LOL!
Howlin,
I think what's happened here is this deal has uncovered a significant amount of frustration in the electorate vis-a-vis the War on Terror, the Homeland Security apparatus, border protection, and other national security issues. We've had a color-coded terror threat assessment chart hanging over our head for four years now, we keep hearing about the War on Terror, and yet the borders are an absolute seive -- but we've gotta be listening in on phone conversations without a court order. The message being: You can get the device inside the United States, but we'll eavesdrop on your phone calls if you do! (Scared yet?)
So the port deal comes along, and everyone is like WTF? Is there or isn't there a war on terror? Whether or not that's a rational reaction, it's an understandable one, given the lack of information regarding the actual terrorist threat to the United States? Is there one? It's time for the White House to lay a card or two on the table - and I'm not talking about Library Tower 2001. Either stop pumping the WOT or act like it matters. Until the borders are taken seriously, I can't take the WOT seriously, and frankly, our ports are just another name for "border entry". I'm willing to believe this is innocuous up and down. But if this is acceptable, what else is and what else should be?