Actually, you've done exactly that. You've repeatedly implied that Krauthammer knows that there already are Arabs companies managing terminals and shipping operations in this country. And you've attacked people who've pointed out that Arabs run some facilities in places such as Houston and New Jersey. You stamp your foot and rant about how they obviously haven't read Krauthammer's article, etc. Your posts at 9, 14, 24, 34 are examples of your tactic on this issues -- attacking people for not reading the parts of Krauthammers article where he acknowledged that Arabs already operate some port facilities in this country.
The only problem is that Krauthammer's article says nothing of the sort. Thanks to your posts, I've now read that article about 5 times, and have yet to read Krauthammer acknowledging that Arabs already operate some terminals in the United States. So how about excerpting the portion of his article where he recognizes that reality, and addresses it in his argument? Just quote it for all of us to read. If you can find it....
Then when someone inquired as to where he talked about Arabs operating some U.S. port facilities, you come back with "Any particular reason to assume he isn't?". That's at your post 37, in case you've forgotten. Which is a far cry from your earlier claim that it was actually in the article, but whatever.
But yes, there is a "particular reason" to assume he's not talking about arabs operating ports in this country. He mentions expressly that DPW operates ports in "15 countries". Doesn't mention other Arab companies operating some port facilities in this country, which surely has some relevance to the risk of port security info getting out to terrorists. More importantly, in discussing why we perhaps should let the deal go through, he says: "After all, the UAE, which is run by a friendly regime, manages ports in other countries without any such incidents. Other countries?. Another perfect chance for him to either expalin why the UAE is a bigger risk than Kuwait or Saudi Arabia, or how this deal is different from others in which some arab companies have certain responsibilities for port operations. But he doesn't even mention. So he's either being disingenuous by ignoring such clearly relevant evidence, or he just didn't know. I'm betting the latter.
As for how such a well-read guy might not know, there are lots of things that even the smartest person doesn't know. And a nice thing about FR is that you've got people from all over the country, many with military experience in that part of the world, who have first hand knowledge of things commentators like Krauthammer may only read about. See, e.g., Buckhead.
As for Krauthammer "straddling", that's exactly what he's doing. If someone opposed the decision to invade Iraq, but says we now need to stay and finish the job because we're already there, would you say he "supports" the war? Or is he someone in the middle? Because that's exactly what Krauthammer has done here. He's said he thinks this deal should have been killed, but that its now to late to back out. That's a straddle, middle ground, "finesse", or whatever you choose to call it.
Excellent response. You have clarified the issue in words that ANYONE should be able to understand.