(Sittin' On) The Dock Of The Bay

Rotterdam, the largest port in Europe—and they're known for their trade, the Dutch—is run by, yes, the Dutch themselves. Why? For one thing it's profitable. For another there is a security issue. Don't let any so-called experts tell you any different. Now, I'm not an expert, but I did serve in Marseille, I was familiar with port operations in other ports, in part as an assist to the US Navy, and my common-sense view of it is that the people who run the ports have got their hands all over security operations. So whether you're worried about terrorists from the middle east or "terrorists" who are patsies for third parties with other agendas, it doesn't matter: putting an Arab state in the heart of US port management, running 21 US ports, would not bode well for national security. It's just too great a risk.

James Ridgeway, and others, have pointed out some of the less seemly UAE connections. But David Sirota—this critique seems to be flying below the radar of both the MSM (no surprise) and the blogosphere (surprise)—nails it, pointing out how international trade barons trump domestic security concerns.

Now that the White House has worked out a '45-day review' to buy itself some breathing space it may think that with wavering Republican converts and appeased pro-trade Democrats a Bush veto will likely stand. I don't know of any good head count at this point and, really, it's too early to guess at one, but I'd be very surprised if the controversy cools off.

[Note: In the last 24 hours Sirota's piece showed up, disappeared, then showed up in another form on the HuffPo. And Thom Hartmann gives a thoroughly eloquent elaboration at Common Dreams.]