Posted on 03/15/2006 9:43:33 PM PST by stand4somethin
It was surreal to hear Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., the multicultural guru, lecture us about the dangers of these Gulf middlemen -- even as her huckstering husband advised the United Arab Emirates how to finesse the American Congress.
(Excerpt) Read more at realclearpolitics.com ...
after the lawyer for a Miami cargo operator (Eller & Co) who wanted to stop the sale strictly on a business basis - his clients had a joint venture deal with P&O that they were afraid would be a financial loss to them if they had to renegotiate the deal with DPW - got the ear of Chuckie, then Peter King, then Hillary
who all played on the utter lack of knowledge of world geography, commerce and the shipping industry of most Americans.
The objection of Eller &CO was fiscal not anti-terrorism, and they got what they wanted. I would not be surprised if they become bidders in the sale of the P&O contracts that DPW now has to divest.
A Republican administration -- almost daily accused of talking down to "the people" -- somehow feels no need to reveal how its own familiar world of transnational corporations works. Much less does anyone up on Olympus explain to us mere mortals below why our long-term strategic interests would remain safe with ports owned by Dubai's government.
Ok, I'll accept this, The WH was blindsided by this, and they should not have been. There are large portions of our side of the aisle for whom nothing good can come from the Arab world, and for some the ultimate solution the the worlds problems is for America to raise the drawbridge, lower the portcullis, and man the barricades.. To say they are simplistic would be a MAJOR understatement.
The result of still more of this Harriet-Meyers "trust me" approach is that the ports deal is pilloried as near traitorous by prairie-fire conservative talk radio, blogs and cable news. The administration apparently never thought that the hyped caricature of Arabs guiding cranes on our docks was going to provide good fodder.
I am VERY disappointed in the likes of Bill Bernnet, Hugh Hewitt for opposing this deal. They should know better, that the Michael Savage's of the world opposed it comes as no suprise, but then what do you expect of a demagogue.
Know-Nothings 1 Sane people 0
So am I. While I am definitely not a UN-supporting kumbayah globalist, I recognize that America has to exist on the planet as it is now, not as Buchananites would wish it to be. We have to have allies. We have to interact with other countries. We have to respect countries that want to work with us, and not instill fear against them unreasonably.
Bill Bennett is uninformed on so many issues that I cannot listen to him. Hugh Hewitt's position was a big disappointment. Savage is a barking dog, AFAIC.
That Savage is the #3(?) talk show in the country is....disturbing, to say the least.
"I am VERY disappointed in the likes of Bill Bernnet, Hugh Hewitt for opposing this deal"
Wasn't Hannity against as well? Regardless... the buck stops at the White House. It was a PR bungfungle. I was against from the start.
"Savage is the #3(?) talk show in the country is....disturbing, to say the least"
Maybe "you can't handle the truth"
I have no data and neither do you, but I'll bet they did when the Roman army first went into Gaul.
3. Rome controlled vast sums of wealth from which to sustain a large army on foreign soil
I disagree. Relatively speaking the US is in the same position. You can bet that if the US were ever seriously threatened there would be plenty of money to defend it.
4. Divide and conquer may be a decent temporary tactic for us but not a winning tactic like it was for Caesar due to the fact that it is a strategy that takes a long period of time... which growing nuclear threat makes untenable
The nuclear threat from Islamists has made our new friendship with Pakistan all that more a piece of diplomatic genius. Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) has historically extended time constants for agression so I would again disagree with your counter.
"Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) has historically extended time constants for agression"
I trusted the old Soviet bloc with MAD but not the Islamofascists. Do you?
Pakistan- yes. Iran with its current leadership- probably not, but either Israel or the US will take care of that short term situation in the near future.
"Pakistan- yes. Iran with its current leadership- probably not"
Well... I don't trust any of them... not as long as they are reading the Koran.
What should be done is to say that no company that is state owned, can takeover a public company, as they have unfair advantages in finance costs etc.
That way the playing field is level and no one gets insulted, but it's too late now on this deal.
"but it's too late now on this deal"
yeppers... its over... the fat lady sang. It was a real White House ball dropper.
Divide and Conquer is what the Muslims are doing to us.
First Europe and then us.
Between those here who understand the existential nature of this threat and know it must be fought to win, and those who believe we can moderate countries like Pakistan and the UAE.
"2. Rome itself was never under threat of Gaul"
Yes. The Romans did not welcome the Gaulists into Rome for coin.
"Divide and Conquer is what the Muslims are doing to us"
Bingo... you win the prize today
Even this was met with angst.
Anyway, despite effectively sitting the fence on this, I can't help but feel I have been taken to the woodshed on this one.
Response to Post #6
Mercy! I think the basis and logic you use to support our war strategy is whoefully misguided. I agree in the divide part, but not the conquer.
You insist that we are in a war with all people of Islamic faith (divide and conquer, geonocide, etc). If you meant something otherwise, post the correction. I believe this is wrong. We are not in a war with all people of Islamic faith (or with the "Nation of Islam"). Which also goes against your strategy of "conquering" the radical sect of the religion prior to killing the more passive portion of the population. You also mention geonocide. You are scary.
I in no way excuse the terrorists. They should all be sent to their virgins in an expediant fashion. But Christians had their darkest hour once upon a time. We evolved eventually. And it was not all Christians, but a pretty radical sect lead by religious leaders and zeolots.
Now for the divide part; You are correct and Bush, bless his heart, has tried to separate and distinguish our enemy's from "all people of Islamic Faith." His only tool, unfortunately, is media. And as we know, the liberals even shut down his media (propaganda) effort in the Middle East. Forget about the American media.
Enemies of the United States have no closer ally than the American media.
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.