The Washington Times weighs in with their alarm over the danger to our ports

By Aussiegirl

Following my posting yesterday of Frank Gaffney's article over the dangerous transfer of management of six of our most vital ports to a UAE company with possible ties to terrorism, today The Washington Times' editoral page also raises the alarm about this transaction and wonders why such a deal was allowed to go forth.

Arab-owned American ports?/Editorials/Op-Ed/The Washington Times, America's Newspaper

Some of the country's busiest ports -- New York, New Jersey, Baltimore and three others -- are about to become the property of the United Arab Emirates. Do we really want our major ports in the hands of an Arab country where al Qaeda recruits, travels and wires money?

This deal appears to be all about money. Dubai Ports World is "a business and its money is the same color as everyone else's, only it's got more of it," one banker told the Baltimore Sun. Where does the money come from? As a private company, Dubai Ports World's claim of 20 percent annual growth since 2001 is all but unverifiable, and its inner workings opaque. For all we know, Dubai Ports World is an undeclared arm of a foreign government.

Sen. Chuck Schumer, New York Democrat, among others, is asking tough questions about this deal. For once, we agree with him: President Bush should overrule the committee to reject this deal. If that doesn't happen, Congress should take action. The country's ports should not be owned by foreign governments; much less governments whose territories are favored by al Qaeda.