Ok, I know sometimes something seems worse than it actually is, and I haven't been following this story. So do I understand correctly that President Bush supports the purchase of facilities at six of our major ports by UAE companies?
This is NOT a "purchase", there is no transfer of ownership of real property at any of these ports. What there will be is a change in service providers for some contract services at those ports. From a security standpoint, the US Coast Guard and US Customs will continue in their roles in securing the facilities and screening incoming cargo. Also, port workers will still be US longshoremen (which is why you haven't heard the union screaming). The UAE company will simply take over the contract work previously handled by the British contract firm. Notably, this UAE company already runs the operations at several key overseas ports, so they would be running things at both ends where cargos originate from ports they already operate.
So, while I think the situation is unwise, it isn't primarily from a security aspect or ownership aspect that I think it so, but from an aspect of where the profit from port operations will end up. The UAE is a haven for ME money laundering operations with terrorist ties and you can bet that port operation profits will find their way to terrorist-held accounts.
<SARCASM>
Of course, there's always another angle to this: echoing the stance of the Bush White House on illegal immigration, maybe this UAE firm is simply doing a job that US companies aren't willing to do?
</SARCASM>
You are only partially correct. They are not just UAE based companies; they are UAE STATE owned companies.
That would be spin. Bush said the UAE is a friendly country, cooperates with us on the war on terror and if the UAE wishes to purchase this stuff and the British seller wants to sell, and no other company wants to buy it, then it is ok.