|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
 Posted - 03/02/2006 : 15:33:54 [Permalink]
|
Transcript from the Lew Dobbs show on CNN, aired February 22, 2006:
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0602/22/ldt.01.html
My selected quote: quote:
CHRISTINE ROMANS, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice over): The oil-rich United Arab Emirates is a major investor in The Carlyle Group, the private equity investment firm where President Bush's father once served as senior adviser and is a who's who of former high-level government officials. Just last year, Dubai International Capital, a government-backed buyout firm, invested in an $8 billion Carlyle fund.
Another family connection, the president's brother, Neil Bush, has reportedly received funding for his educational software company from the UAE investors. A call to his company was not returned.
Then there is the cabinet connection. Treasury Secretary John Snow was chairman of railroad company CSX/. After he left the company for the White House, CSX sold its international port operations to Dubai Ports World for more than a billion dollars.
In Connecticut today, Snow told reporters he had no knowledge of that CSX sale. "I learned of this transaction probably the same way members of the Senate did, by reading about it in the newspapers."
Another administration connection, President Bush chose a Dubai Ports World executive to head the U.S. Maritime Administration. David Sanborn, the former director of Dubai Ports' European and Latin American operations, he was tapped just last month to lead the agency that oversees U.S. port operations.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
ROMANS: Now, some members of Congress, some of whom have already confirmed Sanborn, say they'd like to take a closer look at this nomination. But it's not just administration connections that Dubai has in this deal, Lou. It's now aggressively lining up representation on the Hill, bipartisan representation.
DOBBS: Lobbyists as representation, including Bob Dole. It's a remarkable effort. It's a -- it can be a tremulous feeling to stand between $7 billion and those who want to exchange that money irrespective of the consequences.
Thank you very much.
Christine Romans.
The United Arab Emirates not only has friends in high places in government, it also has high-powered lobbying connections. This oil- rich nation has been lavishing hundreds of thousands of dollars on K Street, lobbying friends to push its point of view and its goals. One of those friends we found out today is none other than Senator Dole, former Senator Dole.
Lisa Sylvester has the story.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
LISA SYLVESTER, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice over): To deflate criticism, Dubai Ports World has gone on a hiring spree. The bipartisan lobbying firm headed by former congressman Tom Downey and Ray McGrath was hired last week.
Senator Bob Dole and the lobbying firm he works for, Alston & Bird, also got a call. DPW, owned by a member of the United Arab Emirates, is pushing hard to keep Congress from blocking the deal.
TED BILKEY, COO, DUBAI PORTS WORLD: We're going to do anything possible to be sure that this deal goes through.
SYLVESTER: And they're tapping former lawmakers to do their bidding.
ROBERTA BASKIN, CENTER FOR PUBLIC INTEGRITY: An ex-senator is a perfectly-placed lobbyist because an ex-senator, of course, is going to have more gravitas. An ex-senator can actually go onto the Senate floor.
SYLVESTER: But lobbying Congress is not new for the United Arab Emirates. The country has a team of U.S. lobbyists representing its interests.
Records filed with the Department of Justices Foreign Registration Office show the UAE paid at least four lobbying firms more than $720,000 last year. According to Senate disclosure records, the Dubai Chamber of Commerce spent at least $100,000 lobbying Capitol Hill in the first half of last year.
But the heavy lobbying efforts could backfire. It's now drawing attention to the influence of foreign governments on U.S. policy. Senator John Kerry has written Treasury Secretary Snow asking for full disclosure of the lobbying efforts on behalf of DPW. Congressman Curt Weldon echoed the need to know more about how this deal was sealed.
Yes. I think we're finding a whole bunch of rotten fish. This is to be expected in an Administration of such breathtaking corruption, incompetence, and cronyism. Our security is being bartered for Dubai money.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
| Edited by - HalfMooner on 03/02/2006 15:38:30 |
 |
|
|
Florduh
New Member
USA
8 Posts |
Posted - 03/02/2006 : 15:57:24 [Permalink]
|
"O believers, take not Jews and Christians as friends; they are friends of each other. Those of you who make them his friends is one of them. God does not guide an unjust people. - 5:54
Make war on them until idolatry is no more and Allah's religion reigns supreme - 8:39
O Prophet! Exhort the believers to fight. If there are 20 steadfast men among you, they shall vanquish 200; and if there are a hundred, they shall rout a thousand unbelievers, for they are devoid of understanding. - 8:65
It is not for any Prophet to have captives until he has made slaughter in the land. - 8:67
Allah will humble the unbelievers. Allah and His apostle are free from obligations to idol-worshipers. Proclaim a woeful punishment to the unbelievers. - 9:2-3
When the sacred months are over, slay the idolaters wherever you find them. Arrest them, besiege them, and lie in ambush everywhere for them. - 9:5"
I stand corrected. Islam is a religion of peace.
Yeah, I know - the old testament is full of wrath and revenge. Stoning and genocide ordered by jehovah. Western society has evolved to where this nonsense is ignored by its followers. Islamic societies have not evolved since their texts were written. It's fine to take the philosophical stance that morality is relative (technically true), but American society and a society who as standard practice cuts off the hands of thieves, the heads of unfaithful wives, and the penises of unfaithful husbands can never understand each other. The aforementioned practices, and others, are not limited to radicals. It is the societal norm. But let's pretend we're all the same and have common goals.
|
I wanted to be born again, but my mother would have no part of it. |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 03/02/2006 : 16:33:28 [Permalink]
|
Florduh, thanks for the references.
It's your broad statements, such as... quote:
Muslims are our sworn enemy.
.. which I think raise the hackles of people here.
This approaches bigotry. Yes, Muhammed and his original followers in the 8th [edited] 7th Century were surely inimical to Christians, Jews, atheists, and polytheists. Today, certainly Wahhabi Islam, much of Shi'ia Islam, and Osama bin Laden are religious bigots. But Muslims in the intervening centuries have often shown tolerance, as in the example of Muslim rule in Spain [edited to add], which was far more enlightened than that in medieval Christian Europe at the same time. We cannot afford to make the mistake of tarring all of today's Muslims with the same brush, calling them all enemies. It's not fair to the moderates among them, who are struggling against the fanatics.
And it's never a good idea to misinterpret the strength of one's real opponents.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
| Edited by - HalfMooner on 03/02/2006 23:44:10 |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 03/02/2006 : 22:39:58 [Permalink]
|
To Dude : Well if Daniel Schorr, Jimmy Carter and the analyists at the Economist are "fucking idiots" then I'm in good company.
As for the whole boycotting Israel - so what? Isn't that a bit of non-sequiter? We boycott Cuba; can you explain the good rational reason for doing that? |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
Ghost_Skeptic
SFN Regular
Canada
510 Posts |
Posted - 03/02/2006 : 23:29:00 [Permalink]
|
Boycotting Israel is a manifestation of Arab nationalism not of Islam per se. The druzes are muslims serve in the Israeli Army. There is a lot of overlap between Arab nationalism and Radical Islam, but they are not the same thing.
At one time the muslim world was a hell of a lot more tolerant of Jews than was the christian west. It all depends on how people choose to interpret their religous texts and how power hungry people choose to exploit religion.
I have heard many muslims saying those protesting about the cartoons do not speak for them.
It seems to me that this whole ports issue is the inevetable result of contracting out something that should probably never have been contracted out in the first place. This always happens when you have Free Enterprise Idealogues rather than pragmatists running things. |
"You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink. / You can send a kid to college but you can't make him think." - B.B. King
History is made by stupid people - The Arrogant Worms
"The greater the ignorance the greater the dogmatism." - William Osler
"Religion is the natural home of the psychopath" - Pat Condell
"The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter" - Thomas Jefferson |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 03/02/2006 : 23:36:01 [Permalink]
|
marfknox objected: quote:
To Dude : Well if Daniel Schorr, Jimmy Carter and the analyists at the Economist are "fucking idiots" then I'm in good company.
To butt in: But why appeal so much to "authorities," when the issues themselves are there to examine and argue on their merits? I don't recall Sen. Schumer or Sen. Clinton being relied upon as authorities in the opposing arguments. The issues themselves have instead been addressed.
marfknox also pointed out:quote:
As for the whole boycotting Israel - so what? Isn't that a bit of non-sequiter? We boycott Cuba; can you explain the good rational reason for doing that?
Because this is an additional point on the issue of the UAE government's extreme Islamist positions, along with its refusal to recognize Israel, and its recognition of the Taliban when (along with Saudi Arabia and Pakistan) it was only one of three nations on the planet to recognize that crackpot, Al Qaeda-loving, kite-hating regime. Boycotting Israel is thus just one more indication that we should be concerned.
And what of the other issues, including the Bush family's multiple economic ties to Dubai?
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
| Edited by - HalfMooner on 03/02/2006 23:46:42 |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 03/03/2006 : 01:51:02 [Permalink]
|
Halfmooner wrote: quote:
To butt in: But why appeal so much to "authorities," when the issues themselves are there to examine and argue on their merits? I don't recall Sen. Schumer or Sen. Clinton being relied upon as authorities in the opposing arguments. The issues themselves have instead been addressed.
The people references were some of my major sources for information and knowledgeable interpretation. They are specialists in the field. I have acknowledged that political analysts are split on this issue, and that the opinion opposing mine is also a fair opinion. Dude's response to that acknowledgement of that was to say that anyone with my opinion on the matter was a “fucking idiot”. So what you call my “appeal to authority” is simply my pointing out to Dude that he's just called many respected specialists in the field of political analysis “fucking idiots”.
I am not blindly following the authorities I mentioned. I've read all the articles you guys have posted here. I know the other side. My opinion is based on two things: the first and more important thing is the simple weighing of facts and interpretations on both sides and deciding what I personally think. The second thing was considering the reliability of sources for interpretation (obviously facts are facts.) You have brought up Bush's reputation for cronyism several times, so how is that any different from my bringing up the good reputations of NPR, the Economist, John McCain and Jimmy Carter?
Now I hope you know that I usually respect your opinions and think most of what you post on SFN is very intelligent. But as for all the business connections made between Bush and DP World (at least the ones that were even that close. Many weren't even connections with DP World, but rather just with the UAE – which becomes more of a stretch), you start to sound a lot like a conspiracy theorist. Bush's cronyism has indeed been dangerous as we saw with Brown and Katrina, and with Deutsch and NASA, but you have not made any specific accusations here, the only evidence you have of corruption involving Bush is circumstantial, and you have zero evidence for incompetence.
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 03/03/2006 : 02:10:24 [Permalink]
|
Florduh wrote: quote:
Yeah, I know - the old testament is full of wrath and revenge. Stoning and genocide ordered by jehovah. Western society has evolved to where this nonsense is ignored by its followers.
This illustrates the basic problem with associating the values of modernism with Western values. Are you aware of the fact that a good quarter of the US population are basically fundamentalist Christians who hold values that are just as antiquated as the Muslim values you so demonize? Every culture, including the West, has its own unique antiquated values that typically involve variations of hard-core sexism and xenophobia. Just because modernism - which pushes the values of sexual, racial and ethnic equality as well as individual liberty – started in the West doesn't mean it can't or doesn't apply to other cultures. Every country that has reached a certain level of prosperity and participation in the world community has been touched by modernist values. But every country also retains varying amounts of traditional values from their past. The more prosperous and included in the global economy a country gets, the more modern their society becomes, and that means the introduction of modern values.
quote:
Islamic societies have not evolved since their texts were written. It's fine to take the philosophical stance that morality is relative (technically true), but American society and a society who as standard practice cuts off the hands of thieves, the heads of unfaithful wives, and the penises of unfaithful husbands can never understand each other. The aforementioned practices, and others, are not limited to radicals. It is the societal norm. But let's pretend we're all the same and have common goals.
No one is talking about pretending we are all the same. No one here has denied that the mainstream values in the Middle East are fundamentally different from in America. But the same could be said of India or China, and we work with them. What would you have the US do? Go isolationist? Declare war on the entire Middle East? Exterminate all Muslims? After all, according to you, there's no purpose of working toward peace. We all have to live on this planet together, and because of our deep cultural differences, compromises need to be made all the time. One of our values in America is tolerance of diversity. I may not approve of many practices in Islamic countries. But I also know that the best way to change things is to help those countries become prosperous and to trade with them. Trade is a means toward cultural exchange as well as a means toward economic interdependence, and that, in my opinion, is the most peaceful and effective way to spread modernism and its values.
Ghost Skeptic wrote: quote:
It seems to me that this whole ports issue is the inevetable result of contracting out something that should probably never have been contracted out in the first place. This always happens when you have Free Enterprise Idealogues rather than pragmatists running things.
I've grouped my response to you in with Florduh because of the last part of my response to him about trade being key to reducing terrorism and encouraging modernist values. I am hardly a Free Enterprise Ideologue. I'm a big fan of having a basically capitalistic economy with many socialistic programs that compensate for the flaws inherent in pure capitalism. I am also a big belie |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 03/03/2006 02:44:58 |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 03/03/2006 : 02:40:02 [Permalink]
|
In response to Val: I fail to see how the CNN or Washington Times articles support your case that the deal was “hosed”. In fact, I very much found them to support my argument that to call the vetting process “Completely and utterly flawed” is quite an exaggeration.
A lot of the articles were spent mentioning all the people who weren't notified, everyone from Michael Chertoff to Condoleezza Rice. However, what is not emphasized is that in these sort of deals, it is not common that all those people would be notified. There were plenty of quotes from people who would know about how this deal was not done in any special way. Just one example is the State Department official from the Washington Times article who said, “This is a fairly routine matter. It wasn't a contentious process. Secretaries get involved at an earlier stage only if there is a divergence of opinion.”
From the Washington Time article (my emphasis in italics): quote:
Mr. Knocke said the reason Mr. Chertoff was not informed was because CFIUS canvassed scores of government agencies and none objected to Dubai Ports World's (DPW) bid to buy terminal operations on national security grounds.
Are you saying that there was a conspiracy to push this deal through that involved “scores of government agencies”?
It seems to me that the perception that the vetting process was improper is not because it was unusual, but rather, because it was usual.
I found this bit from the Washington Times article quite telling (again, my emphasis in italics): quote:
A senior administration official, who asked not to be named, said lower-level bureaucrats involved in the review should have sensed the political reality: turning over ports to an Arab-owned company would create political problems in an election year.
So the people whose job it is to OK or reject such deals failed to realize that the public would freak out about an “Arab-owned company” taking over management of some port terminals. I'm still not seeing any evidence of corruption.
Val wrote: quote:
As the second review isn't done yet, claiming that DPW is qualified is not supportable. The status of their qualification is unknown at this time.
Fair ‘nuff, but considering that the people whose job it is to OK or reject such deals didn't have any objections, I won't be surprised if the 45 day review also comes up approving the deal.
quote:
The way Bush was defending it implied a deeper involvement in the deal. I'm still skeptical that he didn't based on his earlier statements.
How do you know that Bush wasn't defending it so strongly for the reasons he stated: "It would send a terrible signal to friends and allies not to let this transaction go through.” How do you know that he's not just a strong supporter of free trade? On what basis are you speculating about his motivations? Or perhaps a more important question: what does it matter what Bush's motivations are if DP World passes the 45 day review?
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 03/03/2006 02:48:40 |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 03/03/2006 : 03:02:33 [Permalink]
|
marfknox opens: quote:
You have brought up Bush's reputation for cronyism several times, so how is that any different from my bringing up the good reputations of NPR, the Economist, John McCain and Jimmy Carter?
Try this: Bush is, as Chief Executive, assumed to be the chief actor in his Administration. It's not his opinion as an "expert" that I'm interested in. His motivations, his underlings' motivations, his family's business associations, and his own actions are vital for understanding what's happening with this Dubai deal. Clinton, Schumer, Carter, McCain, though important figures, are not direct actors in this, much as they might like to be. My only point about you selectively quoting opinions from those you agree with is that the predigested opinion of authorities is not as relevant as getting direct evidence. Not that such opinions are a bad thing, just not as good as facts.
marfknox continues: quote:
But as for all the business connections made between Bush and DP World (at least the ones that were even that close. Many weren't even connections with DP World, but rather just with the UAE – which becomes more of a stretch), you start to sound a lot like a conspiracy theorist.
Since Dubai Ports World is fully owned by the UAE government, it seems perfectly legitimate to question any Bush family, or Bush appointee's, business connections with the UAE. DPW and the UAE are the same essential entity, DPW being merely a subsidiary. So making a connection between DPW and UAE makes me sound like a "conspiracy theorist"? Thanks a lot. I'm at least not a crazy conspiracy theorist, merely someone who tries to identify a reeking rotten deal when it's shoved in his nose. I'll leave both building kooky conspiracies theories, and ignoring the obvious, for others.
And some conspiracies are real, would you not agree? It's sorting out paranoia from collusion that's often the tough trick. When Bush, his cronies, and his family's business partners stop doing so damned much conspiring, I'll stop seeing their conspiracies. Meanwhile, I'm not holding my breath.
marfknox concludes:quote:
Bush's cronyism has indeed been dangerous as we saw with Brown and Katrina, and with Deutsch and NASA, but you have not made any specific accusations here, the only evidence you have of corruption involving Bush is circumstantial, and you have zero evidence for incompetence.
So far, I've mostly been researching. I've only concluded in my mind that this was an underhanded deal that reeks of self-serving interests who are in positions of power. I hope to be able to reach more specific conclusions, or guesses, later.
"... And you have zero evidence for incompetence." What?!? That was the concluding phrase in a paragraph that begins with, "Bush's cronyism has indeed been dangerous as we saw with Brown and Katrina, and with Deutsch and NASA.."???
Did you read what you wrote, marfknox?
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 03/03/2006 : 06:46:18 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Florduh
"O believers, take not Jews and Christians as friends; they are friends of each other. Those of you who make them his friends is one of them. God does not guide an unjust people. - 5:54
You're quoting from the George Sale/Sir E Dennison Ross translations which are inaccurate. I'll provide the translations from the preferred translation on M.K. Shakir
5.54] O you who believe! whoever from among you turns back from his religion, then Allah will bring a people, He shall love them and they shall love Him, lowly before the believers, mighty against the unbelievers, they shall strive hard in Allah's way and shall not fear the censure of any censurer; this is Allah's Face, He gives it to whom He pleases, and Allah is Ample-giving, Knowing.
quote:
Make war on them until idolatry is no more and Allah's religion reigns supreme - 8:39
[8.39] And fight with them until there is no more persecution and religion should be only for Allah; but if they desist, then surely Allah sees what they do.
quote:
O Prophet! Exhort the believers to fight. If there are 20 steadfast men among you, they shall vanquish 200; and if there are a hundred, they shall rout a thousand unbelievers, for they are devoid of understanding. - 8:65
[8.65] O Prophet! urge the believers to war; if there are twenty patient ones of you they shall overcome two hundred, and if there are a hundred of you they shall overcome a thousand of those who disbelieve, because they are a people who do not understand.
Also taken out of context.
[8.61] And if they incline to peace, then incline to it and trust in Allah; surely He is the Hearing, the Knowing.
[8.62] And if they intend to deceive you-- then surely Allah is sufficient for you; He it is Who strengthened you with His help and with the believers
quote:
It is not for any Prophet to have captives until he has made slaughter in the land. - 8:67
[8.67] It is not fit for a prophet that he should take captives unless he has fought and triumphed in the land; you desire the frail goods of this world, while Allah desires (for you) the hereafter; and Allah is Mighty, Wise.
This is actually a prohibition of kidnapping.
quote:
Allah will humble the unbelievers. Allah and His apostle are free from obligations to idol-worshipers. Proclaim a woeful punishment to the unbelievers. - 9:2-3
[9.2] So go about in the land for four months and know that you cannot weaken Allah and that Allah will bring disgrace to the unbelievers.
[9.3] And an announcement from Allah and His Apostle to the people on the day of the greater pilgrimage that Allah and His Apostle are free from liability to the idolaters; therefore if you repent, it will be better for you, and if you turn back, then know that you will not weaken Allah; and announce painful punishment to those who disbelieve.
Not only is this a call to evangelize non believers, but it is also taken out of context.
[9.4] Except those of the idolaters with whom you made an agreement, then they have not failed you in anything and have not backed up any one against you, so fulfill their agreement to the end of their term; surely Allah loves those who are careful (of their duty).
quote:
When the sacred months are over, slay the idolaters wherever you find them. Arrest them, besiege them, and lie in ambush everywhere for them. - 9:5"
[9.5] So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.
Likewise taken out of context.
[9.13] What! will you not fight a people who broke their oaths and aimed at the expulsion of the Apostle, and they attacked you first; do you fear them? But Allah is most deserving that you should fear Him, if you are believers.
And here's a quote from the George Sale translation (from which Sir E Dennison Ross based his translation)
From his 1801 preface - "The Protestants alone are able to attack the Qur'an with success; and for them, I trust, Providence has reserved the glory of its overthrow. "
http://www.bible.ca/islam/library/Wherry/Commentary1/spref.htm
Hardly an accurate nor a fair translation.
quote:
I stand corrected. Islam is a religion of peace.
Yeah, I know - the old testament is full of wrath and revenge. Stoning and genocide ordered by jehovah. Western society has evolved to where this nonsense is ignored by its followers. Islamic societies have not evolved since their texts were written. It's fine to take the philosophical stance that morality is relative (technically true), but American society and a society who as standard practice cuts off the hands of thieves, the heads of unfaithful wives, and the penises of unfaithful husbands can never understand each other. The aforementioned practices, and others, are not limited to radicals. It is the societal norm. But let's pretend we're all the same and have common goals.
That is patently untrue. The societies have evolved out of where they started. That some societal norms that were cast of by Western society are still in practice is immaterial. And there are movements to change that from within those nations. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
| Edited by - Valiant Dancer on 03/03/2006 07:00:39 |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 03/03/2006 : 06:56:13 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox
In response to Val: I fail to see how the CNN or Washington Times articles support your case that the deal was “hosed”. In fact, I very much found them to support my argument that to call the vetting process “Completely and utterly flawed” is quite an exaggeration.
A lot of the articles were spent mentioning all the people who weren't notified, everyone from Michael Chertoff to Condoleezza Rice. However, what is not emphasized is that in these sort of deals, it is not common that all those people would be notified. There were plenty of quotes from people who would know about how this deal was not done in any special way. Just one example is the State Department official from the Washington Times article who said, “This is a fairly routine matter. It wasn't a contentious process. Secretaries get involved at an earlier stage only if there is a divergence of opinion.”
A deal of this magnatude and involving a state run government is no routine matter. That is another section that was hosed about it.
quote:
From the Washington Time article (my emphasis in italics): quote:
Mr. Knocke said the reason Mr. Chertoff was not informed was because CFIUS canvassed scores of government agencies and none objected to Dubai Ports World's (DPW) bid to buy terminal operations on national security grounds.
Are you saying that there was a conspiracy to push this deal through that involved “scores of government agencies”?
And at what level? The facts that major players did not ask basic questions concerning al-Qaeda is disturbing. That it was tried to be bullied through once concerns were raised makes it suspect.
quote:
It seems to me that the perception that the vetting process was improper is not because it was unusual, but rather, because it was usual.
"Usual" would be an independant company running the ports. A foreign nation running the ports is unusual.
quote:
I found this bit from the Washington Times article quite telling (again, my emphasis in italics): quote:
A senior administration official, who asked not to be named, said lower-level bureaucrats involved in the review should have sensed the political reality: turning over ports to an Arab-owned company would create political problems in an election year.
So the people whose job it is to OK or reject such deals failed to realize that the public would freak out about an “Arab-owned company” taking over management of some port terminals. I'm still not seeing any evidence of corruption.
I said the vetting process was flawed. Not corrupt.
quote:
Val wrote: quote:
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 03/03/2006 : 11:25:37 [Permalink]
|
marfknox said:
quote:
The people references were some of my major sources for information and knowledgeable interpretation. They are specialists in the field. I have acknowledged that political analysts are split on this issue, and that the opinion opposing mine is also a fair opinion. Dude's response to that acknowledgement of that was to say that anyone with my opinion on the matter was a “fucking idiot”. So what you call my “appeal to authority” is simply my pointing out to Dude that he's just called many respected specialists in the field of political analysis “fucking idiots”.
First: You are now exagerating what I said, twisting up a nice little straw-man to burn in effigy. What I said was anyone who didn't think there was cause for concern about this port deal was a fucking idiot.
Second:
False appeal to authority. What does a political analyst know about port security or Arabic culture or Islamic extremism?
While I respect President Carter greatly for the things he has done since leaving office, I certainly wouldn't count him as a security expert of any kind.
Simple common sense tells me that turning control of port management of six major ports over to a foreign government is a cause for concern. Turning it over to a government who has shown sympathy to, and supported, Islamic extremists is cause for great concern.
Pointing your finger at what a political analyst has to say on the subject is just a way to ignore the issues.
There are real and significant issues with this deal.
Personally I think Dubai is a neat place. Alot of really rich people with not much to do except figure out how to entertain themselves. I still wouldn't plan a vacation there, and I don't trust their government enough to trust them with the details of US port security. It would be foolish to do so.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 03/03/2006 : 12:33:13 [Permalink]
|
Halfmooner wrote: quote:
Bush is, as Chief Executive, assumed to be the chief actor in his Administration. It's not his opinion as an "expert" that I'm interested in. His motivations, his underlings' motivations, his family's business associations, and his own actions are vital for understanding what's happening with this Dubai deal.
You have zero evidence that Bush had done anything improper regarding the Dubai deal. All you have are speculations based in vague circumstantial evidence.
quote:
My only point about you selectively quoting opinions from those you agree with is that the predigested opinion of authorities is not as relevant as getting direct evidence. Not that such opinions are a bad thing, just not as good as facts.
Half, I put forth the facts. I didn't just say, “Well Daniel Schorr says the deal is OK, so it's OK.” I also put forth analysis that I have found most rational and persuasive and credited the people who made the analysis. That's not an inappropriate “Appeal to Authority”.
quote:
So making a connection between DPW and UAE makes me sound like a "conspiracy theorist"?
No. I have never denied that DPW is owned by the UAE. But you are claiming that it is reasonable to suspect a whole network of lies and cover-ups that would include many US government officials from many different departments, and you claim this all based on mere business connections that are purely circumstantial. That is not a rational argument.
quote:
"... And you have zero evidence for incompetence." What?!? That was the concluding phrase in a paragraph that begins with, "Bush's cronyism has indeed been dangerous as we saw with Brown and Katrina, and with Deutsch and NASA.."???
Did you read what you wrote, marfknox?
Yeah, I did read what I wrote. Did you? I wasn't denying that Brown/Katrina and Deutsch/NASA had evidence of corruption and incompetence. The rest of my sentence read: “but you have not made any specific accusations here, the only evidence you have of corruption involving Bush is circumstantial, and you have zero evidence for incompetence." (my emphasis) My point was that you can't just point and one instance of corruption and then use that as evidence in a completely different case. Especially a business transaction that the President normally wouldn't know about and indeed claimed he didn't know about.
Look Half, I hate Bush. As a weekly columnist for my University's newspaper, I spent an entire year bashing the man during the 2000 election primaries. I've read all about what an idiot and silver-spoon-fed asshole he is. I cringe every time I think about the fact that the man is our President, I worked with MoveOn to get Kerry elected, and I cried when Bush won in 2004. I would absolutely LOVE IT if we had evidence of corruption in the case of this Dubai deal. But we just don't.
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 03/03/2006 12:36:17 |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 03/03/2006 : 12:46:47 [Permalink]
|
To Dude: Straw man my ass. Here's what you wrote: quote:
Anyone who thinks the idea of giving an Arab government, with the record UAE has, open access to the security details of six major US ports "should not be of great concern" is a fucking idiot.
First of all, they wouldn't have “open access to the security details”. I'm not saying management plays no part in security, but the fact of the matter is, security is not their job. While they would inevitably have some insider knowledge about some aspects of security, your claim of “open access” is just plain wrong. (And let's keep in mind that “they” the workers would be mostly the same Americans who were employed when the Brits managed it.) And second of all, it isn't six major US ports. It is terminals at six major US ports. They wouldn't be managing the entire port – just one dock. Or did you miss that detail?
But you are right, Dude. My response to your “fucking idiot” remark should have been this:
I agree, people with such thoughts are fucking idiots. Good thing nobody is proposing we give the UAE open access to the security details of six major US ports.
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
