More editorials on the U.S./UAE port controversy:

Los Angeles Times: "Port Hysteria"
"WHEN MEMBERS OF CONGRESS TAKE homeland security seriously, it's a welcome development. Unfortunately, Tuesday's bipartisan hissy fit over the Bush administration's approval of a Dubai company's $6.8-billion deal to manage six important U.S. ports is neither serious nor welcome."

NY Daily News: "Mr. President, Are You Nuts?"
"That giant sucking sound you hear is one really big mob of congressional Republicans evacuating their side of the aisle en masse and galloping over to agree with their left-coast colleagues as fast as they possibly can that the summary selloff of U.S. port operations to Dubai is your basic bad idea."

There stood President Bush yesterday, vowing to veto legislation that would prevent a company owned by the United Arab Emirates from taking operational control of six of the nation's ports — including New York and New Jersey.

Arrayed against him: Elected officials of both parties, including solid blocks in Congress, officials from states potentially put at risk by the deal — and Mayor Bloomberg.

On Bush's side: Jimmy Carter, all by his deservedly lonesome self. ("The overall threat to the United States and security, I don't think it exists" said the man who so famously failed to prevent the fall of Iran to Islamic fundamentalism.)

That alone should give Bush serious second thoughts...."

Washington Times: "Scotch The Ports Deal"
"In two weeks time, the ports of New York and New Jersey, Miami, Baltimore, Philadelphia and New Orleans will go under contract to a government-owned company in the United Arab Emirates. This must not stand. It's plainly obvious that a government-owned company from a hostile region should not operate American ports, whatever the assurances about security and however limited its involvement in day-to-day operations. What can be done?"

New York Sun: "On The Waterfront"
"Somehow, it doesn't add up. Senators Menendez, Clinton, Lautenberg, Schumer, Dodd, and Boxer are up in arms over the Bush administration's decision to allow Dubai Ports World, a company owned by the United Arab Emirates, to take over operations at ports in New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami, and Philadelphia. So are Reps. Vito Fossella and Peter King. One has to wonder, what makes this group, not particularly known for its hawkishness - in some cases known for abject dovishness - suddenly more hawkish than President Bush? It turns out their objections look to be less and less about American national security and more about plain old politics and political money and a labor union notorious for its ties to organized crime on the waterfront."

Houston Chronicle: "Relying on Middle East Country To Keep Our Ports Safe Doesn't Make Sense"
"The government of the United Arab Emirates simply isn't the same as private British company ownership. Letting the UAE buy a company running shipping operations in Baltimore, New York, New Jersey, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia might turn out all right, but why take the chance?"

Orlando Sentinel: "Protect Ports"
"Foreign companies dominate world shipping and already operate most of the major container terminals on the Eastern seaboard. Further, sweeping restrictions on foreign investment could invite retaliation against U.S. investment abroad. In the modern global economy, any measures that needlessly choke off international investment will hinder growth and cost jobs.

And members of Congress should not fool themselves that barring foreign ownership would close gaping security gaps at U.S. ports. Regardless of who operates a port, U.S. Customs agents will remain responsible for screening its cargo. Currently, Customs inspects only a small percentage of the millions of containers that arrive at U.S. ports every year.

That's not acceptable.

Inadequate port security leaves the United States dangerously vulnerable, especially to an attack from a smuggled weapon of mass destruction. That nightmare scenario is especially frightening for Florida, with its 14 ports.

Congress and the Bush administration need to do more to bolster security at U.S. ports, no matter who operates them."

Denver Post: "Security Concerns Key For U.S. Ports"
"President Bush is naive to think Americans will be comfortable with a deal he approved that would put a company from the United Arab Emirates in charge of seaport operations in New York and five other U.S. cities."