More kneejerk huffing and puffing. No "straddle" whatsoever, plainly; he states, in language transparent enough for any intellectually honest individual to readily grasp -- well: let's amend that to "almost any," in this particular instance -- that the port deal, in his estimation, should go through.
NOT "I don't know."
NOT "maybe it should, maybe it shouldn't."
"1) Allow the contract to go through; (2) give it heightened scrutiny by assigning a team of U.S. government agents to work inside the company at least for the first few years to make sure security is tight and information closely held; (3) have the team report every six months to both the executive and a select congressional committee."
Only someone well and truly in the grip of intellectual hysteria could possibly attempt to alchemize the above paragraph as a "straddle."
Make a cold compress. Go lie down, or something.
Why are you being so ugly? Nice cherry picking on your part. Charles admits readily that there could be problems:
On this, the Democrats are rank hypocrites. But even hypocrites can be right. There is a problem. And the problem is not just the obvious one that an Arab-run company, heavily staffed with Arab employees, is more likely to be infiltrated by terrorists who might want to smuggle an awful weapon into our ports. But that would probably require some cooperation from the operating company. And neither the company nor the government of the UAE, which has been pro-American and a reasonably good ally in the war on terrorism, has any such record. (That paragraph is considered showing the good AND the dangerous aspects of the deal).
The greater and more immediate danger is that as soon as the Dubai company takes over operations, it will necessarily become privy to information about security provisions at crucial U.S. ports. That would mean a transfer of information about our security operations -- and perhaps even worse, about the holes in our security operations -- to a company in an Arab state in which there might be employees who, for reasons of corruption or ideology, would pass this invaluable knowledge on to al-Qaeda types. (That paragraph shows the danger of the deal)
That is the danger, and it is a risk, probably an unnecessary one.
There's more, but you get the point. Now I suggest you stop making yourself seem silly. My original post stands - would Charles write exactly the same article if he knew that Saudi Arabia already manages some of our terminals.
I'll wait while you tell how it is you have come to the 100% wrong conclusion that I'm in the grip of some intellectual hysteria. Read my posts in the forum. I'll wait. And then expect an apology.