DUBAI PORTS WORLD FIASCO

The recent public furor over George W. Bush's consent to allow a company owned by the the government of the United Arab Emirates provides an opportunity for the Democrats to show that they are just as determined as their Republican counterparts when it comes to protecting the homeland. However, when one digs deeper into the issue, it really presents itself as a double-edged sword.

Given that the overwhelming majority of Americans are up in arms over this port deal, it comes as no surprise that Republican leaders in Congress have wisely chosen to break ranks with the White House on this matter. What is still to be explained is why Bush adamantly defended the deal and threatened to defy any legislation to block the deal with a Presidential veto. Many conservatives who have appeared in talk show programs the past few days have stuggled to explain why 1) the White House could have been dumb enough not to anticipate a public backlash over this deal and 2) Bush would not allow Congress time to analyze this transaction before deciding either way.

Democrats, smelling blood, have pounced on this issue like a pack of vultures. A chance to put Bush on the defensive when it comes to national security does not come often. However, they might want to tread cautiously on this given the plausible long term implications that killing this deal might have.

Should Congress over-ride the Presidential veto- which is looking more and more likely by the day- it sends a message, whether right or wrong, to the Arab world that when it comes to managing American ports, Arabs need not apply. Critics of the deal have claimed that it has nothing to with Arabs, but rather the fact that the company is owned by a government with a sketchy record on fighting terrorism and things would be a lot different if the company was publicly-held or owned by a country where funding for 9/11 did not go through. Whichever way one looks at this, there is no doubt that even Arab-Americans have already begun to look at this as nothing but a case of racial-profiling.

The Democrats have pontificated without success for the past few years that we need to make more friends in this world if we are to be successful in fighting Al-Qaeda. Should a Democrat be elected into the White House in 2008, he (I say "he" because Hillary does not a chance in hell of making it to the Oval Office) would have a tough time explaining to the Arab world why it was not alright for Dubai Ports World to gain control of 6 American ports when many other ports around the country are owned by companies based in China, Denmark and Singapore just to name a few.

Congress is scheduled to hold investigative sessions on this transaction when it returns to work next week. It'll be interesting to see the political fallout within the Republican party. Frist is already way behind in the running for the Republican ticket and cannot afford to look weak on national security. McCain might also want to take this opportunity to shore up more support among conservatives and Brownback might pull out the bible and say that God intended for US ports to be controlled by Americans only. The road ahead for this deal is rocky and executives for Dubai Ports World might want to start looking at other acquisitions.

(Just for the record: I personally think that the deal is dead and it should have never been approved.)