Any argument based on a false assertion is false.
We in no way were turning over Port Security to UAE. They were acquiring the management of terminals. In most cases the operating personell for the terminals would not have changes; a little thing about the longshoreman's union.
“...They were acquiring the management of terminals.”
I understand your understanding of the proposal with UAE as a managerial proposition, however at the time the major argument was that the Bush Administration was proposing to contract the administration of Port Security to the UAE owned company.
So why was “Port Security” the argument that raised the hackles amongst our Congresscritters if it was simply a Management proposition?
Regardless of either, why couldn’t the same CIA investment have been made with the preceding management company P.& O.
The whole thing reeks of Bullcrap to this day, and I don’t buy the story Gertz relates from The referenced book.