Even with Kudlow On Board, I Still Feel Strangely Unsatisfied

The AP reports that the White House and DPW had a "secret agreement" over the port deal.  Based on what was disclosed in the story, this doesn't appear to be any more than the kind of agreement you would ordinarily expect between any business entity and its regulator. 

What I do find disturbing, since the US is supposed to be serious about port security, is that the concessions are described by the Department of Homeland Security as "unprecedented." If that's true, then a foreign insurance company doing business in a US state is probably subject to more regulatory control than the various foreign companies and government entities that are currently operating US ports.  Hate to say it, but that sounds like the feds to me.

OTOH, and provided that the contract sufficiently ensures the company's cooperation with the US government, I'm not sure the record retention and US citizen requirements are all that important.  That would only be a problem when, for example, you're delivering a pizza to the DPW port office and a DPW crane falls on your car.  In your subsequent lawsuit against DPW for negligent crane operation, your lawyer is going to want the company's business records.  If those records are in Dubai, discovery is going to be a challenge.  Inconvenient for plaintiffs attorneys, but not worth losing sleep over.   

I've no doubt that the port deal can be managed in a way that would keep America safe.  What I question is whether, under the circumstances, its prudent to complicate what all have agreed is an existing vulnerability. Although I've tried to keep an open mind and give Bush the benefit of the doubt, I can't ignore the fact that security experts seem to have concerns about the deal and the good business/free-trade crowd (ordinarily, my tribe), are for it. Much as I respect his opinion, Larry Kudlow's approval just isn't all that comforting here.       

I am not at all persuaded by those who assert that the deal should be approved because the UAE and other Arab nations will be miffed if it isn't. As Americans know all too well, allies can sometimes be down right uncooperative.  To the extent we need to buy our friends in the Islamic world, doing so at the price of our own security seems like really bad bargain.

Given the serious issues involved, I deeply resent the suggestion that opponents of the deal are suffering from "Islamophobia."  (and I'm glad to see I'm not the only California conservative that feels this way.)  It's Islamophobia when a person refuses to go to a particular dentist because the dentist is an Arab. It is foolhardy in the extreme (and politically short-sighted) to insist that there is no difference between an Arab company and a British one in light of the existing political reality.  As I said in a previous post, during the Cold War the US would probably not have contracted with a Russian-American janitorial company to have it clean the bathrooms at NORAD.  That wouldn't have been "Russophobia," that would have been prudent risk management under the circumstances.   

If it is indeed the case, as some have suggested, that this deal has some kind of security benefit for America that cannot be disclosed and which far outweighs any risk, the obligation is on the Administration to demonstrate that benefit, if only by showing that there is key bipartisan support for the deal. Until I see that, I can't feel good about this deal.         

UPDATE: Not that I would have expected anything less, but Michelle Malkin is standing fast on the matter. As she notes, the White House may be cooling its jets a little.

Rick Moran is another reasonable voice that refuses to be intimidated. Even better, he's on the offense.

Link: BREITBART.COM - Arab Co., White House Had Secret Agreement.