Hey Vic, it also pointed out the gaping holes in our national security umbrella. Would we have let anyone control our ports during WW II? If not, then why now when we have a global war on terror?
You don't know the difference between a port and a terminal.
Do you know the difference between an airport and a gate?
The "global war on terror" trumps just about everything, including the Constitution. But NOT global trade. Tell ya what, scrap the PATRIOT Act, and Dubai can run the ports.
Pull out a map of New York City or Philadelphia or similar from 1939. Look at all those names of Steamship Lines on each of the Piers. Notice some foreign ones? Yeah, foreign companies were allowed to manage piers and warehouses back then too. That's all this ever was about. Its not about "controlling the ports". That's what our Port Authorities do.
Since when did managing a few terminals equate to "controlling our ports". And last time I checked the UAE had boots on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Perhaps it did, but Hansen is correct: this was a purely emotional controversy, fanned primarily by cynical Democrats who played on fear, not reason.
How secure are we going to be if we don't have tires for our Humvees? There are just so many things that aren't made in America anymore that not getting stuff unloaded could be a national security matter.
I'm a bit torn about this. We're told that Dubai already has a terminal in Miami.
Should we run them out?
Back about 1997, X42 gave a generous terminal deal to the ChiComs on the grounds of the de-commissioned Long Beach Naval Base.
How come no brouhaha over that?
Not that I'm in favor of either, but doncha think that the idiotic democRATs looks a little silly with their inconsistency?