The President has threatened to use a VETO on spending bills and the McCain Terrorist amendment. Until he actually uses a VETO Neil's headline point is null and void. It is not unusual for him to make the threat. Only following through would be breaking new ground.
Charles K was on Fox and answered Neil's question as to why the President is insistent on a deal he was unaware of before. While the admin didn't do a good job in preparing the way for the deal, admittedly, given the hysterics we now have a situation where an "ally", note I don't use the term friend, in the WOT is being insulted and shown their alliance in this war will not engender them any difference in treatment than the President of Iran would warrant.
That is bad.
It is bad when you are trying to build democracies in the middle east with Arabs that don't favor terrorism, but don't look at us well either, to react as so many have done. This endangers our national security just as so many fear our ports being endangered. We need allies in the M.E. to win this war.
Had objectors behaved rationally, it might be different. As it is the President is backed into a corner of having to stand in defense of our allies to keep them onboard in this war.
Badly handled all around. Badly communicated to the people by the admin, but as well folks going ballistic has NOT served to give you what you want. At this point I wouldn't be surprised if the deal does go through, because once folks on the Capitol realize what a mess they've made of this in their manner of objections, not the objection itself, they will have a certain feeling of obligation to try and salvage relations with the allies they've offended because our national security demands the alliance.
How has the objection been irrational, other than the folks on the left who wouldn't profile now are all for it in the case of port operations? I don't think it's irrational at all how the issue has been raised. And I don't understand how a business deal like this is supposed to be offensive--or why we're so supposed to worry about being offensive, when it comes to national security. Dubai doesn't let foreigners run ITS port. Does that offend you?
I will pose to you a question similar to that I posed to MikeinIraq: if the UAE wanted to run Pentagon security contracts, would it be appropriate for us to object to a nearly-done-deal there, or would you worry about being offensive first? If we're in a war on terror, worrying about being 'offensive' should be the last thing on our minds. Here you're worrying chucking a business deal that's not even done will offend the UAE. Iran doesn't do ANY business in the U.S.--in light of its limited support of our MidEast policy, maybe the UAE should be allowed to sell and do business here, but not where national security interests are at stake. Neither should other countries, Britain among them, special relationship be damned.
Pakistan's an ally in the WOT, shall we have them run the ports? We've also been told that Yemen and Saudi Arabia have cooperated -- so they'd be OK, also?
The bottom line is, every Arab/Muslim country will do what's best for themselves, to keep their largely ignorant populaces under control by keeping their wrath directed at "the other," and away from where it belongs -- the fat cats who sit on top of the oil money.
What does supporting the WOT mean nowadays -- funding terrorists but denying it? Letting terrorists escape prison? Recognizing the Taliban?
Some support.