or
Documents obtained by the AP show the Bush administration's conditions for approving a ports sale
Which makes a snappier headline?
Actually, I only see one headline, and it looks like any of a thousand I see at the supermarket checkstand. The other statement looks like a line item on a typical agenda sheet for a mid day business meeting, right in between c) yawn and e) order lunch.
I've been reading hundreds of posts and about a dozen articles to fill in the people in my daily life who usually haven't even heard of the issues of mass importance discussed/dissected on these pages, their own mostly unwanted but annoyingly accurate personal data miner of sorts.
Other than the 21 knee pop salute being given an eerie Teen Idol competition status, I have yet to hear anything remotely significant on how UAE businessmen owning an American port operated by American union longshoremen is going to make it any easier for a hidden bomb to be loaded on a container. WTF difference does it make who owns it - the country that spawned the shoe bomber and george galloway, or an arab country, one we're not at war with in an area where we're trying to create financial diplomacy?
Which deal is better, the one where we gave Turkey $Billions$ and they left us hanging in a very dangerous way, or the one where we normalize relations in an area critical to our security to do so, that costs us nothing.
But there I go getting off topic.
I would like to hear/read someone convincingly describe how much easier it would be under UAE ownership than British to shoot up Ted Kennedy with the Bubonic Plague, Ebola, Flesh Eating Bacteria, Small Pox, and the Bird Flu, load him in a refrigerated (hey, I got a heart!) container with a couple dozen cases of fortified wine, ship him off on a whirlwind round trip to France, Germany, Somalia, Venezuela, China, and back to Massachusets, all without ever breaking the seal on the container.
How exactly is that going to be easier now than it was before?
That's what I want to know.