Monday, February 27, 2006

Coast Guard Raised Port Security Concerns

Michelle Malkin has a great roundup of links.

The Coast Guard has responded, in part: "The Coast Guard and the entire CFIUS panel believed that this transaction, when taking into account strong security assurances by DP World, does not compromise U.S. security."

The Coast Guard is giving their go-ahead based on "strong security assurances by DP World," rather than our own security assessment? What are "strong security assurances," and what are they worth?

And if I hear one more talking head suggest that we have or should have the exact same relationship with the United Arab Emirates that we have with our longtime democratic ally, Great Britain, I'm going to be sorely tempted to throw something at the TV. Being called an Islamophobic, xenophobic racist if you don't support the deal is beyond outrageous.

Update: For a detailed pro-ports point of view, check out Power Line. I respect this site very much so was interested to read their latest take, although they haven't sold me. (I didn't like China taking over the running of the Port of Long Beach, either...)

Tuesday Update: As Sean Hannity has reported on his radio show for the last several days, the UAE is anti-Israel. Michelle Malkin has collected a variety of links on this subject. The UAE's company, Dubai Ports World -- the same company that would be managing ports here in the U.S. -- enforces the boycott of Israel.

How is it that critics of the port deal are "Islamophobic," but the same critics aren't mentioning that the UAE is anti-Semitic?


Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older