Everyone can observe the sky color. 2 + 2 is mathematically proven. You are claiming the Whitehouse ordered an Army General to make a specific statement. Show me your proof.
"And are your implying Abizaid comments and timing were NOT out of the ordinary?"
Timing?!?! The issue couldn't be any more current. Out of the ordinary...he was commenting on a major strategic issue concerning a country that falls right in the middle of his military area of responsibility. If he was commenting on mad cow disease in Japan, I would agree his comments were odd. But he was responding to a reporter's question about an issue that will have a very significant effect on his ability to accomplish his mission in Southwest Asia. It is certainly not out of the ordinary for him to comment on that issue. Here is a link to a statement Gen Abiziad read to Congress on 1 March 2005 regarding the current status of CENTCOM operations Abizaid's Statement You will note that the mission of CENTCOM is stated as "U.S. Central Command conducts joint and combined operations in our area of responsibility (AOR) to defeat adversaries, promote regional security and stability, support our allies and friends, and protect vital U.S. interests." Denying the DPW port deal has a very signicant impact on CENTCOM's mission. By commenting on the UAE port deal, Abizaid is doing his job.
"And it doesn't take a expert in military protocol to figure this was calculated BS PR at its worse."
Let me rephrase that for you...it takes someone who knows nothing about military protocol to assume Gen Abizaid's comments were orchestrated by the Whitehouse.
"No "prompting" required. The fix was in -- Especially from Abizaid -- despite what you wish wasn't true."
You didn't answer the question. Did the Whitehouse direct reporters to ask Abizaid to comment on the UAE port deal? And do you think the correct answer by Abizaid to a question that dealt specifically with a nation in his AOR would have been "no comment"?
"A very public race-baiting comment by Abizaid"
What part of his statement wasn't accurate?
"Dubya simply miscalculated in his using the press, exploitation of Abizaid, and insulting the intelligence of the American people (most of which were conservatives.) MY OPINION."
Which part of your statement is your opinion?
"Here's a question: Was the Port Deal a strategic military ploy, OR purely just globalist business as usual?"
My opinion...It was globalist business as usual. One foreign company was bought by another. It happens all the time. It just so happens in this case that Chuck Schumer recognized the opportunity to make political hay, so he did. The reason he was able to make political hay was because the company doing the buying out in this case happened to be an Arab company. If the Germans were buying out P&O, this wouldn't have been noted publicly outside page 62 of the Wall Street Journal. Unfortunately, the Arab country involved happens to be one of our strongest and oldest allies in the region. And the fundamental reason for terminating the deal was the belief that we couldn't trust that ally. We essentially spit in their face. It's going to hurt us in many strategic ways and will have a significant impact on CENTCOM planning for future operations. If Gen Abizaid didn't have an opinion (which he is allowed to voice) on the matter, he would be derelict in his duties.
In fact, remember how very careful Gen. Pace was in his public statement on Rep. Murtha's agitation for OIF troop withdrawal? That was some verbal minuet, I tell you. Pace went out of his way to "honor" Murtha's service... well, they're both Marines ... before he so politely disagreed. The President also was very careful in any comments on Murtha, who had seriously compromised support for OIF, troop morale, had encouraged the enemy and set back the WOT.
I recall Tommy Franks being interviewed --- at the time his book was coming out during the 2004 campaign --- and when asked about politics, was very coy. And this is a retired general.
So, when I viewed Abizaid making his pro-ports deal pitch plus "anti-Arab" allegations, it struck me like cold water in the face. Military brass, to say the least, are and should be totally focused on military strategy and operations. They are out of their depth in political matters, although they are in the unenviable position of being a bridge between politicians and the troops. Abizaid could be understood to the extent that we dock some ships in UAE and our guys take R'n'R in Dubai; but,as far as making the anti-Arab allegation, that was unprofessional.
"Unfortunately, the Arab country involved happens to be one of our strongest and oldest allies in the region. And the fundamental reason for terminating the deal was the belief that we couldn't trust that ally. We essentially spit in their face. It's going to hurt us in many strategic ways and will have a significant impact on CENTCOM planning for future operations. "
History does not support you.
Can we have been any better allies to SA? We bailed out their a** in Gulf 1 with our blood and treasure. We bent over backwards (huge mistake!) to respect their warped sensibilities. Remember Pres Bush the Father having Thanksgiving dinner off shore? Our troops Christmas there? Our female soldiers in full burkha gear?
We put up with all their cr**, they invested here, set up their Wahabbi terror supporting charities and Wahabbi clerics and materials in schools, Mosques and prisons here. Took over University ME Departments. Basically had free run. Did it matter?
Did they then turn around and ask us to leave their country at Bin Laden's urging?
I might ask you to "prove" Abizaid wasn't asked or strongly encouraged or a mention facilitated by the WH to make a statement that suggesting "bashing," bigot,"xenophobe," or "racist" -- things that the President has been implying refarding objections to this Dubai Deal to certain members of the press.
"Timing?!?! The issue couldn't be any more current. Out of the ordinary...he was commenting on a major strategic issue ...he was responding to a reporter's question about an issue that will have a very significant effect on his ability to accomplish his mission in Southwest Asia. It is certainly not out of the ordinary for him to comment on that issue."
Huh?? A CENTCOM General giving subjective social commentary now of all times?
Has the General yet described exactly who was "bashing," the nature, and exactly how he describes "bashing"??
And did HE feel as though part of himself was bashed indirectly as an "Arab-American"? Is there a difference between "Arab Muslims," and "Arab Christians"?
He could easily have opened himself at the press confereence to a semantic quandary and can o' wormsthat has NOTHING to do with his job. Fortunately even the GOP has "friends" in the MSM. (Btw, I could just imagine General Eisenhower commenting to the press in 1944 about those "German-Bashers.")
"Dubya simply miscalculated in his using the press, exploitation of Abizaid, and insulting the intelligence of the American people (most of which were conservatives.) MY OPINION."
"Which part of your statement is your opinion?"
All of it. And then some.
The handling of the DPW deal was/is still a total PR debacle whichever side of the issue you're on.
Was the Bush Administration ignorant about just how sensitive issue this potentially was going to be? It which required a finesse and openly debated dialog which should have begun months ago.
"My opinion...It was globalist business as usual. One foreign company was bought by another. It happens all the time. It just so happens in this case that Chuck Schumer recognized the opportunity to make political hay, so he did...."
The reaction of conservaive pundits and freepers has PROVEN this deal wasn't "business as usual."
That's where you're outta touch as was the Bush Administration.
Of COURSE Schumer and the Dems were going to hit an home run with this issue. Schumer and the Dems were underhanded by the GOP a baby-pitch on THE one issue they constantly lose -- "security."
"Unfortunately, the Arab country involved happens to be one of our strongest and oldest allies in the region. And the fundamental reason for terminating the deal was the belief that we couldn't trust that ally."
As I've already stated, if so, a stronger case should have preempted the DPW Deal that may have quelled the serious objection you've just witnessed.
"It's going to hurt us in many strategic ways and will have a significant impact on CENTCOM planning for future operations."
Breaking THIS deal? Politics is politics. Business is business. Unless you anticipate some blackmail or extortion over it in the future? (And what kind of real "ally" would that prove them to be?)
"If Gen Abizaid didn't have an opinion (which he is allowed to voice) on the matter, he would be derelict in his duties."
We obviously disagree.