Politics as (un)usual: Now discussing the Dubai Ports World Deal

Discussion in 'Archive: The Senate Floor' started by KnightWriter, Dec 21, 2005.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Jansons_Funny_Twin Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Jul 31, 2002
    star 6
    This proves that Karl Rove's strategy of simplistic sound-bites is a short-term success only.

    The Dubai Ports World deal is a complex issue, dare I say...nuanced?

    But Rove and his ilk have given the public a general dumbing down, and instead of trying to explain the issue, they tried to say 'Hey, we're the government, trust us'.

    They also, intentionally or not, put up an environment of fear when it comes to the Middle East among many people in America.

    They're reaping what they sow.




    You ungrateful, metal pansy!
  2. BenduHopkins Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Apr 7, 2004
    star 4
    The emirates has too much to lose by being a security risk

    Yes, it is interesting. Unfortunately, they should have thought of that sooner. They need to be patient with America, and in the meantime, work on their policies and their image.
  3. Mr44 VIP

    Member Since:
    May 21, 2002
    star 6
    'Hey, we're the government, trust us'.

    I certainly don't think this is a recent invention. Perhaps it started back when a President said "I cannot tell a lie.." despite his ties to the cherry/lumber lobbies... :p
  4. Obi-Wan McCartney Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Aug 17, 1999
    star 5
    Are we still talking about this? Jimmy Carter and George Bush AGREE on this one.

    I mean, come on. When was the last time Jimmy agreed with Dubya on anything? If Jimmy agrees, and all the usual idiot democrat and republican forces disagree, then Bush must be really, really right.
  5. Mr44 VIP

    Member Since:
    May 21, 2002
    star 6
    Don't forget about one Clinton being a lobbyist for Dubai, while the other Clinton raising concerns about the situation..

    That must have made for interesting dinner conversation...
  6. Ghost Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Oct 13, 2003
    star 6
  7. BenduHopkins Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Apr 7, 2004
    star 4
    Don't forget about one Clinton being a lobbyist for Dubai, while the other Clinton raising concerns about the situation..

    Lobbyist? I read that he advised Dubai to suggest the 45 day investigation, which helped Hillary's cause. I wouldn't be surprised if she asked him to use his relationship with them, which he naturally developed as a US president, to help the opposition to the deal postpone it. Nowhere did I read he was a lobbyist for them, ongoing or otherwise.
  8. Mr44 VIP

    Member Since:
    May 21, 2002
    star 6
    Well, it really was more of a political in-joke to share with OWM, but:

    FT HERE

    ill Clinton, former US president, advised top officials from Dubai two weeks ago on how to address growing US concerns over the acquisition of five US container terminals by DP World.

    It came even as his wife, Senator Hillary Clinton, was leading efforts to derail the deal.


    or in more detail:

    HILL UNAWARE

    But former President Bill Clinton's ties to Dubai and the United Arab Emirates should not have come as a surprise to his New York senator wife.

    Mrs Clinton's own senatorial financial disclosure forms reveal that her husband earned $450,000 giving speeches in Dubai in 2002.

    Officials from the UAE also donated between $500,000 and $1m to fund Mr Clinton's presidential library in Arkansas.

    It was part of an effort by the emirates, said a person close to UAE officials, to forge a close relationship with a former US president who is influential and highly regarded in the region.


    But as OWM said above, Dubya, Jimmy, Slick all agree on the deal, what does that mean? Either they realize its importance, or a politician is a politician is a politician...
  9. BenduHopkins Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Apr 7, 2004
    star 4
    I had read the first article, but not the second. I, for one, am glad that Bill advised them to undergo a 45 day review, because it undermined the pro-deal camp's attempt to bypass a legally-required 45-day review. The issue is bigger than the Clintons, but here are some key facts from an article that IMO has a little less anti-Clinton spin:

    Bill Clinton Advised Firm From Dubai on Port Deal Before Wife Opposed It
    By Jerry Zremski


    ...days before the senator introduced her bill, her husband received a call from leaders of Dubai Ports World, the port company, to discuss the proposed sale, said Jay Carson, former President Clinton's spokesman.

    Former President Clinton, who was traveling in India and Pakistan at the time, told the Dubai leaders that he couldn't speak specifically about the port deal because he was unfamiliar with it, Carson said.


    Hmm. Not as shady as the other article. And more detailed too!

    "What he did say was that any ports proposal should be subject to full scrutiny," Carson added.

    In this case, "full scrutiny" under the law means subjecting the port purchase to a thorough 45-day review, which the Bush administration initially skipped but that the Dubai company later agreed to in hopes of quelling the furor surrounding the deal.

    In addition, Clinton told the Dubai representatives that any deal would have to ensure port security, Carson added.


    Ok, it's getting clearer now.

    Clinton does not formally advise the Dubai company and receives no pay from it, Carson added.

    Despite their differing roles, the Clintons are "in total lockstep" on the issue, Carson said.

    "He's fully supportive of her legislation," Carson said.

    But Reines added: "Her position on the port deal is clear."


    It goes on.
    Nevertheless, Sen. Clinton's likely opponent in her re-election bid this fall, former Yonkers Mayor John Spencer, issued a statement lambasting the Clintons for their activity on the port deal.

    "Sen. Clinton and her husband are the ultimate hypocrites," Spencer said. "She claims to oppose the ports deal while he works behind the scenes to pass it."

    Spencer noted that the former president received $300,000 for a speaking engagement in Dubai in 2002, and added: "Sen. Clinton should also come clean and tell us when she learned President Clinton was working for the ports deal."

    In response, Carson said he did not know when Clinton told his wife about his conversation with the Dubai interests.


    I don't know what's wrong with being paid for speaking at a place, when you're retired. Bill's limited role with the UAE since his presidency seems to have focused on building a better relationship with the U.S.

    And at least Bill gave the UAE advice which was in accordance with the law, while our current leaders are just trying to slip it through.

    But as OWM said above, Dubya, Jimmy, Slick all agree on the deal, what does that mean? Either they realize its importance, or a politician is a politician is a politician...

    Jimmy is for it, but I'd bet he's also for an additional 45 day review. Clinton was neutral when he advised Dubai, but now supports his wife, and W, as usual, is extremely careless.
  10. Obi-Wan McCartney Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Aug 17, 1999
    star 5
    Yeah, I knew about slick, but I couldn't find a good way to balance him out. I mean, if Newt Gingrich or Ken Starr were for the port deal, then maybe...
  11. Mr44 VIP

    Member Since:
    May 21, 2002
    star 6
    No one's commenting on the announcement that after Dubai World Ports finishes its acquisition of P&O, it's going to sell its US port rights to an (as yet) undisclosed US company? Out of the £3.9 Billion deal, US operations account for about 9% of the price.

    If you ask me, the ultimate in irony would be if that undisclosed US company turned out to be Halliburton... [face_mischief]
  12. Coruscant Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Feb 15, 2004
    star 6
    That's a whole 'nother can of worms right there. :p

    There wouldn't be mixed opposition lines with that, I'm sure. [face_laugh]

  13. Darth Mischievous Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Oct 12, 1999
    star 6
    Perceptions are now shifting:

    Washington Post: Negative Perception Of Islam Increasing

    This sentence is particularly relevant:

    As the war in Iraq grinds into its fourth year, a growing proportion of Americans are expressing unfavorable views of Islam, and a majority now say that Muslims are disproportionately prone to violence, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.


    The Port deal is part of this reality...
  14. Kimball_Kinnison Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Oct 28, 2001
    star 6
    Today, there is a very good article discussing the potential effects of the blocked port deal.

    It was written by none other than my brother, JediSmuggler, so I may be just a little biased.

    Kimball Kinnison
  15. Mr44 VIP

    Member Since:
    May 21, 2002
    star 6
    Excellent analysis there, kudos to your brother.

    It's certainly an effective counter to the "OMG, THEY'RE ARABS, AND THEREFORE TERRORISTS!!!1!" argument that has been prevalent the last couple of weeks.
  16. JediSmuggler Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jun 5, 1999
    star 5
    Two other pieces on the deal were run at Strategypage.com:
    http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htiw/articles/20060313.aspx

    http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htmurph/articles/20060224.aspx
  17. BenduHopkins Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Apr 7, 2004
    star 4
    It's certainly an effective counter to the "OMG, THEY'RE ARABS, AND THEREFORE TERRORISTS!!!1!" argument that has been prevalent the last couple of weeks.

    Well ain't that the pot calling the kettle black? Isn't that the same rationale you've bought into to justify the murder of thousands of innocent people? Nobody's been saying that except maybe right wing citizens who have privately opposed the deal.

    Seriously, this is a humongous distraction from the real issue. An expert Rove-ian tactic that really has nothing whatsoever to do with the reason it was controversial in Washington.
  18. Kimball_Kinnison Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Oct 28, 2001
    star 6
    What murder of thousands of innocent people?

    Collateral damage in the course of military operations is not the same thing as murder. If you think it is, then you need a better dictionary.

    Kimball Kinnison
  19. Mr44 VIP

    Member Since:
    May 21, 2002
    star 6
    I've attempted to justify the murder of thousands of innocent people? That's certainly news to me. In fact, I've been consistantly supportive of intervention to prevent such large scale murder.

    With this issue, here are a few random sentences, posted verbatim, by someone in this thread who certainly couldn't be considered a right wing citizen:

    All reasons why this person wanted to block the ports deal:

    If Congress blocks this acquisition, it will send a symbolic message to the Islamic world: "We will not sell our port security to any company run by a state which acknowledges terrorism, no matter how in bed we are with their oil industry."

    If we want to treat them like equals in managing our borders, now is not the time.

    It's no secret that UAE has financial interests in the US. But that doesn't mean they wouldn't gladly own everything we have.

    Two of the 9/11 hijackers came from the United Arab Emirates.

    It just seems to me that there are a lot of "us vs them" type of statements in the above lines of thinking, but I guess only the person who made them can determine that.
  20. Obi-Wan McCartney Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Aug 17, 1999
    star 5
    First, I can't believe I agree with both Kimball brothers, let alone President Bush.

    Second, if you look up the definition of murder, collateral damage certainly could count. Now, international laws and federal preemptions apply, so no murder charges will be filed, but come on.

    If Canada invaded America to liberate us of our President and killed thousands of people in the process, I think you could charecterize that slaughter as murder.

  21. Kimball_Kinnison Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Oct 28, 2001
    star 6
    Umm... I'm the younger brother, and he doesn't go by anything related to the name "Kimball"...

    :p

    Kimball Kinnison
  22. Mr44 VIP

    Member Since:
    May 21, 2002
    star 6
    Second, if you look up the definition of murder, collateral damage certainly could count. Now, international laws and federal preemptions apply, so no murder charges will be filed, but come on.

    As a lawyer, per definition, you know that's not true. I guess one could make a case for unintentional homicide, but that's not really the scope of this thread.

    More importantly, one still has to be realistic with how the world operates. If the UN organized a military operation to prevent the genocide in the Congo, using the best intentions, how could the ethnic militias be forced to stop? Use harsh language? Hand out free teddy bears? The use military force and the potential loss of human life isn't intrinisically murder, except in the strictist pacifistic doctrine.
  23. BenduHopkins Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Apr 7, 2004
    star 4
    I wouldn't consider collateral damage to be murder if the reason for the damage was a noble cause (saving millions of lives, protecting a country from an large scale attack). But the person who committed the act of violence knew it was unnecessary, using the "Arabs are terrorists" justification, I'd call that murder. (cue the 'sanctions were killing people' smoke and mirrors defense....right...about... now.)
  24. Kimball_Kinnison Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Oct 28, 2001
    star 6
    Go ahead and call it that all you want. It just shows how far off the deep end you have gone.

    Kimball Kinnison
  25. Mr44 VIP

    Member Since:
    May 21, 2002
    star 6
    Yeah maybe. But I could call a shoe a hat, but it still wouldn't fit on my head.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.