Now you're simply flailing. Neither condition #2 or #3 in any way gainsays the first one; they are ameliorative, not contradictory.
He is not in favor of the deal
He doesn't have to be "in favor" of the deal, by your oddly draconian definition of the term -- which, apparently, would include his undergoing multiple public orgasms every time the faintest shadow of the thought crossed his mind -- for the genuine meat of his argument is, and remains: Allow the contract to go through. This is simple, obvious and shriekingly self-evident.
This is still America and we follow the law.
Point to the specific sentence(s) where Krauthammer plainly, unequivocally advocates anything to the contrary.
If Congress is not in favor of Arab countries running port operations then Congress needs to pass laws that say so.
Point to the specific sentence(s) where Krauthammer plainly, unequivocally advocates anything to the contrary.
A drop-dead certain way not to be accused of cramming words, inelegantly, into any given author's mouth is to Not Cram Words, Inelegantly, Into Any Given Author's Mouth.
Krauthammer argues -- persuasively, I might add -- IN FAVOR of the deal. He needn't pledge allegiance to it, simultaneously, in order for this to be so. This is, as you pointed out, "still America."