A Weblog of Centrist Voices in American Politics
|
|
|
A Weblog of Centrist Voices in American Politics | |
|
February 23, 2006Carter Backs Bush on DubaiPat pointed out in a previous comment section that former President Jimmy Carter supports President Bush regarding the Dubai deal. Since this issue has brought a flood of welcomed outside attention to Centerfield, and since Carter is breaking from his party to support an administration he has been very critical of, I feel this is deserving of a separate entry. Here is the article. Carter says: "The overall threat to the United States and security, I don't think it's exists... My view of Jimmy Carter is that he is an incredible human being who had difficulty separating idealism from reality as President. However, one area that I believe he was leaps and bounds above the current President is mediation and negotiation. I have been critical of statements such as "axis of evil," "evildoers," "they are with us or against us," and "bring it on" because I firmly believe that you cannot mediate peace and start by punching the party across the table in the mouth. Carter understands this, has received the Nobel Peace Prize for his work as an international mediator, and has been called on by many world leaders to step into hot button policy disputes. One reason the President gave for supporting the Dubai deal was our relationship with the Middle East. This is a shift in how this administration has historically approached foreign relations, it wasn't too long ago that they refused to allocate any Iraq contracts to France because of their position on the war. It is a good one and we should not only support it but encourage this type of behavior in the future. It is disheartening to me is that those who claimed in the 2004 election we needed Presidential leadership that recognizes the importance of world diplomacy, are now running from that position for what one can only conclude are political purposes. For those of you who disagree, show me concrete reasons why the deal is a threat to our security? What countries have had contracts with the Dubai government and been the victim of a terrorist attack because of it? What specific evidence is there that this makes our ports more vulnerable? The fact that the 9/11 bombers were Arabic, isn't good enough for me. Posted by Starbucks Republican at February 23, 2006 01:30 PMComments
Hmmm! Your not fishing for another AOL link, are you? I had three reasons: 1. I think Carter's opinion on the issue is significant. 2. I think those opposed to the deal have done a crappy job telling us why other than Bush is the one who made it. 3. To a lesser extent, if it encourages more to visit Centerfield and see what we do, than yes, I have no problem with that. However, I ask the questions because I hope their comments will provide substance, not that all of them didn't before. I am as open as the next guy to changing my mind if there is reason. Posted by: Mathew at February 23, 2006 01:50 PMMy biggest problem is that this is a company, for all intents and purposes, owned by the current government of UAE. I have the same problem with Chinese companies that operate our ports. I do not believe that a foriegn government should have hands in the operations of our major ports of entry. Add to that the under-the-table discussions that allow all documents on the business operations to be kept off of US soil away from our investigation is another red flag. We are talking about a company who is owned by a group whose family members have been on retreats with Bin Laden. While they are not operating the security, those who run something long enough can easily learn the weakness of such security operations. I feel it is much more likely that information about such weaknesses would be passed along to terrorists through this companies connections than by another set up. Of course, if we intend to cover this by wiretapping ever person who works at these facilities..... Posted by: Jim M at February 23, 2006 01:58 PMLast unscientific poll I saw was at CNN, 85% think America shouldn't let ANY foreign counry run our ports. I agree wih you Matt, but our contingent seems to be quite small. As you know, this means our views can't be centrist. That requires at least 45% I think. LMAO Posted by: bk at February 23, 2006 01:59 PMI'm rerunning this one in a more appropriate forum: What do you guys think would have been done had Dubai already been operating at our ports before 9/11? Would anyone have suggested throwing them out in that case once 9/11 occurred? My guess is "no." Should we not allow foreign-owned airlines to operate at our airports? Posted by: WHQ at February 23, 2006 02:01 PMIt seems insane to me that this company would want to make itself susceptible to terrorists. If terrorists used the port to attack the US, Dubai would be right in the cross-hairs. The company presumably is in business to make money, unless you assume that, because they are Arab, they are really fronts for bin Laden. Plus, they aren't actually running the security of the port anyway. As for learning the weaknesses, I doubt that there is any great secret about the weaknesses of the ports. They are pretty apparent and it's not like the ports are air tight at present. I think it's the height of hypocrisy for Democrats and liberals that have been decrying the US's supposed anti-Muslim bias to now be attacking the administration from the right. Everything I have read suggests that people throughout the industry and and government, including DOD, have no problem with this. Jimmy Carter did absolutely the right thing. While I have some problems with his often sanctimonious attitude, I have to say that he is showing admirable courage and conviction here. Posted by: Marc at February 23, 2006 02:11 PMLast unscientific poll I saw was at CNN, 85% think America shouldn't let ANY foreign counry run our ports. Which is exactly why we should keep talking about it. I think this is sad because a lot of people can't get past the emotional reaction on this one and think about it logically, and I have no problem making that statement. That is a horrible, horrible, horrible way to make public policy. Chinese companies that operate our ports. I do not believe that a foriegn government should have hands in the operations of our major ports of entry. That is an ideological statement Jim, which is fine. At least you are consistent. I disagree, but would be less hung up on this if it didn't feel like those opposing the deal were doing so out of the blue. Posted by: Mathew at February 23, 2006 02:12 PMIf I find out that foreign shippers using foreign workers are bringing foreign goods into our ports, I'm really going to get upset. Posted by: WHQ at February 23, 2006 02:17 PMExcept for his Habitat for Humanity work, this is the first time I have admired something Jimmy Carter has done in a very long time. Maybe Al Gore will be next. David Brooks has a good column today on this circus. Unfortunately, it is behind Times Select wall so no link is available. Posted by: Todd Pearson at February 23, 2006 02:33 PMI think there are a lot of out of the blue knee-jerk reaction on this. Truthfully, I have more trouble with China then UAE. Port operations are great ways of hiding industrial espionage. What better way to smuggle Then to attach small items to shipments piece by piece. Sure, it can be done at levels beyond the port. However, if you can have people controling the operations at both sides, it makes it that much easier to accomplish. I am more troubled by the deal to allow them to keep the documents of business operations off US soil. Why should we allow that if everything is suppose to be on the up and up? Posted by: Jim M at February 23, 2006 02:36 PMJeepers, I just thank the good lord that Hitler didn't invent the internet. Or Allah. Centerfield would have to disband. And that's just a joke folks. Remain calm, It popped into my head as I walked to the post office, and it was just too funny to pass up. And just minutes later, as I stopped at Starbucks for my afternoon boost? I leave the store, and in the mall across the street, I can that there's a starbucks. I sh!t you not, a starbucks across from a starbucks. All this time I thought Lewis Black was just kidding. Posted by: bk at February 23, 2006 02:45 PMStarbucks across from Starbucks never shocked me. I have lived and worked in Atlanta before. The number of Waffle Houses on opposing corners in that town are mind boggling. Posted by: Jim M at February 23, 2006 02:48 PMFrom above: "I think those opposed to the deal have done a crappy job telling us why other than Bush is the one who made it. " The opposite is also true, those for the deal have done a crappy job of telling us why other than Bush threatened a veto on it. I believe there is no threat. I agree the reaction is all knee-jerk. I stand by my earlier statement. If it makes FOX mad, it's good for the country... Posted by: Scott at February 23, 2006 02:49 PMCould it ne that everyone's done a crappy job of explaining the deal? Naw. Posted by: Tully at February 23, 2006 02:52 PMThe opposite is also true, those for the deal have done a crappy job of telling us why other than Bush threatened a veto on it. That is not true. Reasons: 1. Because the Dod, SecState and anyone else in line looked at it, didn't see a threat, and approved it. 2. It is bad for foreign relations. 3. As President Carter says, the government of Dubai happens to be pretty darn good at this. Again, what are the security risks other than they are Arabic? Pretty clearly, anybody opposing this on security grounds will need to give some kind of explanation for why: Or, more likely, they will confine themselves to screaming in panic and present no rational reasons at all. Posted by: wj at February 23, 2006 03:31 PMI think it's the issue Jim mentions in his first paragraph above that troubles me most. It's not that it's merely a company out of Dubai, it's that it's a company run by the government of Dubai. Washington's farewell address warned that, while we should "[o]bserve good faith and justice towards all nations [and] cultivate peace and harmony with all," none-the-less, "[a]gainst the insidious wiles of foreign influence . . . the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government . . . The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible." Washington was warning against political influence, not commerce, but does anybody doubt that giving even as much as partial control of some of our ports to an entity which is, in essence, an extension of a foreign government, falls squarely within the bounds of this warning, as power of ports - while still commerce not politics - is as much political influence as the power of the purse? Posted by: Simon at February 23, 2006 03:32 PMI find Carter's comments very interesting,a nd in all likelihood, this is not the security nightmare scenario it's made out to be. But what it is, is a gorgeous (for lack of a better word) example of the lack of leadership being displayed. Surely someone with his act together could do a far better job of conveying to the public that this is not an issue. Indeed Bush seems to be deliberately antagonizing the public over this, which I find baffling. Posted by: BEG at February 23, 2006 04:26 PMIt's a company run by the government of Dubai. Socialism is not a dead letter yet. There are many industries in many countries that are run or owned by their governments. They are part of the global economy. Consider national airlines, for example. Or the BBC. Is there an abstract principle at stake here? If so, what is it? If there isn't an abstract principle at stake, we're back to Matthew's specific questions. On what grounds is a nationalized company out of UAE worse than one out of, say, India? How about Israel? Or Sweden? Why is a national shipping company different than a national airline? Posted by: Henry at February 23, 2006 04:29 PMThe government of Dubai is the Emir and his family. It's one giant family corporation. They're so radical that the (free, K-12) schools instruct almost entirely in English, many of the schools use American or British syllabuses, the bars have to close by 3am, most of the prostitutes are Eastern European, and there's only two water parks and one massive theme park for the 1.1 million residents. Land is so tight that the Crown Prince had to donate the land for the new Greek Orthodox cathedral--just as his father the Emir earlier donated land for ALL the Christian churches in Dubai. Yep, clearly shifty Arabs. Comparing these guys to the Saudis is like comparing United Methodists to the Spanish Inquisition. Posted by: Tully at February 23, 2006 04:51 PMWell, now wait a minute. I agree that this deal is likely ok. And the reaction sends a terrible signal to the Arab world. But I think at the same time that it's a little naive not to recognize that having an Arab government-owned entity involved is going to raise issues (at least politically)that, say an English or even Chinese, firm would not. It's clear, for example, that some of the ME and South Asia (ie Pakistan)countries that claim to be our allies are, at best, working both sides of the fence. Which is understandable because they have to live there. So, while I do think the outcry is way overblown (in large part because the UAE has no incentive at all to facilitate terrorism against the US), let's not pretend that there are NO issues here. It's a bit odd that Bush did not expect this outcry--wouldn't you assume that having an Arab-run company managing ports (even if that's not really what's happening) would raise alarm bells? Didn't somebody think that, maybe we need to get ahead of this rather than just assuming nothing would happen? If this was the Clinton Administration, the Republicans would be raising holy hell. It's really strange to me how an Administration that is so political in so many ways is, at the same time, often so blind to the political implications of its actions. Posted by: Marc at February 23, 2006 05:06 PMThere's a lot of talk about what harm might arise if we allow the DPW to operate part of the ports. However there hasn't been much discussion about what harm might arise if we don't. Nor has there been much discussion about the harms that are already happening because of this disccussion. Well here's David Brooks to clue people in. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/blog/2006/02/david_brooks_rips_port_deal_hy.html This Dubai port deal has unleashed a kind of collective mania we haven't seen in decades. First seized by the radio hatemonger Michael Savage, it's been embraced by reactionaries of left and right, exploited by Empire State panderers, and enabled by a bipartisan horde of politicians who don't have the guts to stand in front of a xenophobic tsunami.Posted by: Jeff at February 23, 2006 06:22 PM ROFLMAO. Well, I don't yet know enough of the details to support it, but I just gotta know, folks. In your honest opinions, if I decide to support it, am I a demented libertarian or a politically correct leftist? Posted by: Tully at February 23, 2006 08:17 PMOh, Mathew, say you didn't edit those out. It's a lot more fun just to replace all the profanity with #'s, or disemvowel them if they're persistent. Posted by: Tully at February 23, 2006 08:19 PMJeb Bush's ties to the UAE. http://www.debbieschlussel.com/archives/000680print.html Posted by: Laura at February 23, 2006 09:09 PMIt's really strange to me how an Administration that is so political in so many ways is, at the same time, often so blind to the political implications of its actions.I mean c'mon, couldn't they see that this would rile our inate jingoist (dare I say racist tendencies). Couldn't they be discretely prejudiced! (Sorry, couldn't resist.) AS for Jimmy, I've always repsected him and maybe this makes up for sitting next to Michael Moore. And finally to reiterate what many have said regarding the "security risk of this Dubai company running our port!": The Emperor has no clothes! Posted by: c3 at February 23, 2006 09:13 PMSince my other posts were deleted, I am going to repost this article on the true nature of the UAE. Hopefully Mathew will allow this post to remain so people can get a sense of what we are dealing with. http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=21413 It is not racist to be suspicious of an arab regime, since most arab countries in fact have ties to terrorism to some degree. If anything the arab countries are the ones who exhibit extreme racism. I'm really sick of the race card being used against those of us who are rightly suspicious of the arab-muslim world where the terrorims originates from. As far as Carter is concerned, I do not trust nor do I respect him and the same goes for Bush. If they are supporting this deal, then we should be expecially concerned, as these two individuals have a history of cozy relationships with the arab world. I urge everyone to read the above columns. Posted by: Laura at February 23, 2006 09:23 PMLaura, I believe you will find that posts devoid of pointless profanity and personal attacks will remain undisturbed. But don't assume that they will go unchallenged, so be prepared to defend them with something more substantial than wing rants. And if you're willing to listen to one more bit of advice, let me suggest working with uncontestable base facts as much as possible. If you've never been educated as to the difference between evidence and opinion, you're likely to get a crash course here. Posted by: Tully at February 23, 2006 09:41 PMTully those articles contained ACTUAL FACTS within them. Did you actually bother to read them in full or since they came from publications and people you disapprove of you didn't bother reading them. Here is an excerpt from the Frontpage mag article: On July 27, 2005, the Palestinian Information Center carried a public HAMAS statement thanking the UAE for it’s “unstinting support.” The statement said: “We highly appreciate his highness Sheikh Khalifa Bin Zayed Bin Sultan Al-Nahyan (UAE president) in particular and the UAE people and government in general for their limitless support…that contributed more to consolidating our people's resoluteness in the face of the Israeli occupation".
The HAMAS statement continued: "the sisterly UAE had… never hesitated in providing aid for our Mujahid people pertaining to rebuilding their houses demolished by the IOF… The UAE also spared no effort to offer financial and material aids to the Palestinian charitable societies." Indeed, as documented by the Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center at the Center for Special Studies (C.S.S), HAMAS charitable societies,” are known as integral parts of the HAMAS infrastructure, and are outlawed by Israel and the U.S.
The HAMAS statement included a special tribute: "One can never forget the generous donations of the late Sheikh Zayed Bin Sultan,” the father of the current UAE president. Sheikh Zayed bin Sultan al Nahayan of Abu Dhabi, was the first Arab leader to understand the importance of waging economic Jihad against the West, and was the first to use oil as a political weapon following the Yom Kippur War in 1973. On the eve of the 1991 Gulf War he branded the United States “our number two enemy” after Israel.
The multi-billionaire Sheikh Zayed, was an early patron of the PLO, and from the 1970’s until his death in 2004, contributed millions of dollars to the terror agenda of the PLO, HAMAS and Islamic Jihad. .......... Now the above aren't opinions, they are FACTS. Posted by: Laura at February 23, 2006 10:14 PMHaving no time to check your facts for basis or context, Luara, I'll accept them as is for the moment. I just don't see them as substantive dispositive evidence against the proposed sale. You might wish to expand your knowledge base on the UAE. I started looking past my own surface knowledge recently to catch up to events, and it's an eye-opener. It's a loose confederation of 7 seperate emirates, all with their own laws and rulers, who banded together in a defense compact to keep from being crushed between the Saudis, the Indians, and the Persians (Iranians). The Emir of Abu Dhabi is not the Emir of Dubai, and it is the latter who's involved here. Demonizing Abu Dhabi when the emirate involved is Dubai is like criticizing Massachussets for something Tom Coburn [OK] has said. At best. I wanna know more about the details before I have a strong opinion for or against. But if we are to allow any Middle East "player" to be a trade and business partner, Dubai seems to stack up very well. Darn near every other player in the region carries more "baggage" than Dubai, including Israel. Thee will be no perfect trade partners in the Middle East. I'll offer another suggestion--if you think a lengthy article has a few relevant points then bring those points along to the post, along with the source links for those inclined to check the backstory, instead of just linking the lengthy articles. If your goal is to be pesuasive, you'll find that's much more effective than just posting links to lengthy articles and expecting people to drawn the same conclusions from them as you do. Posted by: Tully at February 23, 2006 10:52 PM"Darn near every other player in the region carries more "baggage" than Dubai, including Israel" I've proven to you the UAE supports terrorism, you choose to whitewash those facts and even have us believe that country is preferable to Israel. If you don't know all the facts, that is all the more reason you should want to err on the side of caution and be against this deal. This is not just an issue of the UAE simply being trading partners, I'm not suggesting we end that, this is whether or not they should have control of our ports. If I recall, you condemned Gore for his suck-up speech in saudi arabia, yet you defend selling control of our ports to an arab regime. And don't try to tell me there's really any difference between the saudis and UAE because I have shown you otherwise. It seems to me you are nothing more than a shill for the Bush administration. Posted by: Laura at February 24, 2006 12:53 AMSince we are dealing with something as serious as the security of our ports, it is my belief that the onus is on supporters of this deal to prove it's a safe bet. Posted by: Laura at February 24, 2006 12:55 AM"The Emir of Abu Dhabi is not the Emir of Dubai, and it is the latter who's involved here." Read again, this is the UAE PRESIDENT being talked about, which I'm assuming means he represents the entire UAE: On July 27, 2005, the Palestinian Information Center carried a public HAMAS statement thanking the UAE for it’s “unstinting support.” The statement said: “We highly appreciate his highness Sheikh Khalifa Bin Zayed Bin Sultan Al-Nahyan (UAE president) in particular and the UAE people and government in general for their limitless support…that contributed more to consolidating our people's resoluteness in the face of the Israeli occupation". Posted by: Laura at February 24, 2006 01:05 AMNo other than the most liberal editorial board in the country is talking sense. On the suddenly hot issue of American ports being managed by a United Arab Emirates company, everyone needs to chill. It's fine if Congress wants more time to look at this deal (although Congress' record on the issue of port security is itself scandalous), but most of what has been raised in protest seems, as President Bush said, more than a little xenophobic toward anything Arab.Posted by: Todd Pearson at February 24, 2006 01:06 AM If Jimmy Carter is supporting the deal, surely it is in someone's best interest other than the US. Posted by: Justin at February 24, 2006 07:41 AMI've proven to you the UAE supports terrorismI'm staying out of this fight, but I am reading with interest. However, I do have to make one interjection: if we accept at face value Hamas' statement that the UAE President supports them, then I'll buy (at least for sake of argument) that you've proven that the UAE supports Hamas, which is, arguably, a terrorist organization (albeit one with more in common with the IRA than Al Queda). However, the issue here - I would think - is whether they support not just a terrorist group (indeed, the United States has routinely supported what might be termed "terrorist groups" in South America and Africa for fifty years - indeed, who was it that armed Mujahadeen against the Soviets?), but rather, Al Queda in particular. And so it seems to me that even if I accepted that you'd proven a UAE link to Hamas, that wouldn't in itself be enough to concern me about the ports deal. Hamas do not threaten the United States directly; they are concerned only with their immediate surroundings, and they are fully occupied in that task. I think what worries people is international terrorism, and it seems to me that you have not proven a link to the latter. In case you've missed my other comments, I'm neither in favor of nor opposed to the deal; I have no dog in this race. I'm just curious as to your logic. Posted by: Simon at February 24, 2006 09:03 AMYou don't even know who you're arguing with, Laura. I don't believe I said much of anything about Gore. Nice inability to distinguish between people, though. Hallmark sign of the demonization of the Other. Besides, I thought I was a "demented libertarian or a politically correct leftist." Which of those makes "a shill for the Bush administration"? I've proven to you the UAE supports terrorism, you choose to whitewash those facts and even have us believe that country is preferable to Israel. You haven't "proven" anything except that some of the emirs in the UAE (a seven-nation confederation) donated money to rebuild Palestinian houses, Laura. What does that make the UN, which has given many billions to the Palestinians? Including money from the US. Is every member nation of the UN guilty as well? They would seem to be, under your standards. Heck, we supplied earthquake relief for Iran last year. Is that "supporting terrorism?" What about Israel itself, which until recently remitted hundreds of millions annually to the Palestinian Authority? Monomania isn't pretty. Posted by: Tully at February 24, 2006 09:04 AMThere's no logic there, Simon. Just obsession. Posted by: Tully at February 24, 2006 09:07 AMLaura, I hope you keep visiting. If you have an open mind, you will learn something. But I don't believe that you have proven much of anything substantive to anyone here. You seem quite eager to conflate Dubai with the UAE as whole. You utterly dismissed Tully's distinctions, and this makes me feel that your views are being fueled by fear and paranoia. All of us here have known Tully long enough to know that, if someone had brought up a good specific reason to worry about this port deal, Tully would be screaming from the top of his lungs. (and he's such a good infoseeker that he's probably likely to find twice as much relevant data from more reliable sources in half the time than any of the rest of us) Most of us here are willing to at least entertain the notion that some muslims and some arabs are better than others. It seems to me that you are working backwards. You're willing to assume that any association whatsover by group A with any group B that frightens you proves that group A is untrustworthy for all practical purposes. Not only is such a contention not logical, it's also naive. I am still waiting for info that shows me that we really need to stop this deal from going forward. I'm seeing a lot of fear of middle easterners, and very little in the way of substantive facts that suggest that Dubai has purchased port management rights as part of a plot to foster domestic attacks by islamic terrorists. Ot that their managment would make the execution of such plots easier rather than harder. If you want to be afraid first, and think later, that's your right. But it's not how we do things around here. Unless it's an emergency, we think first, collect info to review, and then decide whether or not to be afraid. And when a scary story crosses our desk, and a lot of the facts are missing, and we find ourselves with way more questions than answers, the BS detectors go OFF! I'm willing to guess from the regular passion that many of us express here that I'm not the only one who arrived at such an approach in part through experience. I have been passionate about politics and social policy for a long time, and I used to go off half-cocked all the time, only to find out later that I couldn't account for the relevant facts, and indeed had been an arrogant, unrealistic, ill-informed jack-ass. Such realizations sting, so I'm still trying to mend my ways. Posted by: bk at February 24, 2006 10:14 AMAs far as the intentions of Dubai go, they could likely find a far better way than buying an interest in some ports to spend 6+ billion dollars if they were intending to engage in terrorism. Posted by: WHQ at February 24, 2006 11:03 AMLaura, I never knew that Jimmy Carter was a shill for the Bush Administration. Wow, what a revelation! And, of course, everyone that disagrees with you is a shill for the Bush Administration. Nice arguing. You should have your own radio talk show. Posted by: Marc at February 24, 2006 11:17 AMTully the UAE donated to a TERRORIST group, as well as families of terrorists to reward them, just as saddam and saudi arabia donated to families of terrorists. You have chosen to spin such actions as charity. Unbelievable! Tully you prove my point, indeed the UN has given financial as well as moral support to terrorism against Israel. The UN is well known for its extreme hostility towards Israel. You really are out of touch. Posted by: Laura at February 24, 2006 12:04 PMTully the UAE donated to a TERRORIST group, as well as families of terrorists to reward them, just as saddam and saudi arabia donated to families of terrorists. You have chosen to spin such actions as charity. Unbelievable! Tully you prove my point, indeed the UN has given financial as well as moral support to terrorism against Israel. The UN is well known for its extreme hostility towards Israel. You really are out of touch. Posted by: Laura at February 24, 2006 12:05 PMMarc, Carter was a terrible president, ESPECIALLY when it came to the middle east. His judgement cannot be trusted on this. If this doesn't convince you, then you people are utterly hopeless: U.S. Didn’t Target Bin Laden in 1999 Because He Was Meeting With UAE Royal Family bk don't patronize me and act as though you are so much more enlightened and openminded, when the fact is you are the close-minded one refusing to see the potential danger. You and others on this board are choosing to whitewash the UAE's ties to terrorism. No one is suggesting that this an attempt on the part of the UAE to purposely bring terrorism to the US. Stop creating straw arguments. To give you an example, Pakistan is supposedly our ally in the war on terror, and assuming Pervez Musharaff sincerely wants to help us fight terrorism, we know that the Pakistani intelligence agency is being infiltrated by militant islamists who identify with bin laden. Posted by: Laura at February 24, 2006 12:26 PMSimon get a clue, all islamist terrorist groups are linked with the same ultimate goal of an islamic caliphate expanding the world. Of course they are unable to achieve that, but the point is that they will cause much violence and death in their delusional aims. We cannot dismiss any one group as simply being a local problem. Posted by: Laura at February 24, 2006 12:32 PMSimon as an American you indeed have a dog in this fight. You have an interest in our ports being secured. Posted by: Laura at February 24, 2006 12:37 PM"Most of us here are willing to at least entertain the notion that some muslims and some arabs are better than others." First off, don't confuse 3 or 4 people with "everyone". Second your lapel grabbing enthusiasm tends to be disconcerting. We are a very human group with our own biases; a good salesperson will find a way around those barriers and make the sale. Phrase like "get a clue" are not an asset to your sales technique. Third try linking to some neutral sources. Laura, Can you confirm that United Arab Emirates even HAS a single emirate-wide royal family? I don't think it does. I think that each of the individual emirates has a royal family. Some may even have several. So I wonder whether your information (unsourced and without links BTW) is factually inaccurate or just poorly worded. If your unsourced story is accurate, then I believe that what it means is that Bin Laden apparently met with ONE of the several royal families in one of the SEVEN nations that comprise the UAE. Can you in fact confirm that 8 years ago, Bin Laden met with Dubai's royal family? And do you understand why that matters? This information only underscores why the administration should have fully investigated the sale, as required by law, before approving it. Just to be clear, for the sake of the audience, let me say that I don't think anyone here is against carefully scrutinizing this deal. But I don't think that, so far, anyone has shown that the appropriate agencies negligently rubber stamped this deal. bk don't patronize me and act as though you are so much more enlightened and openminded, when the fact is you are the close-minded one refusing to see the potential danger. You and others on this board are choosing to whitewash the UAE's ties to terrorism. Laura you seem to have failed to notice that I haven't denied the potential for danger. It's possible that this deal is part of big plot. But you still haven't shown any direct ties between Dubai and terrorism, and you haven't shown Dubai to be two-faced unreliable allies. What you are relying upon is guilt by association, conflation of disparate entities, and unsourced quotations that we can't check. That's not enough here. Here, we cite our sources. And we rely on facts that are as precise as possible. If an article is unable to, say, distinguish between the UAE and one of its member states, that's a bad sign. If someone pastes in words as though they are acurate and reputable reporting, but doesn't give us a link, that's a bad sign too. And so we keep looking for better info. Because we want to get as close to the truth as possible, we're not just looking for anything we can find to cut and paste in support of a viewpoint we've already decided is correct. That's how we roll. We ask our visitors to roll the same way. So, at your request, I'll stop "patronizing" you. Right now. Right here. Speaking solely for myself, let me say this. If you can't roll in the way I've described above, then I believe that you're wasting both our time and your time. The problem is we don't always know who the bad ones are, which is the same argument I use for supporting racial profiling. We know that potential terrorists aren't blue-eyed blondes. ROTFL, "epitome intellect!" Maybe not today, Laura, maybe not today. Posted by: bk at February 24, 2006 01:58 PMLaura, Carter was a bad president in many ways. But with respect to the ME, Egypt is, I believe, the only Arab country that recognizes Israel and has diplomatic relations with it (maybe Jordan?), albeit, they obviously aren't great friends. I think President Carter had something to do with that. Consider that before you simply dismiss his statement (although it's not clear to me what his record on the Middle East really has to do with this statement.) It's a little ridiculous to say, he was a bad president, so nothing he says could possibly be right. C3, I know you were just riffing, but I don't think it's that amazing that this deal stirred up feelings, considering that the China deal for Unocal did as well. I think it was foreseeable. Posted by: Marc at February 24, 2006 04:10 PMCamp David. Best thing Carter ever did as President. Other than lose to Reagan in '80. We know that potential terrorists aren't blue-eyed blondes. Timothy McVeigh was a blue-eyed blond. Do you mean he was innocent, Laura? Posted by: Tully at February 25, 2006 12:50 AMJust letting you know - your site is fantastic! Soldier can Roll Opponents: http://www.foxmovies.com/ , Mistery can Destroy Cosmos Red Cards Fetch or not , Give Roll Hedge - that is all that Cards is capable of Superb, Astonishing, Tremendous nothing comparative to Greedy Posted by: Eric Williams at March 4, 2006 12:00 AM |
Archives
June 2008
May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003
Recent Entries
Irish Blogger Charged For Blogging
Friday open thread Headline: Obama and Clinton Together in Unity There Is No EPA Document, There Is No EPA Document Only The Party In Power Need Apply Prosecutions? Can McCain claim the Ron Paul votes? Why We Worry About China Too Much Newseek Slams "Obama's Lame Excuse" Open Thread: What Annoyed You Most Reading Books?
|
