Its amazing that I actually think I agree with Bush on the Port issue. "Islamophobia" seems to be floating around online as the term of the day, and the outcry seems particularly disturbing as the transition is from a UK based company.

(Its almost like I am waiting for some secret agenda to come out -- Sheik friends, paybacks, Syrianna type connections, etc.)

Arianna Huffington always has harsh critiques on GW. Here are some highlights from her editorial at Huffington Post. Seems a bit over the top to me (and again I find it strange I am leaning towards the Bush view), but here are some of her thoughts...

"Bush's reputation as the Great Protector who will do anything -- anything! -- to keep us safe, even if it means torturing, spying, and trashing the Constitution and the Geneva Conventions, is his one remaining political asset. And putting six of our major ports under the control of the United Arab Emirates threatens to undermine this rep in an irreparable way.

You don't need to be a member of the Council on Foreign Relations to grasp that a country that embraced the Taliban, was a financial hub for the 9/11 attackers, and whose own ports were used by notorious Pakistani scientist A.Q. Kahn to smuggle nuclear components to Iran, Libya, and North Korea, probably shouldn't be handed the keys to shipping operations in New York, New Jersey, Miami, Baltimore, Philadelphia, and New Orleans (I mean, c'mon, haven't Bush and Chertoff done enough damage to the Big Easy?).

This deal is a nonstarter and a no-brainer. A Harriet Miers debacle to the hundredth- power. Next thing you know, the president will be assuring us that he knows what's in the heart of Dubai Ports World, Inc.

But instead of pulling back from the deal and hurriedly looking for the port operations equivalent of Sam Alito, the president stomped his feet, held his breath, and stuck out his veto.

Bush hasn't vetoed a single bill in five years. Turns out his line in the sand can be found in the deserts of the UAE.

Here are just some of the questions that need to be answered: Why was it approved in little more than half the 45-days mandated by Congress? Why didn't the president find out about the deal until it was already done? Why wasn't Congress briefed about the transaction before it was approved? What role did the corporate connections of Treasury Secretary Snow and newly appointed Maritime Administration head David Sanborn play in winning the White House's backing? Was the deal tied to the pending trade agreement the administration is negotiating with the UAE?

The most significant aspect of the port controversy is the spotlight it turns on the White House's hypocrisy on national security. Just look at what Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff had to say: "We have to balance the paramount urgency of security against the fact that we still want to have a robust global trading system."

That says all you need to know about the perverted priorities of the Bush White House. Four and a half years after 9/11, our ports remain shockingly vulnerable to terrorist attacks, with about five percent of cargo given security screenings. Our chemical and nuclear plants are similarly susceptible. And the guy in charge of Homeland Security is more worried about chilling the international business climate than keeping us safe. So fighting the global war on terror needs to be "balanced" with a robust bottom line?

Is the business of America still business -- even for those touting their "post-9/11 worldview"?"