So what? The question isn't whether people inside the bank are crooked. The question is whether crooked people can use an honest bank to move money. And the answer obvious to anyone who knows even a little about banking is "yes", as demonstrated by criminals in this country using honest banks to move money. People in this country used U.S. banks to move money to the IRA all the time, despite laws to the contrary.
Just because you condone a society and culture that has theocratic oil rich Sheiks operating wealthy, third world kingdoms, doesn't mean the rest of us hold the same set of beliefs.
What makes you think I "condone" their society? Like 80% of the other nations of the world, there are things about their society I find to be repulsive.
What I care about is whether they cooperate with us in the particular matters for which we've requested cooperation. They provide us with very valuable intelligence in the WoT. They have been outstanding hosts to our fleet assets. And they've been more cooperative in terms of meeting U.S. standards for shipping security than any other country in the world.
Do you think the FAA and security officials at Logan airport were part of the terrorist conspiracy on 9/11? I don't. But that didn't matter. Terrorists exploits incompetence in our system. They don't need active cooperation. DPW is the most efficient and well-run company out there, and likely would have provided far fewer holes through which terrorist activities could slip than the U.S. companies that will now run those terminals. Rejection of this deal likely has made our ports less secure.
Comparing the USSR with the UAE shows a serious lack of sound judgment on your part. There is no comparison between the two.
Huh? Reagan's willingness to work with the USSR despite its avowed dedication to our destruction shows that you don't simply toss out all cooperation just because you may not like the other guy. And the UAE has been far more friendly to us than the USSR ever was. That doesn't necessarily mean that this deal was a good one for the U.S., but it does mean that we should not have rejected it out of hand just because it happened to be a deal that involved an Arab country. The House's action in rejecting the deal even before the investigation was disgraceful.
The outcome of this deal was actually good for America. It woke up the American people and gave them an insight into how poorly the federal government considers US sovereignty when making certain bureaucratic decisions. It informed many Americans like myself, how deeply entrenched foreign entities are in the managment and operations related to distribution and logistics activities at our ports of entry.
In the grand tradition of our Founding Fathers, the American people stood up and spoke out. They exercised their right to free speech and political dissent, and told the GOP led Congress, this decision by the Bush administrations CFIUS agency, was a bureaucratic blunder of the first order. We must always hold to account the actions of our elected officials and appointed public servants.