The whirlwind, that is. The interesting truth about this port is that Bush own tactics are what's biting him on this issue. As Jess points out the Dubai owned company would not be handling security. That would continue to be handled by the coast guard and other US government people. They would be handling 'operations,' i.e. loading and unloading ships in the ports. You can also make the case that we should engage, and not shut out, Middle Eastern countries. These are good but subtle points. But Bush has spent the last four year sucking all the subtle distinctions out the debate over terrorism. Up till now Bush has considered everything other than the harshest of measure to be soft on terrorism. Any call for restraint with regard to civil liberties, torture, diplomacy, or really dumb military invasions has been branded appeasement and cowards that will kill us all. So now that Bush is trying to argue for a subtle, less harsh policy, all his supporters are breaking with him. From Daily Kos:
After years of pumping their fawning admirers full of terror and working as hard as they can to blur the distinction between regimes in the Middle East that had nothing to do with 9/11 and the people who did, the Bush Administration shouldn't be surprised that their supporters are unwilling or unable to objectively whip out the analytical razor-blade and expertly split hairs between a nation with direct links to 9/11 and Al Qaeda, and a company owned by that nation's government.
Faced with that self created dilemma, the comically feeble Bush Administration talking point is that the everyday terrorist sympathizer will think better of us if we help further enrich a handful of obscenely wealthy oil Sheiks? Here's an idea for improving our image in the Arab World: Stop torturing Muslims. But either way, it's doubtful the zombie mob that Bush and Rove have spent the last five years shocking back to life care what the citizens of Muslim nations think about the United States.