…the nation and blog readers die of shock.
A writer at the noted libertarian oriented site Catallarchy posts this headline and statement:

Bush Supports Free Trade; Nation Dies of Shock

Regardless of any backroom deals and ulterior motives that may have led to it, Bush’s support of Dubai’s bid for P&O is good news.

Perhaps Sean has posted this somewhat tongue in cheek but the post doesn’t read that way.
So, please explain how the expansion of a government owned business in any way qualifies as free trade.

Update: Sean was good enough to reply in comments. Below the fold is his reply and my responses. We still disagree on some aspects of this.

Sean: Free trade is about allowing people to trade with whomever they want.
Steve: Agreed.
Sean: This is not a campaign by Congress to wipe out socialism, and agreeing with them because you don’t like socialism will only hurt the cause of free trade because it gives Congress an excuse to put their noses into any deal they want.
Steve: Agreed. The related congressional actions are not in any way motivated by the idea of enhancing freedom. It’s not the nature of the beast. I do not agree with either their or the president’s involvement in these kind of decisions. The very fact that congress and the president are involved argues against the idea that free trade is involved.
Sean: I don’t like the idea of state-owned firms any more than you do, but Dubai happens to be one of the freest places on the planet, not just in the middle east.
Steve: Dubai City may be one of the freest place on the planet but that does not take away from the fact that the company in question is owned by the government of the United Arab Emerites. Or that it is trying to do business with government operated ports in the US.
Sean: This is more of a “family owned” business where the family just happens to be royal in nature.
Steve: Sean, you are right to put the quotes around “family owned.” The royal family and the goverment look to be pretty much the same.
Sean: The Dubai royal family hardly has the ability to use force in the US any more than any other powerful family or firm. They have significantly less power here than, say, Microsoft or McDonalds or Wal Mart.
Steve: Sure, they and their company do not have the ability to use force in the US except to the extent that US laws provide that capability to other companies. That really doesn’t seem to be relevant. Dubai Ports World is still a government owned entity and the proposed project is to manage government operated ports in the US. Get governments out of both ends of this deal, i.e., make it a matter of people either individually or in freely formed partnerships negotiating a deal with each other then I don’t care where the participants are from. This is not the case here.
Sean: I don’t really give a crap if they happen to hold a monopoly on force in Dubai, especially since they choose to allow places in Dubai where Dubai law doesn’t even apply and things are run by English common law instead.

Steve: This doesn’t really change the nature of the participants in this arrangement. Both ends are government created entities. Your really talking about free trade between governments not between free individuals or partnerships thereof.