Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
100 words for 100 days: submit your 100 word essay and get published on AlterNet
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Dinner With the Right People

By Arianna Huffington, AlterNet. Posted March 14, 2006.


Bill Clinton, Jack Kemp and how money is clouding the ports deal debate.

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

More stories by Arianna Huffington

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

Lenin's fabled admonition that capitalists are so eager to make a buck they'll sell you the rope with which to hang them is in need of an update: They'll also lease you the ports through which terrorists can sneak the dirty bomb with which to blow them up.

The establishment's full-throated support of the Dubai ports deal is an object lesson in how huge amounts of money can cloud the thinking of people on both sides of the political spectrum.

The latest example of someone whose judgment has been clouded by cash is Jack Kemp. There he was on "Meet the Press" on Sunday defending his public support for the Dubai ports deal. "You're very against public opinion," said Tim Russert. "Very much against Congressional opinion."

Kemp was undaunted, and launched into an impassioned defense of the deal and of the United Arab Emerites, echoing a column he wrote taking to task those who have criticized it.

"It's the right thing to do," he said, calling the UAE a "valued ally" and reiterating the claim that canceling the deal would, as he put it in his column, "weaken our own national security and our chances for peace and liberation throughout the Middle East and Africa" (Shades of Andrea Mitchell, another die-hard member of the establishment, who suggested on "Hardball" that killing the ports deal could lead to rioting in the Muslim world).

What Kemp didn't say is that the UAE has invested millions in Free Market Global, an energy-trading company that he chairs.

You think all those zeroes might have had some influence on his opinion? Maybe not. But I'm pretty sure that a disclosure of his financial connection to those he was so fulsomely praising would have had some influence on the opinions of those watching.

Especially if viewers learned that Gen. Tommy Franks, whom Kemp used as his debating trump card -- quoting both in print and on "Meet the Press" the General extolling the Emirates -- is on the advisory board of Free Market Global, and stands to profit from maintaining good relations with the oil-rich emirs.

I called Kemp to ask him why he hadn't mentioned this intersection of interests, but I haven't heard back, even though I said why I was calling. Or perhaps because I did.

Despite Kemp's reputation as the GOP's go-to guy on poverty and economic disenfranchisement, he remains masterful at the Washington money-power game.

A 2004 Jane Mayer article in the New Yorker on Dick Cheney and Halliburton's Iraq contracts, quotes a businessman with close ties to the Bush administration as saying: "This is how corruption is done these days. It's not about bribes. You just help your friends to get access. Cheney doesn't call the Defense Department and tell them, 'Pick Halliburton.' It's just having dinner with the right people."

Earlier, Mayer described how Kemp, while seeking help for a venture in Iraq in 2003, had had Cheney over for dinner, along with two sons of the President of the UAE. This is especially interesting in light of what a powerful -- and politically connected -- entrepreneur told me: that Cheney was the real force behind the administration's rapid approval of the Dubai deal.

Just scratch the surface of Kemp's business dealings and relationships, and all sorts of interesting connections ooze out. For instance, there were Kemp's 2003 efforts to establish a "21st Century Marshall Plan" for Iraq. Among those helping him develop the plan was Samir Vincent, an Iraqi-American businessman who was a player in the oil-for-food scandal, and who last year pleaded guilty to illegally lobbying for Iraq. Prior to becoming involved with Vincent, Kemp had gotten the thumbs up on him from former Secretary of Defense Frank Carlucci, who assured Kemp that Vincent was his tennis partner and "a good guy". Game, set, match. For his part, Carlucci is the chairman emeritus of the Carlyle Group, the Bushies' favorite private equity firm. Carlyle has received at least $100 million in funding from the ruling families of...yep, the UAE.

Consulting deals, investment deals, equity deals... port deals. They are all part of the same money-as- political-lubricant continuum. Policy KY. "It's just having dinner with the right people."

People like Bill Clinton who, we learned last week, had advised the UAE on the ports deal. I can't help but wonder if that advice was in any way colored by the millions (the exact figures are still not in) Dubai has given to Clinton -- in speaking fees and donations to his presidential library. And then, as Lloyd Grove reports, there is Clinton's lucrative relationship with Ron Burkle's private investment firm, Yucaipa, which has partnered with Dubai in bidding on some major investment deals. Money clouds on both sides of the aisle.

That's why transparency is so important on matters like this. Jack Kemp, Bill Clinton, and the establishment's cost-benefit analysis of the Dubai ports deal is clearly different than yours or mine.

Pocketing millions may allow them to overlook the very real risks the deal brings. For the rest of us, we have to ask ourselves: is even the slightest increase in risk to our security worth it?

The answer for those of us not on the receiving end of the UAE's largess remains a resounding "No!"

Digg!

Find more Arianna at the Huffington Post.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Ports story sound and fury, signifying nothing
Posted by: banjax on Mar 14, 2006 6:20 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have to agree with the Christian Science Monitor's story- this condemnation of the Dubai company is a knee-jerk reaction against Muslims.

From the article:

'But P&O has no responsibility for security. "We have our own police force, harbor patrol, customs officers, and Coast Guard," says Chris Bonura, spokesman for the Port of New Orleans. "That won't change no matter who is operating the terminal."'
'Other who work within the port communities agree. They note that P&O will not be "managing" the ports, as many news organizations have reported. Instead, the company is one of many that leases terminals at the port.'

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

OK, I'll be "knee-jerk" against state owned companies?
Posted by: ABetterFuture on Mar 14, 2006 9:56 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I've been to Dubai. And Abu Dhabi. Numerous times. The people are generally wonderful, although they won't show R-rated movies without heavy editing. And many of the girls wear blankets 24/7 365. Otherwise, you woudn't know the difference (aside from the men wearing "dresses") between most cities in the U.A.E. and most cities in the U.S. (well, there is an entire gold center, the "gold souk" (sp) that you won't find on most main streets).

I'm against the ports deal because of my disdain for state ownership. Any increase in state ownership is a decrease in individual liberty. And any State the wishes to Own is a threat to anyone who has anything in the way of State Owned State Lawyers and/or State Owned State Tanks. Good and decent States/Governments exist to protect citizens, not to turn a profit...

...in my opinion. Thus, I could almost give not one good goshdarn whether this deal was iceberged over racism, religionism, terrorism, or any other -ism people could care to invent. And I'm even fine with the "foil-hat-told-me-not-to" argument, this time. State Ownership is to be opposed where ever it rears it's ugly head, regardless of what sort of hat/ballcap/turban/chapeau happens to be on that ugly head.

That is as plain and simple of an argument as I can make over two fistfuls of scotch on the topic of outsourcing our port deals to the State Of Anywhere (regardless of national/popular religion/ethnicity).

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Does it really matter?
Posted by: Presh on Mar 15, 2006 2:39 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It doesn't matter which company runs the ports. They will still try to screw their workers and turn a quick buck. Screwed by an American company or by an overseas based company. What's the difference?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

gramps
Posted by: gramps on Mar 15, 2006 4:08 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We are watching the world go to hell in a hand-basket but some people are so fat that it has lodged between their ears. This is particularly true of Libertarians. They want to privatize everything including the key to their mother's bedroom. That great American Ronald Reagan privatized American ports just as in California, (when he was governor) he privatized mental health and filled our streets with mental patients. Perhaps some of Arianna's commentators belong to that group.

Our government has been coopted by the corporations, but structurally it is the best there is. The ports of America belong to the American people and should never be put in the hands of profit mad individuals.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: gramps Posted by: jeff2045
Democrats: "See! We hate Arabs too!"
Posted by: AlanSmithee on Mar 15, 2006 4:34 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Is this the most racist democrat attack on Arabs since they sent their character assassins after Ralph Nader? Stay tuned!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Just For the Record.
Posted by: douglashoyt on Mar 15, 2006 5:34 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Osama Bin Laden was a valued ally at one time,too. He was our man in Afganistan when the Soviets' were getting kicked around by the Mujahadeen.

Where are all those "Stinger Missles" we gave them, BTW?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Just For the Record. Posted by: AlienSlave
Seeing conservatives cry about the alleged "racism" of others
Posted by: esactun on Mar 15, 2006 10:07 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
is utterly laughable. It's the pot calling the copy paper black. It's like the KKK calling the NAACP a bunch or bigots.

No foreign government should be in control of such important national assets. Not Dubai, not Britain. Anyone who thinks it's OK to let a foreign government run the port because "we're doing security" is more than a little naive. And of course, to such folks, bringing up Dubia's terror connections is somehow racist, but pulling aside Arab-Americans for extra scrutiny at airports isn't--so sense can't be expected from those quarters.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Handing him the rope?
Posted by: Mycos on Mar 16, 2006 2:19 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You mentioned that he needs another 9/11 to save his ass. You also say that the port deal can only be the result of a mind clouded by money.
But Karl Rove would say it was a means by which to garner another attack, thereby living up to his praises as a Turd Blossom. Voila ! A perfect opportunity to go back to Nov 12 and start in on another 5 years of protecting us all.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What passes for leadership today. . .
Posted by: monkeywrench on Mar 16, 2006 9:42 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Soo-Wee! Soo-Wee! Money's on the barrelhead!!

Don't ya' just love the way our trusted politicians come-a-runnin' any time someone – anyone – shouts that call? Letting a company, from a Middle East country that allowed Al Qaeda money to pass through its banks, run our ports is "good for America" – as long as it comes with a large stipend for the one doing the recommending – be it Democrat or Republican. When our "leaders" in Washington try to "roll their own" by wrapping their high falootin' ideology in thousand-dollar bills, they not only risk degrading our national security (the Dubai Ports World fiasco), but they also insult our intelligence. Do these jerks really think we believe the tripe they're boiling up for us, or do they simply not care, their empty pronouncements in favor of "the good of the nation" acting as both wool over the our eyes and self-delusion on their part?

Frankly, beyond the lawbreaking and dirty-deal-making, I'm getting sick and tired of the SHEER STUPIDITY of these people. Can't we find anyone to populate Congress and the White House who simultaneously possesses an I.Q. greater than par golf and a moral code better than that of a Gila Monster? What laughingly passes for "leadership" in America these days is less than pathetic.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Look a little deeper
Posted by: Edward George on Mar 24, 2006 12:10 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's true that the Coast Guard would still be "responsible" for port security but it's also true that they are not carrying out that responsibility and do not have the plans or resources for doing so. It's also true that, if the contract went through, middle eastern muslims who have no interest in the survival of America beyond being a money source would know just where the holes in this "security" are; muslims who are friends of friends of middle east muslims who hate America.

The public reaction is really because this has thrown a spotlight on the whole globalization thing; Americans are waking up to those who have no interest in our Constitution or history are taking over the country. Even that staunch supporter of free market capitalism "The Economist" says that globalization is enriching corporations and impoverishing nations. Clearly globalization is striding toward the disappearance of nations, including ours. One might argue as to whether this is good or bad but it is the ultimately lie to claim it is patriotic support of our Constitution, the American flag and all they stand for. In fact support of globalization is the most traitorous act possible.

Corporate free market is the equivalent of freeing crocodiles in a children's playground.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Connections
Posted by: Edward George on Apr 5, 2006 2:28 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I think it would be very useful if someone would research the establishment connections sampled in this article and publish it in the form of a family tree. It could, in fact, be the index to a great book elaborating on the connections.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]