The Dubai ports controversy ended, with the United Arab Emirates-owned company succumbing to congressional browbeating and agreeing to sell its U.S. operations to an American entity.

* The Dubai ports controversy ended, with the United Arab Emirates-owned company succumbing to congressional browbeating and agreeing to sell its U.S. operations to an American entity. Politically, this issue was unrecoverable for Bush once stupendously ill-informed congressmen took to the airwaves claiming that the UAE would "own" our ports and "run port security." Actually, the company would have only managed a few terminals at U.S. ports (operated the cranes, for example), and security would have been handled by the same U.S. government agencies in charge of it now. During the weeks-long brouhaha, no one could come up with any convincing explanation why the UAE company represented a security risk. But facts didn't matter, since congressional Republicans were determined not to be out-demagogued by Democrats on the ports and were eager to separate themselves from Bush on a high-profile issue. Now that the deal is dead, Rep. Duncan Hunter, the protectionist California Republican, wants to compound the inanity by banning foreign companies from owning critical U.S. infrastructure. That would include power plants, refineries, telecommunications, and much else, which Hunter would force foreign-owned companies to sell off even though there is zero evidence that, having owned these assets for years, the companies are in any way threatening. The $130 billion a year in foreign direct investment in America is an enormous asset to our economy and the world's. Having scored their cheap political points on the Dubai ports deal, congressmen should leave it at that.