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 ...
Now that, I'll give you a point for. Funny! :)
The last ditch defense of the truly desperate is often how long their tenure is. Try some decaf man.
ROFL. Poor put upon me? Not quite, hon. I don't believe in victimhood as endorsed by Oprahland. What I do believe is what I said -- emasculated men just can't deal with women who have an opinion they don't agree without resorting to the rather tired "intellectual hysteria" garbage, and you delivered beautifully.
[::shrugs::] Tell a mod, then.
Not necessary, thanks. I'm not the one making up wholly alient positions for a posted article's author entirely out of whole cloth, after all. :)
Why?
No one else attempting (ineptly) to make your own putative gender an issue here but you, kiddo.
Because it vexes you enough to attempt some small snark with it in the first place, evidently.
Certainly needn't do so, if you'd prefer not to; s'all good with me, either way. :)
And no one on this thread has made more assumptions without facts than you on this thread.
Agreed. Not really that big a security issue. We're obviously throwing them a bone for some reason.
Did you find part of my post hysterical, or are you talking about the theater on Capitol Hill?
Do you think the UAE agreed to put boots on the ground if we go into Iran?
Those words are very significant and totally misleading.
I read articles, before posting on them.
I don't willfully mischaracterize the content of same, afterwards.
Your own way of doing things must strike you as being no less sensible, doubtless.
They already have troops on the ground and are also actively involved in training Iraqi police.
"BTW welcome to FR, I hope the Cowboy in our name isn't a reference to bareback mountin' or the "rough riders" comment in your tag line."
No. Actually worked on a ranch when I was younger. I leave the rodeo riding to my cousins.
So let's see. I start out wondering if Charles would have written the same article if he knew that Saudi Arabia already manages terminals in this country and you jumped ugly.
Cobwebs between the legs. Intellectual hysteria. Lie down with a cold compress.
And yet another (wrong) assumption by you -- that I didn't read the article before wondering about whether Charles would have straddled the line as finely as he did had he known about Saudi Arabia. If he did know it, it would have been an interesting point to add to the article and he might not have commented the president should have stopped the deal.
But keep mischaracterizing my posts; it tells me everything about you.
LOL. Having gotten this far into this thread I can tell you this, it is not Peach who is having a tantrum.
Allow the contract to go through
Which part of that is it that you find the most "misleading," or most worth anyone's hopping up and down over like some bug-eyed, caffeine-cranked Imam, pray?
Flail away at insubstantial nits of word choice while pretending not to notice the adamantine, elephantine meat of the article all night long, if you like. (How you jolly yourself online after paying the monthly bill from your ISP is, blessedly, your own lookout, and none of my own.)
I, in turn -- rightfully, and in perpetuity -- reserve the no less sovereign right to point and giggle, if and whenever you (or anyone else) elects to do so in any/all public fora.
Win-win. :)
"control U.S. ports"
I think someone forgot to take their meds this morning :-)
Aren't all the little key words cute? You know, hysterial female and all.
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.