Nooooooooo, ya think?
Every newspaper article which actually covers the facts of the deal, or interviews port workers about security, concludes that there is no security issue involved in this deal.
Sunday's Post had a wonderful article about how the entire issue is political, not at all about national security (right next to an article about how politically bad Bush played this).
Even the Coast Guard story, when you actually READ it, was pro-ports-deal. For two weeks opponents claimed that the Bush administration hadn't considered the security issues, that they therefore needed to re-review.
Then the Coast Guard information comes out, which shows that the Coast Guard RAISED the very questions that were supposedly ignored. Of course, opponents turned on a dime and said -- "Look, the Coast Guard had the same concerns we do". Then the rest of the story appeared, explaining that the Coast Guard went through the questions, and answered each one, and concluded there was no security issue. Oops....
The opponents also claimed that nobody would ever even THINK the deal was OK (Like Hannity). Now Hannity is grumbling about how he's not that concerned anymore since "all he ever wanted was another 45-day review".
Opponents argued that we just went along with this deal without even ASKING for anything from DP World -- another sign we didn't really consider it.
But the Sunday Washington Post article tells us that the review process included asking for, and receiving, a number of written agreements from DP World for this sale -- agreements that put legal binding on "understandings" we had with the previous company, and therefore make us MORE secure, not less.
Hannity was the perfect case study for how the opponents handled the case. Each day he had some NEW objection to the deal which he hadn't even KNOWN about the previous day, but which now was the explanation for why he had opposed the deal.
For example, yesterday it was how some holding company owned by the people who own DP World enforces the anti-Israel boycott in their "free ship zone" port in the Middle East. Hey, this is a real issue, and we should object to it -- but it has NOTHING to do with DP World, or any ports operated by DP World. Nor was it why he originally said he opposed the deal.
But when you come out so strongly against something, you have to find an excuse later.
On Hannity yesterday my fears were allayed by Dick Morris who assured the rubes that this must be part of a Top Secret plan in the WOT. Of course it is and if a few wealthy emirs can get a few ports then can a few wealthier emirs can probably buy up some other government regulated industry.
No need to be concerned about anything. We are as snug as a bug in a rug, right in our own little cookie carton here on Sesame Street.