Let's just say anything we want to, the truth is irrelevant if it does not comport with our bigotry.
Again for the ill informed we were not selling port operations. The port assets in question, terminal and other assets were being and would continue to be leases.
I can't see any difference fiscally who assumes the leases.
But hey go wild guys spout off as to how it is Bush's fault and we dodged a big bullet by not selling our assets.
It's hopeless. Truth is irrelevent.
Thanks for speaking my mind. :)
Here's the nuanced argument I never heard during the ports debacle.
The UAE has a national airline staffed with Muslim Arab pilots who take off from JFK in New York. What is the chance that a pilot or other airline person could turn that plane into a missile and bring down another building? Could they bring in a nuke in the cargo hold? It is a real risk, and yet we run it. We currently trust the UAE to screen those pilots properly and maintain security.
If port terminal operations are sold to a UAE government run company, and staffed with Muslim Arab workers, is there an increased likelihood that they can be infiltrated by Al Qaeda and bring in a nuke? Of course there is. It is easier for AQ to infiltrate a Muslim company than it is to infiltrate an English one. However, is it not appreciably more risky than the airline example.
And, there are dozens of Arab Muslim operations in the U.S. that pose approximately the same risk.
So the question really should be, shall we accept this additional risk of an Arab Muslim company's port operations, or should we ban all the Arab Muslim airlines? The risks are about the same, and we either accept that level of risk generally, or reject it generally.
I'm actually on the fence about that question. I think a good case could be made for banning all Arab Muslim operations outright including the ports. Another good case can be made for allowing the airplanes to land and the ships to dock.
The argument that is irrational is the one we concluded with: Airports: Good. Ports: Bad.