You're asking me to prove a negative? Even if that were possible, I have no need. You have repeatedly stated that the Whitehouse told Gen Abizaid to make his statements. You obviously have no evidence to support that, and later in your last post you admit it is merely your opinion. I am fine with that.
"A CENTCOM General giving subjective social commentary now of all times?"
His comments weren't some broad, spontaneous sermon on debate tactics. He was directly responding to a specific question regarding a specific issue that is currently dominating the news cycle. When do you suppose he should answer a direct question about a specific topic?
"Has the General yet described exactly who was "bashing," the nature, and exactly how he describes "bashing"?? "
No, which makes it even more curious that certain individuals take more offense to his comments than others.
"And did HE feel as though part of himself was bashed indirectly as an "Arab-American"?"
Don't know, don't care. But you are starting to sound like you think his comments might have been self-motivated and initiated.
"He could easily have opened himself at the press confereence to a semantic quandary and can o' worms"
Easiest thing in the world at a press conference to say "No further comment".
"The handling of the DPW deal was/is still a total PR debacle whichever side of the issue you're on."
On this, we agree.
"The reaction of conservaive pundits and freepers has PROVEN this deal wasn't "business as usual.""
ONLY because this issue was brought to their attention (by the likes of Chuck Schumer no less). From there it was dramatically distorted by the MSM until the reality of what was actually involved is so obscured that most people can't really state with any certainty what was involved. The fact is, most of our ports are under foreign management. Several of our airports have various levels of foreign management. There have been 1500 CFIUS reviews of foreign investment in the United States including port management transfers to China and Saudi Arabia. None of them became the public issue this has because they didn't have conniving opportunists like Chuck Schumer distorting them and elevating them to a national debate.
"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."
Again, we agree. The Whitehouse was caught absolutely flat footed on this issue and never did really respond. They needed to move before the negative momentum and distortions that overwhelmed this issue became insurmountable.
"Breaking THIS deal? Politics is politics. Business is business."
When was the last time we canceled a major business deal with an ally because we said we couldn't trust them due to their ethnicity? That is going to have a long term impact on our future relations with the UAE. And it is going to hurt us.
Rokke, it's ALWAYS opinion and speculation here at FR, isn't it? We assess on what we see, hear, AND feel.
Of course I wasn't privy to what the White House may or may not have suggested to Abizaid, but let's put it THIS way:
Maybe the word for Abizaid shouldn't have been described as "ordered," but "solicited" by the WH to speak as he did on the matter, while he undoubtedly had his comments greenlighted by the WH. I still believe his comment was inappropriate.
As to my other questions posed towards Abizaid, I was playing devil's advocate of follow-up questions by the MSM whose answers (though honest) may have proven embarrassing or inappropriate as well.
"When was the last time we canceled a major business deal with an ally because we said we couldn't trust them due to their ethnicity? That is going to have a long term impact on our future relations with the UAE. And it is going to hurt us."
Well, opposition to this particular business deal had less to do with "Arab," and more to do with the wacky tenets of their religion -- Islam.
When the "business" involves national security, Muslims are just not trusted by Americans.
Perhaps if the UAE's track record as an "ally" was longer....
So just how do you think the rejection of this deal will "hurt us?"
That "hurt" will go BOTH ways if that's the way the UAE wants to play it.