Friday, March 10, 2006

I back Clinton on port deal, ahh but which one?

I have been told that the port deal would have been good for the US. I don’t know. Nobody has asked, let alone answered, the one question I had regarding the UAE’s profit from the ports. How much of that profit was going to find its way back to some Saudi Wahhabi Madras?

When I mentioned my concerns to a friend, he asked me, “So if one penny goes to a Madras, you’d cancel a deal that would buy America a million dollars worth of goodwill in the region?” No. But I don’t know that the reverse equation isn’t what’s going to turn out. I guess at some point you have to trust someone. I’m going to trust Clinton.

Bill Clinton is all for the deal, probably only because he’s making a ton of money as an unregistered foreign lobbyist for the Dubai company. Hey that’s a felony. But it’s Bill, so who cares right? It’s not as if he’s been bopping the help, lied under oath, or bombed and aspirin factory or anything.

Sen Shrillery Clinton is against the deal, probably because she thinks it’s going to make her look tough. Hey Shrill, anyone who isn’t tough enough to boot serial philandering, lying dope that has made her look like a fool for 20 years and embarrassed – oops that’s right it’s impossible to embarrass a Clinton – and should have embarrassed their daughter to the point that she refused to be seen in public with either one of them, ain’t going to look like Joan of Arch for nixing a port deal.

Lex and family are off to Istanbul, Turkey today. We’ll be back in the saddle on Tues. In the meantime, try to get along without your daily shot of Lex.

No comments: