Posted on 02/24/2006 3:08:30 AM PST by KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle
*SNIP*
The greater and more immediate danger is that as soon as the Dubai company takes over operations, it will necessarily become privy to information about security provisions at crucial U.S. ports. That would mean a transfer of information about our security operations -- and perhaps even worse, about the holes in our security operations -- to a company in an Arab state in which there might be employees who, for reasons of corruption or ideology, would pass this invaluable knowledge on to al-Qaeda types.
That is the danger, and it is a risk, probably an unnecessary one.
*SNIP*
This contract should have been stopped at an earlier stage, but at this point doing so would cause too much damage to our relations with moderate Arab states. There are no very good options. The best exit strategy is this: (1) Allow the contract to go through; (2) give it heightened scrutiny by assigning a team of U.S. government agents to work inside the company at least for the first few years to make sure security is tight and information closely held; (3) have the team report every six months to both the executive and a select congressional committee.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
There's no need to throw a bone. DP World is tops at what they do. They put in their bid and won the contract on their own merits. We then vetted them through the system designed by Congress.
Actually, you've done exactly that. You've repeatedly implied that Krauthammer knows that there already are Arabs companies managing terminals and shipping operations in this country. And you've attacked people who've pointed out that Arabs run some facilities in places such as Houston and New Jersey. You stamp your foot and rant about how they obviously haven't read Krauthammer's article, etc. Your posts at 9, 14, 24, 34 are examples of your tactic on this issues -- attacking people for not reading the parts of Krauthammers article where he acknowledged that Arabs already operate some port facilities in this country.
The only problem is that Krauthammer's article says nothing of the sort. Thanks to your posts, I've now read that article about 5 times, and have yet to read Krauthammer acknowledging that Arabs already operate some terminals in the United States. So how about excerpting the portion of his article where he recognizes that reality, and addresses it in his argument? Just quote it for all of us to read. If you can find it....
Then when someone inquired as to where he talked about Arabs operating some U.S. port facilities, you come back with "Any particular reason to assume he isn't?". That's at your post 37, in case you've forgotten. Which is a far cry from your earlier claim that it was actually in the article, but whatever.
But yes, there is a "particular reason" to assume he's not talking about arabs operating ports in this country. He mentions expressly that DPW operates ports in "15 countries". Doesn't mention other Arab companies operating some port facilities in this country, which surely has some relevance to the risk of port security info getting out to terrorists. More importantly, in discussing why we perhaps should let the deal go through, he says: "After all, the UAE, which is run by a friendly regime, manages ports in other countries without any such incidents. Other countries?. Another perfect chance for him to either expalin why the UAE is a bigger risk than Kuwait or Saudi Arabia, or how this deal is different from others in which some arab companies have certain responsibilities for port operations. But he doesn't even mention. So he's either being disingenuous by ignoring such clearly relevant evidence, or he just didn't know. I'm betting the latter.
As for how such a well-read guy might not know, there are lots of things that even the smartest person doesn't know. And a nice thing about FR is that you've got people from all over the country, many with military experience in that part of the world, who have first hand knowledge of things commentators like Krauthammer may only read about. See, e.g., Buckhead.
As for Krauthammer "straddling", that's exactly what he's doing. If someone opposed the decision to invade Iraq, but says we now need to stay and finish the job because we're already there, would you say he "supports" the war? Or is he someone in the middle? Because that's exactly what Krauthammer has done here. He's said he thinks this deal should have been killed, but that its now to late to back out. That's a straddle, middle ground, "finesse", or whatever you choose to call it.
I have heard CK expound his views on Brit's panel.
He was against the transaction being approved in the first place. He cited security concerns that DPW would learn our security measures that they otherwise would not know if not in this position. He then went on to say that to scuttle it now would do terrible damage to our alliances in the WOT and given that, the transaction and approval should stand.
I respect CK immensely, but I have not thought this was his finest hour. (My excuse for him is that the ENTIRE SITUATION is somewhat of a mess and I would dislike being in his pundit shoes right now.)
I think his point was that since we are not Imperialists as the British Empire was, and don't 'control' the world, but have been put in a position as sole superpower, we have a tougher situation.
We are the leaders, but we are not the controllers, and therefore decisions are more dicey.
Charles seems to understand the difficulty of the decision, and the reason for the decision, but is coming down slightly on the other side of it. But, note, that he says it is because of 'risk.' And risk is a perception which varies depending on who is doing the assessing.
Perhaps not Charles' finest hour, but he raises some cogent points.
I thought I'd heard him on Brit's show too, txrangerette, saying he was opposed to the deal. Thanks for confirming that.
Some PR flunky screwed up.
Some people can only come up with vulgar, sexist remarks when they have nothing else to say. It says more about them than it does about us, apackof2.
I still don't feel right about it. Especially so, since NY State is suing to stop. Still do appreciate the earlier info.
LOL. New York is placating the unions...it will go nowhere.
When he didn't GET that response, but instead got reasoned replies about the article itself, NONE bashing Krauthammer, he started ranting and mocking all others who posted. (A quick scrolling down from the beginning of the thread will back me up on that).
And in doing so, he revealed some very ugly parts of himself, that would be best kept hidden.
I would say that this entire thread is a farce, and opposed to FR standards, because it was posted with the sole purpose of incensing and agitating, and not education and discussion. It is my humble, and sure to be ignored opinion, that this entire thread should be pulled because it is illegitimate at its source.
Kent, you have exposed yourself.......and what is revealed is quite unsightly.
Having read a lot of comments on this thread my humble opinion
would be to concur with you
But then I have no power to pull a thread
LOL..
You're welcome, Peach. I don't mean to tar a fine man by saying this, but a partial analogy {in reverse} would be to Kerry's "I voted for it before I voted against it".
Charles was against the original decision by the group that ok'd it, but he thinks now it is better for it to go ahead than to stop it. And he gives his reasons. He is seldom knee-jerk but always supports himself coherently and cogently, even if I occasionally disagree with him. In this instance his last conclusion is his best one, from what I can gather.
This company does port operations around the world including shipping into American ports, and they know what measures we require at the point of origin RIGHT NOW, AND THAT IS MUCH (though not all) OF OUR SECURITY PLAN.
For sure, all of the posts that had nothing at all to do with the issue but were personal insults and defense against same should be removed...just my opinion. Then, the very little (ha ha) that remains might make decent reading. I do agree that the thread appears to be a bait tactic.
Or perhaps the deliberate agitation of the poster is not a problem, forum rule-wise. It was clearly not posted for legitimate reasons, but it's not my call..........obviously.
There was nothing legitimate in posting only the negative excerpts to try to get (and fail to, I might add) an angry response from those who support the deal.
Baiting is too kind a word for what Kent did here.
Can we get a ruling Admin Moderator?
I second the request for a ruling from the chair. Should this thread be pulled and a thread begun for the purposes of discussion of Krauthammer's entire viewpoint?? Personal insults completely aside??
But I have always thought that a thread based on deliberate agitation of legitimate freepers was opposed to the purpose of the forum. And that clearly is the case here.
I'm not going to press it, but I am curious.
There has been legitimate debate here because of the fundamental decency of the freepers whom Kent derides, and in spite of Kent's goal and behavior, so perhaps the thread should stand.
A new Krauthammer thread is already going. Don't know who posted and don't know if the headline is legit or not. But it appears to have the entire article.
Charles Krauthammer: Why U.S. should okay terrible port deal
Address:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1584789/posts
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.