Well, Mark Levin seems to have your number: "The critics are so ill-informed, unlike we smart people who now support the UAE deal, having been educated about it after out initial knee-jerk reaction.” Well, I would like nothing more than to read the contract, but it's not public. And a federal judge ruled today that there's no need to make it available even to the New York and New Jersey Port owners. But, of course, all critics aren’t the same. There are the antiwar Democrats, who are weak on national security. And there are those of us who’ve argued steadfastly for security, and have backed the president every step of the way.[emphasis added]
Still, if some in the latter camp are being accused of overstating the UAE's role at these ports, or is it terminals, then I guess the critics should turn their finger-pointing at the president, which they are loathe to do. After all, when he threatened to veto legislation that would block the deal, he said, in part: "I think it sends a terrible signal to friends around the world that it's OK for a company from one country to manage the port, but not a country that plays by the rules and has got a good track record from another part of the world can't manage the port."
Managing the port, Mr. President?
http://levin.nationalreview.com/
The initial disinformation was provided by the idea that security was being farmed out. It is a LIE.
In fact, security will weakened by turning this deal down since the company was going to provide additional security assistance ON ITS OWN DIME.
EVERY salient objection has been based upon the belief in one LIE or another.
That is the simple truth.