I read this part...
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said the agreement was thoroughly vetted. "We have to maintain a principle that it doesn't matter where in the world one of these purchases is coming from," Rice said Wednesday.
...and think that people are extremely reticent to, if not recoiled by the idea of, criticizing C. Rice. For obvious reasons, because that includes me for about the same reasons I'm guessing that others are, too.
HOWEVER, based upon that statement alone, I'm aghast. Read it again. She's saying that "it doesn't matter where in the world these purchases is [sic] coming from."
If Castro's Cuba had made the purchase, then what? How about Hugo Chavez's Venezuela? How about Kim Yong's North Korea? Those are all countries that literally "own" businesses in "their" respective countries, same as the situation with this company from Dubai, owned by UAE.
So, if as Rice says, "it doesn't matter where in the world these purchases is [sic] coming from," then what's the difference?
She could then include that Venezuela and Cuba and North Korea are adversaries of the U.S. but what about business ventures within those nations? How WOULD that be any different than this state-owned Dubai company?
In effect, given Dubai's government, this Port Deal is a deal with UAE. UAE recognizes the Taliban as the rightful government of Iran (I believe I got that right, please correct me if I'm wrong). UAE may be our "good ally" NOW but what about next year, the future? They are almost certainly our "good ally" because the U.S. has devoted indulgences and economic indulgences to such a degree that they're complying and expecting more, as anyone would. By the mere fact, however, that they're now threatening with various accusations that negate the U.S. because the Port Deal is being questioned, well, that's not good. It indicates an emotional untrustworthiness that is demanding and threatening and I'm concerned.
And, what MAKES for a "good ally." Compared with other nations, specifically? I think I perceive the degree of policy involved here but that's just the thing, actually, that concerns me most.
I have asked the question 5 times to different pro-port freepers - would you allow the UAE, or even the Saudis, to buy the WTC site? not one of them has answered.
Rice prefaced her ".......that it doesn't matter where in the world one of these purchases is coming from,......." with the part about the agreement being thoroughly vetted.
What is the likelyhood that a company from any of the 3 countries you referred to could successfully pass the "thorough vetting" process?
By the mere fact, however, that they're now threatening with various accusations that negate the U.S. because the Port Deal is being questioned, well, that's not good. It indicates an emotional untrustworthiness that is demanding and threatening and I'm concerned.
Yep! I hear ya.
Hannity seems to be questioning more than others.
...and think that people are extremely reticent to, if not recoiled by the idea of, criticizing C. Rice. For obvious reasons, because that includes me for about the same reasons I'm guessing that others are, too.
HOWEVER, based upon that statement alone, I'm aghast. Read it again. She's saying that "it doesn't matter where in the world these purchases is [sic] coming from."
If Castro's Cuba had made the purchase, then what? How about Hugo Chavez's Venezuela? How about Kim Yong's North Korea? Those are all countries that literally "own" businesses in "their" respective countries, same as the situation with this company from Dubai, owned by UAE.
Thought-provoking post!