I've been kinda quiet

About the whole Port Management Deal. I guess this was an issue that I didn't want to go off half-cocked on. But my understanding of the whole thing is this:

A company that handles loading and unloading of the ports has been sold to another company, who just happens to be owned by the UAE. Now, from what I understand it's only the cargo handling that this company oversees, correct?

So here's what I'm thinking; what's the big deal?

This company has no say on what comes into the port. This company has no say on what's allowed or not allowed on a ship. This company isn't going to bring people from overseas to work in our ports. This company still has to operate under US rules and regulations. This company does not have a single thing to do with security in the six ports it would operate in.

Given the above facts, I really can't see what all the hullabaloo is about. Now, if people want to hold off for a while to make sure that the above facts are true, be my guest. But the hysterical shouts from both sides of how Bush and Co. are selling out our national security seem to be a bit over the top.

However on the other hand, Jimmah "Peanut" Carter is in favor of the deal, which makes me want to run away from it as fast as possible. So I'm in a bit of a quandry here.......

Michelle Malkin has a huge post about the entire deal, and brings up the fact that since this company would be operating in our ports, they would have sensitive information about how we run them. This is indeed a concern, and one that needs to be addressed before we allow any company to come into our ports. However, given the unreliability of many countries that we're supposedly allies with, (and the complete reliability of our own CIA to be unreliable) if we place the condition that only countries friendly to us and able to keep secrets about our port security plans are allowed to run the ports, that narrows the countries down to Great Britain, Australia, Poland, and ourselves.

Seriously, do you want fwance, Russia, or Germany running our ports? Canada has turned a corner, but I still remember the sheer amount of anti-Americanism that came from up North before their last election. Other than the countries I've named, who's left?

Honestly, I don't understand why an American company can't be found to run American ports, but since none of them seem to be stepping up and saying "Hey, we'll do it!" then we're stuck with the people we have. Now if you want to change the rules to say that only the security forces and US Customs are allowed to know our emergency and security plans, I'd be all for it. But until someone can come up with a viable alternative to port management, let's all keep our tones down. The things I've seen said over the past week about this deal have me scratching my head.

Anyways, go read Mrs. Malkin's post, since she's got opinions from just about everywhere. But come back and tell me if you think I'm wrong in wondering what the big deal is about.