OT: I am finding these pro-UAE port deal posts in GD:P real interesting

[emulatorloo]

I'm sure you are all coming across them. It is just fascinating to see the arguments. Why, if I was a suspicious or paranoid I might wonder. Just as I used to wonder about some of the anti-Kerry or anti-other-Dems-who-are-trying-to-do-something posts.

[ray of light]

1. well, I would assume you're right on your take!

[karynnj]

2. One of the pro-UAE people admitted he works (ed?) in the UAE

Most, however see it as standard global economy, free trade. Some are dealing with it as a normal business deal. The UAE company bought the British company that had the leases, then they were very routinely approved. The problem here is they are assuming that once a country makes a mistake, it can never be rectified.

Here the mistakes (by my biased judgement) were:
-Privatizing critical operations. From what I've read, mainly here -so a grain of salt may be needed, is that this started under Reagan.
-In 2000, a foreign country (UK) was approved to take the leases by the Clinton administration.

The problem is what list is there of the home countries for companies we will allow to run the ports? Not only would that be a political hot potato, would it make people happy if this same company incorporated in the UK. Would it change the threat?

The Republicans likely do not want these to be government jobs. Also, there could be a huge cost to buy back all these leases. If it could jeopordize our future, we may have to do it.

Kerry was smart to only criticise the already provable cronyism and the very perfunctuary nature of the investigation before approval was granted.

[ProSense]

3. I agree about Kerry

IMO, this is just a bad deal.


The is a post in response to an attack on Boxer:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2481716&mesg_id=2481731


This is my observation:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2482117&mesg_id=2482117

[karynnj]

4. Your response was great

Doesn't it seem like the comments of Corzine, Menendez, and Kean Sr (likely to be repeated by Kean Jr) are almost trying to out do each other.

You are totally right, Clinton and Albright didn't see 911 coming, but to some degree Kerry saw the risk. (What's odd is whether dredging all this up will hurt the Clintons as well as Bush. I bet there's at least one Senator who was totally clean on this - not getting a cent from the emirs (who likely don't like him very much.)

[ProSense]

6. Thanks! I think

the Clintons are trying to be all things to all people, and that's leading to alliances that make them look like hypocrites. I don't see why Hillary Clinton returned the contirbutions and why Bill Clinton accepted them? Here election was before 9/11 and his library was after. Now you have Hillary against the deal and Bill in "no comment" land. That article made the ex Clinton people seem greedy, especially since the deal is so questionable. Why would anyone want to be so publicly adamant about a questionable deal focusing on the money aspect of it? Still, Clinton can never be made to look as bad as Bush. The Bush connection to the UAE, including Snow, is "negligently evil" (I saw this in a post).

[FreedomAngel82]

5. Could that be the person who is going around shows talking?

Someone made a post about how some ex UAE worker is going on Thom Hartmann show and Randi's and down playing it.