategic infrastructure is a major issue and a long running national debate. A lot of other countries have it too. The notion that Americans should simply accept the ownership of key strategic assets by foreigners strikes me as quixotic.

Moreover, a deal that included six or seven of the major ports and another twenty two critical ports deserves protracted national review. Period.

The issue of xenophobia and racism is an ugly one. It should have been sidelined from the discussion, and people should have focused on real issues - principles of sovereignty, transparency, conflict of interest, accountability to US law, access to records, oversite, environmental issues, human rights issues, labour and union relations, etc.

Just because some rich people or corporation wants to do something, to buy an asset or make some money, that doesn't mean that it is a good idea for the community as a whole.

BUT! BUT! BUT!

Getting back to Dr. Levi's post, which I read as a reprimand for Democrats playing political football with the DPW deal, despite, as we are now all aware, that they are ISO certified for security. Also, I caught a whiff of xenophobia mixed in, albeit paranthetically.

Look, the issue was that the WH did not advise congress until after the deal was done. In fact, the president was not even aware of the deal until it showed up on page one. It's about governance. The WH should have recognized that a change in management of the country's major ports is something worth getting the congress involved. That's what congress is for, after all (oh, ya, they also approve the money and occassionally, although not in recent memory, legislate). The DPW deal is just a more spectacular version of the administration idea of an imperial presidency that does not need the other two branches of government.

But don't call them out and insist on oversight, or else you'll be branded a xenophobe. And then the echo chamber brings us to the point where, six months later, we collectively recall that is was xenophobia, or bigotry, or some such horrible character defect that motivated us to oppose the deal.

I think it was more the idea that such a giant deal for such a vital resource and such a security area, can just happen with this administration.

I'm still having trouble with this whole "DP" - Double Penetration World thing.

Bush Socialism:

Our ports will be owned and run by government, just not our government.

The Bush Administration pushed thru the Dubai Ports deal, for the same reason they do most things, to do a favor for wealthy oil interests.

I feel more ashamed of so-called Democrats, who would resort to charges of xenophobia, rather than examine the merits of the security covenants, which the Bush Administration should have been requiring, but didn't.

Or, how about the merits of selling infrastructure in order to pay for oil? How about that issue.

Valdron,

I would be taking Democratic Progressives very seriously.

That said, what the hell is the deal??? In which state, forget it, in which congressional district was it a loosing issue? I guess a political blunder it was not.

Economically, I understand that the savages here could benefit from foreigners showing them how to manage ports competently, but than again, I am not sure that regional authorities etc. were doing such a bad job. I do not understand why it is beneficial to outsource utilities to private companies, but perhaps it is. The case is not overwhelming though. And the additional benefits of allowing international competion for our domestic public utilities are totally marginal at best. It is not like we have a unique opportunity to get access to some invaluable technology from Dubai.

So it is totally irrelevant to consider rich mercantile traditions of Dubai that for decades was the main center of smuggling operations in Indian Ocean. Would THOSE guys be hell-bent on smuggling something into USA, they would be perfectly capable of it without any deal.

By the way, shouldn't we jump a band wagon and offer DPI "TPM Certificate of World Standard in Security"? We have a nice bevy of experts here, and for, say, 20 million dollars we can conduct a study, issue a golden plated certificate, design spiffy web version etc.

Frankly, a foreign entity, most especially one owned and operated by a foreign government should NOT be owning or operating any ports in the US, that is a threat to our national sovreignity and our security.

Dubai is not some shining example, it's a corrupt, viscious government.. holding them up as something to admire seems strange coming from writers on a forum that is supposed to represent the issues of liberalism.. honestly, what seems to be the jist of this article and some responses is that there hasn't been any substantive attention to the actual facts on Dubai and what the ports deal could mean, more it seems that it's someone's opportunity to impune democrats.

The US has been more than capable of providing security and managing our infrastructure.. it was the Reagan 80s that brought about the press to privatize, to erode our laws that restricted foreign nationals from owning/controlling infrastructure, the deregulation and consolidation of industries into fewer hands.

Excuse a maybe naive question, but is it possible, I mean legally possible, to ensure that certain American companies/corporations/businesses aren't owned by foreign entities so that they should be entitled to run American ports, or other instances of infrastructure of crucial importance for national security?

Once you put a company on the market, how do you keep the stock in American hands?

Hilary should have been out front since her husband was a consultant on the deal.

No such thing as a bad questions (well, there are bad questions, but this isn't one of them). I threw it to a friend of mine who is a retired Navy procurement manager who was pretty senior. According to my friend, ownership clauses are common, especially when it comes to sensitive areas like security and weapons systems. Certainly port management should fall into this, and did.

The deal WAS reveiwed by the executive branch and APPROVED. Let's be very specific here. The government does NOT reserve the right to block such mergers and acquisitions, but DOES reserve the right to cancel contracts as a result of an M&A. Since the value of these companies is directly related to their contracts the clause effectively gives the US government a veto on M&A's in practice.

So, Uncle Sam did get a crack at the deal and approved it. What was most alarming, and incompetent, was that senior people in the WH didn't even know that the administration approved the deal until it his the front page above the fold.

It was an administration thing, not a contract problem.