I think I just got done discussing this with Dervish. Let me repeat what I said to him..."The fundamental problem with most of the arguments against the port deal, is that they fall apart unless they are supported with examples outside the UAE."
"The government that supports Yusuf al-Qaradawi, and al-Jazeera?"
In all honesty, CNN International and the BBC are far more damaging to American interests than Al Jazeera. And our AP newservice is almost as damaging. Yusuf al-Qaradawi is a controversial, crack pot, university professor who advocates a violent end to Israel and hates America. Gee. Sounds like 90% of our university professors. So Qatar supports free speech and an independent press...I thought the fact that Dubai doesn't was listed among the reasons we should reject the port deal with them.
"should we allow that nation to have access to critical infrastructure within the United States, or conduits through which they can export terrorism?"
Not that managing port terminals would do that, but...yes. We've been working with Qatar since 1973. We currently base our CENTCOM HQ there. We have never had any indications that they have used their contacts with us to export terrorism. Quite the opposite in fact.
Do CNN and the BBC have top-flight correspondents that belong to Al Qaeda cells, or who've been exposed as actual Ba'ahist agents?
And no, Qatar does not support either freedom of speech or freedom of the press, which is why you'll never see a critical story about the Thani clan or ruling regime broadcast on Al-Jazeera.
There is no substantive difference between Qatar and the UAE on these issues, and yet there are some people who'll criticize the government for allowing Al-Jazeera to establish outposts in the United States, but defend this DP World-P&O transaction.
Notice the contradiction?