http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2006/03/08/cstillwell.DTLWhen the story broke that the Bush administration had approved a British-owned company's sale of U.S. port operations to one headquartered in the United Arab Emirates, all hell broke loose.
The company at hand, Dubai Ports World, is owned by the United Arab Emirates, so not only would we be handing over operations of our ports to yet another foreign company, but also to a foreign government. The fact that the deal was approved without the legally authorized 45-day investigation normally required when acquisition by a foreign government and security concerns are involved, certainly doesn't help. Then there was President Bush's claim that he knew nothing about the deal until after it had been approved, which wasn't terribly reassuring.
On top of it all, the original report that only six ports were affected by the deal turned out to be misleading. It is in fact 21 ports that are at stake, which would give the United Arab Emirates control over almost every major shipping terminal on the Eastern Seaboard. For some reason, much of the media continues to report the lower figure.
The firestorm over the ports deal has exposed a rift on the right and a political opportunity for the left. On the one hand, you have the Bush administration and loyalists in the Republican Party and conservative media defending the ports deal. On the other, you have Democrats, Republicans, conservatives and liberals all justifiably concerned about a Muslim country, ally or not, having control of 21 U.S. ports in a time of war. According to polls, the majority of Americans fall into the latter category, putting them at odds with the Bush administration.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
