Wall Street Journal's Flawed Defence of Port Deal

Michelle Malkin has already addressed this to some extent:

http://michellemalkin.com/archives/004620.htm

But she misses a couple of points I feel are important. Here is a paragraph from the Wall Street Journal's defense of the port deal:

"Yes, some of the 9/11 hijackers were UAE citizens. But then the London subway bombings last year were perpetrated by citizens of Britain, home to the company (P&O) that currently manages the ports that Dubai Ports World would take over. Which tells us three things: First, this work is already being outsourced to "a foreign-based company"; second, discriminating against a Mideast company offers no security guarantees because attacks are sometimes homegrown; and third, Mr. Graham likes to talk first and ask questions later."

OK, let's start with the London bombings. The individuals involved may have been citizens, but they weren't British. None of them. Correct me if I am wrong, but none were born there.
Next, to compare Britain with any other country on the "Trust Meter" is a loser. Great Britain and the United States have had a mutual working agreement to save the world from itself since the First World War. Granted, there was a little down time during the 1920's and 30's. But as WW2 began to develop, FDR began to help Britain with supplies and weapons, even though the US wasn't in the war yet. Since then, Britain has been our staunchest ally.
Trusting Great Britain is like trusting a sibling to take care of your kids while you go on vacation.
Would you trust somebody who has enabled terrorists? (Money laundering of Al Qaeda funds, for example).
Next, sure attacks can be homegrown. But why tempt fate? How many homegrown attacks of REAL SIGNIFICANCE have occured? One...I believe. Oklahoma City. And that was based on the idea that our government was not protecting its citizens. The bombers were pissed off at the burning of the Branch Davidian complex in Texas. I was pissed off at the killing of those people. I don't blow up buildings, but our government made a HUGE mistake in the way it dealt with David Koresh.
Putting in place people, or a group of people who may have unsavory characters involved in their business is asking for trouble.
Attacking Senator Graham for his inconsistencies is OK, I guess. But it has no bearing on the reality of the situation at hand.
Further down in the WSJ piece is this:

"Besides, the notion that the Bush Administration is farming out port "security" to hostile Arab nations is alarmist nonsense. Dubai Ports World would be managing the commercial activities of these U.S. ports, not securing them. There's a difference. Port security falls to Coast Guard and U.S. Customs officials. "Nothing changes with respect to security under the contract," Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said yesterday. "The Coast Guard is in charge of security, not the corporation.""

My response:
Since all of the groups involved in running a port must be in constant communication about everyday activities, which include PORT SECURITY, the normal exchange of information between the different groups will, as a natural course of activity include some information that can be used by bad guys to compromise the security of the ports.
Such mundane things as the regular security checks can give information to terrorists and their sympathisers as to how to compromise port security.

Bill O'Reilly has lost it on this one. He is still harping the "racsim against Arabs" bandwagon, even as I write this. 1902 HRS CST this evening 02/22/2006. Watch the repeat in the late hours. Bill, get a brain.

I'll be back

CC