I would only comment that religious freedom is a poor caveat for allowing a security breach. It would be like inviting Hungary during WWII to take control of Britain’s ports because they were less hostile as compared to Hitler’s Germany. It is as inconceivable that Dubai would exercise such tolerance as it was Hungary would protect its Jews, gypsies, and dissidents (good intentions of some of its people notwithstanding). Even supposing Dubai could get away with such religious relaxations, I would still not put strategic assets in the hands of a corporation or country that is, at best, ambivalent regarding our enemies in a time of war. That is insane adherence to political correctness. Are we so fixated with fair business practices that we extend them to ports of entry so extensive that any sort of sabotage can be carried out under our noses in our own house? This is in the same category as ‘guest worker’ admissions and “Islam – a religion of peace”.

Bush and his administration are wrong on all counts, and for much the same reasons. He is ignoring elephants-in-plain-sight, and dismissing them as misplaced fears. They are fears, but there is nothing misplaced in them. We are still at war, and have no reason to believe our enemies have either been defeated or converted to pacifists. Until either of those is true, then each of these (ignoring illegal immigration, surrendering port control, and glossing Islam) are opportunities our enemy surely won’t pass up. Illegal immigration provides cover for bi-directionally smuggling people, money and material into and out of the country. Ships with ready entry present a much larger scope for doing the same. Many of the ships that come into our ports are of Muslim registry, meaning they need more scrutiny rather than less. If terrorists are opportunistic in passing themselves off as Hispanics, what is the likelihood of them forgoing this larger opportunity? Glossing Islam’s core tenets of forced conversion and universal submission provides terrorists and their spokesmen undue influence over any dialogue regarding them. It silences any protest, including the current debate, spotlighting an inherent conflict of relying on those who are, at the very least, in sympathy with enemies committed to our defeat.

I think the nuclear scenario is a little extreme, yet there are other ways terrorist can use this opportunity. They can use it to smuggle material and people in and out of our country, and keep hidden until needed. They could use the ports as actual bases for operations. I live just outside Baltimore and I recently visited the Port of Los Angeles. Tracking and finding undocumented material hidden in either of these ports is looking for the needle in the proverbial haystack. Terrorists could hide, house, feed and clothe an entire army in our LA facility for many months.

As for keeping the actual facility and operations in reliable hands, we don’t do that now. Political correctness doesn’t permit any kind of discrimination, no matter what the rationale. The number and variety of obvious non-citizens holding jobs in our airports, military bases, and as security screeners at sensitive government offices has ballooned since 9/11. As I passed through LAX airport, I could hardly find a sky-captain, ticket checker, or security screener who’s English was readily comprehensible. I find it impossible to believe all of these have been in-country long enough to be unequivocally loyal Americans. Not all are Hispanic, and some are almost certainly recently arrived Muslims. I find a similar prevalence of non-natives at my own Baltimore (BWI) Airport, and I’m sure frequent travelers among you will note the same thing at your airports. Among these, a fair percent can only be here illegally and have made misrepresentations to get jobs. Some few may even be terrorists positioned against the day they are called to take action.

Other departments of government are likewise being filled up with “undocumented” workers, while the private sector is held to greater account to maintain security. This begs the question: What’s going on here? Apparently, government must be ‘more’ PC than everyone else, even when it is vital that PC take second place to security. Thus, none of us are particular shocked when our government gives away the keys to the kingdom to our enemy’s close relatives.

United Arab Emirates is a Corporate State.

Thus, Dubai Ports World is nothing more than a subsidiary of United Arab Emirates.

United Arab Emirate’s largest investor after the United States is Iran.

Iran is also the largest investor in Hamas and Islamic Jihad.

United Arab Emirates is a State-Sponsored Corporate State supported by the world’s largest sponsor of terrorism.

Thus, United Arab Emirates is nothing more than a subsidiary of Iran.

FoxNews tells us the United States must attack Iran.

Iran is an enemy because it supports Hamas and wants to build a nuclear arsenal.

So where are the United Arab Emirate’s loyalties?