Something Odd in the State of Dubai

The latest development in the Dubai Port situation is that President Bush is threatening a veto threat:

“I want those who are questioning it to step up and explain why all of a sudden a Middle Eastern company is held to a different standard than a Great British company,” Bush said. “I am trying to conduct foreign policy now by saying to the people of the world, `We’ll treat you fairly.’”

Mr. President, with respect the UK was not an integral part of 9-11. That’s why there’s a difference. We’re trying to take a “trust but verify” stance on this, asking for more information, more knowledge and the President’s reaction is disconcerting as Michelle Malkin writes:

Bush says it would “send the wrong message” to the UAE if the deal is delayed. What about the message it sends to Americans who are simply asking for greater assurances that the transfer was reviewed thoroughly by officials without conflicts of interest?

Bingo. We do need to clarify what we’re talking about here, as well. Pam Spaulding, like a lot of Bloggers has the impression that the complete operations of these ports is going to be handed over to Dubai. Not the case as explained by Squigglerwho has a leter from former Rep. Helen Bentley, an expert on the port:

P&O Ports is a stevedoring company that has competitively bid contracts with the Maryland Port Commission to perform certain duties at its public terminals in the port of Baltimore.

A stevedore company is one that hires longshoremen to load and unload cargo from ships.

Therefore, that corporate transaction means that UAE’s Dubai Ports World will be the firm bidding competitively for contracts to handle the containers and other cargoes coming off or loading on to ships in the six ports where P&O Ports has contracts. Baltimore is one of these ports.

The Maryland Port Administration will continue to “run” the port of Baltimore’s public terminals and be the spokesman for the port in general.

The private terminal operators will continue to run their terminals.

Now, with this full knowledge, am I comfortable with the deal? No, I still don’t like the idea of Dubai Ports being in charge of hiring who goes on there, because it doesn’t take Tom Clancy’s imagination to picture this going very wrong very quickly.

Glenn Reynolds writes:

SO NOW BUSH IS THREATENING TO VETO any legislation that would block the Dubai ports deal? Either this deal is somehow a lot more important than it seems (a quid pro quo for, well, something . . . ) or Bush is an idiot. Your call.

Now, Reynolds onto explain he wasn’t implying the President was brided (which is how Don Surber had interpreted it) but that there was something exchanged, be it cooperation in the War on Terror or what have you.

I think this is a huge moment for the Administration. Russ has often asked me to apply the test of, “What if this were Clinton or Gore?” Well, if it were Clinton or Gore, I’d suggest a lot of the people on the left would be castigating those of us concerned for xenophobia. I’d probably be more outraged, because I didn’t trust Clinton at all. I have some trust in Bush.

The way he’s coming out on this is reminiscent of the tone deaf response we saw to the outrage over Harriet Miers. Where he kept insisting on his way, casting aspursions on people who disagreed and not answering substantive arguments with substantive answers. “Because I said so” is not reason to hand over control of any operations at a US Port to a country that had some pretty strong 9-11 links. We need more and we need congressional hearings on this.

UPDATE: Forgot to mention the #1 reason to have doubts about this plan. Jimmy Carter thinks its a good idea.

Dubai