The more I learn about the port deal, the less concerned I become about this particular deal. I am still somewhat concerned about the ports being handled by foreign companies, but it appears that’s not a new thing. And while I still agree with Hillary that it might be better not to have foreign governments acquiring U.S. ports, I should’ve been on the look out for Hillary’s hypocrisy, which was all but a certainty.
Jim has a good post about it.
And, it was back in 1997, when Hillary was serving as co-president, the Saudi owned shipping company (NSCSA) began service between North America and Italy, Greece and Turkey?This just proves that the Clintons have evolved a long way since 1999 when they claimed that port control was “silly stuff”.
Back in 1999 when a Chinese owned Hutchinson-Whampoa, Ltd. took control of ports at both ends of the Panama Canal the Clinton White House scoffed at the security risks:
Clinton White House spokesman Joe Lockhart dismissed the Insight story about Chinese port control including the Panama Canal and the surrounding controversy as “silly stuff.”Chinese owned Hutchison-Whampoa Ltd. today owns 90% of Panama Ports Company.
So, as usual, it appears her opposition to, and “outrage” of, foreign ownership is nothing more than continued opposition to Republicans, and more specifically George W. Bush.
In fact, the appearance that we were on the same side should’ve clued me in to review my position for possible flaws. I now realize one nuance Hillary slid stealthily in her criticism of the ports deal:
Clinton said critical infrastructure like ports must be operated by the United States, not foreign-owned companies.
I have to admit, though, it was nice to see Hillary and her Democrat coattails finally warming up to profiling when it comes to national security for a change.
Update: The disinformation campaign.
Update 2: Jamie Alman has a proposed speech drafted for Bush to give.1f46