Criticisms over the decision to allow the Arab company, Dubai Ports, to manage six U.S. ports has become more outspoken and derisive over the past week.

Despite President George W. Bush’s position, this issue is not divided along party lines, political science professor Matthew Streb, said.

Republicans and Democrats have voiced opposition, so the situation will probably not affect the upcoming elections unless a link to Bush is emphasized, he said.

Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) opposed the president’s plans.

In an official letter to Bush, Hastert said, “I am very concerned about the national security implications that this could have for the safety of the American people. Therefore, I believe there should be an immediate moratorium placed on this seaport deal in order to further examine the effects on our port security.”

Hastert will meet with Republican leadership today to decide further direction.

Although State Rep. Robert Pritchard (R-Hinckley) has no official position, he laments the American government’s failure to prepare the people for this transaction. The government failed to reassure people that security measures were implemented to maintain national security, despite port ownership, he said.

In addition, there is a feeling of hypocrisy surrounding the sale of the ports.

“The president said that 9/11 changed our lives, because we are at war. Now the president wants to give control of our major ports over to countries with prior terrorism connections, which seems not to follow our current security mentality,” political science professor Mikel Wyckoff, said.

In terms of contributing to the global economy and U.S. reputation in the Middle East, this might be a good idea, but whether or not that should override other concerns, was one issue Wyckoff brought up. This presents an opportunity for terrorist infiltration, which outweighs any benefit, he said.