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.

[KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle]

So let's see. I start out wondering

Nope. That's the problem, actually: you started out cocksure... and incorrect.

Unfortunate combo, that.

[Peach]

You really like making assumptions without any facts, don't you? Show me just how cocksure I was. I'm waiting.

[Bahbah]

Aren't all the little key words cute? You know, hysterical female and all.

Well, it's pretty funny when you get right down to it since it isn't the female who is sounding hysterical.

[KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle]

Your words of such great wisdom are a true inspiration for me this morning.

Let's hope so.

I find it interesting that so many people are up in arms about this deal, to include Mr K, and think it should not go forward.

Krauthammer: Allow the contract to go through

Honest to gawd, people. This is just sad, really.

[KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle]

You really like making assumptions without any facts, don't you? Show me just how cocksure I was. I'm waiting.

My god, but I adore cheap irony! :)

[DollyCali]

good post. I will admit to being not up on all the points of the issue & need to really get in & research before I can speak intelligently on it.

[Peach]

Still no facts. Sad. Pathetic, actually.

[KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle]

I can tell you this, it is not Peach who is having a tantrum.

Not alone, no. :)

[PeteB570]

Krauthammer, as per the article you said I didn't read:

"This contract should have been stopped at an earlier stage.."

Maybe it's you who needs to read the article. As I said my comments were based on the last two paragraphs.

[KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle]

Allow the contract to go through

Tell me again how that six word declarative statement is a straddle. Dance for me. :)

[DollyCali]

Kent, you seem to have a good mind & are witty.. but all that is lost when you made remarks to a female that is, well plain offensive. We can discuss the issues with out attacking the person and being a bully of sorts. It is sad to see this on FRee Republic, FReepgards!

[KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle]

so many people are up in arms about this deal, to include Mr K, and think it should not go forward.

You state (repeatedly, and boneheadedly) that people -- quote "to include Mr. K" unquote -- "think it [the port deal] should not go forward."

"Mr K.'s" ACTUAL WORDS: Allow the contract to go through

I can run out and get some flash cards or finger puppets, if you like.

[Delta 21]

[Peach]

That poster isn't letting the actual facts get in the way of his obnoxious posts this morning. LOL

[PeteB570]

You forgot the (1) in front of Allow and the other conditions Krauthammer listed.

He is not in favor of the deal (as per the first part of that paragraph) and wants to tag special "conditions" to this sale.

This is still America and we follow the law. If Congress is not in favor of Arab countries running port operations then Congress needs to pass laws that say so. And just how long before that law gets thrown out by the SC?

This is not Bush's Fault, he is just following the law.

[KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle]

but all that is lost when you made remarks to a female that is, well plain offensive.

Male OR female: intentionally misrepresent a posted article, in the ethically questionable service of setting up straw men entirely alien to said author's plainly stated sentiments... well: that, I find no less "plain offensive."

... and, again: whether any given poster is putatively "female" or not is of no material interest to me (nor, rightfully, should it be).

My sincere thanks for the compliments, however; and for the genuine spirit in which they were obviously offered. That was a kindness, and I will remember it. :)

[Peach]

Hon, I think you're problem is that no one dances for you. Your problems with women are coming through loud and clear this morning.

[PeteB570]

I must totally agree with you.

He tells us to read but when we point out what we read he blows right past it.

He must be feeling a touch on the troll side this AM.

[CWOJackson]

"...allowing Arabs to run our ports."

The Arabs will not run our ports. This isn't about running our ports. If he can't understand that this is a clear and crucial distinction he's utterly off base.

[DollyCali]

You are right that we should be "decent" to both men & women on this forum. Some screen names are hard to tell. I would be offended if someone made the cobwebs/between legs comment to me. If writing a clever satire this would perhaps be okay but not when addressing a woman poster. That is JMHO in the spirit of keeping our forum here one that attacks the issues & not the people.

Now I have to leave the intellectual arena & get the garbage out - a major undertaking in this household.