There's probably a ton of information that I'm not "up on" concerning the recent proposal for Dubai World Ports to take over operation of terminals here in NYC and Jersey, but what I have read about the deal isn't putting me at ease. Two things in particular bother me:
1. Homeland Security says that the security issue will remain in the hands of the US. Well zip-a-dee-doo-dah. Forgive me, but it's hard for me to do the PC thing and not "profile" the UAE in this situation. I'd love to be able to give them the benefit of the doubt, but at this point in time I just can't. Maybe the nation as a whole has our best interests in mind, and that would be swell. But it takes just one person - one employee at the docks who knows what security looks for and what they don't - to really fuck up my day. Call me crazy if I'd rather have this job in the hands of the Brits than in the hands of a country that funded most of the 9/11 hijackers.
2. Why is Bush taking such a staunch stance on this? He has yet to veto anything in his presidency and yet he feels this port deal is worth exercising that option? Even after apparently being unaware of the deal to begin with?? Why is this all of a sudden the issue to illustrate how inclusive we are of the Middle East? And why is the UAE not being held to the same requirements that every other foreign company operating US ports are held to?
One of the main reasons I voted for Bush in '04 was his position on national security and the War on Terror. But this whole thing is starting to shake my faith in the man. If he wasn't even aware of the deal until after it was made, how can he be sure (so sure that he's willing to veto any attempt to scuttle it) that it will in no way jeopardize the safety of these ports?