RE: Any port in the terrorist storm

Steve opines:

I see no difference between this and the Clinton State Department's okay of the sale of missile plans to the Chinese. We labeled Clinton a traitor for that, and rightly so. Doesn't Bush deserve the same treatment?

I see a big difference: Clinton sold the Chinese plans for missiles that the Chinese didn't have. Remember, the Chinese couldn't even get a rocket off the ground at the time. This UAE port company is buying this British port company, which has been running those 6 ports. They are going to use the same people that currently work there, and the US is still in charge of security.

Strother opines:

I completely agree. The rights to American ports should only belong to American companies: there's no real way to agree on which other countries just so happen to be 'cool' with us. I'm sure that a strong, experienced, and foreign firm could do a great job, but this is an instance where business must kowtow to self-security.

Out of the American companies that run ports, which ones has the billions in cash to buy out this British company??? I would prefer that an American company run these ports, but I can't force an American company to buy this British company. Likewise, I can't force this British company to sell only to an American company.