submandave

Hugh Hewitt is a man I have come to look to for considered opinion and rational presentation of his arguments. I fail to see, though, how he substantially makes his latest point with regard to the UAE ports deal. I can agree that there is a significant difference between "assets/businesses ... that have no or little bearing on the nation's security, and those that do," but he falls short of demonstrating that the controversial deal is necessarily in the latter category. While it is true that ports represent a border activity, but is it a sound assumption that every and all operations within a port represents a national security concern? If this had been a contract for custodial services would it, too, be of concern?

I will agree all day long that the potential for deadly cargo to enter via a port is probably one of the most significant national security issues we face, but I cannot see how the operation and management of piers and loading/unloading materially affects the potential for such cargo to make it past our security apparatus in place. That's not to say I don’t think anything might get by us, but rather to say that I just don't think that who is operating the port will affect the possibility of it happening. The same union labor will be actually performing the operations and the same security personnel will be performing the inspections and surveys. It seems like he is saying the person in change of directing traffic at Tijuana - San Diego border will be able to help get drugs and illegals past the immigration and customs agents.

Hugh may have a valid point, but I don't think he made it in this post.