Washington Post business columnist Steven Pearlstein was online to discuss a Dubai company's plans to take control of significant operations at six U.S. ports. In today's column , he writes that Cargogate shows Americans acting just like the French.

A transcript follows .

About Pearlstein: Steven Pearlstein writes about business and the economy for The Washington Post. His journalism career includes editing roles at The Post and Inc. magazine. He was founding publisher and editor of The Boston Observer, a monthly journal of liberal opinion. He got his start in journalism reporting for two New Hampshire newspapers -- the Concord Monitor and the Foster's Daily Democrat. Pearlstein has also worked as a television news reporter and a congressional staffer.

His column archive is online here .

____________________

Washington, D.C.: Does the Carlyle Group have any connection with the Dubai imbroglio? Is our fearless leader protecting Daddy's business interests? And maybe future job prospects?

Thank you!

As a poster said last week--FOLLOW THE MONEY!

Steven Pearlstein: Interesting that you asked that. When I was writing the column, my colleague, Jerry Knight, joked that the solution to all this is to have Carlyle buy P&O from the Brits, and let the Arab investors participate in that way.

As to your question, I would assume there is Dubai money of some sort invested somewhere in Carlyle. But, as far as I know, this is one deal that Carlyle isn't involved in -- yet.

_______________________

Medford, Oregon: Hi Steven: In all the hubbub about Dubai Ports World operating some of our ports I haven't seen any discussion of who would vet DPW employees, especially their midlevel managers. It seems to me like an excellent opportunity for mischief-makers to collect information.

Steven Pearlstein: There is no particular reason to believe that mischief makers, or bad guys, would chose to try to infiltrate a Dubai owned port operator over a British owned operator at the operational level you speak of. At that level, the supervisors and staff are going to be almost exclusively local (that is, Americans). And as I understand it, there are some checks on those hirings now. Those checks might be inadequate, but that has very little to do with the ultimate corporate ownership. It has to do with the local management and the local security personnel, which is where the debate ought to be focused, in my opinion.

_______________________

Purcellville, VA: When it comes to the security of our country, there are some jobs that just should not be trusted to foreigners. I doubt the President would allow the United Arab Emirates to do the hiring of his personal security, don't you?

Steven Pearlstein: That's an interesting way of thinking about it, I suppose. But the United Arab Emirates isn't doing the hiring of port personnel either -- and this is not just knit picking about words. The United Arab Emirates has a controlling ownership interest in the private, profit making company that has a lease to run six ports. The company has executive officers, some of whom are Arab, some not, as well as local managers for each of the ports, who we would expect will all be loyal American citizens. We can also limit the contact between these port managers and headquarter on certain issues, as a condition of approving the leases or the sale. You might, by the way, ask the same question regarding the president's security guard and the venerable British-owned company that is selling its port management operations.

_______________________

Bethesda, Md.: In your column today, you called the reaction to the port sale "protectionism." Why not call it for what it really is: hysterical racism and xenophobia? The media are doing the country a disservice by trying to portray this any other way.

washingtonpost.com: Today's Column: Ports Furor Is Just Protectionism, With a French Accent

Steven Pearlstein: Well, I thought I tried to suggest those less than attractive qualities as well. But I guess I was being too subtle.

_______________________

Springfield, VA: Mr. Pearlstein,

I am a long-time resident of the Washington area. Although I try to keep up with the politics of this town, I must say that I never saw this one coming. I find the prospect of ANY foreign governorship/stewardship of ANY US government operation (airport, sea port, whatever) very disturbing.

The fact that the ports in question have been run by a foreign-owned company is shocking. It also begs the question "What other operations have been contracted out to foreign-owned companies?"

In this day and age of terrorism, hate mongering and anti-US sentimentality, how can any government official sanction such a deal and think that the citizens of this country would not be outraged?

Really concerned in Springfield

Steven Pearlstein: I think it is self-evident that ports are, by their nature, involved in international trade. So it shouldn't be surprising that the companies that are good at running ports are global, gaining efficiencies and know-how by having operations in various countries. In fact, we know that multinational corporations like that don't really have nationalities, although they are headquartered in one place or another for tax and corporate registration purpose. Some are American. Some are British. Some, I'm sure, are headquartered in Bermuda or the Cayman Islands. But corporations are really legal fictions. What matters is people -- who they are, where their loyalties lay, what functions they perform and what functions they don't. That's the analysis that should be done, not the country of registration of the firm. After all, if it was an American based multinational that had these leases, but 28 percent of the company's stock was held by investors from the Middle East, what would you say about that? These nation-focused words people are throwing around don't have a lot of meaning in a world of global trade and finance.

You seem to be suggesting, by the way, that these ports should be operated only by government employees. I couldn't agree less.

_______________________

Silver Spring, Md.: It may be hard to believe, but I can't recall a more disingenuous column than your column today. Likening legitimate concerns about the patently obvious national security implications of who manages major US ports to French economic policy is straight out of Fox News. My question is why do you accuse Democrats of racist hypocrisy when we all know that, were mainstream Republicans not up in arms, this matter would have been dead already. Do you believe that Senator Susan Collins is a racist because, as Chair of the Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee, she is insisting that the Administration comply with existing law requiring a 45 day investigation of transactions potentially affecting national security?

Steven Pearlstein: There's nothing wrong with requesting a more thorough 45 day inquiry. But let me assure you that Sen. Schumer won't be satisfied if the 45 day inquiry ends in approval of the sale. He's not interested in process. He's interested in making sure this sale is disapproved, as are many of the politicians from both parties who have been grandstanding on this issue. And it is typical of Democrats like you, who see everything in partisan, evil versus good, terms, to suggest that I'm just as bad as Fox News.

By the way, it is racist hypocrisy to say don't racially profile passengers but yes, racially profile investors. I think racial profiling-- ie being more careful with South Asian young men than little old white ladies with blue hair from Dubuque-- is perfectly reasonable when it comes to airport screening and port operations. But being careful isn't the same as just saying no, which is what you want to do with the folks from Dubai. All of them.

_______________________

Wheaton, Md.: Dear Mr. Pearlstein:

I was in Europe when this ports deal first became news, and before the U.S. Congress began to question security, BBC Business news had one of the company's directors in the hot seat, trying to get him to explain why they were willing to overpay so ridiculously for this deal. I get the impression that when a Middle Eastern firm has its sites set on something, money is really no object. When I came home and heard about these security concerns, I got to think about ulterior motives that would make them overvalue this deal so much. Not terrorism, but perhaps political leverage?

Surely you must also understand that, unlike some of the examples in your article, there are no efficiency gains to the U.S. by this deal. There may be real risks, albeit slim ones. That is enough to make this deal warrant closer consideration.

Steven Pearlstein: The deal warrants close consideration, no doubt about it. But it shouldn't be a non-starter, which is basically what the opponents are saying. I would surely have required some conditions, including special background checks for any of the local managers and clear instructions about topics the headquarters in Dubai should have no involvement with. And if they still want to take over the leases on those terms, then there should be no problem -- or at least no more problem than having any other company run the port. Our ports are vulnerable, no doubt about that, but that has more to do with the less than aggressive response of our government agencies, not the folks in Dubai.

_______________________

Denison, Texas: We have been told that Dubai, UAE, has been helpful in the so-called GWOT, have we been told just how it has been helpful, or is the help explained just in terms of general policy?

Steven Pearlstein: Actually, we have been told quite a bit -- although I'm sure there is a lot more that is classified. They have provided troops and support for various US military efforts, and welcomes our troops and ships, and cooperated in tracking down the bad guy's finances. I might also add they, as a charter member of OPEC, they have been active participants in an illegal, world-wide price fixing conspiracy. If the US was prepared to get tough on all OPEC countries and deny them all the right to buy US assets, I would support that as good way to break up OPEC. But that's not the issue that has been raised here.

_______________________

New York, N.Y.: In the past, the UAE has funded distreessed companies in the USA and saved them from bankruptcy. Chysler and Citi Bank are two companies that come to mind. This investment will improve the lives of thousands of Katrina victums. Why do you think the Sultan Of Abu Dhabi is comming under fire from the Unions when the UAE despite its entaglements with the former Afgan goverment is actually pro American. Doen't the press know that 9/11 terrorist Alhibbi was wanted by the UAE goverment and released by Germany? Don't you think this debate should be more respectful of our allies in the UAE?

Steven Pearlstein: Didn't know all that. Thanks. And the answer to your question is Yes!

_______________________

New York, N.Y.: Is there any evidence that John Snow and David Sanborn's tenure at CSX influenced CFIUS approval of the DPW deal?

Steven Pearlstein: I'm sure it did, whether consciously or not. Sanborn, by the way, is the newly nominated head of the Maritime Administration, which job he came to after a long time at SeaLand and a brief time at the Dubai company. Snow, as head of CSX, sold that company's port operations to the Dubai company. I assume these men would not have had these interactions with a company they knew or suspected was a terrorist-harboring organization. So they had some history, there. But that doesn't or shouldn't disqualify them from participating in the process. Every member of the process brings some history or baggage with them that may color their views, consciously or uncounsciously. But there is no indication that either of these gentlemen had a financial interst in the outcome, or that what motivates them now is anything but trying to do the best job they can for the country. Question their judgment, if you like, but not their motives.

_______________________

Arlington, Va.: I'm not sure I exactly agree that people opposing the ports deal are racists. Ultimately I think after there has been a thorough investigation of the deal it will go ahead as it should. But for the man who has played the "fear of Arabs" card at every turn since 9/11 to complain about critics of this deal is just ridiculous. Bush has created this environment of constant fear and terror to advance his political goals. He has made his bed, and now he must lie in it.

Steven Pearlstein: Indeed.

_______________________

New York, N.Y.: Some commentators have suggested that this issue has exposed a rift between the business oriented Republicans (who favor the DPW deal) and the national security Republicans (who oppose it). Can you comment?

Steven Pearlstein: Its a fair point, although I'm sure most Republican office-holders would consider themselves in both camps.

_______________________

Staunton, Va.: Does anyone know how much money the UAE gave to Hamas last year?

Which Port Security recommendations made by the 9/11 Commission has this administration enacted?

Steven Pearlstein: Good questions, for which I can offer no answers. Anyone else?

_______________________

Chantilly, Va.: I understand outsourcing of manufacturing jobs overseas were due to lower labor costs vis a vis US wages and benefits. But why are foreign firms running US ports? They don't have any competitive advantage that I can see. Running ports has got to be profitable business, otherwise why would any company want to pay a huge sum of money for the privilege? If that is the case, why aren't there any US companies vying to run those ports? We would not have to debate security risks as much if they are managed by US companies, presumably. By the way, who 'owns' the ports and the facilities? So may questions, so little time.

Steven Pearlstein: In most cases, I believe, governments own the ports but lease or let contracts for private companies to manage the port operations. I'm sure there were US firms that competed for these leases or contracts, and there were surely US companies that looked at buying some or all of P&O's operations. But, as I said before, these are inherently functions that are best and most efficiently performed by global companies operating in many countries.

_______________________

Boston, Mass.: In 2003, CSX sold CSX Lines for $300 million to the Carlyle Group (which renamed CSX Lines to Horizon Lines, then sold it in 2004 to Castle Harlan for $650 million).

In 2004 DP World bought CSX World Terminals for $1.15 billion.

In 2005, Dubai International Capital, a government-backed buyout firm, invested in an $8 billion Carlyle fund.

Steven Pearlstein: Thank yo for those facts, assuming they are facts. I'm not sure what conclusion we are supposed to reach from those facts, other than that the Carlyle Group has interaction with companies and investors in Dubai. I'm not one of those who believe in grand international conspiracies involving the Carlyle Group. Sorry.

_______________________

Rolla, Mo.: Do you think if we had made more progress in securing our ports over the past four years that this recent incident would have been much less of an issue? For instance, if we were inspecting x% of cargo containers, or had invested $x billion in port security, this would be a minor issue? We have all heard that this is a vulnerable area, yet nothing seems to have been done to improve it, that's why we are concerned.

Steven Pearlstein: Precisely.

_______________________

Oakland, Calif.: Well, I'm certainly glad someone is highlighting racist hypocrisy of our representatives in Congress. Why do you think so few in the media took on this issue?

Steven Pearlstein: Actually, the media has been very good on this one. Just look at the columns and editorials that have appeared in the Washington Post (Krauthammer, Hoagland, Cohen). The reality is that the media doesn't control the public debate, as so many people think. We participate in it, certainly, and have some role in shaping it. But we don't control it by any means. That's a good thing, by the way.

_______________________

FYI, PORTS: The gatekeeper to the seaport deal is John Snow, Secretary of the US Treasury, who replaced Paul O'Neill. Remember, O'Neill was fired because he refused to give in to pressure from the Bush people to support the invasion of Iraq.

Until he was tapped to serve our government, John Snow was Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of CSX Corporation, "where he successfully guided the transportation company though a period of tremendous change."

CSX is the massive railroad monopoly that controls almost all cargo movements across America from the seaports. Snow's knowledge of international industry "stems from his tenure as Chairman of the Business Roundtable, the foremost business policy group comprised of 250 chief executive officers of the nation's largest companies." This group advises the Administration on business policy.

Prior to answering the call to serve in government, CSX Corporation under Snow, paid no federal income tax at all, "supplementing its over $1 billion in pretax profits over the four year period with $164 million in tax rebate checks from the federal government. During the same period, CSX joined the list of 100 top political campaign contributing corporations,(70% to Republicans) gave Snow $36 million in salary, bonuses, stock and options, and forgave a $24 million loan so he would not lose money along with other shareholders as the company's stock price declined."

Not trumpeted on the government's website is the fact that Snow is now the head of a little known government committee that privately approves foreign business transactions. When CSX, was bought out one year ago this week by Dubai Ports World for $1.4 billion, Snow cashed in on his stock options. DPW, the very same U.A.E. state owned company that is now with help from Snow, closing the loop for packages moving from the slums of Dubai to your own home.

My point is this, with a nuclear bomb the size of a laptop we are already unsafe. If somebody wanted that to happen, it would. The extreme efforts and enormous expense to protect our homeland have proven utterly ineffective. This DPW deal under a microscope is yet another example of the theft of our government by a small cadre of wealthy people with a very narrow agenda. It is an effort by Bush to pay back his Arab handlers while he still can. This should put the light to their faux democracy-mongering throughout the world. It should lay open the huge homeland security budget as largely a sham and history's greatest boon to cronyism, with the sole intent of distracting Americans from seeing that the policies and actions of our own government are the greatest danger to the safety of the people of the world today.

Steven Pearlstein: This is just the kind of partisanship, prejudice and conspiracy theories that poison the public debate on so many issues. It is connecting dots that aren't connected and drawing conclusions from facts not in evidence. Maybe you meant to be tuned in to the Daily Kos and got to us by mistake.

_______________________

Dale City, Va.: While it is true that the company involved has raised the level of complaint because it is an Arab company, it seems to me that most of us regular folks are ticked off about our port security being farmed out to ANY foreign company. Most of us were simply not aware that the ports or our borders were being handed over to foreign countries in the name of commerce. Some things, like our national security, is more important to us regular guys than the amount of money a fat cat company can make on these deals. We want AMERICANS handling our ports, our airports, our borders, and our military. What is so hard to understand about that after the attack on our soil?

Steven Pearlstein: Americans are handling it. They just work for international companies, some of whose owners may not be American.

_______________________

Fairfax, Va.: How does this Dubai port issue compare with the Chinese company attempting to buy UNOCAL.

What was Bush's stand when that deal was being railed upon by Congress?

Steven Pearlstein: Its very comparable. And the outcry over that was just as reprehensible, in my opinion. Even more so, because most of Unocal's assets weren't even in the U.S.

_______________________

Boston, Mass.: Isn't the DP World situation a perfect opportunity to investigate and write about the connections between Tony Snow, CSX, DP World, David Sanborn, and the Carlyle Group?

Doesn't Snow have a direct conflict of interest here?

Is it just coincidental that not-the-sax-player David Sanborn used to work for Tony Snow, then worked for DP World until two weeks before he got picked to administer our ports?

Steven Pearlstein: I am assuming you mean John Snow. And no, there is no direct conflict of interest.

_______________________

Re: Bethesda, Md.: It seems to me that if Americans were a bit more protectionist and xenophobic Americans wouldn't be involved in Iraq, would have more secure borders, better health care, and better paying jobs.

Steven Pearlstein: I doubt it.

_______________________

Seattle, Wash.: I'm a lifelong Dem, and will so remain. To say I am no fan of the president would be an understatement.

That said -- this port kerfuffle is ridiculous. And hypocritical. And, if carried through, will have major implications for our international relations, and for US export businesses. Remember, for example, that Dubai-based Emirates Air is buying more than 40 US-made Boeing 777s. Surely with the trade deficit where it is, it is foolish to throw away the chance to export $8.5 billion worth of US-made goods.

Steven Pearlstein: Thanks for that, Seattle.

_______________________

Toronto, Canada: I am going to disagree with Purceville.

The prime leg that port security should rest on should be trusted and tested procedures, with safety checks, and feedback -- not trust based on perceived loyalties.

It was trust based on perceived loyalties that left British security so vulnerable to Soviet moles, like Kim Philby.

The real problem with port security is a lack of attention from your executive branch.

Steven Pearlstein: When Americans get chastized by the Canadians for having pourous borders and lax enforcement, you know we're in trouble.

_______________________

Shaker Heights, Ohio: The Wall Street Journal reported yesterday that the genesis of this imbroglio was a business dispute between P&O and a Florida stevedore company. The implication of that story is that the Florida company's lobbyists manipulated the situation by creating a (misdirected) Congressional uproar over security, for its own ends. Comment?

Steven Pearlstein: The story was an interesting one, although it is based on a belief that a small cadre of lobbyists can somehow "manipulate" not only the Congress but the entire U.s. political process. That's overstating the case.

_______________________

Dale City, Va.: So are the statements concerning Snow and CSX inaccurate or just inflammatory?

Steven Pearlstein: accurate up to a point, and inflamatory.

_______________________

Boston, Mass.: Do you find the UAE's recognition of the Taliban and their refusal to recognize Israel in any way troubling?

Or would to do so be racist?

Steven Pearlstein: No Arab country recognizes Isreal. They have said they would recognize Israel as soon as it recognizes a Palestinian state. That's where the moderate Arab position is at the moment. Its a bit silly to expect anything more. And for the American Jewish community to try to paint this as a pro or anti-Israel issue is, in my opinion, just garbage.

_______________________

Boston, Mass.: What makes OPEC illegal? International law?

You mean the type of law that forbids the U.S. from holding prisoners of war without following the Geneva Convention, or the type of law that forbids the U.S. from kidnapping people in Europe and sending them to the Middle East to be tortured?

Or do you just not like OPEC?

Steven Pearlstein: No, I just don't like OPEC. That doesn't mean I like torture. Where do you get off making that kind of linkage? Price fixing is against US law, and the laws of almost every other industrial country where petroleum products are sold.

_______________________

Chantilly, Va.: Steven: Well, let's put it this way: the White House admits that Dubai has done many bad things but claims that since 9-11 they've reformed. So if a violent convicted felon is paroled from the Maryland penal system vowing to go straight do we let him join the Secret Service and protect the President?

Steven Pearlstein: South Africa subjugated its black residents until quite recently. Should we trade with them?

_______________________

Arlington, Va.: "the UAE has funded distressed companies in the USA and saved them from bankruptcy"

This is just a ridiculous and naive statement. They were investment opportunities, I don't think anyone was trying to be charitable.

Steven Pearlstein: That's right. And so is there port investment motivated by a desire to make a good return.

_______________________

Rockville, Md.: Ever thought of teaming of with Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity? You all would make a fantastic team.

Steven Pearlstein: I'm thinking that was not a compliment.

_______________________

Germantown, Md.: Why is there no mention of Dubai being the first country in the Middle East to join the Container Security Initiative of the USA and having had that right from the start of this initiative?

Steven Pearlstein: There is no. Thanks, Germantown.

_______________________

Arizona Bay, Az.: Bush and Co. reap what they sow. For years they've tried to strike fear of terrorism (i.e. middle easterners) into the hearts of U.S. citizens and in most people, unfortunately, it has worked. Now they are trying to spin it the exact opposite way and are finding it difficult to do so.

Steven Pearlstein: Hoisted on their own petard, as they say.

_______________________

Helsinki, Finland: I usually like your columns, but was disappointed that you were today more interested in taking cheap shots at the French than talking about the issue. Why is that?

Steven Pearlstein: Guilty as charged. I just love a good opportunity to make sport of the French view of the world, particularly the economic world. I can't help myself.

Its been fun, folks. See you next week.

_______________________

Editor's Note: washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Live Online discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions. washingtonpost.com is not responsible for any content posted by third parties.