The Wall St Journal editorialized that it hoped the "US entity" would be Halliburton--just to annoy the Left.

Still the question remains what would have been different under a firm run by the Dubai government--with the same US stevedores, the answer is--not much.

The biggest question--which has nothing to do with who is in charge of a given terminal--is whether there will now be pressure to inspect more than the abysmal 5% of cargo now inspected--which Kerry brought up in a debate--and it never became an issue then--and still hasn't been addressed.

If you do insist on more than 5% being inspected, what percentage will you insist on---and will you be ready to accept the slowing of the economy which results?

It's actually very easy to see why people to the left of center opposed this deal. After all it has very much to do with the consequences of globalization, which more and more is a 2-way street--with US jobs at stake. (Less obvious are the benefits of globalization--but consider how many foreign firms have set up shop in the US--like Toyota and Mercedes.) And also how foreign willingness to buy US securities has kept US interest rates down--in the face of huge deficits. Any US citizen interested in buying a house or car should be aware of this.

Also, the Left may have realized how part of Bush's plan was (and is?) to use Dubai as a base for missiles aimed at Iran.

Less easy to see is why the yahoos who voted for Bush oppose the deal--except that of course they don't read--so don't know a lot of the factors behind the deal.

And of course, as I believe has already been pointed out, now we've been told for years to hate and fear anybody from the Mideast who wears flowing robes-- we've seen lots of pictures of Osama and heard about the barbarities in Saudi Arabia, among others.

Now we're told (falsely) that our security is in the hands of Arabs--and never mind. So the deal blew up in Bush's face. Couldn't happen to a nicer despicable propagandist.