DP World - The real deal

This Times analysis takes the predictable approach of examining the effect that American xenophobia could have on foreign investment.

Some economists argue that it is good that foreign investment in sensitive areas be subject to more scrutiny.

"There are some assets that are absolutely essential to U.S. security and today's action reflects the House and Senate actually drawing a line," said Robert E. Scott, a senior economist and trade specialist at the liberal Economic Policy Institute.

"The question," he added, "is whether or not this is going to be a one-time event or whether we are going to look more carefully at foreign acquisitions, particularly in the military sector."

But some analysts warn that further political hostility against foreign companies buying American assets could boomerang against the United States.

"I think it is very dangerous to enter a new world in which every purchase of an American asset by a foreign entity is scrutinized by the government," said Kevin Hassett, director of economic policies at the conservative American Enterprise Institute in Washington.

The problem with this analysis is that it ignores the core fact of why the DP World deal was bad.

It is true, as David Broder argues, that there was a reactionary element of the opposition that had more to do with racism than with the merits, but the merits were there.

Principled opposition to the deal had nothing to do with Arabs. It had nothing to do with foreigners. It didn't really have anything to do with whether certain essential assets should be off-limits to off-shore proprietorship.

DP World is owned by a government with more documented ties to Islamist extremists, including Al Qaeda, than Iraq ever had. The Bush administration has done nothing - nothing - to improve the security of American seaports since 9/11. The combination of Bush's failure to guard our ports with the possibility of compromised security from within DP World made it entirely appropriate for people to raise questions about the deal. What reasonable person could argue with this?