He didn't "miss that part". He didn't mention it, because it was ancillary to the point he was trying to make. He reported the news that the canal is open again (i.e., and can then no longer be used as an excuse for crippling world trade).
Well, you are assuming the whole purpose of the blockage was to "cripple world trade", but only 12% of world trade goes through the canal, so that is not much of an impact... especially when other routes are available and the blockage was relatively short-lived.
I and others are assuming the point of the blockade was to prevent some type of illegal or dangerous content from being delivered, and to also call attention to it. So your post is wrong from that perspective. Congrats.
He didn't "miss that part". He didn't mention it, because it was ancillary to the point he was trying to make. He reported the news that the canal is open again (i.e., and can then no longer be used as an excuse for crippling world trade).
And that's worth an updoot.
Well, you are assuming the whole purpose of the blockage was to "cripple world trade", but only 12% of world trade goes through the canal, so that is not much of an impact... especially when other routes are available and the blockage was relatively short-lived.
I and others are assuming the point of the blockade was to prevent some type of illegal or dangerous content from being delivered, and to also call attention to it. So your post is wrong from that perspective. Congrats.