Roger L. Simon: A Paradigm of Fraudulence

I have written on several occasions of my contention that had the Iraq War begun under a Democratic administration, many so-called liberals would feel totally differently about it today, not to mention much of the mainstream media. The shallowness of their beliefs has always struck me as almost laughable. Tonight, I saw on Instapundit what might be paradigm of this kind fraudulence in the following article from the Financial Times - Bill Clinton helped Dubai on ports deal:

Now at first glance this is pretty funny. Mr. and Mrs. just didn't get their stories straight. But in truth they have no stories - and there is nothing to get straight - other than their own ambitions. This wouldn't matter much - it would all just be politics as usual, as it has been practiced in every corner of the globe throughout history. But we are in very serious times now. The lust to "get Bush" whether over the ports deal or anything else ... to the exclusion of actually stopping to think for a moment what is going on ... is so repugnant, so pervasive in our political classes (principally, I regret to say, in my own Democratic Party) that our very culture and civilization is being put at risk. It's not so funny really.

Comments

Comments require registration through TypeKey. Abusive remarks may be deleted. Opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of Roger Simon.

This is pretty funny. But at some point, she's gonna need to say "I disagree with my husband on this." Might as well be now.

She and Congressional Dems are wrong on this one. Politically, though, its just too easy of a target for them to pass up.

BTW, just how statesmenlike were the Republicans the last time THEY were in a ditch (1993, 1999)?

The Clinton's ability to take both sides of the issue should not suprise anyone. And it is possible that they just disagree. The shocking thing would be if the MSM asked either one of them about the glaring differences and even more shocking thing would be if either one said that the other one was just dead wrong. Or will Bill try to claim that he was just acting as a paid political consultant and that his own opinion is in line with HRC's. Another form of triangulation?

"BTW, just how statesmenlike were the Republicans the last time THEY were in a ditch (1993, 1999)?"

But you miss my point. Hillary doesn't "disagree" with Bill in any real way. She has NO VALUEs - therefore there can be no disagreement. It's all fake. Only we live in serious times. Time to humiliate these people.

Mr Clinton...advised Dubai's leaders to propose a 45-day delay to allow for an intensive investigation of the acquisition

I'm not buying it. Given the politics involved and the sleaziness of the Clintons, I bet Bill made this suggestion so that Hillary could demagogue the issue longer.

I've read this post multiple times trying to follow the logic. As far as I can tell, the underlying assumption is that the "Clintons" are being treated as one person. If one person helped the folks from Dubai on their port and then campiagned against it, that would be a "paradigm of frauduelence." In this case, however, it is one person thinking and acting one way and another thinking and acting in another. This argument seems at best, silly, and at worst, offensive because it assumes that Bill and Hillary Clinton are incapable of disagreeing with each other. Is this because they are married, Democrats or what?

Roger then clarifies in the comments with, "But you miss my point. Hillary doesn't "disagree" with Bill in any real way. She has NO VALUEs - therefore there can be no disagreement. It's all fake."

OK, but this post lends no support to such an assertion. The analogy would be if I claimed that a disagreement between Roger Simon and Bill Buckley cannot be honest because Roger Simon has no values. Such an argument, like this one here, would be without merit.

Bill did it for the money and she did it for
the media. At the Senate hearing a few days ago. she was televised concluding that CFIUS, the governmental body whicb approved the deal, did
"a cursory examination" of security concerns.
I laughed at her absurd sophomoric conclusion rendered a few days after the deal had been publicized. The real laugher was that PBS' NewHour had two shots of her comments at the Senate hearing; I wondered is this the Hillary Hour. We will see Hillary's mug on media alot
in the coming months. They love her. Brace yourself and keep the barf bags handy.

This after he ran for President the year before saying you could trust him to protect the American people.

It seems it was Bush, not Clinton, who knew about the NO disaster and ran for President saying you could trust him to protect Americans.

Nothing strange here. This is calculated to show (1) hillary as her own "man" and (2) she can afford to show her "toughness on national security issues". Even though it is clear now (after a couple of weeks new media scrutiny) the deal has very little connection to national security issues. Added bonus to show you get a twofer if she's elected.

I know, it's so craven and opportunistic how Hillary is working one side of this issue and Bill is working another. The Democrats are unprincipled and have nothing other than a mad lust for power. They should take a lesson from statesmen like Sen. Elizabeth Dole and her husband, if they want to make liberalism have any future in the US at all.

I've heard this before. Suffice to say, it is unprovable. amd strictly an article of faith, one that I don't share.

Also, on the port deal, and in other areas, keep in mind that while the Democratic Party's "lust to 'get Bush'", may be "repugnant", may put our "very culture and civilization...at risk", it is also politically impotent. If every Democratic member of Congress opposed the port deal, while their spouse shilled for the UAE behind the scenes, the deal would sail through: Speaker Hastert announced last year that NO bill would come to the floor for a vote unless a MAJORITY of the Republican caucus supported it. The Dubai story is news only because REPUBLICANS are against it. How repugnant is THEIR grandstanding?

Rob and Shochu should familarize themselves
to those days of yore, pre 9/11, a halcyon
time in America; when glamour, multi-lateralism, celebrations of Middle East peace on the White House lawn, working weekends with Yasser at Camp David, feverish policy wonks, and committed interns bringing pizza to the president outstripped leaks, unilateralism and national security concerns and that bald "ogre" Dick Cheney. Return again to those days of yesteryear, those were the days, huh?

My point about Hillary, Markus, regarding values, is not that she is special in that way. She is all too normal. That is SOP for our politics. For her to display some would be a rarity. That is why I have been blogging so much about Tom Lantos lately. He strikes me as one of the few who stands for something beyond party and expedience.

What's much more recent is the breakdown of our old understanding that "politics stops at the water's edge".

"had the Iraq War begun under a Democratic administration, many so-called liberals would feel totally differently about it today, not to mention much of the mainstream media."

True, to some degree.
I would add, that under such a senario many so-called conservatives would also "feel totally differently about it today".
This holds true for a number of divisive issues.
For the partisans on both sides its not so much the policy that's the issue, its who's making the policy that's the issue.

I'm not buying it. Given the politics involved and the sleaziness of the Clintons, I bet Bill made this suggestion so that Hillary could demagogue the issue longer.

Robert, take it easy on the drugs, man. Weekends and evenings, not while you're posting.

And then look up the thousands of articles and documented reports on what really happened in NO.

For the partisans on both sides its not so much the policy that's the issue, its who's making the policy that's the issue.

The annoying thing about it is that one side's idiotarians get taken so much more seriously than the other.

Ah, the knee jerk reflex to blame the Clinton's. What would you guys do without them?

But...who did the Dubai folks hire to smooth the acceptance of the ports through? Why, could it be Bob Dole? The same Bob Dole who's wife, Libby Dole is ALSO in the Senate. Who's wife has also expressed reservation about the ports deal? Oh, no political calculating going on there, nope.

BTW, Bill has said he supports his wife's legislation, but I guess that is just more evidence of his duplicity.

I don't think you read my post and subsequent comments very well, zen_less. Are you rinzai? Go over it again and you will see that the intention here was not to isolate the Cintons but the system itself. Perhaps you are guilty of some distinctly zen_less projection.

Conservatives were foaming at the mouth during the Clinton years when the administration allowed a firm owned by the Chinese Army to operate the strategic Port of Long Beach, CA. I don't remember Democrats raising a stink about it. This was within a year of the time that a major Chinese general threatened to nuke LA (presumably with the bomb falling far enough from Long Beach to preserve the commercial operation going on there).

It would appear that the entire press corps and all Democrats have forgotten about that whole affair.

I haven't kept track of which conservatives are frothing about the Dubai deal. I expect there may be some cases of hypocrisy there also,

Sorry Charlie, videotape doesn't lie, and the one in which he said "I don't think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees" was filmed a day after this one:

John Moore -- "I don't recall which conservatives are frothing about the Dubai deal"

Just for starters, Frank Gaffney: http://www.military.com/opinion/0,15202,87787,00.html

and Sue Myrick:
http://myrick.house.gov/letter%20to%20President%20UAE%20ports.PDF

and the Republican cosponsors of this Peter King bill: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D?d109:26:./temp/~bd0jmg:@@@P|/bss/d109query.html|

The Dubai ports kefuffle is just another opportunity to demonstrate that most politicians of all stripes apparently lack any guiding principles; and (2) the MSM has failed to provide any context to the debate--

By context I mean the facts such as the difference between port and terminal operations; the lack of any significant US firms to run terminal operations, etc etc, and the penetration of some US markets by international companies of all stripes.

If someone really wanted to point to a major problem area, consider that Saudia (the KSA airline) flies in and out of Dulles several times a week and in so doing is within an easy detour to Capitol Hill--Now imagine a Jihadist pilot at the controls--don't even need a high jacker--What is THAT not an issue when the Dubai deal is? (oops--did I racially profile Saudia pilots?--my bad)

Roger, you are being too fair to the dissenters. It is odd that so many posters come to this site oblivious to the real dimension of Bill and Hillary. A couple of points.

Your general criticism of the political class is not supported in this issue. The Dubai ports issue was professionally vetted by CFIUS, the governmental mechanism/entity set up by Congress to deal with these complex foreign ownership issues. Until Hillary, Schumer and Menendez complained, it was a non issue. The media and the conservatives took their bait. At the Senate hearing set up within days of the publicity, Hillary disgraced herself with her silly sophomoric comments which were picked up by the media and made the centerpiece of the nightly news reports. It is the media's flavor of the week.

A favored Washington tactic is to tack away from the wind in a storm which the administration and the Dubai people did with relative ease; another 45 days study which will bless the deal. Issue ended.

The media loves Hillary just as they do McCain; both have been kissed by the New York crowd. Front runners, odds on, blah, blah, barf.

Hillary is shallow [read my lips]; she and her hubby are so intrinsically corrupt. They have no sustaining political principles in contrast to the present administration which can be justly criticised on its follow-through in doing big things - some good and some bad - but not on its idealogy.

The key to understanding Hillary/Bill is the past; an eight year administration of stench and corruption and equivocation.

The Dubai story is news only because REPUBLICANS are against it. How repugnant is THEIR grandstanding?

The Republican's hysteria is sincere. The Democrat's is a purely situational. Once the Democrat's have demagogued this issue for all its worth, they'll revert to faithfully serving CAIR's agenda having innoculated themselves against charges of dhimmitude through their grandstanding on the port deal.

I think you may be on to something here, HA. I can see the banners now, "Vote GOP, Leadership Through Sincere Hysteria."

If Bill and Hilary are corrupt, what does that say about DeLay, Cheney, GWB, etc?

One of the more obvious fallacies in argumentation is the tuo quoque rebuttal
of which you are now guilty. I have not said that "all politicians are corrupt," nor have I opined on the president who I admire; but the Clintons' past performance in high office sufficiently makes my point more valid than yours. Argumentatively speaking !!!

The Iraq war wouldn't have begun under a Democratic administration, because neither Iraq nor Saddam attacked us. That was Osama Bin Laden.

If I read the post correctly, Democrats are terrible because they're looking for excuses to impeach the President... and this, you seem to insinuate, is the only reason for their opposition to the ports deal... but then why would any Republican senator be against the ports deal, if the only possible reason is political points against the President?

I think the Democrats appear quite eager to impeach Bush. But, this seems to be the standard protocol in this day and age. After all, were the republicans not equally as eager to find something/anything to impeach Clinton over?

dclydew: Re republicans and the dubai deal--I suspect some republicans are getting nervous about the mid-term elections, and see the President as a lame duck; looking for distance as it were. That seems to me to simplest explanation. (I am assuming you are using the term "impeach" in the non-constitional meaning of the term, as the closest Mr. Simon came to it was "get Bush.")

But in truth they have no stories - and there is nothing to get straight - other than their own ambitions.

So then, what you're saying is that some, but not all Republicans are playing political football with our Ports, and some, but not all Democrats are playing political footbal with our Ports. Is that basically correct?

Recent comments by Senators (both republican and Democrat) claim that the Committee of Foreign Investments (which did the 30 day review) reviewed only the investment/economic aspects of the deal and didn't broach the subject of security at all... not even to bring the issue to the President, even as an FYI. The much quoted Coast Guard report, while not damning at the present time, did in fact state that they didn't have enough information on the security issues... and this was apparently after the 30 day review.

Good idea or Bad idea, I don't know. I suppose it depends on one's view of economics, security and international trade. However, I think that its reasonable to believe that some of the senators, both Republican and Democrat have real concerns.

And honestly, I'd rather have politicans trying to score points by fighting over who should control our ports than over the President's sexual exploits. Yet, somehow this is different... at least according to the people who appear to have a partisan leaning.

I personally think the FUBAR here was communication (as it always seems to be with the Bush Administration). The UAE had ties with terrorism, the UAE had ties with Al-Queda (in fact, we have real evidence for their involvement as opposed to Iraq's), the UAE may have changed its stripes... but someone that reviewed this should have realized the potential for miscommunication, spin and the inevitable uproar.

Whenever my company makes a change, they consider how that change might be percieved by the associates in the company. Then they make sure to have a communication plan, to avert potential misunderstandings. If the Administration had done this, I think they could have easily diffused the situation. If they had simply handed Congress a report including the economic and security impacts from the very beginning, then at least there would be a much less murky environment for us all to flail about in.

Honestly, no one who has posted on this blog, to my knowledge, is in any position to presume to KNOW anything about this deal. We have news media reports, quotes and sound bytes. To presume that any of those items aren't spun to the left or right is to be blind to our society.

Next year, after DP World takes over the ports, a terrorist group gets a single mole into the company. They find useful information on shipping, on protocol etc. From this information, they develop and plan an attack (completely without the knowledge of UAE or DP World).

Let us say that the attack is successful and another 3000 people die. Upon investigation, we find DP World documents in the belongings of one of the terrorists.

Which Senator would you want to be, the one that demanded a 45 day review, or the one that's the blunt end of a ad campaign about how you're "Soft on Security"?

dclydew--You could have stopped at your first paragraph above--yes, both parties made a political football out of this for whatever reasons; I think your assertion that they had "real concerns" is a bit disengenious as I suspect there wasnt a single senator in the 100 woofdoffs (both R and D)that had any idea how ports are actually run, who is responsible for what, and that there are few if any American companies available to manage terminal operations--and I note that you use the language "control our port," which suggests you also don't know the difference or are more charitably are simply misspeaking yourself.

If you want to make a rant, fine; but, please dont use my innocuous preceeding comment, which remarked about republicans ONLY and use it as a spring board for your rant.

The deal with Dubai is not to take over ports, it is to take over some freight terminals at some ports.

I think the thing that has annoyed me the most about this whole thing is the dishonest and sorry reporting done on the issue. Most people know nothing about this business, they know nothing about things like the Container Security Initiative or any of the myriad and complicated rules and regulations inherent in a transaction like this.

The Coast Gaurd did not nix the deal once they had the facts and as time passes it is becoming more and more obvious that people like Hillary Clinton are grandstanding while people like Frist are looking to the next election.

And no I don't think the Clintons are principled people. I think that Hillary might stop and think that while she is ranting about "foreigners" in our ports, some of those foreigners are from countries like Denmark.

I hope this deal goes through because allies like UAE should not be punished when they have cooperated with the US, but given the atmosphere in Washington today I am sure that they will get the knife in the back if it works to the advantage of the right people.

I hope that they do not respond in kind and tell us to take the Fifth fleet and go home.

In my first post I did mention the possibility that they could be on the opposite side of the fence. People in the same party often disagree. I have never met a married couple that didn't disagree with each other on some major issue. As far as Zen's sarcastic "duplicity" line I would respond, yes. Take cash from one entity on how do get the deal through and then, according to what you have told me, support your spouses bill to shoot it down. Does that sound ethical to you, and if it does could you explain it to me.

Terrye--you are of course right--the poseurs like Sochu John, and dclydew dont even know what the problem is--of course they arent the problem--it is the idiots in our legislative branch--who, will preen and posture, and not be held to account, but in the end will acceed to the president's initiative and approve the ports deal, just as they fell into line with patriot act--Posing only goes so far, and then you have to put your sorry ass on the line and vote--
Why is it that when push comes to shove, the congress always collapses first?

Ahhh--its principled leadership. No? perhaps its knowledge of the issues--No? really?

At any rate, the best the Dems can hope for is to win the mid terms, and even then they would need both houses to file impeachment charges and make them stick--Thats a political non-starter--so them dems are going to continue to be sucking hind teat and waiting for the cavalry that never arrives--Plus--I wish they would impeach George Bush--only so Dick Cheney can be president. Yessss....makes those poor sheep in Brokeback Mountain look like the entire democratic leaderhip!

Markus, the fact that the quote you posted about the levees being breached was taken out of context in a deliberate attempt to defame is widely documented. Better luck next time.

triticale -- I didn't take anything out of context. Here is the Sept. 1 article quoting him as saying no one anticpated a levee breech:

No, he is saying that you are trying to make stuff up, usually by some creative twisting. I don't know why that would surprise anyone, since it is all you have done since you started posting here. (You did hide it well for awhile.)

Oh, for the record, regarding your comment in an earlier topic that people accused you of being a traitor. I don't think you are a traitor. I think traitors have an inherent intellectual honesty (albeit misguided) that you seem to lack.

You don't understand the Ben Franklin quote, either. Pathetic. Amazing how so called "liberal" with the ill-concealed "Will to Power" bent all started mouthing that quote at the same time. I encourage everyone to read Franklin's autobiography.

But don't let me stop you. I'm enjoying it. Do your part to drive another few million moderates into the GOP by default. Polls are transitory. Disgust with your tactics lasts a lifetime.

RogerA says, "....the poseurs like Sochu John, and dclydew dont even know what the problem is...."

I'm sorry, RogerA, I really cannot deduce how you think I am posing, and the stream of conciousness following the above-quoted excerpt provides me no additional clues. As you apparently haven't noticed, I have not really been commenting on the merits of the ports deal here. As this seems to be the substance, such as it is, of your comment, I cannot see how I can be fairly attacked on the issue. Is this something you would care to clarify, or should I assume "poseur" is just excrément you keep on hand for general hurling?

There is an obvious difference between a levee being breached and a levee being overtopped. In the days leading up the hurricane Bush asked people to leave the area and he asked Nagin to evacuate the city. Now it seems Blanco was telling Bush the levees were still intact when they were not.

So, in an obvious attempt to trash Bush the press is doing its usual and so are you. Meanwhile anyone with a D behind their name gets a pass. same old same old.

SJ--you are right--I should not have mentioned you--My point was aimed at some one else, and I apologize.

terrye -- Blanco showed terrible leadership and she's not getting reelected. Hopefully Dems can convince Breaux to run. Either way, she's toast.

Regarding Bush pleading ignorance, saying he knew the levees could be topped but NO ONE told him they could be breached, well...it's the only defense he has, so I guess we'll have to check up on it.

Unless it, ahem, holds water, that video of him being briefed will look GREAT in Democratic ads this fall.

As the poet said, even the President of the United States sometimes has had to stand naked.

Drudge is reporting that the AP has issued a clarification on the videotape of Bush being briefed on Katrina.

WASHINGTON (AP) _ In a March 1 story, The Associated Press reported that federal disaster officials warned President Bush and his homeland security chief before Hurricane Katrina struck that the storm could breach levees in New Orleans, citing confidential video footage of an Aug. 28 briefing among U.S. officials.

The Army Corps of Engineers considers a breach a hole developing in a levee rather than an overrun. The story should have made clear that Bush was warned about floodwaters overrunning the levees, rather than the levees breaking.

The day before the storm hit, Bush was told there were grave concerns that the levees could be overrun. It wasn't until the next morning, as the storm was hitting, that Michael Brown, then head of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, said Bush had inquired about reports of breaches. Bush did not participate in that briefing.

marcus - videotape doesn't lie, but journalists sometimes get sloppy in their synopsis. There *was* conversation about whether or not the levees would be "topped", not about them being "breached." Quite a difference, there. A breached levee keeps letting in water after the storm is over.

After all the relevant departments in the Bush Administration approved the Dubai ports deal, Bush was informed before the news became public. And then Bush cancelled the deal, forcing Dubai to either spin off the US ports, or to cancel the whole purchase of the British firm.

I think we all know that the Clintons (indeed, most Dems) would be screaming about Bush's anti-Arab bigotry and his refusal to treat allies with respect. And most of all, the left would be pointing out that the major benefactor of Bush's decision, indeed the only US company managing major ports is....

"Regarding Bush pleading ignorance, saying he knew the levees could be topped but NO ONE told him they could be breached, well...it's the only defense he has, so I guess we'll have to check up on it."

the AP sloppiness of reporting
is a LOT like the "running our ports" vs.
"managing a freight terminal"
public dis-service in news reporting:

"The Army Corps of Engineers considers a breach a hole developing in a levee rather than an overrun. The story should have made clear that Bush was warned about floodwaters overrunning the levees, rather than the levees breaking.

The day before the storm hit, Bush was told there were grave concerns that the levees could be overrun."

"But one thing about the AP that makes it particularly hard to manage
that no one ever talks about:

Most reporters can file their stories directly onto the wire. There is virtually no editing or fact-checking on breaking news."
-fresh air

the competition between news-wires
and the blog-o-sphere
would seem to suggest that's
a fairly critical parallel:

March 1, 2006: A Paradigm of Fraudulence

Comments

Post a comment

Email This Post