A Dubai Finesse ("This Contract Should Have Been Stopped at an Earlier Stage...")

Washington Post ^ | 02/24/2006 | Charles Krauthammer

[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.

[CWOJackson]

LOL! Parse the word control...it's the key element to the loonies arguments.

[PeteB570]

Well now, using your logic I don't see where he mentions you in the article.

So to use your logic, since you can't see ours, you need to stop posting about any article you're not in.

Points 2 and 3 talk about setting up special conditions for one company. That is against US laws. Equality for all, remember?

[KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle]

LOL! Parse the word control...it's the key element to the loonies arguments.

You're obviously getting punchy from lack of sleep, at this point. You just finished whinnying that "words mean things"... and then backpedal frantically, arms pinwheeling and eyes all a-bulge, the very second you're asked to define the meaning(s) of six simple, garden variety words: none of them more than two syllables, and all in the mother tongue.

THINK about that, for just a moment.

And then take another one, immediately after that. :)

[CWOJackson]

Pssssssst. The whole argument is about Arabs controlling our ports. They don't control our ports, they only control commercial ventures...hence, there is no argument.

Understanding that minor distinction isn't that difficult to grasp.

[ohioWfan]

Charles is right most of the time, but not always.

If this were putting our security at risk it would not be happening.

I'll go with the authority of the U.S. military. I figure the Navy and Coast Guard and Tommy Franks know more about what's going on than an opinionator like Charles, no matter how smart he may be.

There is no additional danger to our country because of this deal. The President has been completely consistent on this from Day One.

[Peach]

That was sort of my point when I suggested that Charles might have written this article a little differently when I posted that maybe he didn't know that Saudi Arabia has managed terminals in this country for years.

[KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle]

Well now, using your logic I don't see where he mentions you in the article.

So to use your logic, since you can't see ours, you need to stop posting about any article you're not in.

Oh dear gawd... I've been sitting here all the while, attempting to have an actual, substantive discussion with Tommy Chong.

Yeeeeeeeeeeah, Dr. Thompson. You're absolutely right. I'm not mentioned anywhere whatsoever in Krauthammer's article.

[::backs away, s-l-o-w-l-y...::]

Points 2 and 3 talk about setting up special conditions for one company.

Really? Openly, explicitly advocates just vvvvvvvOOOOMing right the holy heck past Congress and doing all of this unilaterally, does he? Started lobbing about keyboard thunderbolts like "... and no need to involve any of those 'congressmen' or 'senators' in any part of the decision-making process along the way, neither! YEEEEEEEEE-Haaaaawwwwwwww!!" did he?

Do tell.

Show me.

[ohioWfan]

Perhaps being trapped in a liberal city has rubbed off, Peach. Not the political ideology perhaps, but the abrasive, fact-less style.

The one consistent thing I have noticed in the hysterical opposition to this deal on FR is the absence of fact and the presence of feeling in the most vocal opposers.

[ohioWfan]

Stomp your hoof twice if any of this is finally sinking in for you.

Did your parents raise you to be this nasty, or were you just born this way?

Cut it out, OK?

[KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle]

Understanding that minor distinction isn't that difficult to grasp.

This one sure does seem to be, however:

Allow the contract to go through

"Difficult to grasp," I mean.

For some.

[Peach]

I see that post #46 has been removed by the mods. It was MUCH worse than stomp the foot. It was every stereotypical comment about hysterical females - you know - intellectual hysteria, cobwebs between the legs, etc. Just lovely.

[KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle]

Perhaps being trapped in a liberal city has rubbed off, Peach. Not the political ideology perhaps, but the abrasive, fact-less style.

Did your parents raise you to be this nasty, or were you just born this way?

"Factless," I reserve for those who continually bend themselves into double pretzel knots in the spastic (to say nothing of quixotic) attempt to morph a pro-Dubai Ports Deal article into an anti-one.

"Nasty," I reserve for those who champion and/or abet their doing so.

[ohioWfan]

That's what you sounded like, Kent. I thought the same thing. "I'm tenured. I'm protected. I can get away with anything."

Is that what you think?? ...because that's how you sound...

[CWOJackson]

"Control", the key word to this whole argument. A word you seem unable to understand and a state of being that eludes you.

[KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle]

that's how you sound...

Again: "Factless," I reserve for those who continually bend themselves into double pretzel knots in the spastic (to say nothing of quixotic) attempt to morph a pro-Dubai Ports Deal article into an anti-one.

"Nasty," I reserve for those who champion and/or abet their doing so.

Lather. Rinse. Repeat.

[ohioWfan]

I believe the most offensive post was deleted. CBoldt.

Kent is WAY out of line on this one. It isn't wise to defend him here. He's exhibiting a serious problem which probably should be dealt with at a personal level.

[johnny7]

At first I was 'mildly' concerned about the transaction....now, I'm more concerned about the opposers of the deal.

If it's got Hillary & Schumer 'agin it... that alone should raise an eyebrow.

[ohioWfan]

Well..........you obviously think you're cute, but how about dealing with the subject I was talking about?

A poster said you sounded like a tenured professor, and you laughed at him.

I merely said that I agreed that you sounded like a tenured professor with your comment about your 'stay' on FR.

All the rest in your post is completely irrelevant to what I said.

But it DID give you a chance to exhibit your 'cuteness'.........and that seems to be all that you're trying to do here, Kent.

Carry on. I'm sure you'll gather a crowd that will egg you on.

[Peach]

Somewhere upthread there is a comment about "put a cold compress on it". Sounds just like Clinton's "You'd better put some ice on that" comment to Juanita, doesn't it?

[Peach]

Ditto, Johnny.