Well, the debate over the ports has escalated to the next level. Congress is threatening to pass a bill to stall the transfer of ownership of the ports to DPW, and now President Bush is threatening to veto any bill hindering the port deal. Tom Delay came out against the President, saying President Bush is making a mistake. Apparently, the acquisition of P&O by DPW will also affect one or two ports in Texas which have military uses, and authorities in Texas are worried about the implications of turning those ports, along with major ports up and down the East Coast, over to a business run by a terrorist-supporting government.

When it gets right down to it, I'm conflicted over the port issue. Economically, I have no doubt that it'll work out fine, but from a national security perspactive, it's questionable, to say the least. I've heard arguments that it'll work out fine, on the basis that DPW will be controlling port operations, but not port security. That'd work fine for me if it weren't for the fact that our port security hasn't been, and still isn't where it should be.

Another scarry thought: I agree with Chuckie Schumer (shudder) - he came out on FOXNews the other day, stating that given a choice, he'd choose Halliburton to run the ports over DPW. Frankly, I don't think that'd be a bad idea in the least - not only would it solve so many problems with the DPW deal, but it'd send so many Democrats into convulsions...

In a recent column, Michelle Malkin points out the utter hypocrisy of the Left concerning racial profiling: Democrats in Congress have been anti-profiling for years upon years, yet when it comes to this port deal, they oppose it because DPW is run by the UAE. More than just a little disingenuous, if you ask me, even though I find myself agreeing with the Dems on this one...it's the reason for my disagreement that is at question. Hillary Clinton has proven conclusively over the past several months that she is willing to say pretty much anything if she thinks it'll win her political points, and none of the Democrats in Congress have shown much substantive support for national security concerns - they preach a good sermon, but when it comes to substantive action, they leave much to be desired. But now it becomes quite clear why these Democrats are so adamantly protesting this port deal: the Teamsters Union is opposed to the deal. Even if they were in support of, or eve indifferent to this port deal, these Democrats cannot afford to lose the support of the unions, their largest fund-raising base. No major surprises here.