Sorry. That overstatement is unworthy of a conservative.
Because if you continue to maintain that hyperbole, it is you, who needs a reality check. The transparent desperation in your shrillness, to salvage the political wreckage of a pathetically bad mistake can't cover for the mistakes. Or the coverups.
Not a single point of the original objections have been "disproven." The democrats don't enter into this. This is between conservatives, and this administration, which is squarely in our sights.
Even Rush Limbaugh was very careful to draw a righteous distinction that the original...and continuing... opponents such as Peter King and Frank Gaffney are not wrong and are not liars.
And neither have any of the explicit Coast Guard concerns been "addressed." Note how ambiguous and nonspecific the "assurances" are...when the objections were quite specific.
Manifestly, a political decision was made to just accept the risks. Hence, the concerns were resolved with mere "assurances" rather than real procedures. Form over substance.
They were papered over, and Politically Correct Brass Hats saluted, and did as they were told.
And clearly, so has Rush, because, after all, we mustn't offend the UAE...and lose the Navy bases.
[Really "solid ally" there! ]
My Position: There has to be some other 'plum' we can give the UAE to keep them happy.
My thoughts exactly.
The other two issues I have with this is:
1. The message it sends our soldiers, and
2. Why wasn't a law passed on 9/12 that would require Homeland Security (at least!) approval of any deal involving transfers of ownership of ports, airports, etc.