A-oooo-gah! A-oooo-gah!

Yesterday, returning on Air Force One:

"I want those who are questioning it to step up and explain why all of a sudden a Middle Eastern company is held to a different standard than a Great British (sic) company," Bush told reporters.

He said the transaction was thoroughly scrutinized by administration officials, who concluded that it poses no threat to national security.

As reported in the New York Times:

The administration's review of the deal was conducted by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, a body that was created in 1975 to review foreign investments in the country that could affect national security. Under that review, officials from the Defense, State, Commerce and Transportation Departments, along with the National Security Council and other agencies, were charged with raising questions and passing judgment. They found no problems to warrant the next stage of review, a 45-day investigation with results reported to the president for a final decision.

However, a 1993 amendment to the law stipulates that such an investigation is mandatory when the acquiring company is controlled by or acting on behalf of a foreign government. Administration officials said they conducted additional inquires because of the ties to the United Arab Emirates, but they could not say why a 45-day investigation did not occur.

Oops. Sorry.

After yesterday's tough talk, including a veto threat, this morning it was clear that the order for evasive manuvers had gone out. One can almost hear the klaxons honking in the West Wing.

WASHINGTON -- President Bush was unaware of the pending sale of shipping operations at six major U.S. seaports to a state-owned business in the United Arab Emirates until the deal already had been approved by his administration, the White House said Wednesday.

Defending the deal anew, the administration also said that it should have briefed Congress sooner about the transaction, which has triggered a major political backlash among both Republicans and Democrats.

As more details about the shipping industry become clear, it's easy to see why bureaucrats might have approved this deal. Operations at ports are managed by multi-national corporations who hire locals, in this case Americans, to do the work, just as 'American' companies hire Indians to do tech support. The company that manages operations at several West Coast ports has ownership based in Singapore. It's the sort of thing that seems perfectly normal to someone used to the pervasiveness of the global corporatist vision that seems to be the raison d'etre of the Bush/Cheney gang.

What does nationality mean anyway? I'm told Halliburton is based in the Bahamas, for tax purposes anyway.

The actual threat to America is probably very small, if it exists at all. But it's the principle of the thing. It reminds us of how badly we've failed to protect our ports. Why, in all the time since 9/11, haven't we formed an American company to take over those operations? Why is any foreign firm in charge, Singaporean, Arab or 'Great British'? Their inability to understand the problem here highlights the hypocrisy of the administration. They are unwilling to share important information with our own Congress for 'fear of leaks that might endanger national security', but they are willing to have detailed information about our port operations sent to Dubai? What's up with that?

What is amazing is that no one involved in this incredibly politicized administration understood how wrong this would sound to the populace that had been force-fed horrifying warnings about "terrists" (read Arabs) sneaking nukes in cargo containers. In a world where we have 24-year-old college dropouts telling PhD NASA scientists what they can say about global warming, how is it that no one realized how approving this deal would sound? If Karl was cranky that Cheney's gunplay had blown their "energy agenda" off the front pages, he must be even more pissed to have this story in the headlines.

This time the lame duck shot himself in the foot.

Update: What was that about corporatist? David Sirota brings us some interesting info about "What the hell was he thinking?"

How much does "free" trade have to do with this? How about a lot. The Bush administration is in the middle of a two-year push to ink a corporate-backed "free" trade accord with the UAE. At the end of 2004, in fact, it was Bush Trade Representative Robert Zoellick who proudly boasted of his trip to the UAE to begin negotiating the trade accord. Rejecting this port security deal might have set back that trade pact. Accepting the port security deal - regardless of the security consequences - likely greases the wheels for the pact. That's probably why instead of backing off the deal, President Bush - supposedly Mr. Tough on National Secuirty - took the extraordinary step of threatening to use the first veto of his entire presidency to protect the UAE's interests. Because he knows protecting those interetsts - regardless of the security implications for America - is integral to the "free" trade agenda all of his corporate supporters are demanding.