2 thoughts on “What Is It Good For?

  1. Wow, how long did it take them to decide to do that? I mean really, did they expect people to not notice the possible political backfire it would entail? Had this occured before 9/11/2001 it probablly would have gone through without hitch, but due to people come realizing two of the attackers came from that nation the business/person, led to this situation.

    Then lets argue about our ports being owned by someone “not of this land,” that in its self is one of those things that just does not sit right with conserns of job and national security. Do we let someone buy a national asset(being such that trade/economical wellbeing depends on our ports) that has no real connection to the land? Or should we go back to the way of when the Electric/Water/ect companies were basically all government controlled for security, but not necessarily profitable?(which is funny, because the article sort of alluids to that)

    Also seems the government is trying to better our image internationally on top of this with them “closing down Abu Ghraib prison and transfer prisoners to other jails in Iraq.”–CNN Headline Breaking News. Which we sorta need right now, who knows what international thoughts are on our Ports.

  2. Somebody at CNN is having a little fun with the administration’s marketing machine. The underlying message is that we no longer know what the word war means. If you can fight a war against an abstract concept like terror, why not on something tangible like a ports deal? Somebody is having a good little laugh.

Leave a Reply