Questions linger about port deal

We shouldn't be surprised, but the bipartisan concern about the Dubai port transaction is turning partisan. Instead of looking at the big picture this deal has exposed, we're starting to hear complaints that this is a tempest in a teapot, don't blame the Bush administration because foreign management of U.S. ports goes back to President Clinton, security is not compromised by these arrangements anyway, etc.

In the reviews of this deal, let's hope the operations of the committee that approved it aren't overlooked. How can a committee with representatives from various Cabinet departments not report its recommendations to the president, if not Congress? It's hard to believe nobody in these deliberations didn't ask, "How will this play on Main Street?''

It's also hard to believe there are no American companies willing, able or good enough to manage our ports. Rep. Peter King of New York is suggesting DP World subcontract its work to a U.S. firm, so he must think it can remain in U.S. hands.

Serious questions? Or just a tempest in a teapot?