No, I understand that. It is an honest assessment of the opponent position. But it would be wrong to confuse honest but mistaken fear for a real threat.
On Sunday night's West Wing, they actually allowed Alan Alda's character to come out and defend nuclear energy again (I thought they wouldn't, because he did so well in his "live debate" that I thought the environmentalists forced them to write a nuclear meltdown into the show to stop the bleeding).
He pointed out that you were much safer living by a nuclear power plant, than you were driving your car. But people are still truly afraid of nuclear energy, because of what WE know are lies, prejudice, and ignorance.
I would say that many opponents of the terminal deal were truly afraid, for the same reasons -- lies, prejudice, and ignorance.
I would say that many opponents of the terminal deal were truly afraid, for the same reasons -- lies, prejudice, and ignorance."
"Prejudice" is not necessarily a pejorative, is it? We demonstrate "prejudice" or "pre-judgement" in a number of ways in our lives, or regarding people and our children all the time.
But in the case of Islamic countries like the UAE, it may or may not be fair, but the die is undoubtedly cast in the psyche of much of America since 9/11. Trust of anything Islam is a tough sell.
Constant news events and violent protests around the world in the name of Islam haven not helped.
The "lies" and "ignorance" may well be construed as "misunderstanding" but the lack of the Administration's preempting the fallout by communicating the details of the Dubai Port deal far earlier was a huge mustake.
They were ill-prepared and simply caught flat-footed, but this is a debate that could go on forever.