To be fair to the Dems, the headline issue in their briefing books on terrorism has been port security for four years. And part of the complaints -- partly pushed by the unions but by legitimate security concerns as well -- has been handing over control of both airports and ports to private companies, especially foreign-controlled ones.
It is profoundly strange that we have laws in this country attacking government ownership of basic US infrastructure and then we turn around and hand ownership of major ports to a government-controlled company, especially one owned by one of the only countries in the world that recognized the Taliban regime.
Yes, there's political opportunism involved -- as always I'm shocked that there is gambling in Casablanca -- but the reaction against the port deal is far more sober than almost any other policies promoted in the name of the war on terror.
Nathan Newman