The uproar over this port security thing is catching me a little off-guard. I'd expect this kind of reaction from the isolationist right, but not from Chuck Schumer, Hillary Clinton, and the DNC. I could understand an insistance on close scrutiny - any deal of this magnitude should be vetted pretty carefully, reagardless of the buyer's nationality - but a lot of the outcry on both sides of the aisle is coming from people who consider a deal like this unacceptable regardless of the circumstances.

The DNC's blog, lambasting Bush for allowing the port deal to go through, quotes an article referring to "Dubai Ports World's agreed acquisition of US port operations from P&O, the British port operator," and then posts, perhaps fifty words later,

"This isn't about holding a Middle Eastern company to a different standard, this is about turning over control of six of our nation's major entrances to ANY foreign country."

I guess I must be missing something, because on its face that's just unfathomably silly. Great Britain is still technically a foreign country, isn’t it?

And then one of that blog's commenters expressed himself thusly:

"Repubs calling it racial profiling are insane. You are either with us or against apprently doesn't apply if the language you speak is green. I don't want Arabs managing our ports that transport military supplies. Period."

Granted, syntax suggests pretty strongly that this guy is no leading thinker, but hell, he's enough on the left that he's willing to read and post favorably on the party's official blog, and has just essentially said, 'This has nothing to do with racism. I just don’t trust Arabs.'

I've got an open mind about this one, and if someone can convince me that the anti-UAE stance is appropriate, then so be it. But until they do, I just don't see the problem. Review it thoroughly, and get over it.