Clarification/Follow-up by Itsdb on 02/22/06 9:17 pm:
Elliot,

All good points, most of which I've considered. I just want to know even more. I'm sure you and tom will provide it for me :)

Steve

Clarification/Follow-up by tomder55 on 02/23/06 11:51 am:
Steve ,I have read some pretty compelling arguments for the deal from the Financial Times and the Wall Street Journal .But the proponents have taken to calling the opponents demogogues;xenophobes and at very least protectionists . They are being disengenuous if that is their take because they are not hearing what is in my mind at least a very serious national security concern .

I have a feeling that this is a done deal .Charles Krauthammer has been arging on Fox that the damage that would be done in the foreign policy arena to our relationship in the Arab world with nations that have been moderate and cooperative in the War, may have shifted the risk/reward analysis over to the side of letting this deal go through. In other words the horse is already out of the barn .It would've been better if the CFIUS had voted down the deal ;but a reversal of that decision today would actually hurt our long-term national security worse then the deal could .At least that is his argument.From my perspective the President is going to have to do a very convincing sales job to the American people to assure us that it will have no negative impact on national security.I'm not sure he is up to the task. So far his only prominent public backer of the plan is Jimmy Carter .The man who never saw a dicator he doesn't like .

Clarification/Follow-up by ETWolverine on 02/23/06 4:26 pm:
Tom and Steve,

I think the President needs to explain how this deal will somehow IMPROVE national security rather than weaken it. If he can make that argument, then the people will back him. But if he can't give reasons that this is a POSSITIVE deal for national security, he'll lose the argument. Claiming that the effect of the deal is neutral or not detrimental to national security is no longer enough to carry this argument. The other side can always argue "Why should we take the chance if there is no advantage?" And they would be right. If there is no advantage for national security and there are questions as to whether or not it constitutes an increased risk, why allow it?

I understand Krautheimer's argument, and while I agree with him 90% of the time, he and I part ways on this issue. First of all, I do not believe that the UAE has been particularly helpful in the GWOT. They are trying to act like the Swiss--- neutral in every way and protective of financial anonymity. For that reason they have repeatedly refused to cooperate in the freezing of the assets of known terrorists. That, in my opinion, does not constitute the actions of a country that is helpful to us in the GWOT. So I reject the argument that we need to bend over backward to help a staunch ally so as not to seem Arab-phobic or alienate potential Arab allies. We need to do what is right for OUR security, not the UAE's economy.

Elliot