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.
Please tell me you do not honestly believe people have behaved sensibly in their objections?
Read this lengthy thread.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-backroom/1582942/posts
On on end we have folks claiming the President has sold us out to the terrorists, that he is a drunken shrub. On the other we have folks claiming everyone in objection to this sale hates Arabs. Oh, I think some do. One needs only to be on certain threads and witness the Bomb Mecca crowd, but imo they are not the Majority of those objecting. Nonetheless, you cannot read that thread and advance the argument folks have behaved rationally from the start.
Many folks on both sides have been close minded from the start, accepting only what they want to believe, ready to string up the President on one end or hang dissenters on the other. Spreading misinformation and spin that suits their arguments. People are talking past each other and if you think that serves anyones interest let alone the countries you are sadly mistaken.
You pose me a question. I ask you in return one. When have I objected to folks raising their voice against any deal at any time? You'll have a good effort in finding a statement to nail me with. I don't object to the "objections". I object to the irrationality, the behavior of some folks that led a Congresswoman to write a "hell No" brief statement to the President instead of a factual, thoughtful, and even passionate dissent, against the sale which would be acceptable. THAT is the height of hysteria and irrationality. Until that ceases discussion cannot be advanced readily.
Sorry to bring this up a day late, but your response here reminds me of something John Adams is reputed to have said during debate of the Declaration of Independence (and if it isn't true it should be since it captures both the common sense and the volcanic nature of the man!) One delegate was objecting to a disparaging reference to Parliament, asserting that it was unwise to offend that august body, especially since they were claiming it had no authority over the colonies anyway. Adams response was "It's a war, damn it, we've got to offend somebody!"