[Paul Ross]

You've got it turned around. And as the failures of CFIUS have proved...its the enemies of national security who howl "protectionists" when someone properly notes a concern. They have never listened. And Treasury, Commerce, the Feds, State etc. wouldn't know a real national security concern...any more than Tim Kane would.

You should read up on the facts. But of course, you wouldn't believe the Defense Sciences Board.

Or its Reports Here, here and here.

[4rcane]

I'm in total agreement with this article. There are too many on our side (the right) and everyone on the left that think protectionist policies is the way to go; not realizing it will end up hurting the economy.

[1rudeboy]

Mr. Kane refers to the failed DPW deal as a "bipartisan embarassment." It was. Had the deal gone through, security at the terminals in question would have improved, as part of the security proposals that DPW itself submitted. Frankly, it's not a very effective argument to claim that the DPW deal should have failed because the U.S. is failing to provide national security elsewhere. And that was the gist of my comment. Howling "national security" when it is not implicated diminishes the concern when it actually is, as the reports you post point out.