Thanks for that summary. It seems devoid of emotion. Hopefully, it's all true. If true, it may explain why the Pres is OK about the whole thing.
"Dumb ass!!!!!!!!"
It's about damn time for a drink!!
I try to be devoid of emotion (I love your login name).
I'm not "confident" that this is a great deal. I wouldn't chose the deal, and if Bush was driving the deal I would oppose it. But he's not, it's just a business deal, and our options are too limited for the kind of argument we are having here, in my opinion.
Mark Levin's best argument was that this deal doesn't enhance our security. He's right. But nobody said it would. It isn't a deal put together to enhance our security. IT's just a business sale. It won't enhance or detract from our security. We aren't giving anything away, we already signed the leases. We aren't transfering any ownership, a foreign company's stockholders are.
I don't "trust" blindly arab countries, but frankly there are few countries I really have faith in other than our own. But I have some degree of hope and optimism that our way of life will win out in the end, because if it doesn't we are in for a rough time, and stopping this sale won't make a lick of difference one way or another.
In other words, if I'm right, we can make friends of arabs, and stopping this sale will be disastrous.
If I'm wrong, and the opponents are right, then our dealings with the muslim world are ultimately fruitless, Iraq will turn on us, Iran will be a nuclear power, Pakistan and India will gang up (also nuclear power) against us, Turkey will join them, and we will end up having to vaporize a large part of our world. And who owns the leases to operate our ports really makes no difference at all in that scenario.
I'm not arguing that one is more likely than the other, I'm merely arguing that in either case opposing this particular deal has much more upside than downside, at least with the facts as we now know them.