United Arab Emirates--Ports R Us

What's the deal with the UAE company taking over operations at six ports in the US (as well as ports in Canada, the UK, and various other countries)? Dubai Ports World is buying P&O, a "Great British" company that currently runs those ports, but the trick is that DP World is owned completely by the government of Dubai in the United Arab Emirates. Dubai hasn't exactly got the cleanest hands in all this terrorism business. The New York Times helpfully elaborates:

But Dubai's record is hardly unblemished. Two of the hijackers in the Sept. 11 attacks came from the United Arab Emirates and laundered some of their money through its banking system. It was also the main transshipment point for Abdul Qadeer Khan, a Pakistani nuclear engineer who ran the world's largest nuclear proliferation ring from warehouses near the port, met Iranian officials there, and shipped centrifuge equipment, which can be used to enrich uranium, from there to Libya.

I'm not sure that any possibility of having DP World operate US ports should be dismissed out of hand, but it does seem to raise a few questions. Fortunately, we have a law that says a deal such as this involving a company controlled by a foreign country is subject to a mandatory 45-day investigation. That should provide an opportunity to give the deal a full airing, right?

Of course, we're talking about the Bush Administration here. There was no 45-day investigation--the Prez went around that law in approving the deal. Even the Repubs in the House and Senate are up in arms about that. Senate Majority Leader Frist and Speaker of the House Hastert have criticized administration actions. Legislation is being prepared to require that the 45-day investigation be completed--that's right, they're intending to pass a law to force the Prez to follow the law that already exists. And what's Bush's reaction? He's threatening a veto, which would be his first. So far, after more than five years in office, no legislation has been so problematic to him that he's had to use his veto. But now, a law requiring him to abide by another law already on the books--that crosses the line!

There's got to be more to this. Why is Bush so vehement? What's he getting out of it that we don't know about yet? What's the information--so far unknown--that would allow this to make sense?

It sure seems open and shut, but nothing ever is anymore. Stay tuned to see if Congress will step up and declare itself equal to the executive branch, or if our legislators will cave once again to a chief executive with approval numbers under 40 percent. There even seems a good possibility of overriding a veto if Congress actually sticks to its guns. I'm on the edge of my seat, myself.