With anything...it's all BIG PICTURE. You focus on one narrow aspect and you're always going to miss some detail that would help make sense of it all.
Unions made a stink then hushed up pretty fast...didn't catch my attention till awhile later (they were so RILED, why silent now?). First thought...if Teamsters are against it, it can't be all bad. Then the "45-day wait" that lasted about 45 minutes....why the rush?
I opposed the deal for different reasons than any I'd heard. Supporters kept saying "but they are such a great ally in WOT", "We need their bases/ports", "we'll suffer"...I knew something was array (someone just had their bankroll pulled from under them). We don't reward allies with cash and shady deals. If they pull back their support of US or WOT or any other form of "blowback", then we will know it was the right thing to stop and ask questions before endorsing such a "deal".
One thing for the politicians to understand....my life or that of my family is no bargaining chip. You don't earn points with us for doing what you should have been doing for only 4 years. Binny's head on a platter, we'll talk. Clean up your own backyard of terrorist jihadi scum, we'll talk. Make demands...maybe we won't be there to help you when Johnny Jihad comes marching homeward.
When I see the degree to which the main stream news, politicians and commentators b.s. us on things, I can usually only find two or three ways to decide.
If I get enough evidence and have enough time to study something, I can come to some conclusions that I trust. There was little time, and zero evidence in this Ports deal, outside of what various statements by mostly untrustworthy people.
If the above is not possible, as in this case, then I can just pick one of the players who has a chance to know more, and pretty much trust them. That's not a very reliable way to reach a conclusion, but given how easy it is to misrepresent such affairs, it seems the best I can do.
Or, on the flip side, I can look at whom I trust the least and see where they stand or claim to stand. This incident was admittedly a mixed bag, with strange bedfellows all over the map. But with Bush on one side and Hillary the other, that biases me toward supporting the Ports deal.
In some cases, such as this, one can also look at the money, and the outcome. The Clintons got a bunch of money, and a bunch of normally reliable Republicans are pissed at Bush. That sure stinks, and sure suggests that we got smoked on this one.
One can make claims to be big picture and putting ones family above all else. But I have zip zero nadda confidence that I actually know which side of this deal, if the reality were known to us, would best support the safety of my family. For example, if the failure of this deal means that we have less ability to control Iran and the Straits of Hormuz, then this could be a major weakening of our side in this war. It could increase the risk of major economic damage to us, and that in turn could increase the risk of Hillary winning the White House.
That would suck big time, and increase the risk that my descendents did not live in the freedom that we enjoy.
So sure, saying you put the safety of your family above all else sure sounds strong, but I have no confidence at all that either you or I know what that means in this case. We don't know, really don't know, what was really happening here, nor do we know what we would have recommended, had we known.