From: "Rich Gauszka" 


"Adam" <""4thwormcastfromthemolehill\"{at}the
field.near the bridge"> wrote in message news:4400d35d$1{at}w3....
> Rich Gauszka wrote:
>> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,185994,00.html
>>
>> At first, it was reported that the deal involved only six ports but DP
>> World's Web site says it involves 21 ports, from Portland, Me., to Corpus
>> Christi, Texas.
>>
>>
> &?
>
> Global capitalism. Got a problem with global capitalism? Maybe you'd
> like to join the WTO, G8 etc protestors.
>
> Adam

 And when the company is actually owned and controlled by the foreign
government?

http://mediamatters.org/items/200602250001
A common problem with coverage of the UAE port deal has been a failure to
distinguish between companies that are located in a foreign country and
companies that are controlled by a foreign government. Much of the
controversy surrounding the port deal stems from the fact that Dubai Ports
World, the company seeking to buy the British conglomerate that used to
manage the ports, thus gaining control of the terminals, is not merely
located in the United Arab Emirates, it is actually owned by the UAE
government.

The Bush administration has sought to blur that distinction and suggested
that critics of the deal are unfairly discriminating against Arabs. Bush
told reporters on February 21:

  BUSH: I really don't understand why it's okay for a British company to
operate our ports, but not a company from the Middle East ... 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. I'm trying to conduct foreign policy now by saying to people of
the world, we'll treat you fairly.

Presumably, news organizations pointed out Bush's dishonesty in blurring
the distinction in referring to a "company from the Middle East"
rather than a "company owned by a foreign government?"

Well, no.

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5