The Only Argument.
That comes close in my mind, to stopping the port deal is the Richard Clarke fiasco.
By now you are probably aware of this. The CIA had a fairly good fix on Osama Bin Laden, the 9/11 Report says they were about to pull the trigger on some cruise missiles when a plane identified as coming from the UAE Government was spotted in the camp. The shoot was called off (Why? Anyone who associates with the likes of Bin Laden, Zawahiri, Zarqawi, et al know they are targets) on account of that. The report goes on to say Richard Clarke thought he had CIA permission to express displeasure with a high ranking UAE government official visiting with Osama Bin Laden. He supposedly talked to two different Sheiks. Sheik Mohammed (Mohd is a standard abbreviation for Mohammed and I will use from this point on) bin Rashid and Sheik Mohd bin Zayed.
Mohd bin Rashid is the ruler of Dubai. Sheik Mohd bin Zayed was the chief of staff in the UAE government and is from Abu Dhabi (how can I tell? "bin Zayed" means son of Zayed, Sheik Zayed the first president of the UAE and former ruler of Abu Dhabi. Sheik Zayed died early Nov 2004).
Shortly after Mr. Clarke's discussion the hunting camp that Osama Bin Laden had been frequenting disappeared. Also, it was confirmed that Sheik Mohd bin Zayed was in Afghanistan hunting during the time frame the missile strike was contemplated. So it is reasonable to believe it was Sheik Mohd bin Zayed who relayed Clarke's information onto Al Qaida.
Okay, so you are probably wondering why as a supporter I relate the story. Well I present it to put some doubt into the meaning the ports deal detractors are giving it.
Lets suppose the Governor of Minnesota refused to hand over a blogger that the Canadian government wanted. Furthermore let us say Mercury Marine wanted to outfit Canada's cod fishing fleet with marine engines. Question: Would Canada be justified in turning away Mercury Marine because Minnesota refused to hand over the blogger? Silly you say? A government owned company is involved. Okay, let us say for whatever reason the Canadian govt. contracted with the UW to do a study on the cod fishery. The Canadian govt then calls off the deal because the UW may be in cahoots with Captain Ed to bring down the Canadian govt, who knows they may poison the cod fishery and ruin it!
We would find it preposterous to punish a given state for the crimes of another. That is what I believe is happening with this case. The penance for the sins of a sheik from Abu Dbabi is being extracted from Dubai (at least with the Clarke argument).
By now you are probably aware of this. The CIA had a fairly good fix on Osama Bin Laden, the 9/11 Report says they were about to pull the trigger on some cruise missiles when a plane identified as coming from the UAE Government was spotted in the camp. The shoot was called off (Why? Anyone who associates with the likes of Bin Laden, Zawahiri, Zarqawi, et al know they are targets) on account of that. The report goes on to say Richard Clarke thought he had CIA permission to express displeasure with a high ranking UAE government official visiting with Osama Bin Laden. He supposedly talked to two different Sheiks. Sheik Mohammed (Mohd is a standard abbreviation for Mohammed and I will use from this point on) bin Rashid and Sheik Mohd bin Zayed.
Mohd bin Rashid is the ruler of Dubai. Sheik Mohd bin Zayed was the chief of staff in the UAE government and is from Abu Dhabi (how can I tell? "bin Zayed" means son of Zayed, Sheik Zayed the first president of the UAE and former ruler of Abu Dhabi. Sheik Zayed died early Nov 2004).
Shortly after Mr. Clarke's discussion the hunting camp that Osama Bin Laden had been frequenting disappeared. Also, it was confirmed that Sheik Mohd bin Zayed was in Afghanistan hunting during the time frame the missile strike was contemplated. So it is reasonable to believe it was Sheik Mohd bin Zayed who relayed Clarke's information onto Al Qaida.
Okay, so you are probably wondering why as a supporter I relate the story. Well I present it to put some doubt into the meaning the ports deal detractors are giving it.
Lets suppose the Governor of Minnesota refused to hand over a blogger that the Canadian government wanted. Furthermore let us say Mercury Marine wanted to outfit Canada's cod fishing fleet with marine engines. Question: Would Canada be justified in turning away Mercury Marine because Minnesota refused to hand over the blogger? Silly you say? A government owned company is involved. Okay, let us say for whatever reason the Canadian govt. contracted with the UW to do a study on the cod fishery. The Canadian govt then calls off the deal because the UW may be in cahoots with Captain Ed to bring down the Canadian govt, who knows they may poison the cod fishery and ruin it!
We would find it preposterous to punish a given state for the crimes of another. That is what I believe is happening with this case. The penance for the sins of a sheik from Abu Dbabi is being extracted from Dubai (at least with the Clarke argument).
posted by Marcus Aurelius at 8:38 PM
<< Home