| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Jihad Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
Jihad Watch Board Vice President Hugh Fitzgerald discusses some important questions that are not being asked in regard to the dead Dubai deal:
A larger question in the now-dead Dubai deal revolves around the large number of people who received large sums of money, as always happens when the Arabs and petro-dollars are involved, to push for the deal. Madeleine Albright, of "the Albright Group," seems to have been in on it. Bill Clinton, he of the "Clinton World Initiative," also. I don't know if Kissinger of "Kissinger Associates" was in on it, but possibly Brent Scowcroft of that same "Kissinger Associates" was. Nor do I know about William Cohen of "The Cohen Group."The scandal is that any high officials were paid anything to push for that Dubai port deal.
Clinton is hardly alone in accepting money from the U.A.E., although his fantastic greed and willingness to be so cavalier in this as in so many other areas causes him to stand out. A long line of Democrats and Republicans is involved, including the former Kennedy apparatchik Fred Dutton (hired by the Saudis when the Democrats were still running things), as well as those who were hired not as full-time employees but were put on retainers as "consultants" or called in for "special missions" -- such as the Dubai Ports deal. Then there are the huge sums for lectures. American soldiers freed Kuwait from the Iraqi invaders during the Gulf War. But it was not any of those soldiers, individually or collectively, but rather the ex-president, George Bush, supposedly full of Yankee rectitude, who personally cleaned up. He delivered a single lecture in Kuwait, which was so eager to "express its gratitude" that it paid Bush $1 million.
Such sums have had, and are having, a direct and damaging influence on the formation of American policy. For decades Arab money has been distributed to former officials in Washington and London and Paris. Some are former diplomats, from ambassadors to lesser fry, keenly aware what opportunities might come their way later on if, while they were still supposedly in the service of the American government, they promoted and parroted Arab views and interests. One suspects that a careful student of the post-government careers and clients of such former diplomats as James Akins, Charles Freeman, John C. West, Andrew Kilgore, Eugene Bird would find ample evidence of this phenomenon.How much has Bill Clinton received in lecture fees -- at Tufts, in the richly-endowed-by-an-Arab businessman Faris lecture? In Qatar a few weeks ago? And in "consultant's fees" for such things as the Dubai project? How much has Madeleine Albright of "The Albright Group" received for her lobbying on behalf of the Arabs of Dubai? How much money have all kinds of people received, in payment for their usefulness in ensuring the continuation of the global Jihad?
These are traitors. They deserve to be named and exposed. They include a great many people in official Washington. So what? They deserve to be named and exposed -- with Democrats in Congress not trying to protect Democrats, and Republicans not trying to protect Republicans. Since OPEC oil wealth will continue to gush, we need to know the ways in which it is used to penetrate and influence our government, our media, our universities. It is not merely what has happened in the past. That army of apologists for and promoters of Saudi Arabia prevented, for more than 30 years, the putting into place of an energy policy that, instead of relying idiotically on our "staunch ally" Saudi Arabia for its supposed "moderation" in oil pricing, would have sensibly been based on a steady rise in gasoline taxes, and on other uses of oil, and on allocation of all such taxes to subsidies for mass transit, the building of newer, and safer, nuclear power plants, and the widespread introduction of solar and wind energy.
Those who have made out like bandits -- those government officials, those corporations -- from "recycling petrodollars" -- have made, for themselves, perhaps some hundreds of millions, and a few billions for their corporations. Very well. But in doing the Saudi bidding, they prevented the implementation of an energy policy that could have saved a trillion dollars in the recapture of oligopolistic rents, over the past 33 years. We, the many, have had to pay an extra trillion. They, the well-connected and very greedy few, in earning their millions for themselves and their relatives and friends, prevented the policies that, had they been put in place in 1973, might have saved that trillion.
Their behavior, which continues, disgusts. Was it worth it? One wants to ask all those receiving Saudi and other Arab oil dollars: Are you proud of yourselves?
Posted by Robert at March 13, 2006 11:09 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
Incredible, Hugh, just incredible. Why is it that we in the West feel compelled to by this Jizyah? Why doesn't anyone petition the Arab oil kings to support their own people? What is it about our mentality as Westerners that we feel so guilty about everything we do that we continue to pay our executioners?
Why do we not have any politicians or leaders who are strong enough or wise enough to stand up and say, "Hey, there is something wrong here, this has to stop!"
What do we do, Hugh?
I just finished sending e-mails back and forth with a friend of mine who is, unfortunately, dangerously ignorant on the topic of Islam. He is one of those people whose main beef with the Iraq War is that he thinks it will just lead to a new generation of Middle Easterners who hate us, continually citing the "poor Middle Eastern boy who will grow up without a father and be angry at us because of it." I did my very best to try to persuade him that, though there are many aspects of the war in Iraq to be critical of, this is one of the most minor. And what of the internecine warfare of the factions of Islam? Will the little Middle Eastern boy whose father, a Shi'a, was killed by a Sunni, not hate all Sunni's then? More importantly, what of all the little Infidel-children, the world over, who are growing up parentless because their fathers and mothers were blown up in their local supermarket, or on a bus, or at their place of worship by a hateful Muslim who had been taught to hate them for their non-Islamicness, regardless of any personal grievances this Muslim may have felt were caused by the Infidel. What of them? I asked.
Of course, he had no response. He never stopped to think about the victims of 9/11 and the worldwide jihad, about what they are thinking and feeling and how life will be for them. And the funny thing is, despite all their sorrow and tragedy, they probably won't grow up hating and blaming all Muslims for all their problems, maybe because they're more rational than that, maybe because no one is teaching them to do so.
Regardless, after page upon page upon page of lengthy e-mails, I finally convinced my friend to educate himself a bit on this subject. I gave him the links to JihadWatch and DhimmiWatch, and he pledges to read them every day. I also convinced him to buy some books on the subject, and he says he's going to start reading Serge Trifkovic's Sword of the Prophet and Spencer's PIG soon, at my behest.
I am not a rich, powerful, influential person yet, but I hope to be in time. If nothing has been done about any of this by then, and we're still alive, I will make it my mission to devote my time and energy and wealth to educating people on this threat. But in the meantime, I have decided to start a book mission. I now offer to purchase reading materials on this issue for anyone I know who is interested, and I ask them to pass along their books to others when they are finished. I think right now, ignorance is our worst enemy, and this isn't much, but it's something for now.
Posted by: sologue![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/nav-commenters.gif)
at March 13, 2006 11:34 AM
After the stock market scandals of the 2000 market crash, all analysts, when they come on TV or write an article about some stock, MUST disclose in realtime, right then, their interests in that stock they tout or disparage.
We should have the same thing when Middle East issues are discussed. Anytime these 'experts' are brought on TV to offer their expert opinion, they must disclose their relationships with those Arab countries. Likewise, whenever these 'consultants' engage our politicians, they must disclose any relationships and earnings they have with those Middle East countries and any organizations advocating for those Middle East countries.
It is only fair that the citizens know that what they say may be tainted by money paid.
Posted by: John Sobieski at March 13, 2006 11:36 AM
"all analysts, when they come on TV or write an article about some stock, MUST disclose in realtime, right then, their interests in that stock they tout or disparage."
-- from a posting above
Much is made, rightly, of the receipt of money. Doctors, for example, who receive money from drug companies, are subject to attack for promoting drugs from those same companies.
Why should anyone listen to what Bill Clinton has to say, after what he said about the Danish cartoons, during a fabulously-reimbursed speech (at this point, Clinton can't imagine any other kind) in Qatar? Why should anyone listen to ex-ambassadors if they have been making their "livings" as "international business consultants with special expertise in the Middle East"? Why should anyone whose salary is paid directly or indirectly from Arab money -- John Esposito's name heads the obvious academic list -- not be forced to disclose this, or at least have it mentioned, at the front of the hour, by whatever sap continues to invite him on to enlighten whatever audience can still be fooled.
This is not a minor matter. We don't have the billions to offset what the Saudis can dangle before businessmen, or use to demurely subsidize an army of apologists? (Here at JW, hand held out in Eleemosynary Position #1, and appeals made in as winsome a fashion as I can manage, I still can't persuade readers to send some amounts to where it would do the most good to offset those Saudi expenditures, so cunningly expended. What does the local hospital, the ballet, the Metropolitan, the university which you remain loyal to because you have idea what is really going on there today, what do all those other charities or quasi-charities offer you in the save-your-civilization line that is better than what we have here at JihadWatch? And what, at this point, should take priority?).
Those who presume to discuss Islam should be identified if they, or the supposedly disinterested academic centers they run (like that of Esposito), or the audiences that pay them for lectures (like Clinton in Qatar, or George Bush Senior in Kuwait, or both of them recipients of the Faris Honorarium -- reputed to be the largest in America, and donated by an Arab (Lebanese) wheeler-dealer).
It is important that audiences be warned about the small army of apologists for Islam who have been bought and paid for. And since there is no sign that the Saudis and others will cease to be receiving trillions of dollars, and there is no sign that they will give up diverting tens of billions to support the Jihad and, as part of the JIhad, in paying armies of apologists in academic life, in business, in official circles in all the capitals of the Western world, the only thing that we can do, other than watch helplessly, is to constantly raise this matter, to bring it to public attention on all conceivable occasions.
Ideally, members of Congress should hold hearings on the real Abscam. They should haul up for questioning those ex-ambassadors who have been receiving Arab money, and find out whether or not the promise of such future rewards perhaps influenced their advice when they were still serving -- as Prince Bandar himself admitted he was sure it did.
Quislings should be identified as such, in order to prevent a constant replenishment, or even a swelling, of their greedy ranks.
Posted by: Hugh at March 13, 2006 2:07 PM
Tessa Jowell, Culture Secretary in the British Government, is banned from any Cabinet talks on Iran "because of her husband's business links with the 'axis of evil' state".
Here is an acknowledged conflict of interest between a government minister's duties and her personal financial interests in a hostile totalitarian power. Are there unacknowledged ones?
Posted by: Yojimbo at March 13, 2006 2:11 PM
"not a rich, powerful, influential person yet...I will make it my mission to devote my time and energy and wealth to educating people"
-- from a posting by "Sologue" above
Hurry up and get rich, powerful, influential quickly please. Not a pas lent, but skorym shagom. Hup-two-three-four. If you don't mind, I'd like to come back to you then, hand extended.
By any chance did your nom de post start out as a reference to Fyodor Sologub (Teternikov)and his petty demons? Or was it always meant to be "Sologue"?
Posted by: Hugh at March 13, 2006 2:25 PM
Hugh, another brilliant commentary explaining what's motivating all those supporting this deal, thank you.
In a well ordered society traitors like those you describe would be severely punished.
Posted by: CufferHarvey at March 13, 2006 3:55 PM
No, Mr. Fitzgerald, I was not referring to Fyodor Sologub and his petty demons as I know not who this is. I came up with my nom de plume on my own, maybe it isn't any good, but if you care to understand the etymology of it you can visit my website's About section.
I apologize for posting this twice, I meant to post this under your other article at http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/010581.php, I am not exactly sure how I ended up posting it here.
Regardless, I will happily help fund any publications you decide on writing at the time, but I would hope you have enough dignity to keep your hand by your chest... you might feel like Uncle Sam owes you your money back, but begging for a living will not be a profitable enterprise in the long run, I'd imagine.
Why is it that the voices of reason on this subject (you, Mr. Spencer, Mr. Tifkovic and others) seem to be so far from the ears of those in power? What is stopping you from getting close enough to whisper?
And what do you think of Mr. Pipes and his writings? There seem to be many things you, Mr. Spencer and Mr. Pipes agree on, but there are also a lot of tactical elements you seem to disagree about. You are such a name-dropper otherwise, I wonder why we never hear anything, agreement or disagreement, in your writings concerning Mr. Pipes?
Posted by: sologue at March 13, 2006 8:15 PM
"You are such a name-dropper otherwise..."
-- from a posting above that started out in such promising fashion
Apparently, one hand giveth, the other hand taketh away.
Posted by: Hugh
at March 13, 2006 8:33 PM
*chuckle*
Posted by: hammerhead at March 13, 2006 9:54 PM
Come on, Hugh..time to assemble the long awaited
"Best of Hugh Fitzgerald" series of essays for publication..you da man!
at March 13, 2006 10:00 PM
hammerhead --
I don't know quite what it is, but whenever you write "you da man" it cheers me up.
Posted by: Hugh at March 13, 2006 10:08 PM
The irony in this that it is supposed to be the Jews with their multi-billion dollar cabal that are buying up everybody for their nefarious purposes. When the truth is that it is the Arabs with their strategically placed "grants" and "gifts" that are corrupting everybody from ex-presidents to major universities. For crying out loud don't former US presidents get a pension of @ $300,000 with all expenses paid ? There should be a groundswell against the whoredom practised by the likes of Bill Clinton.
Posted by: ivan at March 13, 2006 10:12 PM
Hugh, ideate Eleemosynarily extending your hand into the P.O. box retrieving "checks in the mail" from your publisher(minus R. Spencer's 30% cut,naturally)..
Posted by: hammerhead at March 13, 2006 10:27 PM
Speaking of traitors, the list cannot be complete without mentioning the current president George W Bush. How else, can one explain Sheikh Al-Gorge's motivation to block 9/11 inquiries, blacken pages of 9/11 interim report, holding hands with Wahabi barbarians and escorting Bin Ladens to safety. More recently, the threat to veto opposition to the Dubai Ports Deal? How else can one explain 'Amigo' Fox or the open border inviting international criminals to terrorize honest, hard-working, tax-paying Americans?
Posted by: Alert at March 13, 2006 11:46 PM
Hugh
Try as you might, you could never be as eleemosynary as Clinton. No insults intended. (I wish I had memorized all the words I had to learn while taking the GRE, and using those now. Thanks to you, I have to keep dictionary.com open whenever I read one of your illustrious expostulations; however, it is a great learning experience)
On the topic of Clinton, sometimes I wonder whether or not he should simply embrace Islam. Look at what it'd give him - 4 wives (if HRH HRC gets even the nomination, she wouldn't need him any longer), full rationalization of everything he did that was illegal - be it land-deals, campaign donations for Lincoln bedroom sleep overs. Like Jacko the wacko, he could even move there - I'm sure Dubai would be a far better office than Harlem. Oh, and the 4 wives - he could break even that limit, like King Hasan of Morocco did. Why stop there - just claim every woman he sees as his wife, and all the arousal gappers (Rush Limbaugh (R)) could join his harem. (I recall a Rediff photo some years ago during his visit to India, when he was gawking at Sonia Gandhi. Please, BJ, take her, and Rahul Gandhi as well).
He could also get emirs, sultans, sheikhs and other Islamophilic oil pashas to keep padding him (remember the sultan of Brunei offering OJ Simpson a fortune if he embraced Islam?), and with any luck, extort exorbitant sums of cash from them. If he does that, the effect would be very similar to cutting off the Jiziya - it still forces the defenders of the faith to divert cash from mosques in Boston, ME studies departments at Georgetown, et al.
Only major downside - if he starts practicing Dawa as a result of this move, he'd actually succeed in swaying a lot of people the way they wouldn't otherwise. However, if he were to restrict his appearances on the social circuits in the Mid-East, he'd have it made.
And so would we.
Posted by: Infidel Pride at March 14, 2006 3:20 AM
In re: $1,000,000 lecture in Kuwait: A whore by any other name, even former senior official, is still a whore.
Posted by: Historian at March 14, 2006 11:10 AM
To "La trahison des clercs" we can now add the treason of the politicians, media, journalists, universities and last but not least businessmen. Almost makes one wish for the return of Robespierre.
Posted by: RBLA at March 14, 2006 2:01 PM
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)