Administration Outsources Operations Of Six U.S. Ports To The United Arab Emirates
Administration Outsources Operations Of Six U.S. Ports To The United Arab Emirates
The Bush administration has outsourced the operation of six of the nation’s largest ports to a company owned by the United Arab Emirates (UAE), a country with troubling ties to international terrorism. The $6.8 billion sale would mean that the state-controlled Dubai Ports World would control “the ports of New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia.”
Some facts about the UAE:
– The UAE was one of three countries in the world to recognize the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan.
– The UAE has been a key transfer point for illegal shipments of nuclear components to Iran, North Korea and Lybia.
– According to the FBI, money was transferred to the 9/11 hijackers through the UAE banking system.
– After 9/11, the Treasury Department reported that the UAE was not cooperating in efforts to track down Osama Bin Laden’s bank accounts.
A bipartisan group of seven members of Congress is calling on the Treasury Department to suspend their approval until they investigate the national security implications of the sale. Such an investigation is required by federal law but hasn’t yet been conducted. You can read their letter here.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
great… give control over our ports to Muslim countries… why don’t we have Saudi Arabia run Homeland Security?
February 17th, 2006 at 9:07 am> I don’t think Bush would blindly give terrorists avenues to hurt America…
February 17th, 2006 at 9:07 amC’mon Progs, your Libness is showing.
Yea, this sounds like a great idea.
How about we also put some nuclear material up for sale on Ebay, too? Gotta pay for those giveaways to Big Oil somehow.
February 17th, 2006 at 9:14 amThe Bush administration has stronger allegiance to the global elite than to the American public. Unfortunately, this select club of wealthy individuals contains one important and disgraced member: Osama bin Laden. The further empowerment of this club weakens our security and our national economic interests.
February 17th, 2006 at 9:16 amI really think Progs are confused. Schumer single-handedly railroaded the senate bid of the ever popular netroots darling Paul Hackett. Everything Schumer does is purely political. I’m going to lean toward hysteria on this one. So try not to make fools of yourselves.
February 17th, 2006 at 9:19 amThese people are coming from a very dark place and have a death wish that they have so thoughtfully included us all in.
February 17th, 2006 at 9:21 amCould you be alittle less cryptic, Jesus H?
February 17th, 2006 at 9:23 amUnreal, anyone who thinks this is a good idea has their head up their @ss. If you think it is hysteria to think there is inherent danger in this decision then I sure you wouldn’t object to having an Iranian company supply the town/city that you are from with the food you eat.
February 17th, 2006 at 9:24 am#6 –
That move really bugs me. I’m in Columubus, OH and was all geared up to volunteer for Hackett’s campaign.
Schumer is guilty of typical GOP behavior of only letting people in the right club play on the big political stage. I just don’t thin Brown is going to get the same following that Hackett would have.
Although, maybe Rush would like to volunteer for Brown. He’s so tight with Brown that he was aware of something that even Brown himself didn’t know – Sherrod Brown is African American (only he’s not: Limbaugh invented “racial component” to Hackett’s decision to withdraw from Ohio primary race)
February 17th, 2006 at 9:25 amI think this demonstrates who’s really calling the shots, and it ain’t Dick Cheney.
February 17th, 2006 at 9:26 amDoesn’t D. Cheney own “Newquewler Parts Are Us” on an island 90 miles off our coast?
February 17th, 2006 at 9:27 amThis one has me baffled. What is the admin. thinking?
February 17th, 2006 at 9:27 amWhy would we outsource the management of American ports? Haven’t we all heard how vulnerable they are even years after 9/11? And the choice is to outsource to the UAE! Of all bodies to control the ports – this decision is beyond the pale.
Just who has Bush’s allegiance? The close association between the Bush family and the Princes of Arabia, the questions that continue to bubble beneath the surface concerning 9/11, the turning over the search for OBL to the Afghans — what is happening before our eyes? This is not even partisan any more — both parties should be demanding answers.
NO
February 17th, 2006 at 9:28 amOn its face it does not make any sense at all. There has to be a back story. Who has been bribed? Is it a way to bust unions? Is the idea that when the ports are used to smuggle in some devasting weapon that is used against the United States Bush figures he will get more mileage out rekindling American fears than the possible fallout from the fact that his administration made it possible? I mean that has worked before and I do not give Dumbya any points for creativity. I agree with Authoritarian Rush, however, that other than showing extremely poor judgment, there is not enough at present to make much of a case.
February 17th, 2006 at 9:28 amUp next; outsourcing the FAA to Hamas.
February 17th, 2006 at 9:28 am#3, Authoritarian Rush – you’re right. Bush would not “blindly give terrorists avenues to hurt America”, rather, he would deliberately do it.
February 17th, 2006 at 9:31 amHey Terry and Rush, why don’t we just oursource our airports to the muslims as well? Why stop there….. Why not all of our transportation systems. Hell we can outsource our government to them as well, oh wait we already do that.
February 17th, 2006 at 9:32 amI got it!
By giving the UAE control over the ports, it’ll be that much easier to figure out how the nuclear bomb/nerve gas/other terrorist device got into the country and was used in the next big attack.
You see, the administration is just trying to save time for the investigators who have to figure out what happened.
He’s just trying to give everyone some R&R time so they can play guitar and eat cake.
February 17th, 2006 at 9:33 amIt’s now official, our federal government aids terrorist attacks on their own people.
February 17th, 2006 at 9:34 amThey are now begging for an unprecedented attack. You think 9-11 was big? Just wait. Look for simultaneous attacks in three or four cities.
They sacrificed 3000 innocents to get their Iraq war.
Next up . . . . Martial Law.
an unrelated note, but I think you will like this story.
http://www.comcast.net/news/politics/index.jsp?cat=POLITICS&fn=/2006/02/17/328192.html&cvqh=itn&ts=2006.02.17_07.05
don’t know what to say about this outsourcing. I don’t think we should put our countries enemies in charge of our ports, but that is just me.
February 17th, 2006 at 9:34 am# 6, Authoritarian Rush – “I’m going to lean toward hysteria on this one. So try not to make fools of yourselves.” So we should mimic Bush’s handling of 9/11 and just not care about possible threats now? Why is it that you are so gung-ho about doing EVERYTHING possible to keep illegal immigrants out, and you’re willing to do everything possible to prevent terrorist attacks… but as soon as Bush makes (yet another) mistake in a way that aids possibly terrorists, you defend it like it’s nothing?
February 17th, 2006 at 9:35 amThe UAE underbid Osama, they won the contract fair and simple.
February 17th, 2006 at 9:38 amProgs and Dems tried and failed to paint Murdoch selling Fox to a Saudi as a threat to national seciruty or some other bizarre occurance. Fact is, after the Democratic failures to change public opinion about this administration all they really have is slander and heresay. Do the report. Then follow up. But this story is already dead. Ho hum.
February 17th, 2006 at 9:39 amHey Rush, theres a big difference between selling a tv station and a port. GET A CLUE!
February 17th, 2006 at 9:42 am#23 –
The reason is some type of sick blind trust that conservatives seem to have for Bush and the administration. It’s as though he/they can do no wrong.
That to me is a key difference between conservatives and everyone else.
Conservatives blindly accept any action of their ‘leaders’ and repeat whatever justification they are told by them for said action.
Everyone else thinks for themselves, questions the motivations/reasons behind an action, and critically looks at the rationale given by the leaders.
Wake up, right. Giving the GOP carte blanche is dangerous. And stupid.
February 17th, 2006 at 9:43 amCan anyone cite one thing that the shrub ever did for the good of the amurkan people? He has his reasons for doing this, I can only guess at a few of them.
February 17th, 2006 at 9:44 amHey Rush – We don’t have to try and change public opinion, he has done that for us.
http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob.htm
February 17th, 2006 at 9:44 am#24, WtM
February 17th, 2006 at 9:46 amI appreciate your sarcasm, but BushCo doesn’t award contracts through a bidding process – it’s always a reward for something past or a bribe for something future.
Don’t forget that two of the hijackers were UAE
February 17th, 2006 at 9:47 amas well.
23
February 17th, 2006 at 9:47 amYou’re wrong. You’ve been on this site for this long and you still haven’t gotten the message about he who controls the message?
UAE is an American ally.
How those tiny little gears turn in those puny little brains Rust,just amazing!
February 17th, 2006 at 9:49 amThe company will operate machinery?Moving containers?Oil transfers?Disenfranchising the longshoresmen?Will they carry the insurance premiums?Is this an improvement over the current opperation?How much government money is involved?I don’t think they mean to hire their employees from the UAE so this would not be outsourcing jobs from American workers,just union busting.Those are high risk,high paying jobs so I expect that those who have them will be looking at pay cuts or lockouts.Sick puppies all of them.Greed and kickbacks.Another money laundering scheme.
February 17th, 2006 at 9:52 amFace it. Our country has been put on the auction block to the highest bidder. Bush sold himself out to the Saudi’s long ago in his early energy dealings. His buddy, “Bandar Bush” has had him in his pocket for years. Now the UAE get the ports as payback for political and most importantly cash reasons.
Remember, as one highly placed Bushista stated,”We’re an empire now, we create our own reality”
Besides, if there is another terrorist attach, Bush will have an chance to stand atop that mound of smouldering rubble and shout through his bull horn another bumper sticker slogan.
As long as he can keep America shaking in fear, he wil have absolute power. It worked for a crazy German painter, and it’s working for a failed fake Texan.
February 17th, 2006 at 9:53 amWell, we deal with the Al-Qualude trifecta daily don’t we. Wasn’t UAE , along with pakistan and saudi Arabia one of the biggest supporters in the late 90’s? Didn’t M. atta & another hijacker or 2 wire money back and forth to the UAE. .money .UAE was a big player in the financing of 911.i think even one of the hijackers was from UAE.
February 17th, 2006 at 9:55 amPublic opinion as it is now is not going to correct the problems. Only hearings. Dems can’t force hearings without overwhelming public support.
February 17th, 2006 at 9:55 amWhen I get home at the end of the day, and turn on my TV, the very first thing I should see is a PSA about how deviant and contrary this government is. Cheney is running this country, and we don’t know anything about him. When Schumer does crap like this all he is really doing is playing the Terror/Hysteria card in the same fashion Bush does.
#37, read #32 for your answer: 2 were UAE.
February 17th, 2006 at 9:57 amRush,
February 17th, 2006 at 9:58 amI don’t know anyone that thought that FOX having Saudi ties is a threat to national security…I think most people think it just shows how hypocrtical the people making the news at FOX are and how ignorant the people who follow the teachings of Murdoch are.
39
The prevailing message was not the appearance of hypocrisy but rather the power of the Prince to affect bias.
February 17th, 2006 at 10:02 amThe same company was bidding in the UK recently – the problem was price, not security. Another bidder got involved.
The company is more concerned with investing the current windfall oil receipts and getting a good return for the time when their oil stops flowing (alot of the members of the UAE are running out).
Of course it is a ‘concern’ but the same could be said about Citgo and Chavez’s threat to shut down his US refineries.
The problem is that it’s on US soil and the US is pefectly capable of nationalizing it/forcing operations to continue.
That said, the decision to buy the ports is a bad one. This company has a history of overpaying for assets that yield a steady cashflow (which is why they are popular – they’re bondlike in character because the returns are fairly stable).
UAE has differing levels of ‘modernity’ among the members that constitute it. Abu Dhabi and Dubai are very modern and very attractive to Westerners. Some of the others are ‘backward’.
That said, they’ve got one of the largest Formula One race tracks and the jockeys on their camels are now robotic. (they realized that with Westerners buying up all the property on their fake Palm Islands that child jockeys didn’t fit).
Dubai also is becoming a pretty big financial center.
This has been cleared by those lovely folks from Congress that look at this crap – remember they shot down the Chinese bid for ‘76′/Myranmar tyran oil company?:)
The lack of other bidders suggests that they are overpaying, probably by alot. Their forecast depends on the US influx of goods staying about at current levels or increasing – which can only happen if foreigners are willing to continue to finance our dissaving.
February 17th, 2006 at 10:04 am#37 –
Pointing out that the administration is outsourcing American ports to the UAE (who has REAL links to terrorists, not the made-up ones to Iraq) is playing the Terror/Hysteria card?
Ummmm… no. It’s trying to be proactive and prevent a problem BEFORE it happens. It’s what progressives do. Try to anticipate a problem and deal with it ahead of time.
You conservatives should try that for a change instead of invading countries and then all staring at each other saying, “Now what?”
(I was going to use the analogy of “Shoot first, ask questions later” but with the whole Cheney thing, it would have been more like “Shoot first, don’t answer questions at all.”)
February 17th, 2006 at 10:05 ama.rush has the troll morning shift. this fools ‘goose step’ is showing. he thought this was ‘I love bush.com’.
February 17th, 2006 at 10:06 am“Dubai Ports World” is a fairly new but has WESTERN management, for the most part. Dubai likes foreigners to run their financial operations – Dubai is trying to become a financial center for the mideast.
Dubai is part of the UAE, but it makes its own decisions. It’s the most ‘progressive’ area in the Muslim world – everyone seems to be wanting to live in their filled in Palm Island (which are quite cool) – and those people include americans/britains/etc.
This is a commercial transaction that has to be approved by the politicians. Dubai is concerned because in a few years they have no more oil and that is bad. That’s why they’re trying to transform themselves.
They are, however, going for assets that are good for the cashflow – but they are overpaying. Luckily in the UK their port bid appears to be falling through because of another hostile bid (the original DPW bid was endorsed by the target).
The UK didn’t consider them a threat – although essentially anything in the UK can be sold to anybody – they are a pretty free market. The US is too.
Drop the UAE label please, it’s Dubai and a Dubai investment company for the citizens of Dubai (who hold UAE passports). The returns do not go to any of the other UAE members and the board is not influenced by them. DPW also has independent, western directors.
Look into Dubai before you denigrate them, please. They are different than some of the other members that constitute the UAE.
The funny thing is that the coming lack of oil brought this social transformation – why can Saudi Arabia run out of oil?:)
February 17th, 2006 at 10:11 am#32 UAE’s our ally? Just like Saudia Arabia was our ally when they attacked us on 9/11? Has Bush held hands with the King of UAE yet?
February 17th, 2006 at 10:12 am42
I’m just mad at Schumer. I don’t think USA should have any relation of any sort with Muslim countries, however modern.
February 17th, 2006 at 10:12 amI am quite confused by this story.
I thought the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey ran the New York City / North/Central New Jersey ports.
What is the role of the private company here anyway? The larger issuess including not only national security but that privatization is actually something that “I hates me some bureaucrats” “anti-gummint” conservatievs, rather than support, should dislike as it actually results in the duplication of bureaucracies (having both a private and public one).
Is there any way for that aspect of the situation to gain traction — the aspect that businesses have bureaucracies too — so people who don’t like pencil pushers (since they bullied them in Middle School) should actually be against privatization?
February 17th, 2006 at 10:13 amBottom line – Dubai (and Abu Dhabi) should not be lumped in with the rest of the UAE. For the most part they act like sovereign states and have vastly different social structures. Dubai is the most tolerant and would probably rank as the most progressive Muslim country.
There are more foreigners in Dubai that citizens. They are also opening a massive financial district. Let’s give them some credit for trying to change.
And yes, they are ruled by a Sheik who has hereditary rule. Regardless, he’s at least a bit more enlightened than other Arab ones.
February 17th, 2006 at 10:14 amActually W needs an incident before November in order to convince the American people to propagate his dictatorship. What better way than to put the fox in charge of the henhouse?
February 17th, 2006 at 10:14 amRemind me again why the GOP is strong on national security.
February 17th, 2006 at 10:17 amI’ve never one to see danger behind every tree, but so many weird things have been happening so fast that you have to wonder — is this government purposely trying to destroy the U.S. before the ‘08 elections?
Despite claiming to protect America, there’s been no real improvement in security (unless you mistake my 12 year old happy kid and her grandmother are shoe bombers). China bankrolls more and more of the U.S. economy while stealing trade and defense secrets. Internationally, we’re viewed as favorable as Russis (that of the old USSR with its Iron Curtain, gulags, etc.) Laws no longer matter because the executive has declared itself all-powerful, unaccountable to anyone for anything. We now torture without consequence, we spy without warrants. We silence dissent. We stack the Supreme Court and highjack the media. We let our enemies slip out of our hands, then attack another country under false pretenses. We sit by as a major US city disappears, taking a major oil and gas supply center with it, all the while doing nothing to ease our dependence on foreign oil. We attempt to destroy Social Security under the guise of fixing it, then try the same thing with health care. We cry over an inheritance tax then saddle future generations with national debt. We claim to unite and in the next sentence castigate anyone who thinks differently. We praise innovation, then attempt to teach our kids religious fairy tales of creation. And on, and on, until one day, we start sellling our ports to other nations “with troubling ties to international terrorism.”
You couldn’t do more harm more quickly if you tried. Which begs the question, are we trying?
February 17th, 2006 at 10:18 am#47
I’ll answer your question and the rest of the crap that people are assuming about this bid.
DPW WILL NOT OWN THE PORTS.
“I thought the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey ran the New York City / North/Central New Jersey ports.”
They don’t ‘run’ them, they ‘own’ them. They issue a concession to manage the ports. It’s publicly owned and privately managed.
Dubai Port Worlds is buying the CONCESSION to OPERATE but NOT OWN the ports in question from P&O (a UK company).
So ownership is not an issue.
For the alarmists out there, the port authorities can cancel the contracts for breach of the contractual stipulations which means running the ports, basically.
The idea is that it’s inefficient for the Port Authority to run what should be privately managed. It also gets the public money through concessions. The best part is that the port authority doesn’t have to pay for upgrades to the port.
Judge it by that please:)
And just so you all know, I’m not a wingnut.
February 17th, 2006 at 10:19 am#32,
You don’t think this move would increase the possibility of a terrorist getting his way? I am sure the UAE has good intentions, are our ally, etc. However, this would increase the chances of terrorists gaining access. The terrorists could more easily infiltrate the new system, they look like them, act like them, have the same religion, can go unnoticed. We all know when push comes to shove, Arabs are only in it for the money, they otherwise really don’t like us.
February 17th, 2006 at 10:21 amYup, BushCo. Keeping America Safe. Or safer than it was. Or as safe as can be expected. Or safer than John Kerry could keep us. Or safer than, say, Iraq. Yeah. That’s it. We’re safer because we’re fighting a war somewhere else, not here. Safe as a bug in a rug in a house on fire.
February 17th, 2006 at 10:22 amAnother thing to look at, if you’re a political realist is NEW ORLEANS. Its a BLATANT attempt to get political approval. The port is a mess, but operating. DPW will invest heavily in that port – it is attractive commercially – but will probably do more than they need just to show what great corporate citizens they are.
February 17th, 2006 at 10:22 amand none of the muslims that work for Dubai Ports World, have, or will have, any problem with the U.S. after witnesing their behavior towards the Muslim world.
February 17th, 2006 at 10:25 am“The terrorists could more easily infiltrate the new system, they look like them, act like them, have the same religion, can go unnoticed. We all know when push comes to shove, Arabs are only in it for the money, they otherwise really don’t like us.”
DPW employs Western managers. The only people that are going to be working there are American staff and Western managers plus probably a couple Dubai reps to watch their investments.
They’re not importing a bunch of Arabs to be longshoremen.
Dubai would not want to lose 6.8 billion out of what is basically a fund to hold them over after the oil stops flowing.
Stop the UAE crap. This concerns Dubai which makes sovereign investment decisions. The same goes for political ones.
February 17th, 2006 at 10:25 am“and none of the muslims that work for Dubai Ports World, have, or will have, any problem with the U.S. after witnesing their behavior towards the Muslim world.”
Dubai is pretty secular. And no, they probably don’t, actually. Considering that tons of Westerners live in Dubai and aren’t getting killed shows that they have at least some restraint.
Try walking around Saudi Arabia. Alot different than walking around Dubai. Dubai is ‘the place to be’ for wealthy Americans, Europeans, and Asians.
February 17th, 2006 at 10:27 amThis is not a big deal. Most of the large shipping ports in this country are divided up into a series of terminals which are operated by big terminal operation companies. These include APM Terminals (a Danish company) and COSCO (China Ocean Shipping Company). I think all that is happening here is that this Dubai Ports company will be operating terminals but security/oversight is still done by the goverment.
Also, Dubai is not the UAE. I don’t know how UAE got lumped into the discussion but it’s irrelevant.
February 17th, 2006 at 10:29 amPrecott Bush would have outsourced America’s ports to Krupp or Messerschmidt.
This is just an in-the-genes thing.
February 17th, 2006 at 10:29 am#49, Yep, I, too, am awaiting a “security” event this summer — just in time for the elections.
February 17th, 2006 at 10:30 amooops — Late for work now.
Dubai will, at some point, list DPW on the Dubai stock exchange with global depositary receipts in the US. They want to spin this thing out and get some more interest in their financial district.
Yah, I’ve posted to much on this. We don’t need to be too xenophobic against Dubai. We would be concerned if it wasn’t Dubai or Abu Dhabi. The other members of the UAE are pretty repressive regimes.
February 17th, 2006 at 10:30 amThis shows that the money controls what happens, who knows what will happen once these wealthy folks get their foot in the door. More bribes, payouts, kickbacks, influence peddling, looking the other way.
February 17th, 2006 at 10:34 amThere seems to be some sort of confusion that this a private transaction. The political aspect is approval. DPW made a bid for P&O over in the UK – I guess they won? Haven’t been keeping up on it since the initial offer/counterbid.
So, P&O has alot of American hedgefunds for shareholders looking for a quick profit. Mmmm financial community lobies. The bid is agreed so it’d look pretty shitty if the UK authorities have approved the bid (which they have) – and it’s for ports in the UK too – and the US denies it.
Denying it would also probably be ‘bad’ for Bush just because he’s trying to convice the Muslim world that we don’t hate them (which he does).
The ‘cartoon wars’ have made them especially sensitive. Funny how Bush through the State Department wouldn’t defend free speech.
February 17th, 2006 at 10:35 amLiberals and Prog.are cautious and want to put America and its needs first. Conservatives the opposite, who would have thunk it.
February 17th, 2006 at 10:36 amI think some of the neo cons are missing the point. Even if security is handeled by the US and even if the ports are still owned by the us, it is nto a good idea to reward those who want to hurt us. See what we did to Iraq, and they had nothing to do with 9/11. Kuwait, Saudi, UAE and others may not have participated directly in 911 yet they turned a blind eye to the conditions which foster the hatred of the US and they allow terrorists to grow and get recruited fromt heir mosques. Imagine the outrage if CLinton had done this? Never mind, CLinton would have been impeached and removed from office long ago if he had followed the exact same course as curious george.
February 17th, 2006 at 10:37 amHey Beep52-Well said. Everyday we sink further down the rabbit hole.
February 17th, 2006 at 10:39 amIt seems like the US is in some financial deep shit to be willing to do this.
February 17th, 2006 at 10:39 am“This shows that the money controls what happens, who knows what will happen once these wealthy folks get their foot in the door. More bribes, payouts, kickbacks, influence peddling, looking the other way.”
DPW made a public bid for a public company. The bid was agreed by the P&O board (including the independent directors). The ‘payout’ is DPW offering P&O shareholders alot of money for the company (it’s an all cash transaction, I believe – DPW can’t issue shares).
The only ‘influence peddling’ would be DPW hiring a Washington lobbying firm to make sure they don’t get sacked after winning the initial review.
Apparently some people here aren’t aware that this is a private transaction between two companies. The port authority owns the port, but P&O operates it. P&O sold that right to DPW for 6.8 billion (the initial bid was 2 billion lower btw).
DPW got their bid approved because 1.UK approved it 2. US investors benefit 3. it’s a commercial transaction 4. the bidder is Dubai and 5. Bushco wants to reward Dubai for being ‘progressive’.
February 17th, 2006 at 10:41 amMarie, (#13)
I think there are two possible explanations. I think Bush is working on behalf of the Arabs and has been all along. The Carlyle Group is allied with Saudi Arabia and Egypt. Remember, it’s all about corporate power—-not abortion, not theocracy, and certainly not “protecting America”.
Another possible explanation is provided in #51 above. Great post by beep. This newest sell-out is the clearest indication yet that the power elite really does want to wreck this country, as though it’s outlived its usefulness.
February 17th, 2006 at 10:41 amDubai…
Isn’t that where OBL had kidney treatments and met with CIA officials shortly before 9/11?
OBL has denied it, of course.
He’s so very honest…
February 17th, 2006 at 10:43 amWhat have the taliban done to upset the US? Stop the opium flow?
What has Bin Laden done to upset the US? They’ve got nothing on him, except a poor video clip of him admiting. This falls short of proof that he masterminded the 9/11.
February 17th, 2006 at 10:45 amAnd how about the fact that Mohamed Atta, tha “frontman” of the attacks was sailing on Abramoff’s casino ships?
#52 – I agree. I am a huge TP fan, but this is a god-awful post. Firstly, there’s no friggin’ outsourcing. P&O, a listed UK company, currently operates the 6 ports. Dubai ports is bidding for P&O, as they have every right to do. Unless the Brits block the bid, this deal goes ahead. End of story. If there are genuine security concerns about this, it is because Chimp has done dicksquat to improve port security since 9/11. This has nothing to do with DPW’s bid.
Come on TP. You can do better than the winger xenophobes who are all shit-scared at the thought of foreigners running a port. And besides, one of the reasons they can afford this purchase is because we still buy so much friggin’ oil from this part of the world. That’s a legitimate angle to this story.
February 17th, 2006 at 10:46 am“It seems like the US is in some financial deep shit to be willing to do this.”
No, it appears that P&O shareholders want DPW’s cash. P&O is a UNITED KINGDOM COMPANY. The US – I suppose you mean as in government – isn’t getting money. (although the port authorities, especially New Orleans, get free upgrades to their ports).
DPW will also have to invest heavily in the tracks that link the ports to the railroads. They are really, really congested. Some of these ports also don’t stack containers b/c of longshoreman opposition (stacking saves space and time).
“Kuwait, Saudi, UAE and others may not have participated directly in 911 yet they turned a blind eye to the conditions which foster the hatred of the US and they allow terrorists to grow and get recruited fromt heir mosques.”
UAE does not equal Dubai in any real sense. Seeing that soccer stars, hollywood folks, etc are going to Dubai and buying houses – that alcohol freely flows, that the nonbelievers are not getting butchered – I’d say that’s pretty progessive.
The population of Dubai is actually quite small. It’s not exactly secular but they are cooperative.
They own Emirates Airlines for all those who care.
Anyway, they’re probably overpaying but they want to become a big player and draw in capital to Dubai.
Most of this relates to the Dubai stock exchange. At some point Dubai will want to list DPW to get a lumpsum payment and find something else to buy.
Oh, and not that long ago Dubai was a pretty boring place. Running out of oil does wonders for countries.
February 17th, 2006 at 10:48 amActually I wouldn’t worry about this too much. In ten years these sea ports will all be offshore reefs.
February 17th, 2006 at 10:49 am#73, I agree with you DF, this is the TP equivalent of raising the ‘threat level’. Did you do a similar one on China bidding for Unocal? This makes Lou Dobbs sound sensible. Just wondering.
February 17th, 2006 at 10:50 amJames are you sure your not a wingnut? I wouldn’t put it past you. All the regular wingnuts have retreated lately, likely because a new approach was being implemented. Now here you are, the new form of Troll, acting like you are not a troll, appearing to be moderate. The give away is that you are all of the sudden here out of nowhere, and you are persistent, don’t seem to be giving up anytime soon.
The new Troll strategy: less inflammatory, regular names, denying being a wingnut, appearing moderate, not trying to derail the topic.
Message to RNC, your new strategy has been found out, in one day.
Message to
February 17th, 2006 at 10:52 am#73
Thanks for confirming I’m not the only other TP fan with such views.
Oh, you mentioned the UK approving the bid. They did make an approval.
P&O has a lossmaking ferry service across the Channel. DPW was the only bidder willing to keep it. That got them political points because the ferry people are Labor supporters. (as in the Labor party).
The feds inspect these ports. There are radiation detectors installed now (hugely expensive for the operators and a headache b/c of false positives) and they are inspected all the time.
This is not like DPW gets the concession and runs it like they want. They get inspected and have to do whatever the hell the US FBI/CIA/etc want.
Here’s the deal – If DPW really wanted to screw us, they wouldn’t buy these ports. Because it’s a concession, the port authorities can void the concession if there’s a major breach in the contract – say security.
That’d make 6.8 billion plus billions more in investment disappear. And the port authorities would get to keep all the nice new cranes, tracks, radiation detectors, etc.
Did I mention the people who INSPECT CONTAINERS are not the operators? They’re the feds.
Running a port means charging fees, unloading the crap, stacking it, keeping track of it, taking it down and putting it on a semi or train, and saying goodbye. It really doesn’t have much to do with security.
Besides, the longshoremen, who actually do everything, are still going to be Americans. The financial benefits of operating the port just goes to DPW instead of a UK company.
February 17th, 2006 at 10:56 amI think it is a mistake to lump Liberals and Proressives.
The Dems and Repubs are in a symbiotic gridlock. Neither will ever fracture enough to spawn a real independent party. I feel the future of America and the security of my children rest in the end of the current 2 party system.
This is why Hackett was shelved.
February 17th, 2006 at 10:56 am#79, so it was Schumer who demagogued this issue on the ports in the first place and also Schumer who stabbed Hackett in the back? Its a one-party state in all but name, AR, with one-dollar, one-vote.
February 17th, 2006 at 11:00 amI just rolled and smoked a big fat Dubai.
-GSD
February 17th, 2006 at 11:01 amThere goes the neighborhood.
February 17th, 2006 at 11:05 amDon’t worry. Bush will spy on them.
#77
I post pretty frequently. Just not in all the posts. TP happens to be my favorite blog.
Apparently disagreeing with this post (and one other two months ago?) qualifies me as a wingnut.
I’m persistent because we’re sticking to the UAE hates us garbage and that this is some giant plot.
It’s Dubai. Ever looked up on Dubai? I’d actually like to live there. Unfortunately, I don’t have nearly enough money for the kind of places they’re putting up.
What I’m trying to convey is that Dubai is independent and progressive. It’s not fair to lump them in with Saudi Arabia, Iran, etc.
I also had an issue of linking actions in other UAE members to Dubai. Since everyone here is assuming the UAE is some sort of central system – it’s not. It’s a confederation where are the members get to do basically whatever they please.
I’m definately anti-bush, but I’m not for xenophobic type behavior. I’m also not for linking to Foxnews.:)
Disagreeing with anti-business stuff is not so bad. My concern is that if the UK govt accepted it and P&O did too then we have a pretty high bar to reach.
Joining FoxNews in bashing ANY muslim country is not so great. Turkey is trying to join the EU, Dubai is trying to join the international financial community.
And no, you don’t get limbs cut off in Dubai. And you can drink, eat publicly during Rammadan, etc. Sort of like Lebanon used to be.
I’d just like it if we didn’t group all Muslim states into one category.
The problem, as I see it, is we’re quick to defend individual Muslims (which we should), but also quick to attack states that are muslim.
February 17th, 2006 at 11:06 amKeerist. Mark my words. A large nuclear weapon will be smuggled into the U.S. if this is allowed to go through.
February 17th, 2006 at 11:06 amso, “james”…yes, you sure are persistant…
February 17th, 2006 at 11:09 amjust who/what are you, to be SO knowledgable…
how about some links to the facts you’ve been passing out here…
#77
A wingnut wouldn’t be defending Dubai.:) I’m defending a progressive (for the area) government that is moving away from oil.
I like a country that lets me drink, eat when I please, and not pray if I choose. I like the idea of a nice, hot place with nice homes and lots of Americans and Europeans.
Wingnuts don’t defend muslim countries – they attack them.
The only ‘issue’ with Dubai is that, yes, the Sheik runs it. The upside is that he’s investing the petrodollars while they still exist for the people. Another upside is that their citizens aren’t killing the Westerners.
My ‘test’ for a tolerant muslim country is whether the majority foreign population is attacked by the muslims. Not happening in Dubai.
I’d feel pretty safe walking around in Dubai. I wouldn’t, at all, in Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Iran, Yemen, etc.
Oh, Dubai also operates the LARGEST USED CAR AUCTION! Woo. They’re toyotas, etc from Japan that are used or damaged. They get sent on throughout the middle east and Africa. Pretty cool tent car city they have going.
February 17th, 2006 at 11:12 am#85, I’ve been to Dubai and have friends living there, I can vouch for what James is saying. I’m disappointed to notice quite a few negative stereotypical comments about muslims in general in here – more in keeping with the trolls who visit here than anything else.
February 17th, 2006 at 11:16 am#78 – No worries. This is a total airshot. You understand a heck of a lot more about the running of a port; I just know that we have no right interfering in a merger between two foreign public companies.
February 17th, 2006 at 11:17 amJame – I don’t think your a wingnut, but your not looking at the big picture.
You say that Dubai is not part of the hatred toward America. Maybe they are not, but I would rather not take that chance right this moment. Perhaps 10-15 years down the road, this might make more sense.
It would be like allowing a company who is composed of Japanees owned individuals obtaining rights to our ports after we bombed them for the attack of Pearl Harbor.
Don’t you see the connection here? They might be great people, and I am not trying to lump all Muslims together, but we need to be cautious here and this is not the way to do that.
Hope this makes sense?
February 17th, 2006 at 11:18 amDPW’s Site
http://www.dpiterminals.com/
For some info on Dubai check out their site:
http://www.dubaicityguide.com/main/index.asp
All in english…
For info on tourism in general check out:
http://www.dubaitourism.ae/
Dubai gov
http://www.dm.gov.ae/portal/dt?desktop.suid=uid=ENanonymous,ou=people,o=public,dc=dm,dc=gov,dc=ae
CIA factsheet on UAE
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ae.html
Non-fox story on the P&O deal:
February 17th, 2006 at 11:22 amhttp://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=10&categ_id=3&article_id=22108
ah yes the bush administration at work again, what a sublime situation
February 17th, 2006 at 11:29 am87
That’s interesting. On the surface the Republicans are percieved as enabling terror through trade practices while Democrats are percieved as being hostile and stereotypical about Muslims (myself included).
February 17th, 2006 at 11:29 amI think any Muslim country that deals with America will produce terrorists. So my choice is to abandon these countries. The American choice is to engage and change these countries and increase police powers everywhere.
Oh, management structure.
http://www.dpiterminals.com/members.asp?MCatID=3&PageID=10&SubPageID=4&PSID=1
As you can see, EIGHT of the NINE managers are either American, European, or Asian. (The CEO is from Dubai). It’s about half and half.
Anyway, thought you’d like to know that arabs don’t exactly run the company:)
February 17th, 2006 at 11:30 amJames – “I’m persistent because we’re sticking to the UAE hates us garbage and that this is some giant plot.”
I just visited their web page and there are 2 buttons: UAE, International.
So Dubai is not related to UAE? We can’t lump them in with UAE? Please explain?
They are CLEARLY connected with UAE.
February 17th, 2006 at 11:30 am#89, 92
I don’t the a nativist (isolationist) policy is such a terrific idea.
I realize that people have concerns about this. Call your rep and senator.
Also – I don’t understand something here. There’s the big deal about doing business with Arabs on ports…but we get alot of our oil from them (and Venezuela). That far outstrips DPW.
Yes, I know we’d all like to become more fuel efficient. I know I would (I drive a diesel jetta – 54mpg – waiting for a hybrid version that will make the toyots look bad:)). I keep the house at 64 degrees (and it’s sort of cold here) and I use all flourescent lighting. That’s more because I like to save money, but switching bulbs out does alot.
The Middle East exists and we have to acknowledge it. As for a Japanese comparison, we turned a blind eye while they slaughtered millions in China. That was isolationist.
February 17th, 2006 at 11:38 am#94
the UAE and INTERNATIONAL buttons are if you are interested in their UAE or international ports:)
They run some pretty large container transhipment terminals there. It’s where they started. So – it’s sort of natural to have a link to that.
.ae is the domain for the UAE. The issue is to not lump Dubai in with the other members of the UAE. I’m not saying it isn’t a part of it – but the structure of the government is such that you can do what you wish within your own country, sheik wise. That’s why some are backwaters and some aren’t.
It’s also why some parts of the UAE are not good places to visit.
A good way to think of the UAE is America under the Articles of Confederation. You basically did as you pleased.
Anyway, the UAE exists only because the UK made it so. Hmm, sort of like ISRAEL and IRAQ. (The UK was their colonial ruler until 1971). The UK decided what the country would look like when they colonized it. Same deal with Iraq, same deal with Israel. (to an extent).
As a side note, my grandfather served in the Palestinian Police (UK army). Apparently it was hellish what with everyone hating you.
February 17th, 2006 at 11:44 amWhat makes me think after reading what James has to say on this subject, that over time and eventually, this fish that is sitting out in the sun will start to really stink like other Republican ventures. I’ll just have sit back and watch this one unfold(as if I had a choice). Note: mental experiment on forming unbiased opinions(doomed to failure, but who knows?)
February 17th, 2006 at 11:45 amJames, theres a HUGE difference between buying something from the Middle East and having them run our ports. GEEZE.
OK, let me try and put it another way. It would be like Los Angeles being run by the Bloods or Cripts. Sure, they may have changed and the ones that are now operating on their own have changed, but they are still part of the gang. Not to say that they can’t change, but there GENERALLY is a life long alegance to the gang.
So this would be OK to have a company run by members of the Bloods or Cripts running LA?
It’s fine to begin repairing the damage this administration has done with the Muslims, but to just jump in with a race that we are fighting seems to be a little suicidal.
February 17th, 2006 at 11:50 amWhats up with that
February 17th, 2006 at 11:54 amA good way to think of the UAE is America under the Articles of Confederation.
It is if you’re totally ignorant of the world outside your borders. Each UAE member is a kingdom.
I guess if Bush is exporting democracy, he has to import dictatorship, or else we have a trade gap.
February 17th, 2006 at 11:57 amAs for a Japanese comparison, we turned a blind eye while they slaughtered millions in China. That was isolationist.
Yes, it’s not like we sent the Flying Tigers, human rights investigators, and eventually the entire Pacific Navy after them, is it?
Like Bush said, we’ve had a hundred years of uniterupted good relations with Japan.
February 17th, 2006 at 12:00 pmIt wasn’t until one morning in December we realized that we didn’t like their method of managing our ports, eh James?
February 17th, 2006 at 12:01 pmwell terry, thanks for the “voucher”, but i think “james” can surely speak for himself…i just want to be able to verify any “credentials”… that’s not asking too much, i think…
February 17th, 2006 at 12:06 pmso, bacck to my first question: james, who/what are you? …as if…
but thanks for the “links”
> I don’t think Bush would blindly give terrorists avenues to hurt America…
C’mon Progs, your Libness is showing.
Comment by Authoritarian Rush — February 17, 2006 @
com’on, what do you think 9/11 was.and new orleans. this peckerwood (bushy)knew what was coming and the black and white prove it. all he is doing is banking on the american people to sop up is rhetoric like biscuts and gravy. and i have to agree that there are alot of stupid folks out there lickin the plates. and someone mentioned we owe money: we owe china 50 billion dollars, thanks bush. we owe saudi. we do not own america. we do not own our own money.
February 17th, 2006 at 12:08 pm#92, so the US should avoid talking to:
Turkey – world’s oldest secular democracy which just happens to be muslim
Malaysia – a moderate muslim state
Morocco – bad luck for the new gulag they are building there
Indonesia – a democratic success story of the last five years
Hmm, not a very well-thought out comment.
February 17th, 2006 at 12:17 pmThis move warrants a closer look simply because our ports are still our most vulnerable targets. Only 5% of all containers coming into the country are actually inspected.
Also, the committe that approved this sale – the U.S. Committee on Foreign Investment – is headed by Treasury Secretary John Snow. In 2004, DP World purchased part of the American company CSX for over $1 billion. Before he became Treasury Secretary, John Snow was Chairman and CEO of CSX. Is this just one more example of back room wheeling and dealing?
And Shumer is not the only politician voicing his concerns, so are Sens. Tom Coburn, R-Okla.; Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J.; and Chris Dodd, D-Conn., and Reps. Mark Foley, R-Fla., Vito Fossella, R-N.Y., and Chris Shays, R-Conn.
The same link above also describes P&O’s duties (which will now became Dubai Ports duties) this way: “That firm hires workers to load containers on and off vessels stopping at state-owned terminals and other docks…Though CP&P Ports Virginia has only about 20 permanent employees, it hires longshoremen – ranging from 10 to a few hundred a day – to load and offload vessels calling on the local port, said Claire Gosnell, a P&O spokeswoman in London.”
Finally, considering we have soldiers in the Middle East fighting and DYING to keep us safe here at home, don’t we owe it to them to move slowly on this and make sure this is in our country’s best interest?
February 17th, 2006 at 12:18 pmOur ports are a critical component of our national security. It seems irresponsible to me to outsource this component to a foreign power. It is not xenophobic to seek to control our nationl security. We must draw a line somewhere. Should we outsource our police forces, too? That might be cheaper.
It could be that currently, the UAE is our bestest buddy – a paragon of reasonableness. That still does not justify entrusting them with our ports.
The administration wants to do this because it will benefit Bush’s rich foreign friends. Even if George has looked into their soul and decided they are good people, I’m not reassured.
February 17th, 2006 at 12:22 pmIf you don’t support giving control of our ports to the Bush family Taliban friends then you are unpatriotic.
February 17th, 2006 at 12:23 pm#103, OK then, maybe I should just say that I agree with James. I don’t think he needs to justify himself to anyone, his posted facts and links are all I need.
#98, ‘bloods and crips’ – I’ve ridden a few P&O Ferries in my time, I don’t recall any gangsta rap being played in the bars. And what’s this?
You are drinking the Fox News Kool Aid if you think the entire Umma is fighting. If you continue to think like that and have your actions reflect that thought, then you will have your Clash of Civilizations. Its what Bin Laden wanst and I think its what the PNAC agenda is too. Your racism is starting to show…
February 17th, 2006 at 12:24 pmKeerist. Mark my words. A large nuclear weapon will be smuggled into the U.S. if this is allowed to go through.
Comment by Dubya — February 17, 2006 @ 11:06 am
Bingo! And after we’ll hear:
February 17th, 2006 at 12:24 pmIt had to have been Iran. We have the intelligence.
Now aren’t y’all glad we decided to bomb them earlier?
If we hadn’t, they may have smuggled in many more, and it could have been much worse.
Now then, all you folks stay huddled up with yer visqueen & duct tape, we’ll protect ya.
Gerald
Sad, but that is the mindset of the eunuch kultists of Bush.
February 17th, 2006 at 12:25 pm#1 – Of course it makes us safer – and by us I mean the administration and their cronies and by safer I mean more wealthy. That is the only goal and they are willing to look like incompetent buffoons to achieve it.
February 17th, 2006 at 12:27 pm#109, oh and these two statements are contradictory:
February 17th, 2006 at 12:28 pm
“You are drinking the Fox News Kool Aid if you think the entire Umma is fighting. ”
Your missing the point!!!!!!!!!!!!1
It’s an example and is meant to help demonstrate the issue moron.
OK, let me try it another way with you. (GEEZE).
Let’s say that someone shoots you because they dont like you. This guy has a brother which has the same views as the guy that shot you. Would you be so quick to allow him to run your buisness for you?
Damn, why is it so hard for the simple things to sink in?
February 17th, 2006 at 12:28 pmYes Dreary
They have passed the point of even caring if exposed. As long as a “result” is achieved, all is proceeding to plan.
February 17th, 2006 at 12:28 pm[...] UPDATE: ThinkProgress.org has some thoughts to add on the topic. The Bush administration has outsourced the operation of six of the nation’s largest ports to a company owned by the United Arab Emirates (UAE), a country with troubling ties to international terrorism. The $6.8 billion sale would mean that the state-controlled Dubai Ports World would control “the ports of New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia.†[...]
February 17th, 2006 at 12:28 pmTime for the squating eunuchs to dig the “Saddam hole” behind the washer in the basement.
February 17th, 2006 at 12:32 pm“#109, oh and these two statements are contradictory:”
How are they contradictory?
” #98 “It’s fine to begin repairing the damage this administration has done with the Muslims, but to just jump in with a race that we are fighting seems to be a little suicidal.—
I am saying that we should be cautious here. Dont you see the words “just jump in”? Definition – use some caution.
” #89 “They might be great people, and I am not trying to lump all Muslims together, but we need to be cautious here and this is not the way to do that.—
And I am saying we need to be cuatious here.
How is that contradictory. GEEZE
February 17th, 2006 at 12:32 pm#107, Peter, you need to read the article: the ports are already ‘outsourced to a foreign power’. I don’t wish to scare you but it’s one which has fought the US twice already, burned Washington and threatened to hang the President. They once tried to impose their empire on over 25% of the earth’s surface, invented the concentration camp and once controlled half the world’s oil supply.
February 17th, 2006 at 12:34 pmIt’s all interconnected by money, power, position; USA is becoming more like UAE each day….join the dots between those in power within/between each ‘monarchy’.
February 17th, 2006 at 12:35 pmHey hey hey! Saudi Arabia is offering 2.3 Billion to “safeguard” the Statue of Liberty. Who cares why…thats 2.3 BILLION!!!
February 17th, 2006 at 12:35 pm#118 – “I am not trying to lump all Muslims together” and “a race we are fighting” – of course that’s contradictory – you are lumping all muslims together
February 17th, 2006 at 12:36 pm“Outsourcing” America until it ceases to exist.
February 17th, 2006 at 12:38 pm#119 – yeah and the Jews persecuted Christ. We have moved past that too. Your suggesting that during these times that you are stating that we were offering our ports to these countries, or the same race of people.
Your trying to say that directly after, or during, a conflict with a race of people that we should just let them in without any reservations or concerns.
DAMN, some people are soooooooo stupid.
February 17th, 2006 at 12:38 pm105
Don’t get uppity with me, Terry. I know you don’t live in America. Right or wrong, Muslims are Muslims. And Christians here don’t like ‘em. Check your riots map, punk.
February 17th, 2006 at 12:39 pmAuthoritarian Rush Eunuch
Go squat in your “hole of Saddam” punk.
February 17th, 2006 at 12:40 pm#122
“#118 – “I am not trying to lump all Muslims together†and “a race we are fighting†– of course that’s contradictory – you are lumping all muslims together
Comment by TerrytheTurtle ”
So I guess when someone says that a large majority of the mexicans in Arizona are illegal aliens, that they are refering to ALL mexicans? Or by saying that a large portion of the black people who live in the getto steals to survive is stating that ALL blacks steal? Or to say that because a large portion of the white people in the south hate non-white people is the same as saying that all white people hat non-white people?
Damn man, you need help.
February 17th, 2006 at 12:44 pmComment by RemoveBush — February 17, 2006 @ 9:42 am
Actually we just pointed out the fact that a Saudi owns a 5% stake in Fox news and it has been proven that he has had headlines changed so as not to look bad for Saudis.
But you wouldn’t know that would you. Because you don’t read anything, absorb anything or learn anything beyond you partisanship.
February 17th, 2006 at 12:45 pmAuthoritarian Rush
Progressive are not stupid. It is easy to understand that mixed in with a bunch of muslims are terrorists… going from that to saying that the idiot biggoted christians dont like muslims is moving from common sense into racist type thought… If the christians don’t like em that is only because the christians dont follow their own religion. If they dont know which to trust and common sense dictates caution then that is entirely different.
February 17th, 2006 at 12:46 pm#127, I have said nothing: you said the words ‘a race we are fighting’. You are the one lumping all muslims together as the ‘race we are fighting’, directly contradicting the ‘I’m not trying…’ Anytime I see one of those sentences, there’s a ‘but’ in it. It’s pretty obvious where you stand.
February 17th, 2006 at 12:51 pm130/127
Why all the mincing of words… would it not be easy to simply say that the majority of the problems we are dealing with are coming from arab countries? How is that any different than say arab race? or muslim religion? Unless you are a redneck KKK nazi wannabe then no one thinks someone means every person in that race or country or whatever.
February 17th, 2006 at 12:55 pm#130 – So if I refer to a black country as a race of people I am being racist? Or how about if I call Japan a race of people, am I being racist? How about Russians as a race of people, am I being racist?
Get a fvcking clue.
Hey MORON, heres the definition of race for you.
A race is a distinct population of humans distinguished in some way from other humans. The most widely observed races are those based on skin color, facial features, ancestry, and genetics. Conceptions of race, as well as specific racial groupings, are often controversial due to their impact on social identity hence identity politics.
February 17th, 2006 at 12:55 pmen.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race
The Bushites would let this Dubai-owned company run our ports because, um, they don’t actually give one whit about our national security. C’mon, they Invade Iraq and turn it into a terrorist breeding ground, create a Hamas-led government because of their vacuum of leadership with Israeli-Palestinian conflict, out a CIA agent who was working on tracking Iran’s nuclear weapons buildup and black market interest, our most vulnerable cities still don’t have the allocations to do half of the necessary measures to protect their citizens.
It’s a joke. The jig is up, or should be. But the mainstream media keeps reporting this administrations intentional misdeeds and blunders as if they’re doing commentary for a sporting event. “Well, we’re not sure how the White House will turn this one around, Brian.” And then Rove lobs them another big ball of cheese that they’re more than ready to eat.
No one in this administration gives a rodent’s whisker about our citizens or our soldiers. They are traitors, so the Dubai contract should surprise no one. What would be surprising is if the mainstream press gives it much play.
Don’t hold your breath.
http://www.mediabloodhound.com
February 17th, 2006 at 12:55 pmGuys
You are arguing semantics here. The only question to be answered is; does this make the U.S. safer? Yes or No?
February 17th, 2006 at 12:56 pmFor any fools above who are actually falling for this, you get your buttons pushed pretty easily. You’re like doggies on a leash getting lead around by their master, hoping for a milkbone.
An evil external force with no allegiance to the national interests of America has the White House, Capitol Hill, and the mainstream media and entertainment industries under control and/or bought off. This force has lied us into an illegal and unnecessary war, brought us the increasing liquidation of the middle class, and is sucking the financial lifeblood out of this once great land at a positively terrifying pace. America will be a spent husk when they’re done using us, with a profile of a 3rd world country. This force has purposely created a climate where chances for global war and the diminution of the US Constitution and Bill of Rights are greatly enhanced.
And yet, in the face of this dire threat now threatening all of us, what is it that you peckerheads are worried about? A port management company that happens to be from an Arab country getting some contracts in the USA.
What is a rationally minded person supposed to make of that?
You dumbed down idiots, where’s your sense of recognition and proportion? Time is short, wake the hell up.
February 17th, 2006 at 12:58 pm#125, Pointing out uncomfortable truths is ‘getting uppity’ eh?
#124 and you said it again: “or during, a conflict with a race of people” – you are lumping all muslims together.
February 17th, 2006 at 1:01 pm“It is easy to understand that mixed in with a bunch of muslims are terrorists…”
This is a hasty generalization. There exists a fundamental clash of civilizations here twixt AMERICANS (Christian or otherwise), and Muslims. When Terry talks about Muslim “democracies” he’s talking about countries that haven’t got themselves up to speed with a successful campaign/pushback against American impirialism.
February 17th, 2006 at 1:02 pmDon’t you see how quickly Iran turned? Iran was on the verge of getting their intellectual verve back! The most wonderful man I ever met is from Iran. He left during the Revolution. That was a long time ago. What we have here is broken.
#132 – the issue is that you are seemingly justifying your stance on the port issue on the grounds that they are muslim and that’s all and you protest weakly that you are not earlier in your posts. Is your position that the US is at war with all muslims or not? Come on, you can do it without using the ‘f’ word and without a personal attack – it would help your credibility, you know.
February 17th, 2006 at 1:06 pmHey Radon – Your the one who seems to be getting your buttons pushed pretty easily. This all ties in with all the other stuff you talked about. One is just as important as the other. It’s like saying that we don’t need to worry about how someone died, because they are already dead.
February 17th, 2006 at 1:07 pm#137 – AR – check your facts:
Turkey, 2003 – refused to allow the US to invade Iraq from Turkey, despite Paul Wolfowitz demanding that the Turkish Army take control of the country. That looks like a muslim democracy that was ‘up to speed’ with US imperialism don;t you think?
And the clash of civilizations exists if you want it to exist and if enough people think it’s OK to arbitrarily divide up mankind because of no other system than color or religion. Welcome to the New Dark Ages…thanks a lot.
February 17th, 2006 at 1:12 pm#135
What would you say about a middle eastern country allowed to work in the World Trade Center towers prior to 9/11? In a time when America should be bulking up on our defense here at home and at a time when every nonNeoCon is constantly called yellow bellyed communists for not wanting to drink the blood of the Iraqis we are being told be these same people that they also think that letting middle eastern countries run out ports? air ports? banks? millitary? Either they believe their own crap about protecting America or they dont and this shows they do not. I DO NOT want ANY arab country working in sensitive areas in America any time soon. Not guarding our borders with Canada and Mexico. Not “cleaning” our airplanes… not working as scientists in our nuclear labs…none of that. How foolish we will look if in the end we get hit again because of it. And who will pay the most if it does happen again? Lady Liberty.
February 17th, 2006 at 1:13 pmThanx for stopping by Radon but Everyone here knows that already, but did you get a charge out of imagining that you are the only one in the know?
February 17th, 2006 at 1:13 pmGo suck on your Radon mitigation exhaust fan, Radon.
“RemoveBush”
That part I get ;-)
February 17th, 2006 at 1:14 pm#136
What are you wanting? You want him to list the names and phone#s of all the people he specifically is talking about?
February 17th, 2006 at 1:14 pm#138 – It’s a little difficult when a person with blinders on keeps repeating the same thing rather than looking around and realizing that there is more around them then what they see in front of them.
For example:
You keep pointing out that I am refering to ALL Muslims because I say race. How would you prefer me to speak of them? Towel heads? (rather racist don’t you think?) I think that calling muslims from the Middle East a race of people, which by definition is true, that this is rather nuetral.
But instead of seeing the conversation as it is, you wish to try and make it out that this is some kind of racist comment. Or that the comment is corraling all Muslims into the same group. When you refer to a race, then by definition as well this does mean that ALL MUSLIMS are included. It’s kind of a catch 22 don’t you think?
So how do you feel the best way to refer to Muslims in the Middle East who are of the same race who we are fighting should be refered to? I think I have done a DAMN FINE JOB of being non-racist or discriminitive of the Muslims.
But to say that because a few don’t represent the masses is a little nieve as well. Especially when over 80% of the Iraqis think that it is just fine for the Americans to be blown up. So if 100% of the Iraqis are Muslims, and 80% think that it is OK to blow up American soldiers……. Well, I think (Hope) you may see the point, but I doubt it.
February 17th, 2006 at 1:15 pmRadon,
Who the hell are you addressing. Apparently you have typed the wrong URL into your browser. try Free Republic or another right wing site.
February 17th, 2006 at 1:18 pmAuthoritarian Rush 137
The conflict is not civilizations. What cartoons I watch or religion I have or soft drink I buy means nothing to the arabs. They are not like christians. They are not coming over here trying to convert everyone. The conflict is the Reasoned/Scientific world verse the Fundamentalists. The religious fundamentalists are “racists” at their core. They don’t need religion as their excuse they can simply say “Jew” or “American” or “Outsider” or “Whites”. The other religious people and the non religious people dont give a crap about what the fighting is over. The religious fundamentalists in the middle east are using their bigotry to stir up hate and the fundamentalists in America are doing the same thing. IF not that we should… but IF we could launch all those people out into space from both sides who in the hell would be standing up on podiums convincing normal people to go kill in the name of their “peaceful” religion??? NO ONE. A world without fundamentalists of any kind is a much more peaceful world.
February 17th, 2006 at 1:20 pmFor fuck sake people, why are you talking anything about race or religion?
This issue is about port security of the United States outsourced to a company wholly owned by a foreign country (UAE) with known ties to terrorist entities!
Will the U.S. be more or less secure with this contract? That is the only question with merit.
February 17th, 2006 at 1:21 pm#145, OK, good, some progrss here – so you are referring to all muslims when you say race. Fine. Now can you answer the question: is your stance on the ports issue simply because the new owners are muslim? Because that’s how I see your posts. If you can answer that, I will explain what I mean, because you are still not getting my point.
February 17th, 2006 at 1:22 pm#148, Citizen: the US ports in question are currently outsourced to a company owned by the country which supplied the shoe bomber, so why is this any different?
February 17th, 2006 at 1:23 pm#149 – Yes! I DO NOT WANT ANY MUSLIMS, AT THIS MOMENT, OWNING ANY PORTS IN THIS COUNTRY.
This is a matter of security. If security is such a big deal to the Republicans, then why is this not of any concern. This is a company onwed and operated by Muslims. Are they not the same race or religion that we are currently fighting 2 wars, possible 3, with?
Where in the world am I off on this. NO, MUSLIMS SHOULD NOT BE ALOWED TO RUN OUR PORTS (PERIOD), at this time.
February 17th, 2006 at 1:27 pm#150 – WERE NOT AT WAR WITH THIS COUNTRY, or race of people from this country GEEZE!
February 17th, 2006 at 1:28 pmTerry
Yes, there is huge difference. UAE has known ties to terrorist organizations. Great Briton does not.
February 17th, 2006 at 1:29 pm150)
Most people from Britian did not grow up hearing from their parents that America is the devil. The people from the arab countries did. So common sense dictates that if you are 1) Smart – You do not let arab people into sensitive areas in America… 2) Really smart – You do not let any people from any foreign country into sensitive areas in America …
If this was 1790 and Britian wanted to “Manage” our major ports what do you think Mr. Franklin and George Washington would have to say about it?
February 17th, 2006 at 1:31 pmRemoveBush
Come on now, I know Muslims who I would trust with my life. It is about a country with ties to terrorism that I have the problem with, not Muslims at large.
February 17th, 2006 at 1:31 pmSeriously people you are treating RemoveBush like he is a southern rightwing nut job. If you can not understand what he means then that is just plain brain dead.
If you are caught out in the Iraqi desert and you see a group of british around you in one direction and a group of “muslim arabs” in the other direction and you are an American and you dont see any aggresiveness from either group of people which group of people would you “meander” towards? Just as a matter of common sense?
February 17th, 2006 at 1:35 pm#155 – I don’t have a problem with Muslims at large. I live in a state with one of the largest Muslim populations in America. I have no problem with that, and I live just a few, 20 – 30 miles from them.
The issue is that given the current situation we are in with the Middle East, it is not VERY SMART to just turn our ports over to the Middle East.
It’s like the police turning over all their weapons to the bad guys to show that they want to be friends. Sure not all the bad guys will end up doing anything with the weapons, but there will be a few that will turn those weapons on the police.
This is the point. With the LINKS, this may be a very serious problem.
February 17th, 2006 at 1:36 pmTerry
I understand your concern of those who are posting “not trusting Muslims” as a blanket condemnation. It is not about Islam, it is about the UAE.
February 17th, 2006 at 1:37 pmRemoveBush
I totally agree with you. But do you see that a blanket use of “Muslims” does not focus upon the UAE in particular?
February 17th, 2006 at 1:39 pm#151 – Thank you, you’ve made it perfectly clear what you think about all muslims. Here’s your bonus link. And last time I looked, the US was not at war with the UAE either.
#154 – Gerald, I believe that it was more along the lines of ‘the Communists are devils’, a bit like here – same idea, different boogey man.
#153 – OK Citizen, you’ve got a point, is the UAE on the US terror-nations list? Not that makes any diference I know, Saddam was on it until Reagan took him off the list, even while there were various Abu this-and-that’s in Baghdad. Second, where’s your link on the UAE as a state sponsor of terror? Sure, two of the 19 were from UAE and Richard Reid was from Britain and Moussaoui holds a French passport and Tim McVeigh was from where?
February 17th, 2006 at 1:44 pmI’d have to agree that RemoveBush is off target here.
Stereotyping an entire group is based on a single aspect of their demographic is…. well, really really bad to put it mildly.
I’m not pleased about this situation because the country in question had direct ties to the 9/11 attacks. Not because the country is full of Muslims.
Hell, if The Cayman Islands had ties to any terrorist attacks, I’d be wary of letting them be in control of vital strategic US holings.
Oh, and Radon – put the crack pipe down and go sleep it off.
February 17th, 2006 at 1:44 pm#159 – Regardless… I don’t see the need to allow our ports to be run by Muslims whether linked to the UAE or not. Given the hostile situation we are in, and may be in another situation soon, it does not make sense to have a nationality or race in control of our ports.
I don’t know how else to say it without saying race, or “blanket use of Muslims”, given the large number of Muslims that really don’t like us. So forgive me if I take the 60,000 or more wounded and dead soldiers as a sign of a group of people that do not like us as being concerned.
This is the problem as I see it. Terry still has not answered my previous question, so I guess I’m right about the situation.
“Let’s say that someone shoots you because they dont like you. This guy has a brother which has the same views as the guy that shot you. Would you be so quick to allow him to run your buisness for you?”
February 17th, 2006 at 1:45 pmTerry,
February 17th, 2006 at 1:47 pmThe are enough facts to go around. Bottom line is you seem to want democratization or something from Americans or someone that will make the world a better place for Arabs? Muslims? Everyone? And I’m telling you that the American Neocon does not have these people’s best interest at heart and they never will. And they are ruining it for me and mine by making my world an unsafe place. And it fills me with contempt for both parties.
#51, beep
February 17th, 2006 at 1:48 pmGreat post — what the hell is happening here! I can’t believe what I am seeing with my own eyes and it is going on unchecked. My imagination can run wild here and start thinking that the Saudis are behind everything and BushCo is the agent set up here to do aid them in controlling the world.
157
So good to know you’re not an anti-Muslim bigot or anything then then. I’ll bet some of your best friends are Arabs.
Well blowhard, if by chance you have finished pontificating on the evils of Arab port management, what sage advice can you grace us with on taking back our Foreign Policy and Intelligence apparatus from who and where it’s been outsourced?
But, gosh, only if you don’t think it’s VERY SMART to have the US slavishly pursue the foreign policy goals of a foreign land. ‘Cause ya know, with the LINKS, this may be a very serious problem.
February 17th, 2006 at 1:50 pmSorry RB – which question?
February 17th, 2006 at 1:51 pm#163, Now we are more less in agreement. let me ask you this – when you read the American Declaration of Independence – who do you think it should apply to?
February 17th, 2006 at 1:52 pm#161 – You and I say almost the same thing, but I’m off base? As I stated previously, over 80% of the Muslims in Iraq think that its OK to blow up Americans. So with that thought process, where am I incorrect to lump all Muslims in this discussion?
It does not matter what race, or religion, is being delt with. If the majority in a particular instance is condoning killing then I have to believe that it is not in the best interrest of America to allow that culture of people to run our ports.
Please explain to me how I am “off target here.”? You stated it very well with “if The Cayman Islands had ties to any terrorist attacks, I’d be wary of letting them be in control of vital strategic US holings.”. So would it be an incorrect statement to say that I don’t want Jamakins to run our ports because the large majority of them condone killing Americans?
February 17th, 2006 at 1:53 pmNot all Muslims are bad. If we start considering all Musilims bad, then we are no better than the chicken shit right wingers who think we are having a crusade.
The issue is the specific country that is being given control of the ports. Namely the UAE.
Here, this is from the 9/11 Commission Report. Speciifically the Monograph on Terrorist Financing
It goes on and on through out the entire 9/11 Commission’s Report.
This is about a country, not a religion.
February 17th, 2006 at 1:54 pm#168, ah, if I were to say to you that 80% of the people think its OK to blow up Americans, what would you say then? In other words, is it that they are muslim that makes them want to blow up Americans or because their country is a disaster, their sewers don’t work, their children are mal-nourished etc etc and they blame the Americans? I’m not muslim and if the Americans did that to me, I’d want to blow them up too.
February 17th, 2006 at 1:57 pm#165 – Hey buttwipe, I don’t agree with our foreign policies, but I don’t make them now do I?
If you want to start being a jerk, I can be one as well. But if you want to have a debate, that’s fine too. The choice is yours.
February 17th, 2006 at 1:59 pmNow Spudge has cut through the issue, thanks Spudge. So the UAE is on the US terror list then? If not why not?
February 17th, 2006 at 2:04 pmYou and I say almost the same thing, but I’m off base? As I stated previously, over 80% of the Muslims in Iraq think that its OK to blow up Americans. So with that thought process, where am I incorrect to lump all Muslims in this discussion?
Comment by RemoveBush — February 17, 2006 @ 1:53 pm
This is equivalent to saying that all Catholics are bad because the Bush administration has a tizzy fit everytime Chavez opens his mouth.
Most Venezuelans oppose Pres Bush’s policy towards their country. Most Venezuelans are Catholic. With your thought process, would you say the Vatican should also suffer the wrath of the US’ foreign policy?
February 17th, 2006 at 2:04 pm#170 – You can twist this all you want, but it does not change the point. I agree that I too would do the same. It still does not change the fact. Muslims, whether it be through a company or country, should not be allowed to buy our ports at least at this moment.
What part of “I don’t have any issue with Muslims as a whole”, but when we are fighting a group of Muslims it does not seem like a very smart thing to do.
You still have not answered my question.
“Let’s say that someone shoots you because they dont like you. This guy has a brother which has the same views as the guy that shot you. Would you be so quick to allow him to run your buisness for you?â€
February 17th, 2006 at 2:04 pm168:
You answered your own question.
Muslims are members of a religion. Not a country.
UAE is a country. Not a religion.
Would you say the same thing about all Christians, Jews, Pagans, whatever? No, because you would look at their nationality as well.
Oh, and where did you invent the 80% of all Iraqis think it’s okay to blow up Americans?
February 17th, 2006 at 2:13 pmTo all who are taking the words written down as AN EXACT MEANING, rather than the analogy that has been presented at least a dozen times, need to go back through and re-read the posts.
If you have to….. Print it out, as I have provided multiple examples to convey the point.
“This is equivalent to saying that all Catholics are bad because the Bush administration has a tizzy fit everytime Chavez opens his mouth. Comment by Gregor Samsa ”
Not even close! We are not in a battle with these people or this country. There is no comparision. If we were to have a battle with Mexico, would it be so wrong to reject a company made up of Mexicans to run our ports? Seriously, we should not allow any culture of the same culture we are fighting to buy rights to sensitive areas of our country during this time.
What part of SECURITY don’t you understand? It may be that these people associated with the company has no ties to the radical Muslims, but are you willing to risk your life, or the lifes of other Americans on this? I AM NOT.
February 17th, 2006 at 2:13 pm#174, thanks for reminding me. The obvious answer is ‘no’.
Now a question for you: how do you know that his brother has the same views?
You assume he does because he’s the brother? And if you act on that assumption and in fact the brother hates his brother for what he did, how does he feel after you treat him like crap? Maybe he feels like his brother had a point after all.
Your straw man is not equivalent, you have not proved that all muslims hold the same view as the 19 hijackers. To assume so is… well, did you look at your bonus link?
February 17th, 2006 at 2:15 pm“Let’s say that someone shoots you because they dont like you. This guy has a brother which has the same views as the guy that shot you. Would you be so quick to allow him to run your buisness for you?â€
Nope. I probably wouldn’t. But I wouldn’t lump everyone that had that guy’s religion into one group and assume that I know everything about every single one of them.
You are speaking in generalities, RB. This isn’t about a religion. It’s about a mindset that SOME (a small number) members of that relgion have.
February 17th, 2006 at 2:16 pm#great… give control over our ports to Muslim countries… why don’t we have Saudi Arabia run Homeland Security?
Comment by Pete Bogs — February 17, 2006 @ 9:07 am
Isnt Thats Israels Job?
February 17th, 2006 at 2:19 pmTerrytheTurtle
No, the UAE is not on the
While checking for the UAE being listed, I came across this report on Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTOs) released on October 5, 2001 and noticed something strange.
2001 Report on Foreign Terrorist Organizations
Released by the Office of the Coordinator for Counterterrorism
October 5, 2001
http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/rpt/fto/2001/5258.htm
This is less than a month after the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Centers. The largest attack on US soil and the largest attack on American citizens since Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941.
Why is al Qaida listed way down in the 21st spot?
Other than al Qaida and al Jihad, all the others on the list seem to be alphabetical. It appears to me that al Qaida and al Jihad were thrown in at the last minute and were randomly dumped anywhere in the list and not put in alphabetical order. Why?
February 17th, 2006 at 2:19 pm#178 – And you can tell who has that mindset? Especially when we are fighting 2, maybe 3, battles with this group of religious people.
Your willing to allow a group of people that we are battling to run our sensitive parts of our nation? Let’s say that we do something else that is even more stupid than what we have already done. How sympethetic could the new company be to allow something to happen to one of the ports? Are you 100% confident that the company members would not turn their head if they were to disagree with our policies?
This is the problem!
February 17th, 2006 at 2:21 pmNow you’re getting preachy, Terry.
February 17th, 2006 at 2:21 pmI’m just mad a Schumer.
He knows this port situation does not make America less safe.
Schumer is fear mongering for political gain.
Which is unrelated to my views about foreign policy.
176:
RB – dude, we aren’t fighting Muslims.
We’re fighting terrorists (well, kinda… that’s debatable at this point) who happen to be Muslim.
It’s like saying in World War II we were fighting Christians. No, we were fighting Nazis who happened to think they were Christian.
February 17th, 2006 at 2:21 pm#175, Bob the 80% may not be actual, but the sentiment is accurate:
February 17th, 2006 at 2:21 pmThat first sentence ahould have been:
“No, the UAE is not on the Foreign Terrorist Organizations list.”
February 17th, 2006 at 2:22 pm181
Riddle me this:
Are all Muslims terrorists?
February 17th, 2006 at 2:26 pmNot even close! We are not in a battle with these people or this country. There is no comparision. If we were to have a battle with Mexico, would it be so wrong to reject a company made up of Mexicans to run our ports?
Comment by RemoveBush — February 17, 2006 @ 2:13 pm
No, it wouldn’t -but that’t not what you are saying.
What you are saying would translate into: “We have a war with Mexico, most Mexicans are Catholic -we shouldn’t let any Catholic company run the ports”. That’s the logical leap you are taking, and what Terry and the others are calling you on.
February 17th, 2006 at 2:26 pm“Nope. I probably wouldn’t. But I wouldn’t lump everyone that had that guy’s religion into one group and assume that I know everything about every single one of them.”
Your not getting the point. IT’S ABOUT THE FACT THAT WE ARE FIGHTING GROUPS WITH THE SAME MINDSET. You can’t change a mindset easily, if at all.
“You are speaking in generalities, RB. This isn’t about a religion. It’s about a mindset that SOME (a small number) members of that relgion have.”
Yes I am speaking in generalities, that is what you people seem to be missing. Your right, it’s not about a religion and I have tried over and over again to point that out. But you can’t remove the religious aspect from the point. You can’t say that if they all don’t have the same beliefs. Just that some interpret the beliefs differently. And some can be shifted from that belief based upon a situation. Just because one muslim kills a man does not mean that all muslims will kill a man. But if 100 muslims kill a man, then the concern is raised that “Muslims” in general may kill a man.
So yes there is generalizations, but it is not about a religion as you state.
February 17th, 2006 at 2:27 pm#182, So far we have ‘preachy’, ‘uppity’ and ‘punk’ and some commentary about my background (which I don’t feel obliged to respond to). Otherwise I agree with you I mistrust Schumer likewise especially after his role in the Hackett knifing.
February 17th, 2006 at 2:28 pmHere is the updated list of oreign Terrorist Organizations as of October 11, 2005.
Office of Counterterrorism
Washington, DC
October 11, 2005
http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/fs/37191.htm
Even in this latest updated list of FTOs, everything is alphabetical, excluding al Qaida and al Jihad. Why?
And now al Qaida is listed in 33 postion. Why?
February 17th, 2006 at 2:29 pmI’ve got to go. Here’s the bottom line: American Foreign Policy is an American problem, not a Republican problem.
The people who want to change foreign policy are being squeezed out of the Democratic party. Shit, they won’t even back up Murtha.
And if that weren’t enough, this very “Progressive” website doesn’t even call out the Dems like they do the Republicans.
February 17th, 2006 at 2:31 pmAnd now al Qaida is listed in 33 postion. Why?
Comment by Spudge_Boy — February 17, 2006 @ 2:29 pm
Because alQaeda begins with a ‘Q’, and alJihad with a ‘J’ -’al’ just means ‘the’.
Kind of like saying ‘Lord of the Rings, The’
February 17th, 2006 at 2:32 pm#187, back in 1960, Kennedy was called on his catholicism (supposed allegiance to the Pope) as being a threat to national security, if my memory serves. The US got over that.
February 17th, 2006 at 2:34 pmThat’s right, Terry. You can’t just waltz in here like Jackie O and not get some splatter. You’ve got a perfect world as your baseline and we’re not here to be shamed by you.
February 17th, 2006 at 2:35 pmHurl an insult, sometime. Lighten up.
#190, it’s alphabetical – they are dropping the ‘al’ and going for the Q – although Al-Aksa is further up the list. I would hope that the State Department is smart enough not to issue a ‘league table’ for mass-killers like the FBI has its Top Ten. ‘Hey Osama, I’m coming to get your spot.’ ‘STFU, Zarqawi, you’re an amateur’. ‘Your mother’. ‘No, YOUR mother’.
February 17th, 2006 at 2:38 pm#194, I’m here to confront fascists and I’m not as fat as Jackie O.
February 17th, 2006 at 2:40 pm#194 – and I insult Adolf (I-R-I) whenever I can
February 17th, 2006 at 2:41 pmBut you can’t remove the religious aspect from the point.
Comment by RemoveBush — February 17, 2006 @ 2:27 pm
Yes, you can -in the same way the religious component can be removed from the conflict in the Ulster.
Religion provides a convenient excuse and/or handy rallying cry, but it is not the roor cause of the problem.
You can’t say that if they all don’t have the same beliefs. Just that some interpret the beliefs differently. And some can be shifted from that belief based upon a situation.
The same thing can be said about any religion. But if you pick a fight wit ha bunch of people who happen to belong to a certain Christian denomination, does it make all people from that denomination your enemies?
Just because one muslim kills a man does not mean that all muslims will kill a man. But if 100 muslims kill a man, then the concern is raised that “Muslims” in general may kill a man.
The same exact thing can be said about any religion. Christians in particular have argued over the ages the need to kill the body in order to save the soul. Does it raise the concern that all Christians are killers?
So yes there is generalizations, but it is not about a religion as you state.
You just contradicted all that you just stated.
The problem is with a country, not a religion -as Spudge pointed out.
February 17th, 2006 at 2:42 pmRemovebush & Terry
You both post here on regular basis and add much to the discussion.
RemoveBush, from your numerous previous posts I know you are not a racist, but are a progressive.
Terry, from your posts I know you provide a unique prospective reminding us there is a large world out there that is not America. You too I believe are a progressive.
So come guys, disagree but tone it down a notch.
RemoveBush, you have stated that it is not all Muslims you distrust. I’m sure the Muslim Americans can be trusted by and large, so just focus on Muslim terrorists.
Terry, I’m sure you understand why American citizens are concerned with port security being placed upon a company that is owned by a country that has affirmed past alliances with terrorist entities. It seems unproductive when you both are progressives, but argue with vitriol against one another.
February 17th, 2006 at 2:48 pm#198 – Well, you have your thoughts about the issue and I have mine. It’s not about a country completely.
People, you keep bringing up points that are not related to the same situation as the discussion.
“The same exact thing can be said about any religion. Christians in particular have argued over the ages the need to kill the body in order to save the soul. Does it raise the concern that all Christians are killers?”
If we were fighting a country, or countries, based on that religion the I would say the same thing. It does not matter if they are buddas, christians, muslims, what ever. If we are battling a organization who directly bases their attack on the premis of their religion then I say we need to use caution with any groups that represent that religion.
If a great dane attacks you for no reason, you are more than likely to be very cautious of other great danes. In fact, you would probably choose not to own a great dane immediately, or during the attack would you?
February 17th, 2006 at 2:54 pmCitizen80203 – Great point. I just have a problem when people try to accuse me of something that I am not saying. I will defend that and try to present it in other perspectives, as I have.
Thanks for the input.
February 17th, 2006 at 2:57 pmWhat I would like to know is, who owns the P&O company? Is it a publicly held or privately held company? And what exactly does Bush and Co. stand to gain from this deal? Because they smell money, and their hands are out for their share of it. Otherwise, this deal would not be happening.
February 17th, 2006 at 2:58 pmIf a great dane attacks you for no reason, you are more than likely to be very cautious of other great danes. In fact, you would probably choose not to own a great dane immediately, or during the attack would you?
Comment by RemoveBush — February 17, 2006 @ 2:54 pm
Probably -but I would have to admit that response would be a tad irrational, as other Great Danes are absolutely not to blame.
True that Bin Laden and AlQaeda used their religion to justify their attacks on the US. But that justification was rejected by most Islamic scholars.
Again, the problem is a company -owned by a country with obvious ties to shady groups- running the seaport operation in the US. If the company had ties to, say, anti-Castro terrorist groups (the guys who blew up a Venezuelan commercial airplane in mid-air), I would be just as uneasy.
Actually, if you ask me, the problem is with the idea itself of outsourcing the operation, regardless of whatever religion their country of origin has.
February 17th, 2006 at 3:04 pmHah ah ah aha
Sometimes it’s the simple sh!t eh?
February 17th, 2006 at 3:04 pm#199, are you sure that we’re talking about port security here? I thought that the US Customs, DHS etc etc had responsibility for security over ports, irrespective of the operator. And are we expecting all the New York longshoremen to be sacked and replaced by vast hordes from the UAE overnight so that OBL can sneak in his Russian nuke?
February 17th, 2006 at 3:06 pmI guess Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade gets to be in 3rd place because they got a dash in their name. and they capitolize the A in “Al”. : )
February 17th, 2006 at 3:07 pmWatch out, the next terror group is going to emerge from the Aardvark community – I’d start tapping their phones right away.
February 17th, 2006 at 3:13 pmSometimes it’s the simple sh!t eh?
Comment by Spudge_Boy — February 17, 2006 @ 3:04 pm
It struck me too at first, then I remembered.
As for the Al-Aqsa Brigade, I can speculate that the other spelling is Al-Aksa, as Terry mentioned, and it would fit the alphabetical order quite nicely.
February 17th, 2006 at 3:15 pmI’m not real clear how bushco is involved in this one. It seems like a straightforward takeover of a UK-listed company. If it wasn’t Dubai it was going to be Singapore.I’m not happy about it either as an ex-P & O employeee (& shareholder) which is being sold out for the benefit of the suits in London. But I’m not sure how you can blame Bush?
February 17th, 2006 at 3:21 pm“Probably -but I would have to admit that response would be a tad irrational, as other Great Danes are absolutely not to blame.”
It’s the concept of the discussion, not the actuality of the discussion. Of course other Great Danes would not be blamable for the attack against you. However, you certainly would have a bit of a concern that the same thing might happen.
The point is that though not all Great Danes are to blame, they provide a concern that you might suffer the same fate. You would not put your kid in the cage with a Great Dane until you had been provided some confidence level that that Great Dane was not the same as the one that attacked you.
So your fine with an Arab being rushed through an airport screen, while your stopped and searched? The Arab probably is just as innocent as you, but theres that possibility that he is not. Would it not be better to take the time to search him as well? In fact to search all Arab’s with a little more focus? This is wrong, but how else do you ensure the safety of Americans?
With your logic, we should just open up the flood gates again and just let everyone from these countries come into the US. After all, we can’t single out the people because of a few bad apples. Is that the protection you really want for the US?
I don’t want to see anyone screened more than another, but under the current situation I want all Arabs to be checked more than another race. This is not being out of touch, this is being realistic. If Arabs, or Muslims, are attacking our country then we should be more resistive to these people.
February 17th, 2006 at 3:23 pm#209 – Because he is selling the port to the company. If the company was just buying out the existing company, I would still be concerned. However, this is a sell of something like 6.8 Billion dollars.
February 17th, 2006 at 3:28 pm#209 – well, there was that Unocal/China issue a few months ago that the Administration blocked because of national security. If the issue is the same, then why no issue with this one? P&O is not an American company anyway, why was this not an issue before? I think this is demagoguery pure and simple.
February 17th, 2006 at 3:28 pmSo your fine with an Arab being rushed through an airport screen, while your stopped and searched?
Comment by RemoveBush — February 17, 2006 @ 3:23 pm
You are beginning to sound a tad xenophobic.
The Arab probably is just as innocent as you, but theres that possibility that he is not. Would it not be better to take the time to search him as well? In fact to search all Arab’s with a little more focus?
Yes it would be better to search him, but the same goes for everyone else. How do you know that Irish guy in front of you does not have ties to terrorist goups? Or that Cuban behind you? Or that Basque in the other line?
Are you really advocating racial profiling?
This is wrong, but how else do you ensure the safety of Americans?
How about better intelligence? How about implementing some of the recommendations the 9/11 Commission issued?
With your logic, we should just open up the flood gates again and just let everyone from these countries come into the US. After all, we can’t single out the people because of a few bad apples. Is that the protection you really want for the US?
Oh, you really are advocating racial profiling… The problem with that approach is that as soon as the terrorist groups realise that’s the case, they will recruit people from different racial and ethnic backgrounds -Richard Reid, and Jose Padilla are two of such examples.
(…)I want all Arabs to be checked more than another race. This is not being out of touch, this is being realistic.
Racial profiling again. See my previous response.
February 17th, 2006 at 3:34 pmThe title of TP’s orignal post grossly overstates the scope of the story. The company in question, should the deal goes through, would take over A NUMBER OF FACILITIES in the ports mentioned, but in no way, shape, or form would they control or operate any port in its entirety.
For details see:
February 17th, 2006 at 3:36 pmSorry for the missing link. Let me try again.
February 17th, 2006 at 3:39 pmOK, if this works, just cut and paste into your browser:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/17/nyregion/17ports.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1140207581-NvguwlTNzqOiw453EwlzMA
February 17th, 2006 at 3:45 pmWith your logic, we should just open up the flood gates again and just let everyone from these countries come into the US.
Comment by RemoveBush — February 17, 2006 @ 3:23 pm
This is not my logic -I’ve never said that. It’s your logic, a strawman.
I am merely pointing out the huge logical leap you are making:
1.- AlQaeda are evil
2.- AlQaeda are Arabs/Muslims
3.- All Arabs/Muslims are evil
What I am saying is that I don’t think it’s a good idea for a foreign country to control the operation of any American seaports. Let alone one with ties to shady groups, regardless of their religion.
February 17th, 2006 at 3:45 pm“You are beginning to sound a tad xenophobic.”
Really, soldiers are dying everyday due to radicals of a religion that is suppose to be peacefull. Sorry that I care more about Americans than a radical bunch of people, whether they all are or not I certainly cant tell their intentions, can you?
“Yes it would be better to search him, but the same goes for everyone else. How do you know that Irish guy in front of you does not have ties to terrorist goups? Or that Cuban behind you? Or that Basque in the other line?
Are you really advocating racial profiling?”
Well if a black person robs a bank, do you expect the police to stop white people when trying to catch the robber? Let’s be real here. Use some logic in the situation, though it’s not right and ideally we don’t want to do this, we need to do this.
“How about better intelligence? How about implementing some of the recommendations the 9/11 Commission issued?”
OK, so in the mean time we just do nothing? See my previous reply.
“Oh, you really are advocating racial profiling… The problem with that approach is that as soon as the terrorist groups realise that’s the case, they will recruit people from different racial and ethnic backgrounds -Richard Reid, and Jose Padilla are two of such examples.”
And how many people would they be able to recruit? A handful. It’s not like now where we have MILLIONS to worry about, which only a handful may be a problem to begin with.
February 17th, 2006 at 3:53 pm1. The Contras were terrorists in Nicaragua
February 17th, 2006 at 3:54 pm2. The Contras were sponsored and armed by the US
3. The US is a terrorist nation….?
4. All Americans support terror…?
February 17th, 2006 at 3:55 pm211 – I’m trying to understand this. P & O is a British company and has been for 150 years. Over the years it has aquired lots of ports (over 100 I think). The sale was for 3.9 billion pounds and I don’t think the six US ports account for a lot of the revenue. The company has been struggling for a while and was easy pickings. I voted against the sale because I don’t believe in foreign companies owning local assets like ports. But BUSH is not selling it, the P & O shareholders are. And if Dubai had not bought it, Singapore would have. I don’t think you can pin this one on Bush.
February 17th, 2006 at 3:55 pm“Actually, if you ask me, the problem is with the idea itself of outsourcing the operation, regardless of whatever religion their country of origin has.”
Your just not listening……
Religion happens to be a key part of who these people are. It is what drives them. It is the only thing that drives them, so to say that their religion is not part of this is like saying America was not created because of Great Britan.
If this company was American based and was composed mostly of Muslims, I would have no problem with it. The problem is the Middle East Muslims which seem to be more ratical and have less respect for America, and rightfully so.
GEEZE!
February 17th, 2006 at 4:01 pmBut the company is now a British-owned company, the US ports are run by Americans and then it will be a Dubai-owned company, US ports STILL run by Americans. So what?
February 17th, 2006 at 4:06 pm178
You are speaking in generalities, RB. This isn’t about a religion. It’s about a mindset that SOME (a small number) members of that relgion have.
Thats like saying “SOME” of the southerners believed in slavery in the year 1800.
There is mass racism and relgious bigotry in the middle east because they didn’t go through what the west did which finally led to the seperation of church and state in America.
If christianity was as in control of peoples daily lives in America as islam is in the arab countries then things like the civil rights movement would never happen because they would declare it a sin against god therefore they have the right to put you to death …no water hoses or police dogs…just death. In a society like this KKK type hate is engrained into the daily lives of people from childhood on up. The arabs have all grown up hearing about Westerners attacking and using and abusing the arabs. They have heard about America and its unholy support of Israel. They have seem revolutions happen in their countries or their neighbors countries where American puppet leaders were removed. These people are not just your neighbor that happens to be muslim. They hate us because they were told to from childhood. Most probably are just as stupid as right wingers here in America and can’t even articulate why they hate Americans and Jews.
And you want to let the KKK be the guardians of the front door of America?
Just because you are against invading countries in illegal wars doesn’t mean you should be ignorant of what reality is. The Iraq war was not wrong because there are just a bunch of happy go lucky innocent arabs over there. The Iraq war was wrong because it violated what America is supposed to be about. There IS a problem we have with the arabs. And it is the same problem the blacks have had with the racists white here in America.
February 17th, 2006 at 4:13 pmThe issue is that this opens a door for much easier access to organizations of the same religious groups. These extremist groups can possibly influence the owners to look the other way.
It’s a SECURITY CONCERN.
February 17th, 2006 at 4:13 pmDon’t you just love it when Bush ships your hard earned money out the door to some other nation. Lets keep our tax dollars at home by hiring American companies.
February 17th, 2006 at 4:23 pmShowman,
It all depends on what article you read.
Try this one:
Washington Post
February 12, 2006
United Arab Emirates Firm May Oversee 6 U.S. Ports
Boy that second part is rather telling, considering that two of the 19 highjackers were from the UAE and from my 9/11 commission post above, you can clearly see they helped fund the 9/11 attacks. Why are our attackers “allies.”
If 15 of the 19 highjackers were Saudis, why is Bush holding hands with King Abdullah?
February 17th, 2006 at 4:36 pmSounds like a new twist on the old protection racket.
February 17th, 2006 at 4:42 pmOne interesting connection in this is the Texas A&M ’satellite’campus in the Dubai. The president of TAMU is Robert Gates -Ex CIA director- The College Station campus also houses the Bush ,Sr. presidential library which has custody of the junior bush’s governor’s papers. It’s a small world indeed …
February 17th, 2006 at 6:03 pmNo, they’re not in bed with the guys behind 911.
Why would anyone suspect that?
February 17th, 2006 at 6:19 pmThis is the Bushco scheme to rid America of all those pinko-commie liberal left wing blue state frenchified unAmerican unpatriots. Let the Arab terrorists nuke our ports. Simple, see?
February 17th, 2006 at 6:45 pm#3, Get a clue! Yes,Bush would! Get a damn clue! They were behind 9-11,plus he invited to his state of Union speech a KNOWN Saudi terrorist who the 9-11 victims families sued in court over involvement in 9-11!http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0202-32.htm
Part of the above is not true about one country who reconized Taliban as gov’t is because U.S. gov’t brought Taliban to power, like our gov’t brought to power Saddam,Noreigna and other ruthless dictators! Get a clue, YES he/they would! We need to put a stop to all this crap and now! Stop being sheep! Now Bush and evil cohorts are building “detention camps” for us protesters! Wake up sheep before it is too late! Then he calls our Constitution a “Goddamn piece of paper”! And wants to criminalize protesting him! He with the help of gutless aholes in Congress and sheep in our nation are turning him into the total dictator he wants to be! STOP THIS CRAP IMMEDIATELY! Demand immediate removal of the whole Bush regime and NOW! They are in bed with the terrorists! The sale of our ports PROVES IT! Those people are KNOWN terrorists! Defend our nation against the lying,murdering fascist Bush and evil PNAC group and regime and now before they totally bankrupt America and remove those in Congnress too who do NOT want to stand up for America,against these lying,murdering fascist aholes and now!
February 17th, 2006 at 6:50 pmSomeone explain to me how turning over control of our nations shipping ports does anything other than lift our skirts and show our ass to our enemy?
February 17th, 2006 at 7:32 pmEven if you are dumb enough to believe that this does not pose us a security threat, it would seem any real American would be repulsed at the notion of awarding a huge financial contract to people who helped finance 911.
It slaps the face of every person who died at the Pentagon or in the Towers, or on Flight 93.
February 17th, 2006 at 7:32 pmP&O controls ports both in the US and abroad (mostly the UK). It hasn’t been doing too hot and it is also a business that generates stable cashflow.
P&O, a UK company, accepted a bid from DPW after the counterpid from an arm of Temasek failed.
I’m sure no one here knows what Temasek is. Well, it just so happens to be an arm of the Government of Singapore. You know, the place where you get strung up for drugs. Yes, they hang you. They also make you get a permit to chew gum, have one free speech zone, still have laws against sodomy, etc.
So, the company would have been bought by either Dubai based DPW or Singapore based Temasek. Either of them are ’security threats’. Singapore is repressive, can’t protect it’s own waterways, etc. It’s also a US ally.
My point is that the other bidder is Temasek. If this deal got turned down DPW would likely sell the US assets on – but it might choose to walk away.
It might come as a shock to you, but I despise the secret process of the security approvals. The Congress needs to make at least a good portion of these hearings public. Its the secret nature of the process that makes people wonder, rightly.
I also would like P&O’s shareholders to get the best deal they can. If DPW assigned all American executives to the port with one guy from dubai, would that be all that big of a security threat?
The security threat is that only 1-2 percent of containers are checked. These containers are not checked by people like DPW, they are checked by the feds.
They also go through the radiation detectors that are notorious for going off when they shouldn’t.
Oh – Dubai has one up on Singapore. Instead of an auto death sentence for smuggling, you get a hell of a long time in prison.
You all should check out the property for sell in Dubai and Abu Dhabi. The places on the artificial ‘palm leaf’ islands are wicked:)
February 17th, 2006 at 11:12 pmThis is no dream! This is really happening! (Mia Farrow in Rosemary’s Baby) Are we going to let them do it to us?
February 17th, 2006 at 11:16 pmMaybe we are as stupid as they think we are.
…Guess who’s guarding the ports?…
The United Arab Emirates!…
February 17th, 2006 at 11:35 pmWhat in the f**k is going on in Washington? Who is sleeping with whom? Bush is not a president for the people! He is a president for the wealthy! For anyone who can make him and his cronies richer! I am “fed” up! Get me outta here!
(lower case ‘p’ intentional, as was “fed” up!)
February 18th, 2006 at 8:38 amAre these knuckleheads so set on outsourc3es every concievable business we have in this country that they would consider out sources the ports as well?
Unbelievable.
February 18th, 2006 at 9:34 amI lived in the UAE for seven years, and find this to be sadly amusing. I would argue that the UAE is not a country with damning “ties” to terrorism, in spite of what’s been relisted here. But I agree that we should be leery of this contract.
The first thing you have to understand about the Emirates is that while their primary religion is Islam, Capitalism comes in a close second. They’ve always been about trade and commerce, and while this is a good thing, it sometimes creates questionable situations.
Cases in point:
– The UAE was one of three countries in the world to recognize the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan.
That’s right, they did. And they did not do this because they agreed with the Taliban’s hard line, but because they wanted to maintain good relations with the country. There are a lot of Afghanis in the UAE, working in one capacity or another, and they wanted to keep the money going. They even criticized them when it became apparent that they were going over the deep end (the buddha bombing)
When the Taliban was involved in 9/11, the UAE gave them no political, monetary or military support during America’s invasion. And when the new government was put into place, the UAE recognized it.
It’s all about the money.
– The UAE has been a key transfer point for illegal shipments of nuclear components to Iran, North Korea and Lybia.
Has it now? Probably for the same reason as this…
– According to the FBI, money was transferred to the 9/11 hijackers through the UAE banking system.
and this
– After 9/11, the Treasury Department reported that the UAE was not cooperating in efforts to track down Osama Bin Laden’s bank accounts.
Along with other middle-east banks, according to the letter. And that’s the real kicker, here.
The UAE is very much in-step with its neighbors in that there is little or no real oversight of the banks or ports – not where it counts, anyway. This is also all about the money, and perhaps security: no one will attack the place where they can move their goods and launder their money, and the UAE is known to be a smuggler’s paradise.
Again, it’s all about the money.
As for the banks – remember BCCI from the Iran-Contra Scandal? They were headquartered in Dubai. In fact, I was shocked to learn – maybe a year or two after I’d gotten to Dubai – that the bank I was set up with upon arrival, Union National Bank, was made out of BCCI’s remnants!
So I wouldn’t spend too much time worrying about “terrorist” ties to the UAE (two of the 17? pfft!) Instead, spend more time wondering if this company is really on the ball, or if it’s going to be remote-operated by people who will let their friends and business partners “habibi” them out of following protocol, or obeying the law.
J
February 18th, 2006 at 9:35 am> I don’t think Bush would blindly give terrorists avenues to hurt America…
C’mon Progs, your Libness is showing.
Comment by Authoritarian Rush #3
Your problem Autocratic Bushite…
…lies in your inability to think…
…which is EXACTLY what Bushiva and L’il Dick count on to carry out their treason and corruption…
…because faithful dogs like you “can’t believe”…
February 18th, 2006 at 10:09 amThe new Troll strategy: less inflammatory, regular names, denying being a wingnut, appearing moderate, not trying to derail the topic.
Message to RNC, your new strategy has been found out, in one day.
Message to
Comment by For Truth #77
Truth,
We all know that as bad as things are in Washington we can’t afford “moderation”…
…anybody talking that “let’s all just get along” (while Bushiva is still in office) sh*t is a Bushite!
…until ACCOUNTABILITY comes to Washington and the Bushites there should be NO PEACE, NO CIVILITY, and NO COMPROMISE!
Treason is a capital offense…
Bushites are traitors who hate America…
February 18th, 2006 at 10:15 amDon’t know if this little tidbit has ben posted above but:
It appears the Indiana legislature is debating whether or not to lease their toll road to a foreign (Middle Eastern) entity as well…
…you can’t make this sh*t up…
…but worse, you can’t force feed this sh*t to the thinking public…
…any one still eating it, wants to…
February 18th, 2006 at 10:18 amSince Bush and Cheney are selling our ports to Arabs it is obvious that their “War on Terrorism” is 100% baloney! The Mexican border is wide open as well so another proof their war is a crock of crap! They want terrorism to thrive so they can use it to their advantage to remain in power forever!
February 18th, 2006 at 12:58 pmAs usual, follow the oil slick and the money, there you’ll find the criminal dealings of the right-wing. I just have to laugh at the right wing sub-humans that swallow this stinky load at every turn.
February 18th, 2006 at 3:54 pm[...] Apparently, the Bush administration looks the other way for terrorists willing to give the United States money. They have now outsourced the operation of six of our country’s largest ports to a company owned by the United Arab Emirates (UAE). If approved, Dubai Ports World, managed by the UAE government, would control the ports of New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami, and Philadelphia for $6.8 billion. Here are some known facts about the UAE: – The UAE was one of three countries in the world to recognize the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan. [...]
February 18th, 2006 at 4:55 pmThis contract is the Bush administration giveaway for their support for our future wars. No wonder Condi is traveling this week.
February 18th, 2006 at 10:28 pmThere are valid reasons to think this sale is a bad idea and object but most of you guys don’t seem to even know what you are posting about. Nobody is “outsourcing” port security or inviting terrorists in or making an oil deal or “selling” the ports. A company in the UAE closely tied to the government is buying a British company that already runs the operations management of many ports around the world including some large American ports. Its a business deal. Nobody has changed the rules, or the security processes (or lack of) or the actual ownership. Whine about globalism or international corporations or something but this one isn’t about the President. Trying to link him makes you look like a black helicopter chaser but I’m sure someone will follow this with an effort anyway.
February 18th, 2006 at 11:02 pm[...] – After 9/11, the Treasury Department reported that the UAE was not cooperating in efforts to track down Osama Bin Laden’s bank accounts.http://thinkprogress.org/2006/02/17/ports-uae [...]
February 18th, 2006 at 11:22 pmWTF is Osama Bin Laden? W says he has no recollection. BushCo Uber Alles! und Allah Akbar.
February 18th, 2006 at 11:45 pmThey are just tired of having to go before the public and having to say that, “no one could have seen this coming.”
Now, when a big attack originates at a major port, the administration will feel like they were more on top of it.
February 19th, 2006 at 3:34 amHOLY SNIKES !!!! I SURE DO WISH JESUS WOULD GET HERE!!!!
February 19th, 2006 at 7:49 amI can’t believe this story is just picking up steam now. Where were the Democrats even a week ago. So much for the Jews controlling the media. If Jews controlled the media, this deal would never have even got off the ground. I wonder how many Americans would vote for his deal if they could. I realize this is a result of capitalism, but maybe this is a wake-up call that curbs are needed. (I’m Canadian btw, but I’m not too far from the USA, physically or emotionally).
February 19th, 2006 at 9:35 amBush wants to sell off all our National Parks and forest lands to developers, so it just proves that George is a thug and a common swindler robbing the entire nation blind!
February 19th, 2006 at 9:47 amAmen, #244! Right on! They are using this bogus war on terrorism to erode our Constitution and destroy America from within while bankrupting U.S. for their OWN gains, while supporting KNOWN terrorists themselves! Like the one S.O.B. Jerk Bush invited to the State of the Union speech! DEMAND CONGRESS ARREST THEM ASAP! AND NOW! BEFORE THEY TOTALLY DESTROY OUR NATION! AND IMPEACH THEM AFTER THEY ARE ARRESTED! AND NO,NO MORE GODDAMN $$ FOR ANY OF THESE WARS THAT THEY STARTED OVER LIES, LIES AND MORE LIES, PERIOD! THEY LIED ABOUT WAR WITH AFGHANISTAN,AND LIED ABOUT CATCHING BIN LADEN AND LIED ABOUT WMD’S AND REST ON WAR ON IRAQ, AND NOW THEY LIE ABOUT IRAN! GET A CLUE FOLKS, THEY NEED CONTINOUS WARS TO SUPPRESS US HERE AT HOME!
February 19th, 2006 at 10:48 amGet a clue #238 and #239 and TO ALL YOU OTHERS! THIS IS BY DESIGN FOLKS! Him acting stupid and ALL THIS SHIT IS BY DESIGN! THEY ARE IN BED WITH THE TERRORISTS PEOPLE! THEY ARE BEHIND AND INVOLVED IN 9-11! Go to http://www.reopen911.org and READ SHEEP! Bush invited a KNOWN TERRORIST TO HIS STATE OF UNION SPEECH! Read artice: http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0202-32.htm
WAKE UP YOU DUMB ASS SHEEP! THEY ARE IN BED WITH THE KNOWN TERRORISTS! THEY DON’T GIVE A SHIT ABOUT U.S.! OR OTHERS, JUST WAR PROFITEERING AND EMPIRE BUILDING AND THEIR GODDAMN INSANE PNAC PLANS FOR WORLD EMPIRE FOR OIL! GET A GODDAMN CLUE, PLEASE AND NOW? DEMAND THEIR IMMEDIATE REMOVAL BEFORE THEY TOTALLY DESTROY AMERICA FROM WITHIN AND NO MORE $$ FOR THESE ILLEGAL, IMMORAL WARS! AND STOP HIM FROM BECOMING THE DICTATOR HE WANTS TO! He calls our Constitution a “Goddamn piece of paper!” Plus has said,”The enemy is ruling your country!” Now what does that tell you sheep!? GET A GODDAMN CLUE, THEY WERE BEHIND 9-11 AND ARE IN BED WITH TRUE TERRORISTS, WHILE TRYING TO GET OUR MINDS ON OTHER CRAP, LIKE CHENEY’S SHOOTING AND OTHER BUSHIT! NO MORE GODDAMN ILLEGAL, IMMORAL WARS OF AGRESSION!
February 19th, 2006 at 11:01 amYou have got to be kidding me!
February 19th, 2006 at 11:56 amHow logical is this. Is this Bush’s way of saying f*ck you to all Americans. We have people HERE in America who would love to serve there country and DO THESE JOBS>>>
OUTRAGE I SAY
REVOLT AGAINST THOSE OPPOSED TO OUR WELL BEING
WAKE UP AND SHOUT
RAGE AGAINST THE MACHINE DAMMIT
[...] Today on CNN’s Late Edition, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff refused to explain why the administration has turned over control of operations at six of the nation’s largest ports to a company owned by the United Arab Emirates, a country with dubious ties to international terrorism: The discussions are classified. I can’t get into the specifics here…As far as my agency is concerned, port security really rests principally with the Coast Guard and Customs and Border Protection. [...]
February 19th, 2006 at 12:42 pmI understand that the port authority of N.Y. / N.J. were not even given a chance to participate the bidding process.Whay the F*#* is going on.Could this really be away of destroying unions? What other possible reason could there be???
February 19th, 2006 at 4:57 pmRe: #105
Having just returned from working in a European Parliament, we shouldn’t avoid talking to Turkey, or other not-so-secular, not-so-democratic nations, but we should be cautious in our dealings.
You are perhaps the only person I have heard in years describe Turkey as cornerstone of secular democracy. I will admit, I cannot quite put into words how nervous this makes me.
February 19th, 2006 at 5:06 pmIf Bush thinks this is such a good idea, why don’t he outsource the jobs of the Secret Service to the same company.
February 19th, 2006 at 7:09 pmIt is amusing reading the pin-head observations from the few ditto-head plants on this site.
February 19th, 2006 at 8:55 pmThe idea that Bush, Inc would sell operations over to a middle-eastern country with very strong links to international terrorism is consistent with this dishonest group of thieves. The so-called war on terrorism is largely a fraud, instigated by the global elites against resistence to thier ambitions of greed and more power.
It is embarrasing to see so many right-wing drones willing to allow the destruction of their freedoms at such hands.
P.T. Barnum was right!
T Cunningham said:
February 19th, 2006 at 9:40 pmP.T. Barnum was right!
P.T. Barnum said:
There’s a fool born every minute.
Right on T C!
[...] Some facts about the United Arab Emirates. – The UAE was one of three countries in the world to recognize the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan. [...]
February 19th, 2006 at 10:59 pmEven after having lived in the US for the last six years, I am often in such disbelief – at the “level” of ignorance in this country amongst it’s Citizens. Many of you have no clue on the countries that make up the Middle East. The United Arab Emirates is beautiful, modern, rich, peaceful, law abiding and sophisticated country, especially the Emirate of Dubai. I am of Indian origin and was born and raised in Dubai, came to the US to attend school. I grew up with Americans, British, Indians and Arabs in Dubai. Just because a misguided soul took part in 9/11 does not make all of UAE or Dubai a terrorist nation i.e. by the same token, Timothy Mcveigh did a horrible act – does that make all Americans Timothy Mcveighs? Please, dear American friends – do some research on Dubai and the United Arab Emirates, before trashing a country that aims to be amongst the best, safest and modern countries and cities in the world.
February 19th, 2006 at 11:54 pmI can not believe the news today. Bush gives the UAE power to 6 us ports. I thought I’d seen it all but obviously the stooges in washington found a way to become more internationally incompetent. The american people need to raise their voices more, it’s no wonder we’ve lost total control of this country and we have a greedy waterhead for a president. COME ON AMERICA!!! WE NEED TO TAKE THE POWER BACK!!! Remember we made the constitution to protect us from King George’s rule. We didn’t want the government to have total control over the people so we came up with the impeachment process, which was to give power to the real citizens of the country. We have a modern day King Geoerge and he lives in the whitehouse and kill’s more people every day than most dictators could imagine, and the sad thing is George Bush has Brainwashed this country into thinking what we’re doing is right. WE NEED TO IMPEACH NOW BEFORE IT’S TOO LATE!!!!! Or maybe it is. the terrorists pretty much have free access to our ports. Thank you for your leadership Mr. president.
February 19th, 2006 at 11:59 pmIf you folks are truly interested to know more about Dubai, here are a few links ……
http://www.trekearth.com/gallery/Middle_East/United_Arab_Emirates/West/Dubai/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dubai
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emirates_%28airline%29
http://www.pbase.com/bmcmorrow/dubaimain
February 20th, 2006 at 12:00 amResponse to Ryan Wall – the Six ports in the US, did not belong to the US. They were owned and operated by P&O – the British port and shipping company which was brought over by Dubai ports for US$6.8 billion. Dubai World ports are run by Europeans and the UAE citizens in Dubai. FYI – Emirates Airline is the airline of Dubai – they placed the largest aviation order in history with Boeing recently. It’s called global trade – as I am trying to reiterate, just because a city and country is Arab and is based in the Middle East DOES NOT MAKE IT a terrorist nation. I grew up in Dubai watching American shows from Days of our lives to Friends to Bold and the Beautiful to Starsky & Hutch to Star trek to Dallas to Beverly Hills 90210 to all you can imagine. Living in Dubai is like living in one of the safest and moder places in the world.
February 20th, 2006 at 12:09 amIt is now time to call for the IMPEACHMENT of GW Bush!
February 20th, 2006 at 12:48 amThe stereotypes are convenient for some who benefit from them.
February 20th, 2006 at 3:38 amThere are thugs in every culture. Planetary discontent is
painted as religious divisions when in fact it’s more to
do with economic divisions. We have more in common with
the hard working and vulnerable people of each society,
including Asian, Arabic and African nations, than
we have with the thugs within our own.
#258- Something Chertoff said in the quote triggered an alarm in my head. I am hoping someone can confirm my suspicion here. Didn’t George W. Bush appoint Chertoff’s wife to be the head of the Customs and Border Protection department? And the Senate was dragging their heels, due to questions about her qualifications for the post? And except for her connections, she had none? Her dad is a Military Man of high rank and close ties to Bushco, as well. Anyone remember? Thanks.
February 20th, 2006 at 3:44 amPresident Bush wants another 9/11 so that he can continue to scare the American public into conceding more and more of their civil liberties and he can gain more power. He knew about 9/11, why should this attack be any different?
February 20th, 2006 at 9:42 amThe links in the above comment do not necessarily correspond to the text they are linked to.
Although I am paranoid enough, I am not technically savvy…
February 20th, 2006 at 10:50 amResponse to all the above – are you guys even aware of the United Arab Emirates and the city of Dubai????
Please take a moment to read comments # 265, 267 and 268. They are not a terrorist nation. I cannot understand or comprehend, how most Americans instantly attach ANY country in the ME region with terrorism? How can people be so ignorant. If you head to Europe, Dubai and the UAE are well known amongst the Europeans. There are tonns of Europeans & Canadians in Dubai and Dubai is a tourist, shopping anf financial center in the Asia Pacific and ME region. UAE, especially Dubai is very British and has a strong American culture including Starbucks, Borders, IMAX theaters and even American Univeristies!!! Yes some monies were transfered via UAE banks to support 9/11 – by the same token INS issued visas to the 9/11 hi jackers i.e. security and proecdures need to be tightened up in every area to prevent and root out OBL and his croonies.
February 20th, 2006 at 12:09 pmAre we all like sheep being led to the slaughter?
February 20th, 2006 at 12:45 pm[...] This story is getting attention in both the liberal and conservatives blogospheres, as everyone is trying to figure out the ramifications of a deal whereby the United Arab Emirates would take over a $6.8 Billion dollar contract for US port security. Questioning the United Arab Emirates’ track record in the War on Terror, seven U.S. lawmakers said Thursday they want a committee led by Treasury Secretary John Snow to thoroughly review a deal that would let a UAE-based firm run six major U.S. ports. [...]
February 20th, 2006 at 1:16 pmROSHAN-
This has nothing to do with most of the people or the government of the UAE. Rather, like in the US, there are social and political elements which seem to be tied to larger plots within the US and around the world.
A quote from http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO311A.html:
“A recent Reuters report (11/13/03; scroll down) quoting Labeviere’s book “Corridors of Terror” points to alleged “negotiations” between Osama bin Laden and the CIA, which took place two months prior to the September 11, 2001 attacks at the American Hospital in Dubai, UAE, while bin Laden was recovering from a kidney dialysis treatment
Enemy Number One in hospital recovering from dialysis treatment “negotiating with CIA”?
The meeting with the CIA head of station at the American Hospital in Dubai, UAE was confirmed by a report in the French daily newspaper Le Figaro, published in October 2001. (See Alexandra Richard, at http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/RIC111B.html ,”
I’m simply trying to point out that there is a long history of US government (especially CIA) collusion with certain members of the gov’t and private sectors in Dubai and the UAE in general. These seem to be part of a larger pattern of heavy-handed US policy in the ME region to secure cheap and reliable oil. I grew up in America doing all the things you described doing in Dubai but IN AMERICA, and I don’t trust elements of my federal government or military any further than I could throw them. This story would have drawn this sort of attention if the company had been based in Jordan, Saudi Arabia, or even some European countries. Why are do these vital, national security duties need to be outsourced at all?
February 20th, 2006 at 1:34 pmIf the approval is unchallenged, Dubai Ports World would run the ports of New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia.!!!! They already own half the oil in the world, we don’t need to give them immediate access to our home port!!! Write your elected officals and ask them to stop this insanity!!!
February 20th, 2006 at 2:25 pmARE WE OUT OF OUR MINDS?
February 20th, 2006 at 3:20 pmControl of the ports is a moot point. If terrorists want to deliver a bomb to New York, they just have to drop their bomb into an oil tanker, and then set the timer so it goes off when the ship first docks. The cargo doesn’t even have to be unloaded for the bomb to go off and cause massive damage. If you want port security, you have to inspect the cargo before it gets to America (e.g. when it is loaded onto the ship at its port of origin).
February 20th, 2006 at 3:49 pmThe real complaint I have is that this administration wants to offer a double standard on security. They are fighting for warrantless wiretaps (a violation of the Constitution), yet at the same time they are trying to turn control of points of access over to foreign states (regardless of religious affiliation). Do they really beliebe that the American public is that blind and dumb?
Dear “Not enough Paranoid” response to comment 278 – I do not think the article from Alexandra Richard, at http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/RIC111B.html , you’ve referred to is correct. It has too many inconsistencies, for example, Emirates Airlines do not fly to Quetta in Pakistan (check out Emirates destinations in Pakistan at http://www.emirates.com/pk/index.asp
Number two – everyone in the UAE has heard about “OBL and his recoup at the American Hospital in Dubai” except all the doctors and nurses and the hospital management! It’s like some nasty rumor during 9/11 saying the Jews knew what was going to happen that day hence most of ‘em never showed up for work!!! I have heard of these silly stories on OBL and his recouping in Dubai, for heaven sake – there was no OBL recouping at ANY hospital in Dubai. How I know, because my best friend(a Canadian) his mom works there!
Also – the sic ports were owned and operated by P&O since 1999. PO&O is the oldest shipping company and they are British. And if you believe DP ports, a major company in the UAE, a country that strives to grow, paid US$6.8 billion to conduct terrorism in the US – then my friend I have no more words to change your blind belief/paranoia.
and as for “Devoted American” re: comments 279. UAE has 50% of global oil. FYI Dubai is out of oil – they have no more Oil. That is why the Emirate of Dubai is investing largely around the world on alternative economies and GDP. Yes the capital of the UAE, Abu Dhabi has oil. However the UAE is one country that is doing something progressive with the oil monies they have. You guys would know better if you travlled and worked there.
February 20th, 2006 at 5:41 pmHere is some reading material from CNN
“A port security expert, meanwhile, told CNN that fears that the agreement will reduce U.S. security are based on “bigotry” and that “shameless” politicians are creating an issue they think will resonate with the public.
Kim Petersen, head of SeaSecure, a U.S.-based maritime security company, and executive director of the Maritime Security Council — which represents 70 percent of the world’s ocean shipping — told CNN, “This whole notion that Dubai is going to control or set standards for U.S. ports is a canard … is factually false.”
Dubai Ports World, like all port owners, must abide by the Maritime Transportation Security Act passed by Congress in 2002 and International Ship and Port Facility Security codes enacted in 2004, he said. Both sets of security measures are enforced in the United States by the U.S. Coast Guard.
Petersen said DPW will be under “identical” security obligations, and said opposition to the purchase “comes down to bigotry [against] Arabs, which is one of the last acts of racism that is allowed by American society.”
Petersen said the company has an “exemplary” record of security compliance certification.
Michael Chertoff, Ridge’s successor as homeland security secretary, defended the deal in appearances on talk shows Sunday. He said federal law required a review of the sale by a committee that includes officials from the Homeland Security, Treasury and Commerce departments, along with the FBI and the Pentagon.
“We examine the transaction; we look at what the issue of the threat is. If necessary, we build in conditions or requirements that, for extra security, would have to be met in order to make sure that there isn’t a compromise to national security,” Chertoff said on CNN’s “Late Edition.”
February 20th, 2006 at 5:56 pm“
[...] There is bipartisan concern about the Bush administration’s decision to outsource the operation of six of the nation’s largest ports to a company controlled by the United Arab Emirates (UAE) because of that nation’s troubling ties to international terrorism. The sale of P&O to Dubai World Ports would give the state-owned company control of “the ports of New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia.†[...]
February 20th, 2006 at 7:53 pmI think the American people need to wake up; we are not protected in this country, we are wide open to all. We are not equipt to handle even a natural disaster never mind another attack. Allowing Anyone, other than US citizens with strict background checks, to guard our ports is insane and seems to invite our enemies to have clear access to all of us.
February 20th, 2006 at 8:26 pmI continue to be amazed at the audacity of our leaders.
We should all take the time to write our congressman, senators and any officials who will listen and let them no that American citizens are not stupid, we have a voice and we should start using it.
Sue
I just reread my statement and saw that I spelled know wrong when calling us stupid! …………sue, embarassed
February 20th, 2006 at 8:30 pmConfused, bewildered? Follow the cash! Find out who’s getting paid and you will find the truth. These bastards don’t care a hoot about America!
February 20th, 2006 at 10:44 pmWe are about to see the ‘fall of Rome’ all over again. Something happened to Bush [a born dufuss] before he took office – what six yrs ago? Remember that 30 days he spent in Texas with leaders from around the world – I knew something was up [I'm a little psychic] at the time. America is about to fall folks – we need to do something fast, that is if we don’t want to end a good thing here. The Arabs are surrounding us here – have you been to Canada lately? Ottawa now has more Arabs living there than English. WE ARE BEING SURROUNDED – just as the Germans sacked Rome, we are about to be sacked. The enemy is moving all their ‘pawns’ into place. Gosh, where is Hilary when you really need her? Doesn’t sound half bad, now – does it? Hilary, I mean.
February 21st, 2006 at 4:08 amIf wire tapping is for the good of the country…. how about bringing back “Subliminal Messaging”. apply it to all forms of media… we can say it is a tool to teach our enemies the truth about our Real Goals. think of it everyone man woman child excepting all that is said as Truth, even thise horror stories and mistake that are made daily by our elected officials would just be a rain shower on a sunny day… Wow this is sounding like a “Utopia “. Never have to worry because our freinds in u.a.e. and the bin ladens and the bush regime are our friends, protectors, and providers of all that we need. Yeah Subliminal education… for all.
February 21st, 2006 at 8:46 am[...] ThinkProgress The Bush administration has outsourced the operation of six of the nation’s largest ports to a company owned by the United Arab Emirates (UAE), a country with troubling ties to international terrorism. The $6.8 billion sale would mean that the state-controlled Dubai Ports World would control “the ports of New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia.†[...]
February 21st, 2006 at 9:17 amThis is just plain rediculious!!! I am a US serviceman and I am discusted by this administration and thier cronie policies. What happend to America!! Outsourcing is so demeaning to OUR country and I am very disappointed in the people of our nation who turn a blind eye to this evil act. GW needs to resign and apologize to all the family members of our dead service men and women who lost thier life for George Bush’s pocket book. GO BUSH!!!
February 21st, 2006 at 9:17 amIt amazes me that our ports were being run by a British company and noone complained. But when a company from the United Arab Emerirates buys that company and everyone freaks out! Face the racism people! This company has been vetted by DHS. They already run many ports overseas. Overseas port security is as important – maybe more important – than security here in the U.S.
Not every Arab is a terrorist. There are plenty of Arab companies operating in the world markets. Are Arab companies to be suspect in every case? The negative bipartisan reaction to this sale shows that it’s not only the GOP with a monopoly on racist attitudes.
February 21st, 2006 at 9:51 amOff topic:
If you don’t think bushco knew 9-11 was coming, and wanted it, to use as their own ‘pearl harbor event’, to help justify invading iraq, I think you may be wearing just slightly rose tinted glasses.
Call me a xenophobe, a tin hat wearer, a lefty whackjob, etc.
It just adds up that way to me.
February 21st, 2006 at 10:51 amLet’s face it, if we accepted the ideas of the American companies to outsource outside the U.S, then why it is hard for us to accept it inside. This is business; it has nothing to do with terrorism or religions. The UAE now, is one of the most profitable countries in the world (I know how you feels guys, but this is the truth).
February 21st, 2006 at 10:55 amI have an idea that Bushy Bush probally never thought of.
Lets contract out to N.Korea to guard our Nuclear Stockpile.
Oh yeh, no one got upset when the English were watching our
ports, HELLO, the British are supposed to be our Ally.
People, we are in a War here, this is like FDR renting out
Pearl Harbor to the Japanese in 1940.
Are Republicans so blind, not to see what is really going on here, Bush is slowly dismantling the U.S. of A. First our
February 21st, 2006 at 12:10 pmjobs, now our ports. Someday we might want to fight a war,only to find most of our parts will come from China.
Our soldiers get all their clothes from China,including their boots. Nice, really nice.
so, It’s OK to buy oil from the UAE, but leasing them dock space gets everyone in an uproar, why?
February 21st, 2006 at 12:33 pmIn addition to comment #297 – it’s also OK when Emirates the Airline from Dubai, placed the largest order with Boeing. The largest order Boeing ever had (see link below)but hell breaks loose when Dubai acquires 6 ports in the US – adding to the many they operate worldwide!!!! You guys need to research & understand the basic history of the Emirate of Dubai and the humble beginings of Dubai port, instead of spreading such blind hatred and paranoia.
http://news.airwise.com/story/view/1132522887.html
February 21st, 2006 at 1:36 pmHomeland Security has installed radiation detection portals in most if not all U.S. ports.
P&O Ports moves millions of containers through the U.S., and they control the gates.
How easy would it be for someone (even just the worker bees)who has control of containers on both sides of the ocean to sneak something like a WMD into the country?
Easier than drugs I promise you.
The U.S. has given control of ALL the oil companies to foreigners and now several of the US’s major ports will be controlled by outsiders.
February 21st, 2006 at 1:43 pmHere is some more reading from an Actual Tennis event in Dubai underway ……
http://www.dubaitennischampionships.com/tournament.htm
Below is Andre Agassi’s comment after playing in Dubai …. perhaps a successful American athelete’s comments can help most of you reflect better…..
“Although Agassi has struggled recently with injury and now chooses what events he will play in with care, the 35-year old American had no hesitation in booking his return flight to Dubai after reaching the semi-finals in his debut in 2005.
As he left last year, Agassi described the Dubai Tennis Championships as one of the most unique and pleasurable experiences of his tennis career.
“Dubai is something I would look forward to sharing with my wife and family,” he said. “It’s an incredible place to see and to visit for so many reasons. To see what they’ve built here is really a reflection of a lot of vision, a lot of passion, not to mention the cultures that live peacefully together. It’s the way the world is meant to be.”
February 21st, 2006 at 2:23 pmWow. Bush gives our ports to an ally of the Taliban and Osama, and the right-wing trolls applaud this?
Does Bush-worship rot the brain, or does the brain have to be rotten first for Bush-worship to be possible?
February 21st, 2006 at 2:31 pm[...] In a press briefing today, Secretary Rumsfeld revealed that he was not consulted about the decision to transfer operations of six key U.S. ports to the United Arab Emirates, a country with troubling ties to international terrorism. QUESTION: Are you confident that any problems with security — from what you know, are you confident that any problems with security would not be greater with a UAE company running this than an American company? [...]
February 21st, 2006 at 2:40 pmPHOENIX WOMAN – please read comments 275, 283 and 300. Perhaps you might be enlightened a bit from your current ignorant abode! The UAE is NOT AN ALLY of the Taliban or OBL – PLEASE stop spreading such stupid nonsense!!
February 21st, 2006 at 2:49 pm[...] “With all due respect to Mr. Chertoff,” O’Malley said. “He was also the Homeland Security secretary who went to sleep after he was informed the levees had broken in New Orleans.” And, thanks to Think Progress, here’s the UAE’s record on terrorism: [...]
February 21st, 2006 at 2:53 pmAfter thinking about this a little more, I think that it would be a mistake to turn control of any US port to ANY foreign government. It’s kind of like Penny’s and Walmart inviting Sears to run their stores. Whose interest do you think Sears would look out for first?
No foreign control of our ports… period.
February 21st, 2006 at 3:10 pmThere is a very old maxim that says “all that glitters are not gold”. In the face of the persistent and imminent danger of Islamic terrorism facing America, and the sheer lethality of one terrorist act in a free society, globalization may hold more peril than profit for America in circumstances such as this.
Clearly, the issue is not with Dubai as a nation, nevertheless, one cannot ignore the fact that Dubai is an Islamic nation, where Islamist that seek to harm or destroy America, or those that support them abound. One cannot be too careful in the face of a certain danger posed by a certain enemy, especially an enemy within – America or Dubai.
America is already struggling with securing her ports and everyone knows the enormous challenges involved with adequately securing those ports. There are inherent and persistent risk factors associated with these ports, those risk factors will undoubtedly increase if this deal is allowed to go through. For one thing, Americans will feel less secure, even it is only perceptively. And worry has its costs.
It is unwise to walk into a dangerous situation, just because your friend says it is OK. In the least, our leaders will do well to hearken to Ben Franklin’s admonition, “Love your neighbor; yet don’t pull down your hedge.”
February 21st, 2006 at 3:30 pmSo Slow train – America is going to hide from rest of the world and global market – i.e. place your head in the sand till the “Islamists” dissappear???
British P&O company operated the ports, now they have been taken over by DP World. Britain has lots of Islamists, so does France, Germany and Singapore – which is an Islamists country as well. What do you recommend, the US stop trade with all these nations? I can’t believe what I am reading on this site!!!
February 21st, 2006 at 3:37 pmBe more honest and accurate, The Administration had nothing to do with “Outsourching” anything, the Brits were already running these ports and their company was bought out by a UAE company, all the US did was review their deal.
Rejecting the deal based only on the fact that they are Arab is racist and illegal, the Democrats would’ve been the first to tell you that too!
February 21st, 2006 at 4:03 pmThank you Mr Maxwell! After reading 95% of the comments in this section I was starting to believe the worst…. Let me say this, being born, raised in the UAE and educated in North America, I always believed if there is any place, where dissent is welcome, where the truth stands the best chance to come out in the open – it has always been the US. No patronizing here, however this is what I believe today.
February 21st, 2006 at 4:08 pm[...] Grassroots opposition to the Dubai Ports deal is coming from left, right and all quarters. Bush really stepped in it this time and assorted politicos, smelling blood in the water, seem to be rising to the occasion. Maybe they’ll succeed in this instance, and maybe not. The Bush admin may be forced to retreat on this if the corruption angle to the story grows media legs. Let’s look at the big picture, though… [...]
February 21st, 2006 at 4:16 pmThe ports were already outsourced to a British company. They load and unload the containers from ships that were loaded at foreign ports, some already controlled by the UAE company. It remains the responsibility of the USA to control the security of our ports.
February 21st, 2006 at 4:29 pmBut when a company from the United Arab Emerirates buys that company and everyone freaks out! Face the racism people!
No, it’s the United Arab Emirates that’s freaking everyone out. Face the monarchy wingnuts!
Me? I spit on kings. Like any real American. Frango Regna suckers!
February 21st, 2006 at 4:45 pmI am ashamed to be an American.
February 21st, 2006 at 4:47 pmI am ashamed to be an American.
February 21st, 2006 at 4:47 pmI am ashamed to be an American this day.
February 21st, 2006 at 4:49 pm[...] How quickly we forget Señor Bush. The UAE is a two-faced country like Saudi Arabia. It’s time, for once, to listen to not only the American people, but your own Congress. Read more here: Bush backs transfer of ports to Dubai firm – U.S. Security – MSNBC.com [...]
February 21st, 2006 at 4:51 pm[...] Perhaps it’s just wishful thinking. But unless the GOP wants to run this year as the party that outsourced Homeland Security to a nation that supported the Taliban, a nuclear Iran, North Korea and Lybia, and provided a financial conduit to the 9/11 hijackers, they better back this train (or boat) up mighty quickly. [...]
February 21st, 2006 at 5:02 pm“I really think Progs are confused. Schumer single-handedly railroaded the senate bid of the ever popular netroots darling Paul Hackett. Everything Schumer does is purely political. I’m going to lean toward hysteria on this one. So try not to make fools of yourselves.
Comment by Authoritarian Rush — February 17, 2006″
LOL, your Rush to dismiss this and change the subject are I suppose typical Republican spin, reviewing your posts it continues. I assume “Authoritarian” in your name refers to your prefered form of government? If we can trust foreigners to protect our ports, I’m sure we can trust them to command our armies, run our power plants, etc. Its not that I am against the UAE, I just don’t have reason to trust them or any other foreigners to protect me. Where is their vested intrest? The real question is why is Bush willing to use a veto to get the bill through, just stubborness (staying the course)? Not sure why the port security was outsourced to begin with, but perhaps its time to buy it back.
February 21st, 2006 at 5:17 pmTo not have immediate and deep concerns for this situation and the possible backlash that could result from it likens some to those who believe that until a crime (as defined by law) is actually committed, there’s nothing that can be done.
February 21st, 2006 at 5:17 pmThis is far to big a decision to accept lightly, and should be scrutinized by all sides. And until EVERYONE’s fear is laid to rest, this deal should NOT GO THROUGH!!
Just when you think that the inefficiency and corruption of the Bush Administration can get no worse, something like this comes to light. You can bet the cost of your mother’s cancer surgery that somewhere down the line someone who poured big bucks into the RNC or Bush’s campaign stands to make a bundle on this. Sure makes you wish that our Swift Boat Captain were at the helm, doesn’t it?
February 21st, 2006 at 5:55 pmAdditional information from the New York Times:
February 21st, 2006 at 6:38 pm“In mid-January, President Bush nominated a senior executive of Dubai Ports World, David Sanborn, to run the Department of Transportation’s Maritime Administration. Mr. Sanborn had been running the company’s operations in Europe and Latin America.”
Yeah, nothing really changed. The Republicans probably scripted this ahead of time as a PR stunt: Bush throws out a boner so that the shocked populace will see the republicans shoot it down and look like they really do care about “security” and Joe union worker.
February 21st, 2006 at 7:36 pmOf course, follow the money…what stake does THE CARLYLE GROUP have in the DP WORLD?
February 21st, 2006 at 7:47 pmThe thing that doesn’t make sense here is this…Why does Bush feel so strongly about this deal going through that he would use his only VETO to date to fight it?
Another possible avenue here. BUSH does not have to worry about being re-elected, but the Republican Congress is running scared regarding the 2006 elections. This is great timing, and this finally gives them something to try and get some credibility back with, and take everyones mind off of their multitude of woes. This is averting everyones attention away from all the other crap this Administration is in hot water over, as well as the Republican Congress.
[...] The issue here is simple, The United States should not allow a country with known connections to terrorists at war with America to be in charge of security at 6 major ports. End of story, no Arabs and Brits included. [link] [...]
February 21st, 2006 at 8:08 pmWhen in doubt, trust bush, right you stupid republicans?
February 21st, 2006 at 8:10 pmWe Americans are losing our sense of fear of “terror” and are becoming more afraid of Bush than Bin Laden. We’re getting numb from the same old Bush/Republican fear based “terror” rhetoric. Bush giving up control of our ports to Bin Laden’s cousins will provide excellent opportunities for future terrorist attacks upon the US. Bush needs Pearl Harbor III, 9/11 being the second, to keep all of us living in fear of the “Arab boogey man.” This time Bush can blame the terrorist attacks upon Iranians that will supposedly infiltrate the Arab controlled ports. Then he can justify invading Iran, like Iraq, under the premise that Iran has WMD’s like Iraq supposedly had. Its all part of the Neo-con(Nazi) Republican master plan called the “Project for the New American Century.” But for those of you faithful “house negro” wanna be Neo-con Republicans that still “don’t think” Bush and his cronies are selling your country down the river, just remember to look in the mirror when your American legacy is flushed down the toilet. You made your bed, now you and your children and your children’s children will be sleeping in it. But look on the bright side, you Right Wing Fundamentalists are looking forward to the “rapture” so you should be proud of yourselves for accelerating the process.
> I don’t think Bush would blindly give terrorists avenues to hurt America…
C’mon Progs, your Libness is showing.
Comment by Authoritarian Rush — February 17, 2006 @ 9:07 am
You’re right about one thing AR, you certainly “don’t think.” And your blind ignorance is certainly showing.
February 21st, 2006 at 9:15 pmNow, doesn’t this make Michael Moore more a prophet than a wacko Hollywood lefty? What else will be revealed?
February 21st, 2006 at 10:24 pmTo Quote a part from a great movie “is there no end to the mans hypocracy”
February 21st, 2006 at 11:10 pm[...] “After careful review by our government, I believe the transaction ought to go forward,” Bush said. He added that if the U.S. Congress passed a law to stop the deal, “I’ll deal with it with a veto.” “Careful review”. The White House has also claimed that there was a rigorous national security review of the deal. MR. McCLELLAN: Well, my understanding, Les, is that this went through the national security review process under CFIUS, at the Department of Treasury. That is the agency that is responsible for overseeing such matters. And this includes a number of national security agencies—the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Defense, the Justice, among others, and there is a rigorous review that goes on for proposed foreign investments for national security concerns. And in terms of specifics relating to this, Treasury is the chair of this and you should direct those questions to Treasury. Yet Rumsfeld has just admitted that he had no clue what this deal was about and that he wasn’t consulted. QUESTION: Are you confident that any problems with security—from what you know, are you confident that any problems with security would not be greater with a UAE company running this than an American company? [...]
February 21st, 2006 at 11:12 pm[...] Greenwald’s question is thought-provoking and the comments section does raise some good issues, but ultimately there are very serious and legitimate concerns about the United Arab Emirates that do not deserve to be lumped into the racist blatherings of war bloggers. [...]
February 21st, 2006 at 11:16 pmI find it unbelievable that there are people who still defend Bush; or believe him. I can’t even take them serious any more. I have learned that when Bush makes a speech or tries to placate the American people ie; the speech after Katrina, he does exactly the opposite. So, when he says he will do something (like new energy inititives) run for the hills..
February 21st, 2006 at 11:37 pmWho were those terrorists again? (none / 0)
All this hullaballoo is predicated by the idea that guys from the middle east are associated with terrorism. Where does that idea come from? Cartoon aftermath? We were never attacked by bad guys from the middle east. You’re all playing Rove’s game. I feel sorry for the suckers who still believe that 911 had anything to do with Qaeda. Please do your homework.
Bush/Rove as usual are just showing off to all of us what they can get away with, much like they did with openly admitting to spying on us illegally. Of course they were hugely encouraged by having gotten away with 911. Since they consider themselves beyond any law they need a mechanism to mark the boundaries of their power. This is the way they make their operating procedures ‘official’. Next thing is that they Nuke Iran, provoking word wide outrage. And they will keep Nuking!. They will keep flaunting their Crimes and getting away with it marking new boundaries of ‘acceptable’ criminal behavior.
b
February 21st, 2006 at 11:53 pmImpeach Bush
February 21st, 2006 at 11:56 pmOk I have tried to stay on Bushes side but this is enough. This man is obviously an IDIOT. Sell out our country. He has got to be making money in this deal beacuse it is INSANE.
February 22nd, 2006 at 12:45 amIt is funny ynow to go back and see “Authoritarian Rush” talking about how this story was dead on Feb. 17th. Wonder how dead Bill Frist thinks it is.
February 22nd, 2006 at 12:51 am[...] It seems the President’s lax stance on our ports being patrolled by a country who’s banking system transferred money to 9/11 hijackers and then refused to cooperate in tracking down Osama’s banking records has finally brought people of all political backgrounds together. New York Gov. George Pataki, New Jersey Gov. John Corzine, Maryland Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr., Rep. Vito Fossella, Senators Chuck Schumer, Robert Menendez and Hillary Clinton have all sounded calls against this ridiculous situation. [...]
February 22nd, 2006 at 1:33 am“I really think Progs are confused. Schumer single-handedly railroaded the senate bid of the ever popular netroots darling Paul Hackett. Everything Schumer does is purely political. I’m going to lean toward hysteria on this one. So try not to make fools of yourselves.
Comment by Authoritarian Rush — February 17, 2006″
Republicans may be unethetical lying sociopaths but at least they’re consistent. Notice the tactic of constantly introducing irrelevent information in order to appear knowledgeable while avoiding discussing the real issue: Bush selling America…meanwhile the Republican lacky attempts to discredit critical thinking by labeling it as “hysteria.” Bravo Authoritarian Rush, you’re a chip off the old Republican propaganda block. Your attempts to “confuse” us are quite effective. Another 9-11 and we might actually be believers again. Your masters will reward you well!
February 22nd, 2006 at 1:47 amYou’re wrong. You’ve been on this site for this long and you still haven’t gotten the message about he who controls the message?
UAE is an American ally.
Comment by Authoritarian Rush — February 17, 2006 @ 9:47 am
Bush was allies with Noriega
Bush was allies with Saddam
Bush was allies with Bin Laden
Bush is allied with the UAE
You’re allied with Bush
Now all you need is a bumper sticker on your car that reads, “I’m with stupid.”
February 22nd, 2006 at 3:29 am[...] It’s frustrating that it took Bush turning the operation of our ports over to a possibly hostile foreign country to demonstrate this administration’s incompetence and greed to those who have in the past defended his recklessness, but hopefully now we can have a national dialogue about domestic security, as opposed to abstract security gained through action taken 10,000 miles away from our border. [...]
February 22nd, 2006 at 4:15 amU.A.e. is not gonna run these port. some company or tribe or familt is…..what is the controlling familys name???how have what other interests do they have ??? is there a chance of a conflict of interest? how much American government aide or Cash will be given them to Bring these ports up to “homeland security” standard? I just smell a Bechtel type arrangmentsimiliar to the Iraq deal. What is really curious is Why no other corporation has stepped up for this “concession” We have been bombarded with cost and our rights have been sacrificed in the name of “Security” , yet our leaders sing the chorus” Move on people nothing to see hear.” I feel like rip van winkle when did we becom a 2 branch government? final note,if they are indeed our allies show what they done… I mean being one of the richest countries and all in the world scheme of things how much has they given. come on bush regime it’s show and tell time… well it should be anyway.
February 22nd, 2006 at 6:35 amBush was wrong about WMD’s In Iraq -
He got a lot of people killed. Several hundreds and thousands are dead.
Bush was wrong about Katerina, telling us that he had no idea that the levees would collapse -
Over a thousand are dead. & many homeless.Loss of a major historical city.
Are we expected to believe this Presidents assurences?
Are we willing to risk our children, our loved ones ourselves by believing President Bush- or his spoksperson assurences? (Homeland Security’s Michael Chertoff!!!)
IF an attack happens and its through our ports…Is Bush going to do a skit?..searching under his desk for cargo containers ?
Or Will he tell us that he recieved ‘faulty information’ regarding the security?
Bush will move on—We will count our dead brothers and sisters.
February 22nd, 2006 at 8:29 amI truly wonder if Charles Schumer would create all this noise if the purchasing company was from Israel? I am also pretty damn sure, anyone raising a voice on a deal against an Israeli company would be automatically slammed – anti semitic. It is really sad, how feeding the “Arab Boogey man” paranoia to average Americans how now come back to bite Bush and company in the butt, when this time – a legit and successful Arab country and company are trying to make a business purchase that too, investing heavily (US$6.8 billion) and all most “ignorant” Americans can think of is anti-bush sentiments, war in Iraq (comapring Iraq to the UAE is like comparing the English & French) and port security and 9/11. I mean yeah sure, a company and country which had humble beginings 30 years ago, is investing us$6.8 billion to conduct terrorism in the US – just unbelieveable, what paranoia and ignorance can do to average Americans.
February 22nd, 2006 at 8:45 amI can’t believe the bleeting of the sheeps. This is a corporate sale. If we were worried about these ports they wouldn’t have been turned over to a British corporation to begin with. Great Britain probably has more fanatical Muslims then most Muslim countries. I think that this corporate sale, which is for leasing the operations of 6 US ports of various lengths of time is probably the best move possible. This Dubai company is going to place more emphasis on security and positive oversight of their operations than any other company would have, under the same conditions. If you think that the almost $7 billion is going to be used for terrorist actions, think again. They could’ve just placed the money directly into OBM’s hands and just stand back. With the complacent nature of our country and the corporations within our borders, I would be more concerned if a purely US owned corporation took control of these ports. I am sure the pork barrel mentality would be a more negative impact on our national security.
February 22nd, 2006 at 9:12 amThank you Steve, you make perfect sense – wish the rest can see that.
February 22nd, 2006 at 9:23 amNow you’re getting preachy, Terry.
I’m just mad a Schumer.
He knows this port situation does not make America less safe.
Schumer is fear mongering for political gain.
Which is unrelated to my views about foreign policy.
Comment by Authoritarian Rush — February 17, 2006 @ 2:21 pm
Republican puppets, like their oil billionaire masters, are mad at anyone who challenges their profit making schemes. Why dont you cut the strings Pinochio, your nose is so long you could use it as a kick stand. Bush and his cronies, namely the oil industry, made record profits on the backs of the American people in 2005. Now they’re shooting for record profits in ‘06 with the outsourcing of Amerian Ports. Lower taxes won’t matter if your job is outsourced. Republican supporters are foolish enough to believe they’ll get a piece of the pie if they remain loyal to their greed driven masters. You may be loyal to them, but they sure as heck aren’t loyal to you Pinochio. Just wait til your job is outsourced. You’ll be standing in line asking the Americans you betrayed to bail you out.
February 22nd, 2006 at 9:30 amYou’re welcome Roshan. The point I am trying to make as a White, Male, Republican, Business owner is that this is the BS that we allow ourselves to a quick jump on and off of a bandwagon. We never focus our concerns on the real issues. Security is not the responsibility of the leasing operations of the ports. The companies MUST follow all local, state and federal regulations. The regulations should be written in stone. But, we know that for the right price some US worker will circumvent the rules for personal gain. Some underpaid TSA worker will not read a scan properly, an overworked, underpaid policeman will not pull over a suspicious vehicle. Let’s look internally first, right our wrongs, then preach to the choir. And if we don’t want foreign investment into our economy, look back to isolationist practices at the beginning of last century, they didn’t help us much.
February 22nd, 2006 at 9:50 amI can’t believe the bleeting of the sheeps. This is a corporate sale. If we were worried about these ports they wouldn’t have been turned over to a British corporation to begin with. Great Britain probably has more fanatical Muslims then most Muslim countries. I think that this corporate sale, which is for leasing the operations of 6 US ports of various lengths of time is probably the best move possible. This Dubai company is going to place more emphasis on security and positive oversight of their operations than any other company would have, under the same conditions. If you think that the almost $7 billion is going to be used for terrorist actions, think again. They could’ve just placed the money directly into OBM’s hands and just stand back. With the complacent nature of our country and the corporations within our borders, I would be more concerned if a purely US owned corporation took control of these ports. I am sure the pork barrel mentality would be a more negative impact on our national security.
Comment by Steve — February 22, 2006 @ 9:12 am
Nice Spin Job Steve!
“I can’t believe the bleeting of the sheeps.”
You must be refering to the bleeting of Republicans concerned about their bottom line.
“This is a corporate sale.”
As is every Republican action.
“If you think that the almost $7 billion is going to be used for terrorist actions, think again.”
How about $7 Billion simply leaving the hands of Americans?
“They could’ve just placed the money directly into OBM’s hands and just stand back.”
They could have just placed the money directly into the hands of Americans where it belongs.
“With the complacent nature of our country and the corporations within our borders,”
Dont you mean the complacent nature of the Bush Administration and Haliburton?
“I would be more concerned if a purely US owned corporation took control of these ports.”
Don’t you mean foreign owned corporations can provide cheaper labor because Americans won’t work for slave wages?
“I am sure the pork barrel mentality would be a more negative impact on our national security.”
Indeed it is having a negative impact. This adminstration is orchestrating the outsourcing of American contracts to low bidding foreign governments that provide cheaper labor. This practice is taking jobs away from Americans and destroying their families.
Steve, the best thing that could possibly happen is for you to have your job outsourced. Then perhaps you’d be able to empathize with your fellow Americans. But that wont happen because no foreigner likes Bush enough to take your job of kissing his ass away from you. At least you found your niche…the last secure job in America.
February 22nd, 2006 at 10:18 amDear Outsourced profit – I am a Democrat, however did not vote the last election, simply because I truly believe this country can do better and deserves better. Leaving aside all the political emotions for a moment – could you please take a moment and think on few of your phrases – ou truly sound like Lou Dobbs from CNN. Someone who looks at one side of the coin and not the other. You talk about outsourcing of jobs, YES I AGREE with you to an extent, outsourcing has hurt American families, however have you looked into the other side of the coin i.e. the number of American companies that BUY foreign companies and replace senior management and other senior positions with Americans – take a look at GM for example or Ford or just look at the foreign acquisitions American companies made in the past 5 years! Then talk in equation. Please do not simply shout everything is being outsourced out of America – also look at what is being acquired from other countries. One more thing – I cannot understand what is the issue with a government owned company, which had humble beginnings 30 years ago and now is a world player. Dubai Ports operates several ports in several countries across the globe. Again if you take sometime and understand the background of the UAE and Dubai, it might help – for example, UAE has a population of just about 4 million, of which less than 20% are citizens and the remaining foreigners – the UAE government owns most of the businesses in Dubai because of the oil monies it acquired when it had oil. The economy is a mix of ruling family business blended with capitalisim. Although DP world is government owned, most of the “brains†and “decision makers†are expatriates such as the British and UAE citizens. The government only funds the company. Dubai is almost out of oil – and now it is trying to establish alternate economies and GDP by venturing into other businesses. Emirates Airline is owned by the Dubai government – and look what they have done with Emirates an Airline which started only 20 years ago – is amongst the top three most profitable and best airlines in the world. This is why I say – I cannot understand all the “Paranoia†when Dubai government funded but not managed DP world is adding the 6 ports in the US in addition to all the other ports they operate all over the world. What is the fear or concern here???
February 22nd, 2006 at 10:41 amBelow are some CORRECT Q&A’s for those who care to read and for those who CARE TO KEEP POLITICS ASIDE:
Q: What is Dubai Ports World?
A: Dubai Ports World is a port operator owned by the United Arab Emirates, a tiny, oil-rich Persian Gulf nation. The company is taking over the management rights to some terminals at six U.S. ports. The UAE, which borders Saudi Arabia, is considered a U.S. ally in the war on terrorism. In 2004, it became the first Arab country in the Middle East to join a Homeland Security Department program that screens high-risk cargo headed for U.S. ports.
Q: How is the company getting the rights?
A: Dubai Ports World is in the process of acquiring the London-based company Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co., commonly known as P&O, which operates the six ports. Companies from several foreign countries, including Singapore and Denmark, run operations at U.S. ports. Officials from the Treasury and Homeland Security departments said Tuesday that they did not know whether the Dubai deal was the first with a Middle Eastern country.
Q: What is the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, and why did it back the deal?
A: The committee is composed of 12 government agencies, including the Treasury, Defense, Homeland Security, Justice and State departments. Its work is mostly classified, but it reviewed the terms of the deal, and members voted to support it. Clay Lowery of the Treasury Department said members consulted with intelligence officials and gave the matter “extra care” in the approval process. “These guys have built up a track record … that has been fairly solid,” he said of Dubai Ports World.
Q: Whowill control security?
A: The Coast Guard and U.S. Customs and Border Protection officials, all part of the Homeland Security Department, would continue to control security at the six ports as they do now at all U.S. ports. Department policy chief Stewart Baker said the company would be required to participate in all government security programs, and the Coast Guard is now conducting baseline security inspections of all the operations Dubai Ports World would control.
Q: How many terminals will Dubai Ports World run?
A: The company bought the rights to operate up to 30% of the terminals at each of the six ports. In Baltimore, for example, the company would operate only two of 14 terminals.
Q: How do Homeland Security inspectors feel about the deal?
A: They’re against it. “We strongly feel port operations should be handled domestically,” said Charles Showalter, president of the union that represents the Customs and Border Protection agents who inspect ships as they enter U.S. ports
February 22nd, 2006 at 11:07 amNice rant outsource. How many jobs were outsourced when P&O took over operations of these ports. Didn’t hear you bleeting loudly then. When Clinton was pushing for NAFTA, didn’t hear a bleet out of you, did we. When Deutsche Post (granted went public in 2000, but still 45% owned by German government controlled KfW Bank) took over Airborne and DHL, nothing from you again.. By the way, this should be more concerning then control of a couple of terminals, these companies have fleets of vehicles delivering to most addresses in the US and a fleet of planes flying around our airspace daily.
You sound more like an unemployed union member who didn’t do a thing when you were employed, but show up and expect to be paid. And now because the job is being done more efficiently by someone else is pointing fingers everywhere but in the mirror.
February 22nd, 2006 at 11:31 amDear Outsourced profit – I am a Democrat, however did not vote the last election, simply because I truly believe this country can do better and deserves better. Leaving aside all the political emotions for a moment – could you please take a moment and think on few of your phrases – ou truly sound like Lou Dobbs from CNN. Someone who looks at one side of the coin and not the other. You talk about outsourcing of jobs, YES I AGREE with you to an extent, outsourcing has hurt American families, however have you looked into the other side of the coin i.e. the number of American companies that BUY foreign companies and replace senior management and other senior positions with Americans – take a look at GM for example or Ford or just look at the foreign acquisitions American companies made in the past 5 years! Then talk in equation. Please do not simply shout everything is being outsourced out of America – also look at what is being acquired from other countries. One more thing – I cannot understand what is the issue with a government owned company, which had humble beginnings 30 years ago and now is a world player. Dubai Ports operates several ports in several countries across the globe. Again if you take sometime and understand the background of the UAE and Dubai, it might help – for example, UAE has a population of just about 4 million, of which less than 20% are citizens and the remaining foreigners – the UAE government owns most of the businesses in Dubai because of the oil monies it acquired when it had oil. The economy is a mix of ruling family business blended with capitalisim. Although DP world is government owned, most of the “brains†and “decision makers†are expatriates such as the British and UAE citizens. The government only funds the company. Dubai is almost out of oil – and now it is trying to establish alternate economies and GDP by venturing into other businesses. Emirates Airline is owned by the Dubai government – and look what they have done with Emirates an Airline which started only 20 years ago – is amongst the top three most profitable and best airlines in the world. This is why I say – I cannot understand all the “Paranoia†when Dubai government funded but not managed DP world is adding the 6 ports in the US in addition to all the other ports they operate all over the world. What is the fear or concern here???
Comment by Roshan — February 22, 2006 @ 10:41 am
“I am a Democrat”
You sound more like a lying Republican attempting to pass himself off as a Democrat to gain some shred of credibility to me. Its obvious Republicans have none, thats why you aren’t calling yourself one.
“ou truly sound like Lou Dobbs from CNN. Someone who looks at one side of the coin and not the other.”
I dont watch CNN or FOX because I prefer unscripted, unbiased journalism, the kind not controlled by Republican special interest. You sound like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill Oreilly or some other such Republican media puppet.
“You talk about outsourcing of jobs, YES I AGREE with you to an extent, outsourcing has hurt American families, however have you looked into the other side of the coin i.e. the number of American companies that BUY foreign companies and replace senior management and other senior positions with Americans – take a look at GM for example or Ford or just look at the foreign acquisitions American companies made in the past 5 years! Then talk in equation.”
Ok lets talk “in equation”. I was working for Hewlett Packard right before it outsourced half it’s jobs to Mexico after NAFTA. I’m not some Republican puppet talking out of my ass that has never seen hard times or experienced the impact of outsourcing first hand. As for the piddly amount of jobs American CEO’s occupy overseas to supervise the slave labor in third world countries…you call that balanced? Are you trying to tell me that a handful of CEO’s that run foreign companies offsets the THOUSANDS upon THOUSANDS of American jobs being outsourced daily? You need to go back to school because your math sucks. And I don’t believe a goddamned thing you’re saying or any of your pro CEO pro Republican propaganda. Jobs are outsourced because corporations dont want to pay Americans standard of living wages. Outsourcing isn’t about some UAE mercy mission. What a crock of crap. And don’t insult anyone’s intelligence again by calling yourself a Democrat. You are opposed to everything Democrats and Americans stand for. Do us all a favor and go outsource yourself.
February 22nd, 2006 at 11:39 amNice rant outsource. How many jobs were outsourced when P&O took over operations of these ports. Didn’t hear you bleeting loudly then. When Clinton was pushing for NAFTA, didn’t hear a bleet out of you, did we. When Deutsche Post (granted went public in 2000, but still 45% owned by German government controlled KfW Bank) took over Airborne and DHL, nothing from you again.. By the way, this should be more concerning then control of a couple of terminals, these companies have fleets of vehicles delivering to most addresses in the US and a fleet of planes flying around our airspace daily.
You sound more like an unemployed union member who didn’t do a thing when you were employed, but show up and expect to be paid. And now because the job is being done more efficiently by someone else is pointing fingers everywhere but in the mirror.
Comment by Steve — February 22, 2006 @ 11:31 am
“Nice rant outsource.”
Nice impression of a sociopath Steve.
“How many jobs were outsourced when P&O took over operations of these ports. Didn’t hear you bleeting loudly then. When Clinton was pushing for NAFTA, didn’t hear a bleet out of you, did we.”
Actually I was raising hell bigtime. I didn’t vote for Clinton specifically because he, like Bush sr, supported NAFTA. But you didn’t hear me because you were too busy swallowing Republican propaganda Lewinsky style.
“You sound more like an unemployed union member who didn’t do a thing when you were employed, but show up and expect to be paid. And now because the job is being done more efficiently by someone else is pointing fingers everywhere but in the mirror.”
Actually I’m quite employed and I intend to stay that way. Thats why I’m speaking out about any American job that was or is in the process of being outsourced. You obviously have a secure job spewing anti union, anti American, anti worker, anti family, pro Bush, pro corporation, pro slavery propaganda, . I’m pointing my finger right at you and the people you support. Now, please do us all a favor and go outsource yourself.
February 22nd, 2006 at 11:54 amI can’t understand why any company from any other country is running our ports. Why are American owned companies not running them? How long before our airports are turned over to foreign companies?
February 22nd, 2006 at 12:02 pmHmmm…
Let’s see, we are going to withhold funds from Hamas and the Palestinians (even humanitarian aid) after a democratic election in part because they don’t/won’t recognize Israel.
and
We are going to reward the UAE (who also won’t recognise Israel) by turning over management of 6 major East coast ports to a corporate entity of Taliban sympatizing despotic sheik..
Hmmm…
Why, nothing to ’see’ here…move along…NOW !!
February 22nd, 2006 at 12:05 pmOh my god – Outsourced profit, why all this hate and animosity??. I am sorry, things have been bad because of senior management actions at HP. But my two cents is NOT towards any politcal parties – please I could care less!
I am someone who was born and raised in Dubai, United Arab Emirates. I moved to North America for school and work as a CPA in NYC. I am a Democrat. I did not vote on election day – simply because I believe this country deserves better and can do better. And oh, I do not make political contributions to any party – instead support homeless peoples in US and Canada with the little extra monies I have. I would urge you to research a bit about the UAE, specially on the Emirate of Dubai. When my parents moved to Dubai in 1969, the country was stil under British occupation and Dubai Port was nothing but a tiny island with a few boats. What this country and the Emirate of Dubai has achieved from then on is nothing short of amazing. Yes I am aware monies were transferred from Dubai banks to fund 9/11 – however there were alsom monies transfered from Germany, from the UK and several other countries using American banks! Hell the INS issued Visas to these hijackers. Yes two of the misguided souls from 9/11 hijackers were UAE citizens, by the same token Timothy Mcveigh an American committed a horrible act – does that make all Americans evil? I don’t care much about the business aspect of this deal, however what worries me is the fact, Americans inadvertently and unknowingly are driving away true countries that aspire to be like the US someday. FYI – Emirates Airline, placed the largest aviation order with Boeing, inspite of tough competition from Airbus. Emirates, could have easily chosen Airbus over Boeing – meaning lesser American jobs for Boeing – correct? And Boeing, has no huge manufacturing facility or plant that employees UAE citizens in Dubai. My point is companies and countries that invest heavily (DP world in investing US$6.8 billion) to conduct busineses worldwide is doing it with the most honest business and security intentions. I have so many friends in the UAE, some are Americans, some Canadians, some British, Arabs and Asians, and they all live in harmony – it’s not perfect, but one is not “ignorant†of the others background.
Here are some links to Dubai, hope you all take sometime to review and understand some aspects of the UAE and Dubai.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dubai
http://www.dubai.com/
http://www.trekearth.com
February 22nd, 2006 at 12:15 pmDear Ken Tucker – The Israel Palestinian issue is far more complicated. It is unfortunate that you bring up this issue to DP World discussion. UAE is a tiny country that exists in the Middle East. They have to, by choice or otherwise, go with the flow and strong sentiments that prevails in most of the Arab world. Yes most Arabs dislike Israel for occupying Palestine and for the in human conditions Palestian people live thru. I also agree most Arab goverments are not doing enough to ease the Palestinian peoples misery – and believe me most of the Arab governments can do a lot! This is to an extent, besides the point. Let’s face it, would you or Charles Schumer raise all this voice if Israel were to purchase P&O instead of Dubai Ports world?
February 22nd, 2006 at 12:23 pmNice two-faced action. it’s alright for you to disagree with your party affiliation, but still be a proud Democrat, but damn those Republicans,they’re never right.
By the way, isn’t outsourcing the way that companies always lost business in a competitive bid situation? Or is this your new word for being screwed over. That’s right the Republicans did it.
Union, great concept in the previous century, obsolete concept of protecting seniority and not placing protection for workers who go above and beyond today. More interested in keeping the union higher ups in money and increasing that lobbyist money flowing from the Health, Welfare and Pension fund than worrying about whats best for the workforce ie flexibility, cross-training, etc.
Anti-American, Anti-Worker, Anti-Family–NEVER. Greatest country in the world, with opportunities never before seen anywhere. But we still need to improve the poverty stricken and senior citizens of our country with better options.
Pro Bush, No, Republican.
Pro Corporation-Pro slavery, BS. You can’t have it both ways. We are now competing in a world wide market. We have the resources, the manpower, the knowledge and the finacial backing to succeed, but we seem to be more interested in taking the poor me attitude. So take your finger and place it where it does you the best.
February 22nd, 2006 at 12:52 pm“Oh my god – Outsourced profit, why all this hate and animosity??. I am sorry, things have been bad because of senior management actions at HP. But my two cents is NOT towards any politcal parties – please I could care less!
Comment by Roshan — February 22, 2006 @ 12:15 pm
Watching the current administration sell the legacy of the American people down the drain doesn’t exactly inspire happy thoughts. You may not claim to be a Republican but you appear to share many of their views and their agenda so why not make it official by realizing which side you’re on. Political parties recieve tremendous amounts of money from special interest groups like Haliburton or the UAE for example. Those special interest groups influence decisions made by politicians, like outsourcing the control of US shipping Ports and American jobs to foreign countries. I appreciate the fact that your loyalties are with UAE, but the last time I checked, the UAE isn’t putting food on American tables. So if the UAE is receiving money Americans should be receiving for what occurs on American Soil, I have to disagree with that practice. We have plenty of Americans here that need those jobs operating US ports.
“Nice two-faced action. it’s alright for you to disagree with your party affiliation, but still be a proud Democrat, but damn those Republicans,they’re never right.”
Comment by Steve — February 22, 2006 @ 12:52 pm
Steve, unlike you, I don’t blindly follow my political party. I know thats whats expected of good little brown shirt Republicans but Democrats are prone to much more critical thinking, especially of those that claim to be Democrats and certainly those occupying the executive office. As far as Republicans being right goes, they haven’t been right since Lincoln was in office. As soon as he was out of the way, the Republican party got bought out by the railroads and anyone else that came along thereafter. The 9/11 commission revealed that Bush knew about 9/11 before hand, he’s had business dealingss with known terrorists for years, he wasn’t right about WMD’s in Iraq, he still hasn’t captured OSAMA, he lied about spying on US Citizens, all of his staff are continuously being prosecuted for money laundering and various forms of Fraud, Soldiers are needless dying or senselessly torturing and killing people, Cheney gets drunk and shoots people, all of Bush’s staff continuously mishandle everything they touch, like Katrina, the list of Bush incompetence and lies goes on and on and on…its too much to hide at this point. And yet you expect people to continue to blindly follow this moron in office like you do, turning a blind eye as he continues to outsource America? All loyal Republican lap dogs can do is keep chanting the Clinton got a blow job mantra. The blow job Clinton got was nothing compared to the one Republican supporters give Bush and his cronies on a daily basis! Lets face it Steve, Americans are waking up and in the upcoming elections, we’re going to take our country back. We’ll see who’s crying once you don’t have any war news to watch at night. I guess you’ll just have to go back to kicking your dog and beating your kids thee way your dad did back in the idyllic 50’s you so wish America would return to.
February 22nd, 2006 at 2:14 pmWhile we’re at it, maybe we can get the airlines to outsource their pilots to another Muslim country. I’m sure they can save money and the Feds will surely rubberstamp it.
After two weeks of watching the cartoon riots we are told to trust muslims? The damn cartoons were printed back in September but their governments were doing their best to fan the fires of the fanatics. Yet when the Taliban went about the systematic destruction of the Buddhist statues in Afghanistan nobody in the Muslim world intervened. Muslims have a right to distrust the western powers but don’t think for a second we don’t reserve the same right, particularly after September 11.
I wonder who in the Bush administration is getting a big old greasy bag of dollars for this deal? Think that was why Cheney got so drunk cellebrating a couple weekdends ago?
February 22nd, 2006 at 2:25 pmDear Outsourced Profit – when you state “Those special interest groups influence decisions made by politicians, like outsourcing the control of US shipping Ports and American jobs to foreign countries. I appreciate the fact that your loyalties are with UAE, but the last time I checked, the UAE isn’t putting food on American tables. So if the UAE is receiving money Americans should be receiving for what occurs on American Soil, I have to disagree with that practice. We have plenty of Americans here that need those jobs operating US ports”.
Thank for bringing this up – I am not sure the basis, when you say the UAE is receiving monies from the Americans? I mean US DID NOT PAY DP world for the six ports. DP world paid the British $us$6.8 billion, for P&O company, which owned the six ports. The P&O board are so happy with the offer, because DP world actually over paid for the company(they were in tough battle with the Singapore government to acquire P&O). Do you know how many American jobs will be created in AMERICA because of this deal? Think for a moment, if you know the background. The UAE is a country with just about 4 million people, of which just about 1 million live in the Emirate of Dubai. Of the 4 million people, 80% are expatriates i.e. foreigners and less than 20% are UAE citizens. Given this ratio and the business and companuies and jobs in the UAE along with business practices in the UAE – they are NOT going to “replace” Americans with UAE citizens (believe me there aren’t that many citizens of the UAE who are unemployed, or who need the monies let alone leave their wonderful homes and move to the US). Also, acquiring the Six ports (especially after this storm of a debate)is a matter of prestige and pride for an and coming company like DP world. They will invest heavily on the six ports in the US and will bring more busineses and whiter than white best practices to the US ports – because if they don’t they will FAIL – and that is something a company like DP world and Dubai just cannot afford to do. Just look at the people Dubai government owned Emirates Airline employees – it shall give you the ratio of foreigners employed v/s citizens and the success Emirates Airline has enjoyed.
February 22nd, 2006 at 3:02 pmAnd one more comment to Outsourced profit – my loyalties does not lie with the UAE. Yes, I was born and raised in the UAE & Africa. My dad is British (of Indian descent) and mom Canadian. I hold a Canadian citizenship and a US residency. I am the last person to believe in borders, boundaries and passports. I believe in collective good for all people…
February 22nd, 2006 at 3:07 pmWow outsourced, disagree with your thinking and be accused of being a blind, dog kicking, Osama loving Nazi. You must be a laugh at parties.
And by the way the Bush administration is not turning over US ports to a foreign country. The federal government has reviewed the purchase of 1 foreign company by another foreign company that happens to hold contracts on 6 US maritime ports operations. The staffing of the respective corporate offices may change, but the daily workers will not. In fact, I don’t know of any corporation that would dismantle any successful operation, so most of the existing personnel will probably be there in the future.
As far as Osama goes, the US blew it. Clinton was advised to take him out and didn’t, then Bush did the same. How naive we are to the big world. Mostly because of the decline in our intelligence services. Should we have committed troops to Iraq? Probably not when we did, but sooner or later we would have been there. Everyone seems to forget that Saddam was ignoring the no fly zones, refusing inspections and for the most part evading the 10 plus UN resolutions. His people have admitted moving WMD items to Syria and other fellow Arab countries.
The Taliban had to go, no question. The problem that we face is that this whole area was partitioned off by arbitrary lines and geography, mostly by Great Britain. The countries were established without thought to the racial and religious makeup of the countries or the possible problems that would surface later on with the advent of electronics, airplanes and the establishment of an economic infrastructure.
Katrina showed everybody that Mother Nature rules. This was a failure by everyone that was involved. The Governor
refused help, the mayor didn’t require the busses and other transportation services into action, refused the Amtrack trains for evac, then the feds not able to bring in needed supplies and help. This was a disgrace. Don’t forget that the Army Corp of Engineers had commited about $15 Billion dollars in the previous years for levee control and the state legislature moved the monies elsewhere.
As far as a blowjob, I think the president should get 1 whenever he wants. Keep him happy. Make it a GS rated job.
February 22nd, 2006 at 3:09 pmOutsourced, one other thing the comment “back in the idyllic 50’s you so wish America would return to”, was the actual start of your outsourcing problems. In 1947 the US approved the Marshall Plan. By 1953 the United States had pumped in $13 billion, and Europe was standing on its feet again. (In todays numbers about $105 Billion)
Aside from helping to put Europe back on its feet, the Marshall Plan led to the Schuman Plan, which in turn led to Euratom, then the Coal and Iron Community and the Common Market, and pointed to what may yet evolve into an economically and politically united Europe. And the seeds planted for the current world economy.
February 22nd, 2006 at 3:21 pm“Thank for bringing this up – I am not sure the basis, when you say the UAE is receiving monies from the Americans?”
Comment by Roshan — February 22, 2006 @ 3:07 pm
This deal between the Bush administration and the UAE is right out of the Tom Delay play book…nothing more than an elaborate money laundering scheme which consists of siphoning money from the American people in the form of taxes, building weapons, a fleet of F-18’s, selling them to the UAE, the Bushies kicking the money back to to the UAE for running the ports then the UAE kicking the money back to the Bushies for brokering the deal in the form of campaign finance. This is how the Bushies have been doing business since back when Bush sr sold weapons to Saddam going all the way back to Grandaddy Prescott Bush financing the Nazi’s.
As for how great the UAE is and all the great things they intend to do with laundered American tax dollars…I’ve heard better sales pitches from telephone solicitors. Keep trying Roshan.
“Wow outsourced, disagree with your thinking and be accused of being a blind, dog kicking, Osama loving Nazi. You must be a laugh at parties.”
Actually, at parties we just turn on Limbaugh, Hannity, or Oreilly to get our laughs. We wonder how American people could possibly be so stupid as to believe all the propaganda these Bush whores spew. Then we jump online and see you swallowing it like an intern. And like a loyal dog, you’ll keep making excuses for the corrupt Bush administration, minimizing it’s blunders, the deaths of innocent Americans and Iraqis, blaming Clinton, who btw did not take us into a war based on lies, or citing some other administration for doing something despicable. As if that makes what Bush and his cronies do right. Bush is your personal saviour as he obviously can do no wrong in your book. And Bush has the nerve to claim to be Christian. The irony is, Jesus was against everything Bush and Republicans stand for. Its too bad you have so much shit in your eyes you can’t see that.
February 22nd, 2006 at 4:06 pmJames, I know you think you’re much smarter than everyone here, so let me fill you in on a few facts. The concern IS with the OPERATION of the ports by Dubai Ports World. If the U.A.E. was invlovled in laundering money to the 9/11 hijackers, there should be at the very minumum a 45 day investigation which is REQUIRED BY LAW. I wonder what Bush is so afraid might come out during the course of those 45 days.
February 22nd, 2006 at 4:26 pmI also want you to consider the economics of terror. It is just as unsafe for Dubai to run ports on the east coast just as it is for COSCO to operate on the west coast. Why? Companies like COSCO are owned in part by the Chinese government. Dubai is owned in part by the U.A.E. These governments have a vested interest in seeing another attack on U.S. soil. A terror attack means increased U.S. government spending (damages, further security measures, and good old pork barrel spending). Also existing foreign investers not privy to the information of a pending attack get weak at the knees and pull out. This leads to a futher devalued American dollar. A devalued American dollar means that Bejing and Dubai as well as our good old Saudi friends can invested in more assets like ports, hotels, and American dollars at a reduced cost, then ride the rebound.
I don’t know if anyone noticed, but after the terror attacks in london, the British Pound Sterling plummeted in value, then made a spectacular recovery within a day. That translates into billions of dollars being invested from a source(s) outside of England.
Even if the ports were secure under the new management, it would be foolish to think that some of the money flowing from American ports wouldn’t be coming back into the coffers of our good friend O.B.L. through bank accounts in Dubai. I also find it ironic that one country (namely Iraq) that was, at best, tangetially involved in 9/11 was blown back into the stone age, and another country (the United Arab Emirates) who WAS involved in 9/11 and partially responsible for the $2.50 i pay at the pump, gets the privelege of operating six American ports. And why is it that Bush, whom I voted for twice (sorry guys), uses his veto power for the FIRST TIME IN SIX YEARS to ensure an Arab company runs American ports. I am disguted and ashamed of our Commander-in-Chief.
Unlimited money; the sinews of war. Allowing Arab companies to operated American ports is at best providing the sinew for the weapons of our enemies, and at worst providing an open portal for a doomsday weapon to land on our shores. You should take that into consideration.
James,i understand what you’re saying,but thats not the point.If you’re king george and constantly spouting about how great you are because you’re protecting Americans you don’t hand over control of your ports to the very same people that helped start all this shit.The average joe helped put idiot george in office because they were afraid of the “terrists”.They do not discern an average middle easterner from a “terrist”.To them all middle easterners are “terrists” and now the king idiot wants to give control of our ports to the “terrists” be it Dubai,Jordan or any of the other modern Arabic states.This is commonly refered to as ignorance.They are now reaping what they have sewn.
February 22nd, 2006 at 4:41 pmOutsource, your comments are indicitive of the beaten snarling dog syndrome that is pervasive in the democratic party idealogue. If you actually read my comments you would have seen that I am not standing up for Bush, I know when to be critical of the administration and when the shoe doesn’t fit. For this board, it don’t fit.
The absolute ridiculous statements you are making about kickbacks and money laundering are the result of you following your Schumer, Kennedy, Clinton and Kerry down the liberal garden path. The sale of the P&O corp to the Dubai Ports did not need executive approval. The process was vetted by a congressionally mandated board.
As far as Clinton not involving us into wars based on lies and blunders, no he set the table with blunders and omissions. He dropped acouple of bombs on Iraq, then nothing else. Al-Qaede blows up the Cole, nothing, Al-Qaede lights up 2 US embassy’s, blew up a baby formula factory, he didn’t send troops to Rwanda, just watched the atrocities and genocide. In ‘95 committed troops to the Balkans for a defined 1 year tour, oops 9 years. In addition to impeachment and the Whitewater scandal, the Clinton White House was the subject of many other controversies.
The White House travel office controversy involved allegations of impropriety in the firing of civil service staffers. The White House personnel file controversy involved improper access by security officials to FBI files on White House personnel, without first asking for the individuals’ permission. The Bill Clinton pardons controversy involved a grant of clemency to FALN bombers in 1999 and pardons to his brother, tax-evading billionaire Marc Rich and others in 2001.
The “Chinagate” controversy involved allegations of improper campaign contributions to President Clinton’s legal defense fund and the Democratic National Committee, by individuals such as John Huang, James Riady, and Maria Hsia, et al. Allegedly, the ultimate source of this money was the Chinese government. Seventeen donors and fund-raisers were convicted of felonies due to the affair.
In March, 1998 Kathleen Willey, a White House aide, alleged that Clinton had sexually assaulted her. Also in 1998, Juanita Broaddrick alleged that Clinton had raped her in 1978. No charges were filed in either case.
Secretary of Agriculture Mike Espy was acquitted on each of 30 charges of illegally accepting gifts such as sports tickets, lodging, and transportation from companies regulated by his department in exchange for favors. [20] HUD Secretary Henry Cisneros was indicted on 18 counts of conspiracy, giving false statements and obstruction of Justice. He pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor of lying to the FBI about the amount of money he gave his mistress, political fundraiser Linda Medlar. Medlar plead guilty to 28 counts related to the investigation. Both Medlar and Cisneros were pardoned by Clinton.
On Clinton’s last day in office, he pardoned over 200 convicted felons, including his brother Roger, who was imprisoned on drug charges and Dan Rostenkowski, the former Chairman of House Ways and Means Committee who had been convicted on corruption and mail fraud charges. Another one of those pardoned was Marc Rich, a financier who had fled the United States decades before for tax evation and other illegal activities. Rich’s wife Denise had pleaded with the president for years to pardon her ex-husband and that she personally donated money to his presidential library in exchange for a pardon for her husband. Then we can look at the Rose Law firm and Vincent Foster’s death.
February 22nd, 2006 at 5:04 pmAn Unlikely Criminal Crossroads
12/5/05
From Egypt to Afghanistan, when terrorists and gangsters need a place to meet, to relax, maybe to invest, they head to Dubai, a bustling city-state on the Persian Gulf. The Middle East’s unquestioned financial capital, Dubai is the showcase of the United Arab Emirates, an oil-rich federation of sheikdoms. Forty years ago, Dubai was a backwater; today, it hosts dozens of banks and one of the world’s busiest ports; its free-trade zones are crammed with thousands of companies. Construction is everywhere–skyscrapers, malls, hotels, and, soon, the world’s tallest building.
But Dubai also serves as the region’s criminal crossroads, a hub for smuggling, money laundering, and underground banking. There are Russian and Indian mobsters, Iranian arms traffickers, and Arab jihadists. Funds for the 9/11 hijackers and African embassy bombers were transferred through the city. It was the heart of Pakistani scientist A. Q. Khan’s black market in nuclear technology and other proliferation cases. Half of all applications to buy U.S. military equipment from Dubai are from bogus front companies, officials say. “Iran,” adds one U.S. official, “is building a bomb through Dubai.” Last year, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents thwarted the shipment of 3,000 U.S. military night-vision goggles by an Iranian pair based in Dubai. Moving goods undetected is not hard. Dhows–rickety wooden boats that have plowed the Arabian Sea for centuries–move along the city center, uninspected, down the aptly named Smuggler’s Creek.
U.A.E. rulers have taken terrorism seriously since 9/11, but Washington has a half-dozen extradition requests that they refuse to honor. The list includes people accused of rape, murder, and arms trafficking, and the last fugitive of the BCCI banking scandal. The country has put money laundering controls on the books but has made few cases. Interior Minister Sheik Saif bin Zayed Al Nahyan told U.S. News the U.A.E. has made great strides in cracking down, but he insists that the real problems lie elsewhere. “We are a neutral country, like Switzerland,” he says. “Give us the evidence, and we will do something about it. Don’t blame others.” Not everyone agrees. “All roads lead to Dubai,” says former treasury agent John Cassara, author of Hide and Seek, a forthcoming book on terrorism finance. Cassara tried explaining U.S. concerns about Dubai to a local businessman but got only a puzzled look: “Mr. John, money laundering? But that’s what we do. ” -David E. Kaplan
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/051205/5terror.b1.htm
February 22nd, 2006 at 5:12 pmAt a time in our Nation’s history when concerns over terrorism at home and abroad are on the lips of most Americans. At a time when the leaders of our country and our Armed Forces are engaged and embattled with fighting the spread of terror at a cost of trillions of dollars and over 2,400 American lives it does not seem to be a prudent decision to allow operational controls of six of our most important ports (New York, New Jersey, New Orleans, Baltimore, Miami and Philadelphia.) to be handed over to a company that is State owned and located in the very area where our concerns over the spread of terrorism lie.
I understand that the UAE are our allies in the fight against terrorism. But that is TODAY. But what of tomorrow, with instability running rampant throughout the area, with area wide rioting & destruction of everything Western over an editorial comic, it is certainly not out of the realm of possibility that sentiments could change, governments could change, for God’s sake it’s about the size of Maine, how difficult would it be to destabilize? And lets face it, through history our track record for choosing allies and backing leaders has not been great. We are in far too tenuous a position to allow this if there is even the slightest, most ridiculous hint of concern. We must err on the side of caution. To use as an argument that terrorist access would be no greater if D-P World were in control than it is now is not comforting, it is extremely disconcerting and frankly quite frightening, especially when politicians are rabidly defending the necessity of once again overspending the budget, allowing domestic wiretaps, and the reinstitution of the Patriot Act, all in the name of National Security.
All of the rhetoric points to the importance of National Security but in the simplest terms possible – WE ARE ALLOWING THE FOX TO GUARD THE HEN HOUSE!!!
February 22nd, 2006 at 5:25 pmThe Bush Administration has shown complete hypocrisy and betrayal of the American public in allowing those who sponsor terrorism a foothold in American ports. How can Bush send thousands of Americans to their deaths in Iraq in the fight against terrorism, and at the same time pledge his support to a company with financial ties to those same terrorists? Republicans and Democrats alike should oppose this insanity.
Sign the petition at http://www.PetitionOnline.com/T9394/petition.html
and forward to all who are concerned about America’s security.
February 22nd, 2006 at 5:46 pmOutsource, your comments are indicitive of the beaten snarling dog syndrome that is pervasive in the democratic party idealogue. Comment by Steve — February 22, 2006 @ 5:04 pm
Actually my comments are indicative of a former Republican and US Soldier who feels betrayed by the very people (Republicans) he once believed represented the interests of the American people. Evidently the democratic party feels the same way so it appears thats where I belong. I guess in a way I feel Americans are getting beaten up by people like you and by Bush and his cronies. 3 men I trained died in Iraq and I can’t justify their loss.
The absolute ridiculous statements you are making about kickbacks and money laundering are the result of you following your Schumer, Kennedy, Clinton and Kerry down the liberal garden path. The sale of the P&O corp to the Dubai Ports did not need executive approval. The process was vetted by a congressionally mandated board. Comment by Steve — February 22, 2006 @ 5:04 pm
Thats very interesting because I never heard the comments made by any of the aforementioned individuals regarding the outsourcing of US ports to the UAE. When I saw the headline in the newspaper, the dots simply connected. I’ve seen enough of Bush’s lies and propaganda to know when something dirty is going on. The fact that Bush is threatening to veto any congressional opposition to this deal is enough for me to know where he stands. I don’t need to listen to any of the politicians you have a hard on for to know what Bush is up to. And given the amount of public opinion that agrees outsourcing control of US ports is a bad idea for a variety of reasons, I’m not as out of touch with reality as you appear to be. If the notion that Bush is involved in kickbacks and money laundering with the UAE is so far fetched, why are all of his cronies getting indicted for fraud and money laundering?
If you actually read my comments you would have seen that I am not standing up for Bush, I know when to be critical of the administration and when the shoe doesn’t fit. For this board, it don’t fit.Comment by Steve — February 22, 2006 @ 5:04 pm
Steve, I’ve read your Bush programmed, regurgitated comments. You aren’t capable of being critical of Bush. In typical Republican lockstep fashion, you quickly shift the focus away from Bush onto a page long Clinton resume. This is all you brainwashed Republicans have left to divert attention away from focusing on Bush’s criminal conduct, bash Clinton. I didn’t vote for Clinton and it really doesn’t matter what Clinton did at this point. Bush, not Clinton, is in office now and what he’s doing appears to be far worse than what Clinton ever did. Bush is responsible for sending thousands of US troops to be maimed or to their deaths. 9/11 happened under Bush’s watch, not Clinton’s. Nothing Clinton did, NOTHING, will ever eclipse that. Bush, not Clinton, is endorsing the outsourcing of US ports. But you keep on doing what you do best Steve. Keep on flapping about Clinton. Thats how you avoid dealing with your boy Bush. Thats all you got man and its really pathetic.
February 22nd, 2006 at 5:59 pmComments to John: You are so blinded by ignorance, anger, and a whole lot if emotions, I am not even going to try and change your perspective – cause only you can do that. However please see my responses to some of your comments below….
“If the U.A.E. was invlovled in laundering money to the 9/11 hijackers, there should be at the very minumum a 45 day investigation which is REQUIRED BY LAW”
A review was performed, it is not mandated a review should take the full 45 days. I mean this is basic logic, i.e. you sit for a test the test has a time of 3 hours, however you wrapped up the test in 21/2 hrs confident you’ve done a good job – why would you want to sit the extra 30 minutes for? Likewise, the DP world folks approached the US in late November, even before starting their bid for P&O to get the review process going. The DP folks were proactive in providing and complying with the US goverment on this matter – even without knowing if they could win the bid.
“A devalued American dollar means that Bejing and Dubai as well as our good old Saudi friends can invested in more assets like ports, hotels, and American dollars at a reduced cost, then ride the rebound.”
FYI – the UAE Dirham (currency of the UAE) is pegged at 3.67 to the US$. So any fluctuations with the US$ has the same affect on the UAE currency.
“some of the money flowing from American ports wouldn’t be coming back into the coffers of our good friend O.B.L. through bank accounts in Dubai. I also find it ironic that one country (namely Iraq) that was, at best, tangetially involved in 9/11 was blown back into the stone age, and another country (the United Arab Emirates) who WAS involved in 9/11 and partially responsible for the $2.50 i pay at the pump, gets the privelege of operating six American ports”
Don’t know where to start on this one – please give me an instance, how monies are going to FLOW from America to Dubai, if DP world has already paid the owner of the Six ports – P&O the British company. If anything, monies and jobs are set to flow into the US, because of the investments DP world will do on their best acqusition to date! How can you say the UAE was knowingly involved in 9/11? OBL & croonies transfered monies from banks across all countries even European countries and the US. Hell US citizens manage the INS – and they issued visas to the 9/11 hijackers! Also Just because a misguided soul from the UAE took part in 9/11 does not make all of UAE or Dubai a terrorist nation i.e. by the same token, Timothy Mcveigh did a horrible act – does that make all Americans Timothy Mcveighs?
And lastly you cry about $2.50 PER GALLON – what DO YOU THINK PPL PAY AT GAS PUMPS IN DUBAI!!!!! Check your facts before spreading such non sense.
February 22nd, 2006 at 6:05 pmComment to Outsourced Profit. I have nothing to sell, I don’t even want to “sell” you anything. I am fortunate to have grown up in different countries across the world with parents from different backgrounds. Having lived on and off in the US and permenantly the last 6 years in NYC, I have only come to appreciate the place even more. No place is perfect, everyone makes mistakes and every basket has bad apples. I am not a supported of Bush, but he does do things that has silver linings, and at times (in case of DP world) what is right. I cannot deny that, simply because I dislike Bush, can I?
February 22nd, 2006 at 6:12 pmIf you actually read my comments you would have seen that I am not standing up for Bush, I know when to be critical of the administration and when the shoe doesn’t fit. For this board, it don’t fit.Comment by Steve — February 22, 2006 @ 5:04 pm
And oh btw Steve, I forgot to compliment you.
If “the shoe doesn’t fit”…You must acquit? You do a better job of defending Bush than Johnny Cochran did defending OJ. Maybe when they Impeach Bush you can transmit your “but clinton did such and such…” defense to the talking dummy backpack Bush wears during debates and press conferences.
February 22nd, 2006 at 6:20 pmIsrael Vs. UAE for port ops?!
Roshan – OBVIOUSLY a ‘no brainer’ there re: “…would you or Charles Schumer raise all this voice if Israel were to purchase P&O instead of Dubai Ports world?”
The Israelis are FAMOUS for their security!
But what about the REAL ‘point’ here? Rewarding another BushCo oil buddy – a group of tribal despots with familial links to Osama and the Bin Ladins – NOT democraticly elected.
and
Simultaneously pulling all funding from the Palestinians because democracy didn’t ‘work’ out’ there the way we ‘figured’.
Pure Bushit!
February 22nd, 2006 at 6:52 pmKen, I agree with you, it is wrong to pull support US support from uneducated Palestinians especially living in such poverty. The least we could do is get into dialogue with Hamas, rather than block them out completely?
” But what about the REAL ‘point’ here? Rewarding another BushCo oil buddy – a group of tribal despots with familial links to Osama and the Bin Ladins – NOT democraticly elected”
I am honestly tired of explaining this again and again – read thru this link and you will see Dubai has very little oil, and infact very little oil GDP, and that is why they are developing alternate economies and GDP
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dubai
As for Israel and security, please explain how they cannot protect their own homes from Palestinian bombs but protect US ports??
More importantly – why are you CONVINCED Dubai and the UAE are weak on security. Here is a basic comment, the UAE and Dubai, a capitalist, western life style ME city has prevented any attack on their land till today ( for tomorrow I don’t know). Do you even know the level of security skills and technology that is in place in Dubai and the UAE – a country which has proximity to other Arab countries? And please don’t throw the 9/11 example, every, every country was duped by OBL & croonies prior to 9/11. Do you know Emirates (one of the most successful airline in the world) flies direct from Dubai to JFK every day of the year for the past two years – do you know the level of security that flight and passengers go thru?
February 22nd, 2006 at 7:43 pmKen – nothing is fool proof, at the sametime, we cannot live in fear and alienate countries like the UAE, who have supported us and continue to do so.
Plus – it is the US customs and border protection which monitors and manages security. DP world takes over P&O port leases – the security at the destination and origin (if US bound) is managed by the US customs and border protection. And that is not going to change.
February 22nd, 2006 at 7:50 pmHere’s the type of ally the US can look forward to when partnering up with and allowing the UAE to run our ports. Here’s where American children are at risk of winding up if the UAE has access to them:
Child camel jockeys in the UAE
In 2004, Anti-Slavery International sent a photographer to the United Arab Emirates (UAE) to photograph children racing and training in the Gulf state. The photographs prove that, despite the Government’s repeated statements that this practice has stopped, it is still a problem. Two years ago, the Government announced that using children under 15 and lighter than 45 kilograms to race camels would be banned from 1 September 2002 and offenders punished. For more about this issue, see our submission to the UN.
All the photographs below were taken in 2004 at the Nad Al Sheba racecourse in Dubai, but children were seen racing and training across the country.
If you would like to use any of these images, see photographs (conditions of use) or contact Becky Shand on +44 (0)20 7501 8922 or email b.shand@antislavery.org
All photos © CDP/Anti-Slavery International
Click on an image to enlarge it.
http://www.antislavery.org/homepage/resources/cameljockeysgallery/gallery.htm
Some boys are so young they have to be tied onto the camel. Only owners get money or prizes for winning, the children get nothing.
Most camel jockeys are under 10; they are seen as too heavy at 15.
Boys have been seriously injured and some died as a result.
Despite the harsh reality, child camel jockeys are a tourist attraction.
Most jockeys only have a sheet on the sand for a bed and basic shelter.
Children are frequently deprived of food and water to keep them light. In summer, children race, train and tend the camels in over 40C heat.
Camel racing using child jockeys is clearly visible across the Emirates.
All photos © CDP/Anti-Slavery International
February 22nd, 2006 at 7:54 pmOutsource, first sorry for your loss, the death of any serviceman is tragic. I know because I have 3 friends in theater and my best friend is on IRR looking to re-up to go back over. I can only hope that the political aspects of Iraq aren’t overshadowing the positive and pro-active service that our guys are providing over there.
Now to the rest… I was rebutting your statements about
Leaving that aside, why are the previously awarded contracts to a British Company not raising an eyebrow? Are we now going to racially profile all non-caucasian corporate sales? Wow, even the ACLU should have major fits over this one.
Ken Tucker, what is so hard to think about another management company replacing a management company. The US didn’t place the company up for sale. The first company had nothing to do with port security, so why the bother? In fact the Homeland Security has gotten major concessions from the new company in regard to strengthening security.
February 22nd, 2006 at 7:56 pmHuman Trafficking & Modern-day Slavery
UNITED ARAB EMIRATES (TIER 3) [Extracted from U.S. State Dept Trafficking in Persons Report, June 2005]
The United Arab Emirates (U.A.E.) is a destination country for women trafficked primarily from South, Southeast, and East Asia, the former Soviet Union, Iran and other Middle Eastern countries, and East Africa, for the purpose of sexual exploitation. A far smaller number of men, women, and teenage children were trafficked to the U.A.E. to work as forced laborers. Some South Asian and East African boys were trafficked into the country and forced to work as camel jockeys. Some were sold by their parents to traffickers, and others were brought into the U.A.E. by their parents. A large number of foreign women were lured into the U.A.E. under false pretenses and subsequently forced into sexual servitude, primarily by criminals of their own countries. Personal observations by U.S. Government officials and video and photographic evidence indicated the continued use of trafficked children as camel jockeys. There were instances of child camel jockey victims who were reportedly starved to make them light, abused physically and sexually, denied education and health care, and subjected to harsh living and working conditions. Some boys as young as 6 months old were reportedly kidnapped or sold to traffickers and raised to become camel jockeys. Some were injured seriously during races and training sessions, and one child died after being trampled by the camel he was riding. Some victims trafficked for labor exploitation endured harsh living and working conditions and were subjected to debt bondage, passport withholding, and physical and sexual abuse.
The U.A.E. Government does not collect statistics on persons trafficked into the country, making it difficult to assess its efforts to combat the problem. Widely varying reports, mostly from NGOs, international organizations, and source countries, estimated the number of trafficking victims in the U.A.E. to be from a few thousand to tens of thousands. Regarding foreign child camel jockeys, the U.A.E. Government estimated there were from 1,200 to 2,700 such children in the U.A.E., while a respected Pakistani human rights NGO active in the U.A.E. estimated 5,000 to 6,000. The U.A.E. Government has taken several steps that may lead to potentially positive outcomes, such as requiring children from source countries to have their own passports, and collaborating with UNICEF and source-country governments to develop a plan for documenting and safely repatriating all underage camel jockeys
The Government of the U.A.E. does not fully comply with the minimum standards for the elimination of trafficking and is not making significant efforts to do so. Despite sustained engagement from the U.S. Government, NGOs, and international organizations over the last two years, the U.A.E. Government has failed to take significant action to address its trafficking problems and to protect victims. The U.A.E. Government needs to enact and enforce a comprehensive trafficking law that criminalizes all forms of trafficking and provides for protection of trafficking victims. The government should also institute systematic screening measures to identify trafficking victims among the thousands of foreign women arrested and deported each year for involvement in prostitution. The government should take immediate steps to rescue and care for the many foreign children trafficked to the U.A.E. as camel jockeys, repatriating them through responsible channels if appropriate. The government should also take much stronger steps to investigate, prosecute, and convict those responsible for trafficking these children to the U.A.E.
Prosecution During the reporting period, the U.A.E. made minimal efforts to prosecute traffickers. Despite the ongoing trafficking and exploitation of thousands of children as camel jockeys and women in sexual servitude, the government made insufficient efforts in 2004 to criminally prosecute and punish anyone behind these forms of trafficking. The U.A.E. Government announced in April 2005 that it would soon enact a new law banning underage camel jockeys. Currently, the U.A.E. does not have a comprehensive anti-trafficking law. The government can use various laws under its criminal codes to prosecute trafficking-related crimes effectively, but there have been only a few such cases prosecuted. In 2004, U.A.E. officials declared that the 2002 Presidential Decree against the exploitation of children as camel jockeys was legally unenforceable – effectively asserting that the U.A.E. had no legal mechanism to address this serious crime. The U.A.E.’s new law, when enacted and implemented, is expected to enable enforcement of the Decree.
In 2004, according to an NGO, immigration authorities worked with source-country NGOs, embassies, and consulates to rescue and repatriate 400 trafficked former camel jockeys to Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Sudan. The government transferred the anti-trafficking portfolio from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to the Ministry of Interior – a ministry with a law enforcement authority – and created a designated anti-child trafficking unit within the Ministry of Interior. In December 2004, the government opened a rehabilitation center for the care of rescued child camel jockeys, and from December 2004 to April 2005, rescued approximately 68 children and repatriated 43 of them to their countries of origin, primarily Pakistan. However, the number of rescued and repatriated children through these efforts is insignificant compared to the huge number (estimated in the thousands) openly exploited at camel racetracks throughout the country. Furthermore, there is no evidence that the government investigated, prosecuted, and punished anyone for trafficking, abusing, and exploiting children as camel jockeys.
The U.A.E. Government’s efforts to prosecute crimes relating to trafficking for commercial sexual exploitation were equally disappointing. Despite a few arrests and prosecutions of those involved in such crimes, including travel and employment agencies that reportedly facilitate the trafficking of victims, U.A.E. law enforcement efforts during the year focused largely on the arrest, incarceration, and deportation of over 5,000 foreign women in prostitution, many of whom are likely trafficking victims. The police do not make concerted, proactive efforts to distinguish trafficking victims among women arrested for prostitution and illegal immigration; as a result, victims are punished with incarceration and deportation. Although the U.A.E. criminalized the withholding of employees’ passports by employers, there is inconsistent enforcement of the law, and the practice continues to be widespread in both the private and public sectors. The government claims to have taken civil and administrative actions against hundred of employers who abused or failed to pay their domestic employees. The government does not keep data on trafficking and related investigations, arrests, and prosecutions.
Protection The U.A.E. Government’s efforts to provide protection and assistance to victims of trafficking were minimal during the reporting period. Its efforts to protect child camel jockeys were limited to the opening of one shelter in Abu Dhabi in December 2004 and the repatriation of approximately 443 rescued child camel jockeys. Given the estimated thousands of boys being openly exploited in the country, the total number rescued and repatriated so far is small. Following increased public attention to the camel jockey situation and rescue efforts by the government, an international NGO alleged that some camel owners are hiding a large number of child victims in the desert and in neighboring countries. However, there is no evidence the government has taken action to investigate and prevent this crime. The government is also working with the Governments of Bangladesh and Pakistan to establish U.A.E. Government-funded shelters in those countries to receive and care for rescued and repatriated children.
The government’s efforts to protect and assist victims of trafficking for sexual and labor exploitation have also been minimal. U.A.E. police continue to arrest and punish trafficking victims along with others engaged in prostitution, unless the victims identify themselves as having been trafficked. The U.A.E.’s numerous foreign domestic and agricultural workers are excluded from protection under U.A.E. labor laws and, as such, many are vulnerable to serious exploitation that constitutes involuntary servitude, a severe form of trafficking. The government does not have a shelter facility for foreign workers who are victims of involuntary servitude, but relies on housing provided by embassies, source-country NGOs, and concerned U.A.E. residents. The U.A.E. Government states it offers housing, work permits, counseling, medical care, and other necessary support for those labor victims who agree to testify against their traffickers. However, few victims reportedly benefited from these government-provided services. In 2004, the Dubai Police Human Rights Department reported assisting such victims in 18 trafficking cases. The Dubai Police also assigns Victim Assistant Coordinators to police stations to advise victims of their rights, encourage victims to testify, and provide other essential services to victims.
Prevention The U.A.E. slightly increased its trafficking prevention efforts over the past year, particularly efforts to prevent the trafficking of children to work as camel jockeys. Prevention measures reportedly included closer screening of visa applications by U.A.E. embassies in source countries, distributing informational material directly to newly arrived foreign workers, supplying brochures to source-country embassies and consulates to warn potential victims, conducting specific anti-trafficking training for police and various government personnel, and conducting training for immigration inspectors in document fraud detection methods.
In March and April 2005, the U.A.E. Government announced a variety of measures to begin to address the country’s serious trafficking problems more effectively. The government announced in April that a new law, similar to the Presidential ban already in place but not enforced since September 2002, would be enacted soon. The law reportedly would ban jockeys under age 16 from participating in camel races and stipulate that a jockey’s weight must exceed 45 kilograms (99 pounds). At the time of this writing, the law had not been enacted. The U.A.E. Government also announced in April new procedures to facilitate the repatriation of those underage foreign camel jockeys already in the country and to prevent new ones from entering. Beginning on March 31, 2005, camel farm owners would have two months to repatriate all underage foreign camel jockeys working on their farms. After this grace period, the government would begin levying fines against anyone harboring underage camel jockeys. The government stated in March 2005 that it would enforce a new requirement that all source-country expatriate residents, including children, have their own passports. The government reportedly instructed ports of entry to ensure that no underage children enter the country for the purpose of being used as a camel jockey. It also stated that a medical committee would begin conducting tests on all jockeys as part of the pre-race handicapping. The government reported that it had identified adequate shelters in Pakistan and Bangladesh to assist underage camel jockeys who had been repatriated to those countries, and that it would provide financing to source country organizations to handle such repatriations. From October 2002 to January 2005, the U.A.E., through the use of iris recognition technology and document fraud detecting methods, prevented 26,000 potential illegal immigrants from coming into the country, some of whom were likely trafficking victims.
http://gvnet.com/humantrafficking/UnitedArabEmirates.htm
February 22nd, 2006 at 8:36 pmResponse to BanUAEtrade – as per your latest message# 380 the UAE govt is addressing the issue and taking steps to prevent and erradicate this horrible crime on child jockeys – so why do you still carry on with “BanUAEtrade” . May I ask, because of childporn in the US – rest of the world should cease to trade with the US? I am just trying to assess your intent, i.e. UAE is a 34 year old country NO question – they have a long way to go in many aspects, but why would you cry out loud “Ban UAE trade”?
February 22nd, 2006 at 9:39 pmIt looks to me like BanUAEtrade found the real dirt on the UAE. It seems birds of a feather flock together. No wonder Bush is doing business with the UAE. Both Bush and the UAE have a track record of committing crimes against humanity. Thanks for the links and the reports BanUAEtrade. Its about time someone put the spotlight on the type of corrupt governments like the UAE Bush has in his pocket! Not only should we not outsource our ports but especially not to governments that support the slavery of women and children and forced labor and have ties with terrorism and money laundering. Good call BanUAEtrade!
February 22nd, 2006 at 10:52 pm“I am honestly tired of explaining this again and again…”
Roshan
Chosing Dubai as representative of the UAE’s oil stature is like selecting South Dakota for it’s beaches. That selective fact(oid) presentation won’t/don’t ‘fly’.
“The United Arab Emirates (UAE) is important to world energy markets because it contains 98 billion barrels, or nearly 10 percent, of the world’s proven oil reserves. The UAE also holds the world’s fifth-largest natural gas reserves and exports significant amounts of liquefied natural gas.”
anyone can google the EIA (Energy Information Admin) at: http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/uae.html
IF they’d like a factual representation of the UAE’s holdings.
so, please, spare me the sob story about the ‘poor’ sheik s of the UAE.
and
as to fuel prices in Dubai…ask me if I give a f**k! NO! (by the way they are heavily subsidized and JUST got above [the equivalent of]$2…BFD! what I care about is BushCo feathering their retirement ‘beds’ with sweetheart deals for their oil whore friends and no-bid KBR/halliburton contracts at the expense of AMERICAN kids and Iraqi civilians lives.
it’s ALL about corporate fascism and who can stuff their pockets with the most blood/oil money…
period.
Take back the ports, STOP subsidizing China’s oil competition with $200 BILLION dollar trade imbalances (which they are using for buying up even more oil), and bring home our children.
a VERY pissed off and vigilant Vietnam Vet
February 22nd, 2006 at 11:27 pm[...] ThinkProgress has some identity crisis, apparently. On February 20th, they write: There is bipartisan concern about the Bush administration’s decision to outsource the operation of six of the nation’s largest ports to a company controlled by the United Arab Emirates (UAE) because of that nation’s troubling ties to international terrorism. [...]
February 23rd, 2006 at 1:39 amSelling virtually unlimited access of American homeland port terminals to a foreign government-owned company, especially in time of war with extremists from the same region as our working “allies” is inviting an attack on the American people! It’s clearly understood that these port terminals are to be property of the government of the UAE.
Politicians in Washington say it’s fear and discrimination- I’ll live with that stigma if it means that there is no access to terrorists and/or none of my countrymen is killed here at home. I have nothing against the Arabs, Islam, or stable governments there; however, we are at war. Would we have sold port terminals to the Soviets during WWII because we were allies against the Axis Powers?
A worse-case-senario would be if tensions with Iran become untenable and go nuclear; if North Korea carries out its threats; and if Al-Qaida aquires the capability; (the government of the UAE may be our allies today, but that could change in an instant)- we will have the possibility of six nuclear devices in New York, Newark, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Miami, and New Orleans. If any one nuclear device (or all six devices) goes off in port- the results would be devastating to the United States.
Theoretically, with little warning and emphasis on civil defense; hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of people would die, six large metropolitan cities would be destroyed- along with adjoining urban areas (Washington, D.C. is within an earshot of Baltimore), the U.S. economy would be crippled, eastern infrastructure would be in shambles, and the eastern seaboard would be in chaos. This would leave the U.S. open to possible strike by nuclear or conventional attack by rogue or hostile states laying in wait. Our allies would help- but too little, too late.
Those who oppose this “nightmare senario” must make it clear to the President and Congress that that is the threat we face! I’d rather be paranoid and alive, than naive and dead! There must be public outrage and it must be loud and clear- demand to our “elected” leaders to do their duty and defend the United States of America!
February 23rd, 2006 at 2:47 amDamn! I should have used the spell check!
February 23rd, 2006 at 2:53 amTo Roshan
First of all I must respectfully say that if you had looked at a map of the U.A.E. and a map of the United States, you might have noticed that the U.S. is much bigger, and has a vast amount of goods that must be carried vast distances. paying 2.50 a gallon in the United States has far greater implications than paying a high price in Dubai. For example my friend, who owns a trucking firm, has been struggling to make ends-meat because of your freinds in Dubai and elswhere in the OPEC cartel. Furthermore, if you could complete a thorough investigation of a company owned by the U.A.E. in less than 45 days, and be abolutely, 100% certain that there is no possible threat to port security, than I AM MICKEY MOUSE! Oh and the F.B.I. also mentioned that Dubai stonewalled their efforts to track Osama bin Ladens bank accounts, which is specific enough to deep six any transaction with a company owned by the royal family, let alone a transaction that invlolves six U.S. ports. Also Roshan no country’s currency is “pegged” as you call it to a certain number of U.S. dollars. The value fluctuates. We aren’t on a global currency yet as you well know.
February 23rd, 2006 at 4:05 amFurthermore, if the U.A.E. operates these six American ports, they will be doing it for profit. That profit will undoubteldy be spent on some of Osama bin Ladens activities. You might recall that George Tenet, former director of the C.I.A, said that they couldn’t kill bin Laden because he was at a meeting with the royal family from the U.A.E. Maybe they were just having tea.
Also if you didn’t know already, the despotic rulers of the middle east stay in power by funding a certain degree of terrorist activities. When they stop bin Laden strikes them, as he did recently in Saudi Arabia.
I know you think that we are just a bunch of stupid Americans, and Dubai should be allowed to own and operate the U.S. military as well, but please don’t insult my intelligence by making up your own facts and figures. And I hate to resort to the old redneck adage, but if you love Dubai so much, why aren’t you living there?
hey Ken thanks for your service to our country and for preaching the gospel. I’m sorry men like you have to deal with such a failure of leadership. There is hope for America and it lies in the debate that we are having here, and all across the country.
Your friend
February 23rd, 2006 at 4:14 amWell I just got done writing a letter to the WHITE HOUSE telling them how I feel. They are concerned about how we would look if this deal didnt go through. WHO CARES. We cant even secure our AIrports, lets give someone who works with the Taliban easy access to our safety. Why dont we just nominate a ARAB for Presidency? What a Joke Bush is. I hope all of our Governors that are concerned as much as I am can stop this sale.
February 23rd, 2006 at 7:29 amAny Complaints? Email, comments@whitehouse.gov.
February 23rd, 2006 at 7:32 amI am an American who has lived in Dubai and I have been searching for another word to describe Congress’ reaction, as well as most of the posts here… but I can’t. The only appropriate word for the reaction is STUPID. Who would have thought that self-proclaimed progressives would end up being the jingoistic, xenophobic bigots?!?! I’m ashamed to be associated with you.
Dubai is the most liberal, modern, city (not country like some congressmen allege) in the Middle East. This company, nor the government of Dubai, has done anything against US security interests. In fact, Dubai is the biggest liberty port in the world for US sailors. Dubai is also the finance center for the Middle East, so to say they have links to 9/11 is like saying Bill Gates has monetary links to Wall Street.
I was most astonished to see that some Congressmen said that this outcry has nothing to do with DP World being an Arab company, ‘if any foreign nation bought it we would do this.’ These Congressmen are so uninformed that they didn’t notice that these ports have been operated by a British Company for years.
Even if none of this was true, no one has shown yet how this company operating these ports would compromise US security. Not one iota of evidence. Just racist, fearmongering blather. And from the looks of it, only because it’s an issue to attack President Bush with. You people are proving what so many conservatives say about us — that we don’t give a crap about issues, we just hate Bush. Too many in Congress, Democrats and Republicans, are using this as a political play. There are no merits to their objections and they are wasting time and money that could be better spent talking about something that actually matters.
February 23rd, 2006 at 8:57 amI didn’t read all of the comments above, but have one question. Do we not have any US companies that can do this job???
February 23rd, 2006 at 10:29 amDear “A VERY pissed off and vigilant Vietnam Vet Ken Tucker” –
“The United Arab Emirates (UAE) is important to world energy markets because it contains 98 billion barrels, or nearly 10 percent, of the world’s proven oil reserves. The UAE also holds the world’s fifth-largest natural gas reserves and exports significant amounts of liquefied natural gas”
I never said the UAE has no oil – I said Dubai has little or no oil now. Abu Dhabi, the capital of UAE is the only emirate of the seven emirates that make up the UAE, which has oil. Ken, you have to understand each Emirate is independent of the other like the US states, more importantly oil revenues from Abu Dhabi’s barrels of oil is not shared with proportionaly with Dubai and the other Emirates, there is a lot of politics involved there. If you visited and lived in the UAE, you would know why Dubai is doing what it’s doing, and why Abu Dhabi or the Saudis or other ME countries such as Oman and Qatar – do little to succeed like Dubai.
There is no need for sob stories on sheikhs, these are wealthy people with tons of monies. The only difference from the ones from Dubai is that they are doing something constructive with the monies they have, they know a mutual business and PR with the US will do the city, the country and the region a lot of good.
“as to fuel prices in Dubai…ask me if I give a f**k! NO! (by the way they are heavily subsidized and JUST got above [the equivalent of]$2…BFD”
Well I assume, you did not read John’s comment# 365. He commented that it’s because of the UAE he is paying $2.50 per gallon at the pumps. I am trying to tell him, it’s not solely because of oil producing countries that gas prices go up, because in the UAE, hardworking people and families like you, John & I pay the almost the same i.e. $2 – the difference is because they have no taxes in the Middle East, whereas we pay 25% tax on our gas prices.
“what I care about is BushCo feathering their retirement ‘beds’ with sweetheart deals for their oil whore friends and no-bid KBR/halliburton contracts at the expense of AMERICAN kids and Iraqi civilians lives.”
You seem to be confusing Aamerican companies and Iraqi contracts with this Port deal.
Again before you get all worked up and pissed off, do some correct research. I agree with you, in a capitalistic economy like the US or Dubai, perhaps business transactions are given priority of people’s sentiments, but it does not hurt to take a look at the collective good coming of such trade going forward.
February 23rd, 2006 at 11:08 amJohn (here we go again :)
“First of all I must respectfully say that if you had looked at a map of the U.A.E. and a map of the United States, you might have noticed that the U.S. is much bigger, and has a vast amount of goods that must be carried vast distances. paying 2.50 a gallon in the United States has far greater implications than paying a high price in Dubai. For example my friend, who owns a trucking firm, has been struggling to make ends-meat because of your freinds in Dubai and elswhere in the OPEC cartel.”
John, you have to understand the economies of Oil. Oil prices do not go up simply & solely because OPEC countries wants it.
Secondly, I completely agree with the oil priceses in the US have risen, hence placing families & friends such as your trucking friend in difficult situations. However, even if the UAE is a small country, everything purchased in the UAE is imported – hence oil prices are emmbeded into the cost of goods sold in the UAE (there is no tax, so that is a plus), the country has little manufacturing acitivity, until recently. Also, for an average non trucking family in UAE, oil prices affect them as much as it affects average American families. You see there is very little public transportation and no subway or rail service to speak off. Everyone has a car to drive to work, to school and for personal stuff and they all pay $2 per gallon (again no tax on the $2 that is why it is lower than the $2.50 we pay in the US)
“Furthermore, if you could complete a thorough investigation of a company owned by the U.A.E. in less than 45 days, and be abolutely, 100% certain that there is no possible threat to port security, than I AM MICKEY MOUSE!”
Why are you so CONVINCED the UAE is filled with terrorists who are wanting to harm the US??? Again do some correct research. Plus you seem to forget, it was DP world who
proactively approached the US government to comply with all US regulations and beyond, even weeks before they started their bid for P&O. Hence perhaps the full 45 days may not have been required.
“Also Roshan no country’s currency is “pegged†as you call it to a certain number of U.S. dollars. The value fluctuates. We aren’t on a global currency yet as you well know.”
John, visit any website and check out the value of the UAE Dirham (AED) with the US$ for the past 20 years. Click this link http://www.oanda.com/convert/classic
Please do some research – FYI the Hong Kong$ and S’pore $ is also pegged to the US$. It’s a choice made by the country who chooses to do so, not the US.
Furthermore, if the U.A.E. operates these six American ports, they will be doing it for profit. That profit will undoubteldy be spent on some of Osama bin Ladens activities. You might recall that George Tenet, former director of the C.I.A, said that they couldn’t kill bin Laden because he was at a meeting with the royal family from the U.A.E. Maybe they were just having tea.
Also if you didn’t know already, the despotic rulers of the middle east stay in power by funding a certain degree of terrorist activities. When they stop bin Laden strikes them, as he did recently in Saudi Arabia.
I know you think that we are just a bunch of stupid Americans, and Dubai should be allowed to own and operate the U.S. military as well, but please don’t insult my intelligence by making up your own facts and figures. And I hate to resort to the old redneck adage, but if you love Dubai so much, why aren’t you living there?
I am not even going to respond to you last paragraph…..once you see the facts minus your emotions you’ll know why.
February 23rd, 2006 at 11:26 amTo John Sinclair -I would not consider this debate and a sincere concern over security STUPID. I don’t have the luxury of living in Utah or North Dakota or some such remote area. I live in Ft Lauderdale about 30 miles from a permenant sunburn when and if the big OOPS does come along and a dirty bomb makes its way here. If the worst did happen I’m sorry but I don’t think cancelling the contract at that point will satisfy me. So, because I love my family and friends a lot more than I care about the the sensitivities of anyone from the Gulf Region I say thanks but no thanks, and the arguemnent that we outsourced to the UK doesn’t wash either, last time I looked the UK was fighting beside us. Pardon me if I’d would prefer that these decisions not be made in a secret committee (the White House is now trying to say they didn’t know about until after the fact??) That Congress & Senate are in the loop (you know the guys who represent the citizens).Also a for this whole thing to blow up in our faces it doesn’t have to be a bomb they will be handling operations of six of our major ports. Any disruption of OPERATIONS could also be catastrophic. SO go ahead call me a bigot or a fearmonger, I’d rather be a live fearmonger than a dead optimist. As an aside, nearly a month ago I was talking to an Italian artist who is doing work on a big project in Dubai and he was telling me how they are not all that crazy about Americans there. Interesting observation.
February 23rd, 2006 at 11:42 amJames Carroll - given your comments (and blind Paranoia of bombs heading into your home from a Dubai Ship) and based on many other comments on this site – perhaps you can see why most folks in Dubai don’t think too “highly” of Americans, get out there and see the world and stop living your only life as a “fearmonger”
February 23rd, 2006 at 11:49 amHow can you deny that terror ties should be a concern, when George Tenet, the C.I.A., the F.B.I., and the 9/11 Comission all said that the United Arab Emirates did not comply with U.S. requests for bin Ladens bank account information, and that they had a significant role in the 9/11 attacks? I have no idea whether they have terror ties or not, but I think that if all those government agencies have said that they do, I don’t believe that the U.A.E. changed overnight. Thats proposterous. It also seems equally rediculous that the director of Homeland Security, which is a fledgling agency, can tell us with a straight face that the U.A.E. has suddenly become the most pro-U.S., anti-terrorist country in the world. And for the president to use his veto power for the first time in sx years to allow a foreign company to buy American ports stinks of greed. Also any company that OPERATES the ports manages what containers can be placed on which ship, and is in charge of managing the shipping manifests. Let me lay it out simply. If you write the ships manifests, a ship with uranium or anthrax can be labeled as a corn shipment. With 1 in 20 containers being physically inspected, that is too big of a role to place in the hands of a company that is owned by a government with questionable links to terrorists.
February 23rd, 2006 at 12:06 pmFACE IT THE U.A.E. SHOULD NOT BE FIRST ON THE LIST, THEY SHOULD BE THE LAST. AMERCICANS DON’T WANT THE U.A.E. MANAGING OUR PORTS. OUR GOVERNMENT IS NOT FOR THE PRESIDENT OR FOR THE CONGRESS, IT IS OF AND BY THE PEOPLE. IF THE PRESIDENT USES HIS VETO POWER AMERICANS WILL GATHER BY THE THOUSANDS TO PHYSICALLY TAKEOVER THE PORTS. CALL IT
Listen people, I’m 15 and i know this is for the good. You libs out there who are all crazed obviously haven’t done your homework. Yuo see Dubai won’t control the whole port only a select number of terminals in each port. That and the US coastguard is still in control of physical security and the Customs checks the containers. Also Dubai has agreed to comply with all the security requests we have made. So stop believing everything you here on Fox and Cnn and do some research before developing an opinion.
February 23rd, 2006 at 12:10 pmThank you.
Adam
Rashall you just proved my point. Most folks in Dubai don’t think too highly of Americans. In fact most Muslims in the middle east consider America the great satan, so I think you guys can do without the privelege of running our ports. And if you think more highly of Dubai, I’m not really sure why you have a rightful place in this debate. After all if worse comes to worse I’m sure you’l be on a jet airplane back over there. As for myself I’d rather piss off a few people from Dubai than see a dirty bomb go off in New York Harbor
February 23rd, 2006 at 12:12 pmYou know what John – I don’t blame you, for all your thoughts expressed above. Because it was the Bush admin that fed the “Arab Boogey man” paranoia to all Americans and the majortiy bought it. It is also really sad, many Americans are, to be honest, simply “ignorant” i.e. HAVE NO CLUE on the countries and cultures that make up the ME region. Anything Arab equates to “terror”. The closest “ally” the UK had terror ties too to 9/11, there were British citizens involved in 9/11, but the UK company P&O managed the ports since late 1999 – did you see a bomb heading your way?
“FACE IT THE U.A.E. SHOULD NOT BE FIRST ON THE LIST, THEY SHOULD BE THE LAST. AMERCICANS DON’T WANT THE U.A.E. MANAGING OUR PORTS. OUR GOVERNMENT IS NOT FOR THE PRESIDENT OR FOR THE CONGRESS, IT IS OF AND BY THE PEOPLE. IF THE PRESIDENT USES HIS VETO POWER AMERICANS WILL GATHER BY THE THOUSANDS TO PHYSICALLY TAKEOVER THE PORTS. CALL IT?
There are several countries whose citizens do not want American companies doing business with them and/or taking over their businesses and assets (take a look at American acquistions around the world the past 5 years). This is a global economy, hence by the same token, you or I cannot STOP businesses with the UAE (inspite of the UAE’s strong business relations with US, just because the UAE is associated with 9/11 and are Arabs. Hell countries like Germany, France, the UK, good ol Canada and pristine Singapore by that means were associated with 9/11. What do you propose, we stop trade and business with all these countries and live in “fear” – then dear American, OBL & croonies have won!
John, all I am saying is – get the “facts” on this deal, get the “facts” on Dubai and the UAE. I for one, would not be spending precious time debating on this issue, if I truly did not see the good that can come out of this.
February 23rd, 2006 at 12:21 pmAdam, the coast guard has a very limited amount of physical resources. You see this is the folly that many good-hearted Americans fall into. They think we have an omnipotent military and coast guard, which unfortunately we don’t (as you saw on September 11th). Whens the last time you saw a coast guard cutter pulling up next to a container ship? If the ships manifests check out, on one container out of 20, anything can come in. The Coast guards job is going after drug runners and pirates. That usually excludes container ships. If Dubai operates the port, they control the manifests, and the postition of caontainers. The company may look good on paper, but if someone in the company has their loyalites in the wrong place, they could place the containers in such a fashion as to discourage the inspection of containers filled with nuclear or biological weapons. Its not paranoia its simple fact. Also if an attack did take place on a U.S. port it would have a devestating effect on foreign investment and commerce, which is about the only thing keeping us out of a recession right now. All it takes is that magic word “nuclear” and nomatter how small the loss of life, there will be a dramatic effect on the American economy.
February 23rd, 2006 at 12:22 pmPerhaps so John – that would also mean the end of Dubai and the UAE as a country! Which is why the Bush folks have placed more controls and procedures on this company than other companies with similar trade.
Do you think these ppl would invest $7 BILLION so that they can sit back , relax and see a bomb go off at NYC harbor?? Would you please do some research on Dubai and the UAE, before you assume the WORST WORST scenario possible – WHAT IS IT THAT MAKES YOU ASSUME THE WORST WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT ALL ARABS???
Below is what Andre Agassi – a successful American athlete described the Dubai Tennis Championships and Dubai. He has been playing the tournament the past several years. He says it has one of the most unique and pleasurable experiences of his tennis career.
“Dubai is something I would look forward to sharing with my wife and family,†he said. “It’s an incredible place to see and to visit for so many reasons. To see what they’ve built here is really a reflection of a lot of vision, a lot of passion, not to mention the cultures that live peacefully together. It’s the way the world is meant to be.
February 23rd, 2006 at 12:31 pmThe concerns over the port takeover are based on facts. You keep citing this unfounded fear that I have. An unfounded fear based on
-George Tenet citing meetings between the U.A.E. royal family and Osama bin Laden
-Extensive financing and passports obtained through the U.A.E.
-extensive anti-American sentiment held by many people living in the U.A.E.
-The F.B.I. said that that the U.A.E. government and banks stonewalled their investigation into bin Ladens bank accounts
-some funds from Dubai Worlds profits will pass into the royal bank accounts which likely are tied to O.B.L. At the very least we are funding terror.
Furthermore, even if the government, and Dubai World Ports is “oficially” freindly with the United States, all it takes is one person in the right place, employed by Dubai Ports to doctor up shipping manifests or to place a container in a discreet place aboard a ship, and the worst could happen. Saudi Arabia is officially freindly with the nited States, as is Yemen, but we still suffered the 9/11 attacks and the U.S.S. Cole attack because of some bad apples in the right positions of power who looked the other way. And if even 1 out of 1000 employees of Dubai Ports World are sympathetic to bin Laden, that is too big of a chance to take. and in the middle east thats a very conservative estimate
February 23rd, 2006 at 12:33 pmIm not being bigotted about all Arabs, but you have to consider fact. And I believe that being conerned about the security American ports is not being bigotted its being pragamatic and sane.
February 23rd, 2006 at 12:36 pmJust for the record -
AA Flight 175 – South Tower, WTC
Marwan Al Shehhi – United Arab Emirates
Fayez al-Hamadi – United Arab Emirates
AA Flight 93 – Crashed in Pennsylvania
Ahmed I.A. Al Haznawi – United Arab Emirates
Most of the terrorists were, of course, from Saudi Arabia, theoretically another “U.S. Ally”, Egypt and Lebanon.
Is this a good idea? I don’t know. I’m just a simple man trying to protect his family in a crazy changing world. On the surface it doesn’t appear to make much sense, but then again, I don’t have all the facts, and probably will never be privy to them.
Thanks for letting me post my comment. Nice forum.
Best to all.
February 23rd, 2006 at 12:37 pmRoshan, you do know that bin Laden and the United States were long time allies as well right? Shakespeare once said: “tis’ time to tremble when tyrants seem to kiss” The money trail from the U.A.E. to bin Laden is strong enough you could follow your nose all the way to that wretched cave where bin Laden is holed up in Pakistan, protected by the incopetence and national sovereignty of another “important ally in the war on terror”. I dont trust any supposed Arab ally with port security. Fact: the two biggest allies of the U.S. in the 1980’s were Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. Look where trusting them got us. I would also encourage you to look at the facts in my last post before you tell me my fear is unfounded and bigotted towards all Arabs
February 23rd, 2006 at 12:54 pmOK Nick – just for the record: Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh who admitted setting the bomb that killed 168 people in the Oklahoma City.
Hence am I to assume 2 misguided souls from the UAE equate to all of UAE as terrorists and by the same logic one Timothy McVeigh equates to most Americans are killers?
February 23rd, 2006 at 12:55 pmhey Roshan why don’t you respond to my posts 403 -406? How much is Dubai Ports paying you anyway? It isn’t nearly enough. Go get a cheeseburger or something. Its one of the wonders of the American way :)
February 23rd, 2006 at 1:03 pmHey just so everyone knows, Dubai Ports just paid former Pres. candidate Bob Dole to represent them on the hill.
February 23rd, 2006 at 1:06 pmJohn – terrorists funding was transferred using banks from several countries across several countries. These guys even duped the INS into issuing them Visas into the US. You have to understand Dubai is the financial center of the ME region, just like S’pore for most of APAC. George Tennet also said Iraq had WMD’s didn’t he? Again you have to do some research on UAE. The UAE is like Switzerland, in the ME region. They hold a neutral position in almost all instances.
This comment takes the cake “some funds from Dubai Worlds profits will pass into the royal bank accounts which likely are tied to O.B.L. At the very least we are funding terror.”
I am so sorry, it just shows how little you know about Dubai world ports, the security measures by the Dubai government. There is very little you know on how Dubai, a western lifestyle oriented, modern and liberal Arab city and the UAE are doing to protect their borders. For eg: do you know Emirates Airline (the Airline from Dubai) flies every day direct from Dubai into JFK. Do you know the extent of security measures in place for this flight amongst others in the UAE.
Do you know thousands of our soldiers embark in Dubai as it is biggest liberty port in the world for US sailors. Do you know American sports personalities from Tiger woods to Tennis professionals play in Dubai sport events. Do some research and take a step back – look at the bigger picture please.
I am completely onboard with you, when you say you do not want another 9/11 – however that should not stop us from progeressing and growing in this world. I thought this website is called “Think Progress”?
February 23rd, 2006 at 1:08 pmNo thank you John – I am having a tuna melt today :)
February 23rd, 2006 at 1:11 pmRoshan,
Good point.
Like I said. I am a simple working man just trying to understand a complex issue causing concern for my family’s safety. Do I think the entire UAE supports terrorists. No, of course not. Do they have ties with terrorists. Certain facts seem to say so.
The ultimate truth is, there are good and bad people no matter where you go. We are our own best friend and worst enemy. Nature of mankind I suppose.
In response to your Timothy McVey example, – If any of Timothy McVey’s friends/associates asked for the keys to my house, I might have some reservations. Knowing what I know about the group he associated with, I know that some of them are a highly unstable and dangerous fraction of our society…so I would proceed with extreme caution in any dealings with these people. That goes for anyone with a track record of hatred and violence.
I’m not looking for a fight here, just trying to sort the wheat from the chaff so I can do whats best for my family. I would assume you would do the same.
Kind regards.
February 23rd, 2006 at 1:16 pmThen you’re not denying that the U.A.E royal family met with bin Laden. Look Saudi Arabia was host to American airbases in the first Gulf War, that doesn’t mean they completely check out. Part of the global game is playing along with the superpower when their watching, then stabbing them in the back when their not. Saudi Arabia for example hires the finest American politicains and spokespeople to present a positive image to the public. Sporting events are a similar ploy. Hitler hosted the 1936 Olympics for Christ’s sake. Look what he did behind everyones backs. Is Dubai a progressive Arab country: yes. But they shouldn’t be trusted with port security given their significant (not tangential) ties to terror funding. If bin Laden just happened to open one of many bank accounts in Dubai, why is it they stonewalled the F.B.I.’s investigation?
February 23rd, 2006 at 1:19 pmAlso Tenet resigned, partially due to disagreement with the Administration on Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction, but if you want to get on that point, Saddams top general and many confidents,mand Israeli intelligence say they were moved to Syria with help of the Russians. And It wasn’t just George Tenet who said that U.A.E. was incompliant in the war on terror. It was the F.B.I. and the 9/11 Comission, so unless you have some source of information i don’t know about I think you must digress:)
tuna melt sounds good. Tuna and a healthy debate Alright!
February 23rd, 2006 at 1:23 pm[...] I thought our policy was to limit dealings with nations that support terrorism. This is actually a state-owned company. They may be allies in some ways, but they do have troubling involvement with international terrorism, including: [...]
February 23rd, 2006 at 1:34 pmRoshan you also meantioned the UAE’s tough border security measures. Don’t you think American’s have the right to the same security?
February 23rd, 2006 at 1:39 pmResponse to Rosham:
We are not talking about hypothetics or generalizations here, we are talking about specifics – facts such as that two of the 9/11 terrorists came from Dubai, the money to finance the operation was laundered through Dubai, Dubai was one of only three countries that recognized the oppressive Taliban as legitimate government, and A.Q Khan, the Pakistani nuclear arms dealer, used Dubai as a reliable transit point en route to Libya and Iran for delivering banned nuclear technology to both countries.
As everyone knows, out of that transaction, came the ensuing Iran’s nuclear issue, a sticky situation that now threatens world peace and stability. The fact is that Dubai has tacitly become a trading post of contrabands – a key smuggling outpost, so to speak. This is a common understanding across the globe, from Nigeria to China, from Egypt to Taiwan, etc.
Your comment “America is going to hide from rest of the world and global market – i.e. place your head in the sand till the “Islamists†dissappear???” is totally disingenuous and illogical. Just because two people or two countries are trading partners does not mean one has to buy everything the other sells. Your argument suggests that if one declines to buy any one particular good that the other offers; that means that country has never bought from the other and that implies the two countries are not trading partners and never have been.
On the contrary, America and the UAE are engaged in countless other trades and those have never been at issue. It is dishonest to pretend that you don’t recognize the issue here or that the concerns Americans have are unwarranted.
Think of the difficulties the coalition forces are facing in Iraq, where terrorists infiltrate the police force and the military to gain information to aid them in terrorist plots and to carryout those plots. Everyone knows how destructive that has been to Iraq, in the number of lives that have been destroyed and how it has virtually crippled the reconstruction process.
February 23rd, 2006 at 1:43 pmI think the point slowtrain is trying to make is that it is relatively easier for determined terrorists to breach security procedures where there is more sympathy towards their cause or where there are more people that support their cause. This is precisely why it has proven so difficult to capture Osama bin Laden or Abu Massad Al-Zakawi.
February 23rd, 2006 at 2:04 pmconcerned_citizen, if I may add to your comments; that is precisely why Zakawi’s attacks in Iraq have been so well coordinated and have proven extremely difficult to preemptively stop. He has more people in Iraq that share his cause and sympathize with him as to shelter and aid him, than in, say Britain, France or any European country.
February 23rd, 2006 at 2:18 pmand just imagine that same scenario with a company that runs American ports. All it takes is one sympathizer, or Al Qaeda operative in the right postition, and they can sneak in a nuclear or biological weapon, and label the ships manifest as “corn bread”. And sometimes it doesn’t take someone to help, sometimes all it takes is someone to look the other way. What do you guys think about the Fed’s buying up the right to operate the ports? Just like the fed’s controlling airline security. I just think its better to be safe than sorry. I’m not a big fan of the governmnent running things, but after 9/11 it would certainly be better than giving operational control to Dubai.
February 23rd, 2006 at 2:26 pmAs I watch Bush supporters pull a 180 and go from Arab haters to being pro Arab, I have to chuckle. The only motivation strong enough to turn an Arab hating Bushista into wanting to jump into bed with the UAE, a country known for it’s ties to terrorism and Bin Laden is money. Bush and his gang are the greediest son’s a bitches this country has ever seen. In 2003 Bush lied about WMD’s to justify a war against Iraq. When the truth finally came out, Bush fell back on the excuse that Saddam committed human rights violations. But when we start digging into the UAE, we find they committ human rights violations as well; trading women and children as slaves, laundering money, harboring terrorists, and the list goes of DUBAI/UAE corruption goes on. Dubai/UAE does not have a democratically elected government with enforced protections in place for it’s citizens or the people it enslaves. This flies in the face of everything Bush supposedly stood for when he justified invading Iraq? Why the double standards? Obviously the UAE has enough money to line the pockets of Bush and his gang. And to top it all off, Bush supporters, the most racist bunch of people in America have the gaul to call people opposed to this dirty deal with UAE racist. Republicans will stoop to any level for money and for their false Bush god. A Republican would steal your wallet and when you caught him doing it, he’d lie and say you stole it from him in the first place. What an embarassment to the human race you Bush supporters are, parroting every lying word the Bush administration utters. Grow a brain and while you’re at it, grow some ethics. The American people will never stand for Bush’s under the table dirty deals with his criminal pals in the UAE, no matter how much you people try to spin the story or call us racist. Fool us once shame on you, fool us twice…”can’t get fooled again.”
February 23rd, 2006 at 3:16 pmcantgetfooled again- You bring aup a couple of good points, but you’re really painting with a broad brush-so to speak. Most people voted for Bush because they felt he was the less of two evils, not because they supported the everything he does. John Kerry would have stayed in Iraq anyway, and many people look at the things he did back during the Vietnam War (turning in his medals and such) with disgust. Its rediculous in America that we only have the choice between two candidates. If we had a viable third candidate, then I don’t think Bush would be in power today. You’re really getting too caught up in the two party way of thinking. The simple fact is that most people on either side of the isle go have lunch together after they are done pretending that they are on opposite sides. We have an oligarchy run by the ultra-rich globalists. Thats why Bush has a deaf ear towards Americans who want to stop this deal. He got what he needed out of us. Votes. It just takes too much money to run nowadays.
February 23rd, 2006 at 3:33 pmSteady, good people, steady! Don’t get pulled off-track by preexisting passionate sentiments, keep your eyes and hands on the relevant issue, rather than falling into partisan bickering. Spend energy on the real issue not on some sentimental hangovers that only distracts from the real issue. Remember, the issue is the merits or lack thereof of outsourcing the running of the ports in question to UAE, speak to that, good people. Leave the partisan stuff to a less urgent time, please.
February 23rd, 2006 at 3:47 pmJohn, many people look back on the Vietnam war with disgust and many people consider Kerry a hero for sacrificing his ata boy trinket medals for participating in the killing of the Vietnamese people. Likewise, there is nothing heroic about killing innocent people in Iraq or anywhere else for that matter. You presume what Kerry would do if he was in office. Maybe he would’ve followed the same course of action as Bush, and maybe he wouldn’t have. Either way the point is moot. Bush is the one calling the shots, not Kerry or Clinton, or any other hypothetical Democrat Republicans have a habit of shifting the focus toward. We’re not dealing in hypotheticals. We know Bush is a dirty rotten scoundrel. We know the UAE committs human rights violations. We know that on any given Sunday, Bush will support the villain with the most money and condemn anyone that refuses to deal to death. American doesn’t want to make a deal with Dubai and wake up the next day finding out Dubai is our new found enemy like Saddam, Noriega, or any one else the Bush crime family broke deals with. Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice…”can’t get fooled again.”
February 23rd, 2006 at 3:52 pmso what about U.S. government run operation of ports. Solution or no slowtrain?
February 23rd, 2006 at 3:53 pmyes weve established that this is a sell out, and that Dubai shouldn’t be running American ports. While i disagree with your view on Kerry, I want to stay on subject. I think we should turn our attention to what should be done. I think the Federal government should run the port operations since they are such a high-level security risk. I mean quite franky, I didn’t even know a British company was running some of our ports until this scandal erupted. Its becoming opbivous that the American people need to get more involved in their government
February 23rd, 2006 at 3:58 pmResponse to slowtrain:
“facts such as that two of the 9/11 terrorists came from Dubai, the money to finance the operation was laundered through Dubai, Dubai was one of only three countries that recognized the oppressive Taliban as legitimate government, and A.Q Khan, the Pakistani nuclear arms dealer, used Dubai as a reliable transit point en route to Libya and Iran for delivering banned nuclear technology to both countries”
No one denies two of the hijackers came from the UAE. Monies to finance to 9/11 were laundered through Dubai, Germany, Singapore, the UK and the US – some of the banks used were American banks. Dubai is the financial center of the Middle East.
“As everyone knows, out of that transaction, came the ensuing Iran’s nuclear issue, a sticky situation that now threatens world peace and stability. The fact is that Dubai has tacitly become a trading post of contrabands – a key smuggling outpost, so to speak. This is a common understanding across the globe, from Nigeria to China, from Egypt to Taiwan, etc.”
Trading of contrabands is illegal in the UAE, punishable by law.
Your comment “America is going to hide from rest of the world and global market – i.e. place your head in the sand till the “Islamists†dissappear???†is totally disingenuous and illogical. Just because two people or two countries are trading partners does not mean one has to buy everything the other sells. Your argument suggests that if one declines to buy any one particular good that the other offers; that means that country has never bought from the other and that implies the two countries are not trading partners and never have been.
Nice way to twist words, however I did not say or imply what you say above.
“On the contrary, America and the UAE are engaged in countless other trades and those have never been at issue. It is dishonest to pretend that you don’t recognize the issue here or that the concerns Americans have are unwarranted.”
Again, I am not oblivious to the trade between these two countries and never denied it either. I never “pretended” to ignore the issue several Americans raised on this topic, else I wouldn’t be on this site debating with you.
All I am trying to do is bring some “awareness” to most people. By no means, I am a fan of the UAE or Dubai. However, when I see us spreading across the globe promoting the concept of democracy and the American way of life, and yet when the most modern, liberal and ambitious Arab city and nation approaches with a genuiune business proposition -all we can think about is terrorism and we yell terrorists terrorists! We continue to link whole of UAE population, the banking system and trade to 9/11 and terrorism. To the outside world, it just shows how much we know apples from pancakes when it comes to Middle East Countries and cultures.
“Think of the difficulties the coalition forces are facing in Iraq, where terrorists infiltrate the police force and the military to gain information to aid them in terrorist plots and to carryout those plots. Everyone knows how destructive that has been to Iraq, in the number of lives that have been destroyed and how it has virtually crippled the reconstruction process.”
Here we go again – lets blame Dubai and the UAE because of Iraq, hell let me blame Dubai because it is a cloudy day in NYC and I prefer the Sun. Please check your facts and look at things from an honest perspective. No country is perfect, perhaps we are the ones with the most imperfections, but I can certainly say, we as a nation address those and corrects them going forward. The world is becoming smaller, it is a global economy, no matter what. If we deny DP world this business proposition, when in fact most foreign countries have APPROVED the P&O deal (you see P&O operates globally, most of the other countries where P&O conducted business has been approved by the governments) we are sending all involved an unhealthy message. I still face to see, why you cannot see beyond the “terrorism” fear – hell it takes a dishonest man from the FBI to put this country in trouble – how can we keep living if ppl think this way??? Think for a moment – do you think DP world will invest nearly $7 bliion and sit back, waiting for a bomb to go off at NYC harbor. Do you even know what harm that will do to a country like Dubai or the UAE. A country that truly has developed to one of the most modern ones in the world. Do you really think they want to destroy all the investments they have made worldwide and within. No place is perfect, even we are not perfect, but that’s not stopping us from becoming a better success does it?
February 23rd, 2006 at 4:10 pmRoshan you are trying to dissacociate the government of the United Arab Emirates and Septemeber 11th. Its not working. I know you want us to adopt this rosy view of that country, but its all an illusion. Of course they claim to cooperate after 9/11 because noone wants to get blasted back into the stone age. The fact is they bankrolled terrorists up until 9/11 and since the F.B.I. has not been allowed to conduct an investigation into Osama bin Laden’s bank accounts in Dubai, we have no reasonable assurance that they aren’t bankrolling him now. It is also very disturbing that the Royal Family was having face to face meetings with Bin Laden. What i’m supposed to disregard cold hard fact because Andres Agasi says its a nice place to visit with his family?! You must be a lunatic. Stop thinking the American people are gonna swallow this! Its similar to the Japanese attacking Pearl Harbor, sinking the Arizona, then giving them salvage rights, and letting them run the harbor. Its Insanity!
February 23rd, 2006 at 4:17 pmJohn, you’re 100 percent correct. The federal government should run the port operations and the American people need to take back America.
February 23rd, 2006 at 4:17 pmWhy is it you keep refering to yourself and the U.A.E. as we? Who are you representing? It must not be America
February 23rd, 2006 at 4:19 pmAlso you may find the below interesting….
Foreign-owned companies operate many ports in the United States. For example, in Los Angeles, California, companies from China, Denmark, Japan, Singapore and Taiwan lease operations.
Ted Bilkey, chief operating officer of Dubai Ports World, said the company “will fully cooperate in putting into place whatever is necessary to protect the terminals.”
Bilkey said U.S. customs officers in Dubai inspect cargo containers headed for American ports as part of a port-security effort his company supports.
“We have given them the sovereign right to inspect any container they wish to before it’s loaded on a vessel,” he said, calling fears that officials would turn a blind eye to terrorists “nonsense.”
“Security now in our business is a marketing tool,” he said. “The shipping companies want to know that you run a secure operation.”
February 23rd, 2006 at 4:20 pmJohn, the prospects of the U.S. government taking over ports operation is a reasonable one and far better than that of the UAE. However, it reminds of the DCFS taking away a child from an abusive home, for the child’s safety. The action in of itself alone does not guarantee the child’s safety, as that child may end up in another abusive home or on the streets. All things considered, it is by far a better option, for the government to takeover, as you suggested, after all, the TSA will be doing much of the security.
February 23rd, 2006 at 4:22 pmDear John and “Slowtrain” – I cannot change your chain of thought, only bring as much awareness I can. I went thru 9/11 in NYC. I am also someone who’s had the opportunity to grow up in the Middle east, Africa, the UK Canada and the US. The opportunity gave me an insight and exposure to countries and cultures I may have missed out if I only lived in the US.
I respect your thoughts and opinion, however I am not going to FORCE you to change them, this is America. I only hope, going forward, you can see beyond reason.
ps: we means “USA”
February 23rd, 2006 at 4:24 pmroshan I don’t believe the United States should reward terrorist governments. Period. I could give a hooting hell if they have security measures or not. Its like letting Bin Laden run an airport bacause he agreed to let the U.S. run the metal detectors. The U.A.E. has a lot of blood on their hands for September 11th. Im not saying their the only country, but their part of the problem. I’d sooner reward them with a flight of B-52’s overhead then a deal giving over six of our ports. Terrorists are surrogate fighters sponsored by “legitemate” governments. Am I the only one who feels this way?
February 23rd, 2006 at 4:27 pmjust venting by the way:)
February 23rd, 2006 at 4:32 pmRoshan, again your argument dwells excessively on wild generalizations. We are talking about a very specific and qualified issue here. Every country has vulnerability, in light of their experience, history, and situation, hence it is in the national interest of each country to exercise caution and to make every reasonably effort to protect itself and not expose itself to sources prone to potential danger. The danger America faces may not be the danger any other country faces, and vice versa. Hence, it is illogical to expect the same response in all cases.
In the investigations that followed the 9/11 attack, everyone seemed to blame the administration for not acting on the information it has on some of the hijackers, however incomplete it was. On is part, the government argued that the information were not specific enough. Those who forget history, essentially commit to making the same mistake twice or for as long as they fail to learn from history.
Give Americans the courtesy of choosing the best way to ensure their own security, even if it is only symbolic, which in this case, it is definitely not.
February 23rd, 2006 at 4:50 pmJohn, Slowtrain…
Please forgive me, but, I am obviously not as well versed in the interational politics and the full operational jurisdiction of our government where our ports are concerned.
Wouldn’t the Government (Feds) have to declare some sort of Martial Law to intervene at the private sector level to assume full control of the ports? I’m not saying it’s a bad , or good, idea, I’m just trying to understand what would occur if this was to take place.
By the way, I hope that whatever the solution is to this issue that typical folks like myself can rest assured that we have not compromised our safety just for a nice business deal. That would stink.
February 23rd, 2006 at 4:52 pmOK folks – I am a strong believer in the saying “Whatever happens, happens for the better” Whichever way this issue goes – let us hope it is for the better. Amen to that.
February 23rd, 2006 at 4:54 pmThis agreement states that DBWorld is not required to keep business records on U.S. soil. Whats the deal with that? How are we going to audit their taxes? What if I am a terrorist intent on lighting the fuse to WWIII? I use false credintials to get through their internal security and get a job. Now the U.S. government cant even get a hold of my job application? Brilliant!
February 23rd, 2006 at 5:01 pmI’m not sure what it would take, but I know that the government took over airline safety, and the hiring of security personel at airports. I imagine firms presently owning or operating ports would have to be given compensation. There would definitely have to be a bill passed by congress I imagine. Its also possible they could invoke imminent domain, citing public safety and national security concerns. I’m not totally sure. Its just the best idea i could think of.
February 23rd, 2006 at 5:01 pmRoshan, I am sorry, I disagree on that too. “Whatever happens, happens for the better†is a fatalistic philosophy, as empty as hakuna mata ta (a problem free philosophy) :) All the best; funny…I feel like I know you already.
February 23rd, 2006 at 5:05 pmI think in addition, there should be a congressional comitee
February 23rd, 2006 at 5:11 pmon on port security, (where we acutally know who is on it and can vote them in or out). I also think it wouldn’t be a bad thing for any large scale transfer of (beyond a certain billions of dollars) essential assets (power, communication, national defense) on American soil to a foreign government to pass a congressional review. Most Americans are just now waking up to how much of America isn’t really American:) Do I think America should be socialist? Of course not, but certain essential elements to the smooth transaction of business and well being, should be under control of the government. Power is a good example, as is National Defense, Ports, Airports and the like. I won’t touch Healthcare (hot-button issue lol).
Roshan I definitely appreciate your perspective, but i don’t think well ever see eye to eye on this one. its been cool talking though.
February 23rd, 2006 at 5:19 pmSame here mates, take care and keep well :)
February 23rd, 2006 at 5:21 pmHow much of America isn’t American? How’s this senerio, China threatens to cash in all of its U.S.treasury notes. The only way we could possibly pay them off would be to print so much money that the dollar would be worthless. Instead, after long negotiations, We give them Texas. (they wanted California.) It;s a win-win deal!
February 23rd, 2006 at 5:25 pmnaw just give ‘em all their cheap crap back:)
February 23rd, 2006 at 5:30 pmis this thing on?
February 23rd, 2006 at 5:31 pmthats a lot of cheep crap. speaking of texas, has anyone looked for osama bin laden at the bush ranch?
February 23rd, 2006 at 5:35 pmI’m signing off john, you;ll have to talk to yourself.
February 23rd, 2006 at 5:39 pmFirst lets clear up a misconception…SECURITY IS NOT BEING TURNED OVER!! That is the responsibility of the Coast Gaurd and Customs, always has been and always will be!! The whole issue is based in racism. The racists will say “Oh no it’s not because they are Arab! It’s differnt because it is another countries goverment that has control of the company!” Wake up people China already owns port operations in America. Take a deep breath people! If you wonder why the Arab community hates America this would be one shining example. Radical Muslims are a minorty overall. Yep most people of any religion just want to raise there kids and die in peace. We have our share of radical Christians (Serbia is a good example or the abortion doctor killings if you prefer) Heck we even have radical atheiests whom would love to impose their view over anyone who believes in God. Every society, religion and race has its share of people worthy of sainthood and its share of a@#holes. Bottom line its racism and until we can get past that we will never have peace with the Arabs of the world. May as well declare your Holy War now and be done with it!!
February 23rd, 2006 at 5:41 pmHey pd, we know where old Osama is hiding, its just that we are not allowed to go and get him, for the same reason that we don’t want the U.A.E to run our ports – the solidarity he enjoys with many people in Afghanistan, Pakistan and the U.A.E, all of which by the way, are partners in the global war on terror. But I can tell you, he is not in Texas, the aroma of a juicy steak on a grill would be too much temptation to come out of his hole.
February 23rd, 2006 at 5:56 pmGet Real Dennis. If Arab’s hate America its because America just dropped 500,000 tons of depleted uranium all over the middle east and their children are deformed from playing in tank wreckage radiated by the impact of DU shells. If Arab’s hate America its because America Arab’s know greedy American assholes like Bush would kill every man, woman, and child that stood in his way of controlling the oil in the middle east. IF Arab’s hate American its because America keeps sticking it’s nose where it doesn’t belong, starting illegal wars and occupying whats left of their blown up cities. Obviously Dubai and the UAE has a deal worked out with Bush to keep him off their backs. That said, given how pissed off Arab world has every right to be, I don’t want to see the control of US ports outsourced to anyone, especially the friends of Bin Laden and Bush. You can play that race card all day baby but we all know that Bush’s constituency primarily consists of red state red necks, not people of color. Get Real, no one is buying your Bush spin.
February 23rd, 2006 at 5:56 pmslowtrain. thats my point. he’s probably enjoying a nice steak with george and dick right now. And their all laughing at us.
February 23rd, 2006 at 6:04 pmGetReal Look man, you dont have to sugar coat it.
February 23rd, 2006 at 6:08 pmResponse to GetReal:
What exactly are you talking about? You are in essence making this a race issue and please don’t refer to any people as “people of color”, even your own constituency.
Regards.
February 23rd, 2006 at 6:18 pmSo “Get Real” if what your saying is true about Bush…why is it that the are still breathing men women and children in the Middle East? Your hate for Bush leads you to distort the truth. As far as some deal with Bush and the UAE. Bush didn’t even know about the deal until he saw it on the news. Yep a bit incompatent almost laughable…..but it really puts holes in you sinister conspiracy theories.
February 23rd, 2006 at 6:22 pmGet Real Dennis. If you really think Bush didn’t know about the deal with Dubai you’re dumber than a Son of a Bush. And if Bush really didn’t know about the deal that means he really is a dumb son of a Bush like you and the rest of his son of Bush followers. Get real!
February 23rd, 2006 at 6:32 pmHey “Get Real” sorry to let you down, I am not as you say a Son of a Bush follower. But it is easier for a person with such anger as yourself to attack before you understand. I actualy didn’t vote in the last election for the first time in 20 years. I didn’t think either canidate was qualified to be president. So, where are you? Is Bush an evil genius or a dumb ass? Or do you just argue whichever way that suits you for the occasion with no firm belief of either position? Take a deep breath…say Ohmmm or something. Your hate will give you high blood prassure.
February 23rd, 2006 at 6:43 pmGet real Dennis. If it walks like a Son of a Bush, talks like a Son of a Bush, you’re a Son of a Bush Dennis. As for that Son of a Bush, Bush, he’s just an Evil, Dumb, Son of a Bush! Get Real you Son of a Bush!
February 23rd, 2006 at 6:50 pmWell….thats an interesting comment. They used to say something like that in the south about 40 years ago and in Germany about 60 years ago, different subject but all the same thing. You might have been born out of your time “Get Real” Hate is the biggest wall to peace and your just another brink in the wall (huh, first time I ever used that in a sentance…Roger Waters would be proud).
February 23rd, 2006 at 7:02 pmJust the facts, ma’am . . .
First: What is it that running a port requires one to do? Who gets what in this multi-billion dollar deal, exactly? Strange if that wouldn’t have direct bearing on security-related concerns, but so far, no one has answered that question to my satisfaction.
Second: UAE is a country that this administration’s Treasury Dept has stated did not satisfactorily cooperate in the USA’s Post-9/11 inquiries, and it has aided in the transfer of nuclear materials to and between third-world countries. Scary.
Fact: Sheik Zayed wants to modernize the UAE,and apparently does not support terrorism. Good. But his government recognizes the Taliban. Bad. Characterizing Arabs as a group as being a security risk is a ridiculous but pretty popular pasttime these days. (Then there’s this weird fact that Zayed’s father arranged financing for Pres. Bush’s oil company, Arbusto in the 80’s) (Hmmmm).
However, at this time there doesn’t seem to be proof that this is part of the elites-deal-making-with-elites world in which we live.
Bottom line: need more info, but it’s got a weird and scary feel to it.
February 23rd, 2006 at 7:25 pmGet real Dennis, you Son of a Bush. 60 years ago in Germany they were talking about that Son of a Bush, Prescott Bush. He made a deal with the Germans just like that Son of a Bush, George Bush is trying to do with Dubai. You really are a misguided Son of a Bush aren’t you Dennis?
February 23rd, 2006 at 7:25 pmI think that is a very poor idea. By opening our ports, we may as well give up the country now. They WILL take over. How stupid are the people running this country? For the people, yeah what people – not the people born here! May as well put up a sign – take me now, we’re stupid enough to let you in.
February 23rd, 2006 at 7:32 pmThe American Indians feel your pain Mary Ann!
February 23rd, 2006 at 7:36 pmGet Real Dennis, those Son’s a Bush’s killed off most of the American Indians. Now that Son of Bush, George Bush wants to outsource the ports to Dubai so he can finish the job.
February 23rd, 2006 at 7:45 pmOk, so the Americans have army bases all over the Muslim world and if a company in Dubai (Americans have an army base there too) wants to do business and run a few American ports, why is everybody up in arms? So what if two of the 9/11 hijackers were from the UAE? It’s like the Pakistani government saying, “I don’t think we should let the Americans run KFCs and McDonalds here. Jose Padilla and John Walker are both American terrorists and we can’t trust the Americans”. This goes to show the ignorance in the American government. I guarantee you that the people who are against this deal were not even able to point to the UAE on the map before 9/11. To those who oppose this deal: I challenge you to visit Dubai and see how much of a terrorist government you guys think it is.
February 23rd, 2006 at 8:15 pmUAE ARE NOT ALL TERRORISTS YOU DUMB IGNORANT LOSERS! You generalize. GOOD GOD. The real terrorists are FOX news and GOP. LOOK AT THE FUCKING DEFINTION OF A TERRORIST.
February 23rd, 2006 at 8:45 pm“suck on a big bowl of my nuts” = Nobody is saying that the “UAE ARE ALL TERRORISTS”….theyre saying that they do NOT want to give ANY more control over the USA to a foreign government, especially in a deal that has little transparency and was financed using sukuk. Sukuk means when DP World IPO’s, that ANYBODY with money will become a shareholder and have a voice in how the ports are run by DP World – because we ALL know, those that have the most shares get the loudest voice.
February 23rd, 2006 at 8:58 pmI think George Dubai Bush’s handing control of the ports to the United Arab Emerits is a BRILLIANT idea. He’s already been threatening the Veto thing (shows great content of character and objective listening) in his support for the secret deal of which he just found out of a few days before it went public. (wink wink) Since Condolleezzaa Rriiccee changed jobs, we’ve seen a marked change in George Dubai Bush’s job rating. He seems sadly misinformed and out of the loop, the last to know and the first in line to forcefully defend anything that crosses his desk or his mind. It’s the REAL George Dubai Bush.
February 23rd, 2006 at 9:37 pmAnd so, Like his father before him, we must watch him crumble in the last years of his administration and fade back into private seclusion on the ranch. While those that follow must scramble to pay for his mistakes, misdeeds, and outright lies. I think the mess he’s made will take at LEAST 16 years of hard work and sacrifice to break even.
So now we can proove as a nation that we are NOT anti arab bigots like those evil danish satire cartoonists. We must adopt Muslim curriculae and traditions in our schools, we must learn their language, and build new mosques for them on the east coast to begin with.
So George Dubai, in one fell swoop, has just shredded the roadmap to peace in the middle east. Perhaps we can toss some no bid contracts to the new Democratically elected Hamas Government in Palestine, you know, to really prove we’re not anti arab bigots. Suddenly, the arab world is our ally. How many of the UAE’s youth have been injured or died by the side of our brothers sisters and children on George Dubai Bush’s Iraq Mission to rid them of weapons of mass distruction and establish a democratic government? How much money have they given to further our cause, our fight against terrorism? More or Less than Great Britain? And why do they deserve this port contract over other countries? Why was the deal done in secrecy before the President, or Congress ever knew?
It’s just sad that we have to fight for our guaranteed freedoms because the constitution now means nothing. America is not failing miserably, Our government is failing Us miserably. Please don’t confuse the two. We are stronger than they believe we are.
Feel the Xenophobia!!! Wow!!! Scratch an American “progressive” and it turns out they’re just as much crackers as the open variety.
Look, Timothy McVeigh was American, and a terrorist. Does that mean the rest of the world should reject US investment for security reasons.
Why is it that people (even pretend progressives) only attack Bush from the right, not the left? America, I weep for you …
February 23rd, 2006 at 9:37 pmWhat the Main Stream Media is not reporting is that there is a huge connection between the DP World Port deal and the recent aquisition of CSX Rail/Freight by DP World. This deal whereby DP World buys CSX (formerly run by Sec of Treasury, John Snow, who incedentally is head of the government panel approving of DR World purchase of US ports), and they buy it from Carlyle Group (who employs George Herbert Bush and MANY other politically connected follks, like James BakerIII and Frank Carlucci, and now headed by Lou Guerstner, former IBM CEO), which when aded to the ports, gives a foreign government control of a HUGE American Transportation system. So why isn’t the MSM talking about this? Why is no one talking about the BUSH Family’s huge stake in the deal and how that may have influenced George W’s decision to push this forward. Is W selling out America? I would say yes, definately and this is not the first time.
February 23rd, 2006 at 10:18 pmThe Rpresident is not to use America for a personal business tool. THAT is all that bUshCo has done in office.
February 24th, 2006 at 12:49 amI asked a republican friend to name one thing bush has done right. he couldn’t come up with a thing. We as Americans have no choice but to distrust any decission made by this conglomerate.
George Dubai Bush, what a clever name! Perhaps we should outsource our military to Dubai as well. As long as they wear our uniforms that is!!!!(props to Michael Savage)
February 24th, 2006 at 5:54 amThis constant attempt to play the race card to get people to accept this shady deal with Dubai is poppycock. The UAE is not an elected democracy. The UAE has a long record of involvement with known TERRORISTS like OSAMA BIN LADEN! The UAE is currently engaged in human rights violations and HUMAN SLAVERY!!!!!!! If this was during WW2 and we were at war with Germany, we WOULD NOT be relinquishing control of our sea ports to governments or companies that our sympathetic to, harbor, or support Nazi Germany in any way!!!! This is not a Race Issue, this is a WAR ON TERROR ISSUE!!!! Remember the WAR ON TERROR that Bush said we need to be fighting for the rest of our lives? HAVE YOU FORGOTTEN 911?!?!?!?!? We’re not talking about turning the ports over to a regulated American company anyway. Its not an American company, its a government not governed by the same regulations that govern our country or American companies. Dubai and the UAE are not regulated like America is regulated. Thats why Bush wants to OUTSOURCE the contract to an unregulated country/company!!!! Thats why all the jobs get OUTSOURCED because other countries lack the regulations and protections for their employees. STOP OUTSOURCING ANYTHING!!!!! STOP BUYING PRODUCTS MADE WITH SLAVE LABOR! STOP SELLING AMERICA TO FOREIGN COUNTRIES!!!!!! There are so many reasons not to support this deal with Dubai that FAR OUTWEIGH any reason anyone on this board has cited. I dont care if you lived in Dubai or vacationed in Dubai as a sailor taking liberties with the people the government of Dubai has enslaved. ARE YOU PEOPLE INSANE?!?!? WAKE UP!!!!!!!
February 24th, 2006 at 5:55 amhi everybody ,
i am a girl from UAE and i went you to know some fact about my country .
* do you knoe that the UAE have more then 1000 Nationality live togather and all of them are safe here .
*do you know that there is no one has been Hurt after the painting about our prophet Mohamd and i am honest about that.
* also many of my teachers in the university are from US and UK and we have a very good relationship more then you can imagen .
so please do not judge about us as a people or as conutry if you do not know us ….!
and if you went i can give you my glabalization teacher e-mail ,she is from US and she can tell you more about UAE and the Emiraties .
February 24th, 2006 at 7:28 amWakeup, you’re right on the mark. I was just reading Bush’s comments that anyone disagreeing with his deal with Dubai as “UnAmerican” and labeling criticism and scruitiny of his dirty deals as “Islamophobia.” All this after Bush launched a full scale war against Iraq based on the idea that Saddam had WMD’s and was working with Bin Laden against the US. How dare you George Bush insult the American people by calling anyone “UnAmerican” just because they don’t trust you. If anyone in this country generated “Islamophobia” it was George Bush and his lying, treasonous, inept regime. George Bush failed to protect the United States from the terrorist attacks of 9/11. George Bush lied and sent American son’s and daughters to die in Iraq and kill innocent Iraqi men, women and children. George Bush sells weapons to and forms partnerships with every terrorist dictatorship, enslaving people on the planet. George Bush is the most incompetent, lying, moronic fool ever to soil the White House. How dare you call anyone in this country “UnAmerican” George Bush. Thats like the pot calling the kettle black.
February 24th, 2006 at 7:38 amHi Sara. You’ll have to forgive me if I don’t believe a word you say. Just because you have a nice life in the UAE doesn’t mean that everyone does. (If you are indeed who you say you are.) Just because you aren’t a slave doesn’t mean there aren’t slaves in the UAE Sara. Just because you may or may not be a good person does not mean that your government isn’t corrupt or have business deals with terrorists. You paint a nice rosie picture Sara. Its unfortunate that 9/11 happened and that Bush is in office, otherwise I might be inclined to believe you. I hope it all works out for you Sara and I hope other people in the UAE get to live the fortunate life you “appear” to be living. You sound very fortunate. Maybe when you talk to your teacher next you can ask your teacher to explain to you the story of the Trojan Horse. Let us know how that goes. Bye bye now Sara.
February 24th, 2006 at 7:45 am*bangs head against wall repeatedly*
This is so annoying – Dubai, and more imporatantly the UAE is pretty much the most pro-western place in the middle east.
The fact is, if the US were to cut this down, not only would there be a backlash in the middle east, but also around the world. Its an issue that deals not only with the politics but also with commercial and economic issues as well.
I’m just going to link articles that might shine a bit of light here:
http://www.forbes.com/home/logistics/2006/02/23/dubai-ports-arab-react-cx_daa_0223dubai.html
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0224/p09s01-coop.html
http://www.pennlive.com/editorials/patriotnews/index.ssf?/base/opinion/114069020761240.xml&coll=1
February 24th, 2006 at 7:48 amOh and one final one that deals with all the fracking myths floating around:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/02/22/opinion/meyer/main1335531.shtml
February 24th, 2006 at 7:50 amGail, you bring up a very interesting point: “The fact is, if the US were to cut this down, not only would there be a backlash in the middle east, but also around the world.” I’m glad you said this. This is just another fantastic reason why American should not accept this deal with Dubai. This is blackmail pure and simple. America should under no circumstance ever base their decision to sell off control of the country for fear of “backlash.” Americans should control American ports and never cave to pressure or political blackmail. We sent our troops into Iraq under the premise that Iraq was threatening the US. What makes you think Americans wont support a legitimate response to any “backlash” Dubai wants to bring for not doing business with them. Americans don’t appreciate being threatened with “backlash.” If you think you just made a case to deal with Dubai, you’re sadly mistaken. Now lets move on to the Backlash since I prefer that alternative to threats and extortion.
February 24th, 2006 at 8:19 amoh my gad ,
February 24th, 2006 at 8:28 amyou really do not know anything about us . what is Trojan Horse do you really believe that ?
i am from UAE and i am Proud of that . i am not lucky it is just how our live is .
we do not have slaves here . please be sure about what you write about before saying it .
if you just know what our cenutry do for us as a girls you will be shocked .
and about asking my teacher .we taked about that issue in the class about the “ports problem” . and do you know what she said . she said that the American have the wrong idea about us because the just believe what they see .
Well Sara I’m sorry that America doesn’t trust Dubai or the UAE. Ever since George Bush took office and allowed 9/11 to happen under his watch Americans have become very distrustful. If we can’t even trust our own elected President of the United States, can you really blame us for not trusting anyone else Sara? I hope you understand that our distrust of the UAE and Dubai is George Bush’s fault. Perhaps when we elect an honest President, we’ll begin to trust your government more. And it doesn’t help that we hear stories that your government allows terrorists like Osama Bin Laden to hide in your country and wont allow the US to check their bank records. Maybe if your country would allow the US to come in and inspect everything we might be more willing to trust your government. Maybe you and your teacher and your class can write your government a letter asking for permission to allow the US citizens and independent media to come in and inspect everything we might be more trusting. And while you’re at it, you should ask your government to hold democratic elections. We’re far more trusting of democratically elected governments. It sounds like you have alot of work ahead of you Sara. Good luck.
February 24th, 2006 at 8:36 amUmm, TrojanHorse – America has *always* had policies that focussed on isolationism or self protection.
Wasn’t it even called the Isolation Policy before world war 2 occured?
And america is not selling control of the country. America has issues with security that have developed over the years that needs dealing with, true. It should have kept dealing with the ports, within borders. UAE would not control anything – its management not control – commercial, not political. The aims are profit and the UAE is well aware that its continued success lies with allying itself to western countries.
Please, bother to actually research the country. There will be issues regarding 9/11 stuff, but that applies to every arab country and even America. The country itself strives towards becoming the Singapore of the Middle East. More than 70% of the population is foreign, primarily Indian, Asian, and Western. A lot of people go there to work because you don’t have to pay any taxes.
Its very modern, and pro-western. Which is why the back lash I was referring to was in sentiment that the USA can make demands to countries and then snubbed them without adequate reason.
The company in question is british – the third largest in the world for this industry I think and there are a lot more ports its getting control of, in countries OTHER THAN america. It isn’t all about the USA, as difficult as it might be for you to understand.
February 24th, 2006 at 8:54 amWHAT THE HECK, EVEN I WOULD BE TEMPTED TO SELL OUT A PIECE OF AMERICA IF I WAS OFFERED WHAT BUSH WILL GET WHEN HE LEAVES OFFICE, FOR SELLING OUR PORTS TO THE ARABS ( OUR aggressor enemies) IT COMES FROM GOOD SOURCE HE OR THE FAMILY EMPIRE WILL COLLECT $1BILLION DOLLARS).
February 24th, 2006 at 9:05 amTHINK ABOUT THAT, THAT’S ONE THOUNDAND MILLION.
we do not need democratically elected governments because our life are better then yours .you do not imagen how much we love our President . if you know how we live you will thnik that we are kings .
in my family we are only 6 people and we have 3 cares, we live in a very big house every one of us have a room , my father salary is about 6700$ per month . we do not have tax so we do not pay any thing . we also do not pay for water or electricity or for the teleplone bills because where my father work pay for it . also the Emiraties people study for free in both the schools and the university , and there is more …..
and i do not blame you because i know everything about the American . i just do not like the way that you talk about us when you do not know anything .
go to this web site and read about UAE and i hope that you will get a better picture .
February 24th, 2006 at 9:06 amhttp://www.uaeinteract.com/government/zayed.asp
Gail
“9/11″ stuff is a nice benign description to use to refer to terrorist attacks that kill Americans dead.
I wasn’t aware that Dubai workers didn’t pay taxes. I pay taxes. Why should I condone the outsourcing of America to a country that require taxes to be paid?
Gail, I’m not making any demands on Dubai, never have. I’m not sure what you mean by “demands” but Americans don’t appreciate “demands” made against them by foreign countries threatening a “backlash.”
You’re quite right tho, not everything is about the US. But in this case, we are talking about ports in the US. We don’t need Dubai to run our ports. Thanks for the offer though. Have a nice day.
February 24th, 2006 at 9:06 amTrojanHorse- you ask about the demands the US makes- well here it is in a nutshell, alright:
http://formerspook.blogspot.com/2006/02/port-call.html
Have a good day.
February 24th, 2006 at 9:20 amWell Sara it sounds like you’re a nice rich girl from a nice rich family from a nice rich country. Americans aren’t so rich because Bush likes to outsource all of our jobs to foreign countries. We don’t care for Kings in America because a long time ago when the King of England tried to control America, Americans dumped alot of tea in the harbor. Our President think he’s a king but he’s not thats why alot of Americans want to see him impeached. It sounds like Dubai and the UAE are doing very well and don’t need the job of control are ports as much as Americans. So I guess your rich daddy will have to go get someone tax free money elsewhere. Good luck Sara.
February 24th, 2006 at 9:23 amhave you noticed that king licker “RUSH:” is frothing at th mouth since Bush gave him a raise. I am not suire what his title is but take your choice king licker or lapper fits Rush
February 24th, 2006 at 9:29 amDon’t blame poor Bush, the price is right.
February 24th, 2006 at 9:37 amI an with you that we do not need this deal . and i hope that it goes as you went . because as an Emirates people we do not went to take your jobs from you and i hope that you can win in that .
and about being rich , i am not really .
but you know what ….
i am happy that you get the chance to know more about my country .
good Luck *_*
February 24th, 2006 at 9:42 amDon’t be discouraged Sara. Not all Americans are so filled with hate that they can’t see through the bursting blood vessals in their eyes. The people who oppose this deal are hate based, they either hate Bush or hate Arabs. Hopefully reason will prevail.
February 24th, 2006 at 10:05 amthank you Dennis …
but I am not discouraged . i just do not care about the deal because it will not affect us negatively , the compeny have a lot of business in many other countries around the world so we will not lose anything , but it will be for you or that what they think .
February 24th, 2006 at 10:17 amBush is THE Manchurian Canidate.
February 24th, 2006 at 10:19 amMyth #1: An Arab company is trying to buy six American ports.
No, the company is buying up a British company that leases terminals in American ports; the ports are U.S.-owned. To lease a terminal at a U.S. port means running some business operations there — contracting with shipping lines, loading and unloading cargo and hiring local labor. Dubai Ports World is not buying the ports.
Several companies will lease terminals at a single port. In New Orleans, for example, the company Dubai Ports World is trying to buy (P&O Ports) is just one of eight companies that lease and operate terminals.
P&O Ports does business in 18 other countries. None of them are in righteous lathers about the sale of the business to a company owned by the United Arab Emirates. Dubai Ports World already operates port facilities all over the world, including such security-slacker states as China, Australia, Korea and Germany.
Myth #2: The U.S. is turning over security at crucial ports to an Arab company.
No, security at U.S. ports is controlled by U.S. federal agencies led by the Coast Guard and the U.S. Customs and Border Control Agency, which are part of the Homeland Security department. Local jurisdictions also provide police and security personnel.
Complaints about security at ports should be directed to the federal government.
February 24th, 2006 at 10:21 amPeople are so blinded and mired in political correctness. CNN is reporting that some think it’s racist to be concerned about arabs running our ports. It’s time to realize we don’t live in a nice cozy little world and everything is NOT going to be o.k. It’s called you are seeing the steps to our world’s demise. Stay tuned.
February 24th, 2006 at 10:23 amWe have in essence been at war with Cuba for a long time but we don’t out of hand bar all Latin countries from doing bussiness with us. The negative reaction to this deal is just what the terrorists of 911 hoped to achieve..they don’t want Americans and Arabs to coexist peacefully. It’s a shame from the uproar it appears the terorists have won the hearts and minds of a few Americans
February 24th, 2006 at 10:29 amGetReal and Dennis: I was afraid of this — the issue getting derailed by one rogue comment and everyone’s emotion getting hijacked and people ending up with clenched teeth and clenched fists punching at the air. Can we please get back to discussing the issue? In a mud fight we all lose our garments to mud.
To Sara:
February 24th, 2006 at 10:31 amThe issue is not with the UAE as a country, the issue is with the potential for increase in vulnerability to terrorist attack presented by the deal in question. There are good and bad people everywhere, America and the UAE included.
Hello Sara,
I am a Canadian who has lived in Dubai and the UAE for twenty years – I have truly come to appreciate the UAE and the city of Dubai, from it’s noble beginings to it’s success as a world player today. Unfortunately most of our American friends, have not step foot outside the United States. All they know about the Middle East is what they hear on the news and from their government. A perfect example is the current Iraq war. Canada, a country north of the US is much more aware of Middle East and Arabs (though we can still learn more). I have several friends who lived in the UAE, and now reside major Canadian cities across Canada. On reading thru the comments on this website, we are all in utter disbelief at the level of public ignorance and paranoia in the United States.
Sara, I agree with you, Dubai and the UAE do not need the six ports to continue it’s success – however what troubles me is that Americans (who are truly very giving and good at heart) are quite possibly harming the best relations they can hope for in the Middle East region. It is no secret most Canadians do not support Bush, however, we find him “correct” on this issue – only because we are aware of Dubai and the UAE.
February 24th, 2006 at 10:33 amSlowtrain…my teeth and fist are not clenched as you say. Anger is not an issue with me nor do I try to make anyone angry. Bottom line is if it weren’t for the fact that this was an Arab company owned by an Arab country we wouldn’t be having this coversation. We didn’t have this coversation when China bought some our port terminals. Terrorist win when they spread terror. The negative reaction to this is one based in terror and not in reason. Chalk one up for the terrorists.
February 24th, 2006 at 10:56 amI am scared that my children will grow up in a country like the USA with people, who do not know all the information on Muslims regliion and the people. Not all Muslims are terrorists. It is like saying all Christian are terrorists, are they not the one bombing clinics and Gov. buildings. Did we already forget Oklahoma. There are bad people ever where and that does not mean we lock our country up and let know one in. We are called the melting Pot for a reason.
February 24th, 2006 at 11:07 amWell said Stella!
February 24th, 2006 at 11:12 am[...] think progress: [...]
February 24th, 2006 at 11:16 amDennis – I completely agree, this is purely paranoia of “possible terror” attacks, just because Dubai is based in the Middle East and is an Arab city, and partly because most of the Americans are oblivious to countries, economies and people in the Middle EAST.
Just hearing all the chants on this site has convinced me and several Canadians – the terrorits are truly winning this round. Most of us have always looked at the US as a melting pot, where people from all over the world, with various backgrounds and cultures come to co-exist and succeed in life.
This sadly is also a case of Bush crying wolf (on Arabs & Iraq with the American people), only this time there is a wolf, just a legit Arab country with a legit business deal.
February 24th, 2006 at 11:18 amSorry I meant to say “only this time there is no a wolf, just a legit Arab country with a legit business deal
February 24th, 2006 at 11:20 amTerrorism has been around in this world for centuries and most every other contry has been dealing with it as a part of life. So the one time it effects us we have to stop what we’re doing and declare “war” to end it once and for all, all around the world? As for the UAE’s purchase, remember that Bush has admitted that the first time he heard about this deal was when he read it in the news, just like the rest of us. So who’s really running the show?
February 24th, 2006 at 11:38 amto Democratic checkfact
thank you for your Comment …
i am happy that thier is someone who lived in UAE and know that we are not evil people who went to kill everybody ..
and for that reason i went to ask you to say everything that you know about us so the Americans could understand that we are a good people who try to live in this world just like them .
because even if i said it they will not believe me …
and again thank you ….
February 24th, 2006 at 11:38 amDennis & Democratic checkfact: I have never heard Chinese people call America the great Satan and call for its destruction on religious grounds, and for which many will gladly blow themselves to achieve. Again, I am not saying that is the case with all Arabs, but we cannot deny the facts, much as we cannot generalize its implications.
America is not in a state or paranoia; Americans are doing business with people from all over the globe, including the UAE, and vice versa. Why must it be all or nothing for the UAE?
America is the most open society in the world, regardless of her faults. Paranoia, absolutely not, caution and prudence, absolutely yes; ignoring or denying the facts and their implications is nothing but a perilous self assurance — like a smoker rationalizing his habit or a gun lobby claiming that “guns don’t kill people, people kill people.
February 24th, 2006 at 11:58 amI just realized that my concluding analogy may be taken out of context. To be clear, it applies to comments made by Dennis & Democratic checkfact, not to UAE.
February 24th, 2006 at 12:08 pmSlowtrain – when did you hear the UAE govt or the UAE citizens call America o potray “America the great Satan “???
I have heard/seen the Iranians do that, not UAE citizens. There isn’t a singlr banner in the UAE (in the twenty years I have lived there) which potray America as “Satan”. Plus please bear in mind UAE citizens are Arabs and Iranians are Persians. Comparing UAE citizens to Iranians is comparing the English & French.
Like every country, there are discussions on the plus and minus points of America, that does not make any country Anti-American.
I cannot understand, when you state America does business with the UAE, why must it be all or nothing. Let me ask you what in this particular case concerns you especially given the below facts?
DP World is buying up a British company that leases terminals in American ports; the ports are U.S.-owned. To lease a terminal at a U.S. port means running some business operations there — contracting with shipping lines, loading and unloading cargo and hiring local labor. Dubai Ports World is not buying the ports.
Several companies will lease terminals at a single port. In New Orleans, for example, the company Dubai Ports World is trying to buy (P&O Ports) is just one of eight companies that lease and operate terminals
P&O Ports does business in 18 other countries. None of them are in righteous lathers about the sale of the business to a company owned by the United Arab Emirates. Dubai Ports World already operates port facilities all over the world, including such security-slacker states as China, Australia, Korea and Germany.
Security at U.S. ports is controlled by U.S. federal agencies led by the Coast Guard and the U.S. Customs and Border Control Agency, which are part of the Homeland Security department. Local jurisdictions also provide police and security personnel.
February 24th, 2006 at 12:12 pmDemocratic checkfact, as I said earlier, “every country has vulnerabilities, in light of their experience, history, and situation, hence it is in the national interest of each country to exercise caution and to make every reasonably effort to protect itself and not expose itself to sources prone to potential danger. The danger America faces may not be the danger any other country may face, and vice versa.” The pertinent situations and the variance thereof are patently incongruent.
February 24th, 2006 at 12:30 pmSlowtrain I am on board with you on your comment# 511. If this was a Saudi government company, perhaps I may have had reservations and if it was an Iranian government company – I would have said NO way! But this is the UAE, and I am just unable to understand your comments above in context to the UAE or Dubai – I feel you should visit the place and experience it, to really know what some of us are saying here. None of us want any harm to come to any country, including the US, over a few dollars or a business deal.
February 24th, 2006 at 12:45 pmSara, you are welcome- I agree with you, if nothing, Americans are at the least being exposed to the UAE and Dubai. I am sure, knowing the Amercican mind, most people will do their due diligence on the UAE going forward – and will truly help both sides.
No country is perfect the UAE nor the US, however I truly feel the objective and intent for a better tomorrow is a common trait of both nations.
February 24th, 2006 at 12:51 pmDemocratic checkfact, I have said repeatedly, the issue is not with Dubai or the UAE as a place or country. No one is suggesting that the people, at large, are bad people. It is not the majority that we are concerned about, it is the lethal minority that has and will exploit America’s openness and every available avenue to harm America. Please refer to comment #417.
I quite understand where you are coming from, so to speak. A certain African adage says “if a snake enters your house, you don’t set your house of fire to drive out or kill the snake, but you don’t pretend the snake has gone way, just because you don’t see it.” What I am implying is that a thorough verification is needed and verification in itself is an exercise of caution. Surely, you cannot fault Americans for that due diligence in ensuring their own safety. True, in a situation such as this, there is a perceived tendency for heightened sensitivity and insensitivity on either side, but in the final analysis, it is “who feels it knows it”.
February 24th, 2006 at 1:25 pmSlowtrain – thank you for clarifying. I agree, a due process and clarification is required. My understanding is that the Dubai company had approached Homeland security and the US government in November to get this process a head start, and infact a 3 month review was performed. I am curious, what the US senators (who are up in arms now) were doing the past 3 months?
However, I think your comment is truly valid, if you are not happy there is no harm performing further extensive review. Perhaps it may calm your lack of confidence in Dubai and UAE in general – as DP world has put forth to delay the closing of the deal specific to the US, until the American public and congress have performed a full and extensive review. I think that should tell you a lot about this company and it’s objectives.
Also I enjoyed reading the debate between John, Nick, Rashan and you – this is what truly what makes America a better place. The right to dissent and debate.
February 24th, 2006 at 1:43 pmWhile there are security concerns with any foreign company operating a system like our container ports(which everyone knows is a very porous system, in the US), i find it interesting that this deal has secretive and unusual clauses(see C-span)in it. It is understandable that we are not “supposed” to be giving up any of our security practices, i feel it is improper to be dealing with a company that is owned by a foreign “country”, not just a “FOREIGN COMPANY”. I can understand why people have more reservations that a foreign country will be managing a system that our government has hardly improved on the pre-911 security, i myself, wouldnt have reservations if the deal looked like it was on the “up and up”. But , by no means does this deal look appealing even without secretive clauses. It is interesting how the administration says dubai will not have anything to do with security , but in the next sentence they mention how the agreement has “added” security clauses in it.
February 24th, 2006 at 2:22 pmMore than the security issue, what bothers me most is that the country we are dealing with is a “fascist regime”, not the UK,Denmark,etc. My gut feeling, based on what this administration, and some previous ones have done to labor, but this one moreso, to align with a fascist gov’t, seems very shady. Understandably, the teamsters and longshoremen have been scheduling protest rallies, and i for one plan to give them my full support and wish others to do the same. I wonder if these ports are the main ones that Wal-mart uses? j/k, i hope.
“What could possibly go wrong? Cleopatra and Egypt are our allies who continue to send us large shipments of grain. The fact that they have helped and financed terrorists such as Marcus Antonius should not be a factor in our decision making,” future Emperor Octavius was quoted as saying.
Good job Tee Zjack! I’m glad to see someone on this site is actually thinking about the men this deal with Dubai will harm if it goes through. Bush really wants to bust our unions and take fair wages away from Americans.
Obviously Bush and the UAE are getting a bi-partisan beating on this one because they are back peddling like puppies sliding on kitchen linoleum. You think the slave trading Dubai government is having second thoughts now that Americans want to check out their terrorist lined bank accounts? The Dubai may end up backing out of the deal if too much scruitiny comes their way. And Bush may need to look for someone else to outsource our ports too to break our unions. Maybe he’ll ask China to do it. God knows what goes one in the prison labor camps there. The next time you eat with a set of chopsticks, you might want to ask yourself where they’ve been!
February 24th, 2006 at 3:08 pmProLongshoreman….China already leases Port Terminals in the US. It hasn’t been an issue.
February 24th, 2006 at 3:16 pmIts not an issue for you Dennis, you aren’t out of a job. Dennis you strike me as being someone that is only out for number one. I wonder what you do for a living and what will happen when your and if your job is at risk of being outsourced. Lucky for you no one is competing for the job of trained monkey.
February 24th, 2006 at 3:30 pmProLongshoremen – where did you read job outsourcing in the US if DP world takes over P&O? What part from the below paragraph implies to you, jobs are going to be outsourced?
DP world is buying up a British company that leases terminals in American ports; the ports are U.S.-owned. To lease a terminal at a U.S. port means running some business operations there — contracting with shipping lines, loading and unloading cargo and hiring local labor. Dubai Ports World is not buying the ports.
February 24th, 2006 at 3:40 pmSeveral companies will lease terminals at a single port. In New Orleans, for example, the company Dubai Ports World is trying to buy (P&O Ports) is just one of eight companies that lease and operate terminals.
Democratic checkfact, I concur with your comments in #515 and might I add that dialogue based on objective reasoning and sincere effort to understand and recognize one another’s positions, in as much as they may seem peculiar, and the legitimacy of those positions, where it is valid, is my idea of respect and fairness, and this I believe is critical to global stability. It helps to understand a difficult issue, when each one involved puts himself in another’s shoes, so to speak.
February 24th, 2006 at 3:45 pmDubai has the financial resources to bust the unions, while others dont. One more thing, any job you may have, all the benefits that you do receive,vaction, health care, pensions, besides fair wages , a hefty thank you is due to the ancestors who fought for those benefits for everyone, not only union workers! I think a little support for their descendants is not asking too much. There is no way this deal will be good for american workers,let alone for the country as a whole. And no amount of propaganda will change that !!!
February 24th, 2006 at 3:58 pmWhat’s so great about the agreement of dissatisfaction to this deal is that it has nothing to do with their religion or nationality. It has everything to do with how UAE governs their country and conducts business.
February 24th, 2006 at 4:03 pmI should say their race, not nationality.
February 24th, 2006 at 4:04 pmDemocratic fabricatefacts:
The port operator will decide which longshoreman work at the port. If they don’t want the unionized longshoreman working there, what will stop them from firing the entire lot?
February 24th, 2006 at 4:12 pmIn regards to the comment by longshoreman, whether or not Dubai is leasing or buying hiring local or foreign it does not change how they conduct business. UAE is known for their cash flow and lack of record keeping. In fact, they don’t keep bank records in UAE. Another primary import to Dubai besides the nuclear weaponry to Iran and Saudi Arabia is Heroin. Dubai is the largest Heroin port for the Afghani Heroin trade in the world. It would be like saying to the Mafia, “Sure, you can run our banking system, as long as you hire local people.” Oh, and by the way, George W. Bush and his croonies, those boys over at the Carlyle group and the Treasury, good ol John Snow, have added several agreements to the sale, including that Dubai does not have to keep records in America that could potentially be seized by our government, nor do we, The American People and our Government, have to approve who Dubai hires to work in the ports.
February 24th, 2006 at 4:14 pmAaron – as a Canadian qualified Professional Accountant & Auditor, I have worked with several leading multi national companies in the UAE during my twenty year tenure which ended in 2004. Your level of thought displays the ignorance and unintelligence associated with your comments. The UAE is a young country, they have some of the worlds best practices, checks and balances in place. Besides the BCCI, they have not had the Enrons, Worldcoms, Adelhias amongst other corporate scandals in the US.
Give me one country where Herion is not available or smuggled thru. It is easy to trash someone, when most involved is oblivious of the country and it’s practices.
February 24th, 2006 at 4:35 pmWhat everyone seems to miss is the fact that we are now ruled by virtual empires, they are called global corporations. They could be anywhere–U.S.A., Japan, China, U.K., UAE, France, etc. They take over countries the same way that empires of old did, only not by the sword. Modern empires are more subtle in their approach, but nonetheless achieving the same end, perhaps even more. Their first regard is not to the country they take over, but to the tributes they can extract from hardworking people of the land and in the treasures of the land.
What is ever so greatly troubling is that people around the world, even Americans have failed to see this reality. We in America seem to think, and to our peril, that the freedom the founding fathers bled to procure is only for a certain “pursuit of happiness”, hence as long as our indulgence in fleeting pleasures, supplied in abundance by the empires that rule over our lands, to amuse us silly and into constant stupor, are unimpeded, we think we have freedom. In truth, freedom in America is increasing becoming symbolic and less substantive; it is increasingly loosing the essence the founders fought for –freedom from empires.
Now, before you call me “bloody isolationist†or conspiracy theorist, think about why we are having this debate in the first place.
February 24th, 2006 at 4:45 pmHey UnDemocraticfacts
Since you’re so smart and ready to challenge anyone’s intelligence on this issue, how do you explain the UAE’s affiliation with Osama Bin Laden? How do you explain the stories that the UAE is refusing to allow inspection of their bank accounts and the allegations of money laundering? How do you explain the allegations of human slavery that exist in the UAE right under the nose of the UAE government? These aren’t stories that people are suddenly pulling out of thin air. These reports have been around for a long time yet you attempt to portray yourself as being the only credible source of information on the UAE/Dubai. What makes you so god damned smart and knowledgeable about the integrity of this non-democratically elected government? I realize you’ve been sniffing other people’s money for 20 years but surely you have some common sense left.
February 24th, 2006 at 4:58 pmA clear doctrine?…
President Bush today:Secondly, I’ve set a clear doctrine: America makes no distinction between the terrorists and the countries that harbor them. If you harbor a terrorist, you’re just as guilty as the terrorists, and you’re an enemy of the United…
February 24th, 2006 at 7:23 pmWhat really scares me about this -let-the-United-Arab -Emirates-control-your-6 U.S.-ports, is the fact that it seems that Presidents and Prime Ministers (as in my case) seem sincere, honest, before they are elected and than while in office, or Parliament, they change. It’s as if someone or something takes over, transforms their thinking, their direction and they themselves don’t know it’s happening. Canada has just elected a new government. I hope and pray that our P.M stands firm to protect our country and take a stand for truth, and justice, as I pray that President Bush see the light on this UAE issue and others….signing off as a Canadian who wants peace and freedom in the U.S. and Canada.
February 24th, 2006 at 7:30 pmWhat about the US’s affiliation with Osama? The Swiss Banking Community taking stolen money and art from the Jews which absolutely funded the Nazi final solution? Our own problems with child abuse, homelessness, drugs and felony crimes? The integrity of a government is its abilities to respond to and satisfy the needs of its people and to play nice and get along with people in the world community. Wake up.
February 24th, 2006 at 7:31 pmIn March 1996, U.S. customs agents seized 2,000 AK47 assault rifles, bound for U.S. street gangs, that were on board a COSCO ship. In 1996, COSCO signed a letter of intent with the port of Long Beach to lease a state-of-the-art, 53-hectare terminal at the former Long Beach Naval Station. With this in mind, Congress passed the National Defense Authorization Act of 1998 (P.L. 105-85), effectively banning COSCO from renting any portion of the former Long Beach Naval Station. COSCO, which is owned in part by the Chinese People’s Liberation Army, is a less than ideal candidate for the port’s lease.
So in 1997 China sets up a new corporation, the China Shipping Group, which is now one of the many foreign companies operating ports worldwide and in the US.
This should have gotten people and our supposed outraged politicos off their asses, but it didn’t.
At least Dubai has said that we are allies and are moving ahead in regards to their human rights issues. China has nukes and was highly involved in the killing of US soldiers in Korea and Vietnam, along with the general spreading of unease with it’s Taiwan issues.
February 24th, 2006 at 8:10 pmI voted for Bush and now will stop supporting him at all.This guy is a joke who doesnt want to even listen to the possible reasons this is a bad deal.He is more concerned with his Arab buddies over us.
February 24th, 2006 at 11:42 pmWhat about the US’s affiliation with Osama? The Swiss Banking Community taking stolen money and art from the Jews which absolutely funded the Nazi final solution? Our own problems with child abuse, homelessness, drugs and felony crimes? The integrity of a government is its abilities to respond to and satisfy the needs of its people and to play nice and get along with people in the world community. Wake up.
Comment by Steve — February 24, 2006 @ 7:31 pm
What about the US’s affiliation with Osama? You want it to continue by doing business with UAE/Dubai? Ok, we know the Swiss Banking community collaborated with the Nazi and so did Prescott Bush…thats right, the money lining your pal George Bush’s pocket is Nazi blood money. Whats your point here Steve?
Our own problems with child abuse, homelessness, drugs, and felony crimes are exacerbated by the US continuing to maintain relationships with corrupt, dictatorial non democratic governments. The integrity of this government is based on its ability to not compromise ethics and morality in order to make a dollar. You advocate that Americans support George Bush’s dirty deals with dirty governments. How does that somehow improve the integrity of the US? Other than admitting that the Bush administration is corrupt, you make no sense Steve.
So in 1997 China sets up a new corporation, the China Shipping Group, which is now one of the many foreign companies operating ports worldwide and in the US.
This should have gotten people and our supposed outraged politicos off their asses, but it didn’t.
Comment by Steve — February 24, 2006 @ 7:31 pm
You may be right Steve and it may have been a big mistake on our part for not looking into it further. But keep in mind that the Bush administration has spent 4 years whipping up fear in the American people toward the middle east. We’ve been so focused on sending our troops and resources to the middle east, I’m not surprised anything else has slipped in under the radar. We should be more alert about outsourcing anything to anyone, not just the middle east governments that support terrorism. But just because we may have dropped the ball with China doesn’t mean we should drop the ball with Dubai. Again, your logic makes no sense Steve. You keep saying since we screwed up over here, might as well keep screwing up. The buck stops here Steve.
At least Dubai has said that we are allies and are moving ahead in regards to their human rights issues. China has nukes and was highly involved in the killing of US soldiers in Korea and Vietnam, along with the general spreading of unease with it’s Taiwan issues.
Comment by Steve — February 24, 2006 @ 7:31 pm
Talk is cheap Steve. Dubai says its our ally yet Dubai is a dictatorship, has ties with Osama Bin Laden, the primary suspect in the terrorist attacks of 9/11 killing 3000 people on American soil, nearly 3000 troops in Iraq, and countless Iraqi people. Not to mention that Dubai has refused to allow us access to their bank accounts which appears to be lined with terrorist money. And the so called advancement of Dubai on human rights has yet to be seen.
Just because the United States deals with one criminal government doesn’t mean they should deal with another. What kind of justification is this Steve? Are you such a blind supporter of Bush that you would support any decision his administration makes no matter how unethical or no matter how bad it harms the American people? Whats wrong with you Steve? Don’t you love your country? I love the United States of America and it’s people. I want to protect the US and I don’t see how doing business with foreign criminals will protect us. This isn’t what our founding fathers intended for us. What you suggest we do is totally UnAmerican Steve. Take a stand Steve and join the American people in protecting our country. Don’t be willing to sell your soul and the legacy of the American people for a few dollars. The human race is waiting for you Steve. come on in.
February 25th, 2006 at 3:42 amI have just one question. If the deal with Dubai falls through, does that mean George Bush has to give back the 100 million dollars Dubai gave Bush for Hurricane Katrina?
February 25th, 2006 at 4:15 amUnited Arab Emirates Central Bank & 9/11 Financing (Paperback)
by Iqbal Ismail Hakim
Publisher: GAAP Publishing (July 2005)
ISBN: 0615127096
•Pre-9/11 warning from Saudi Arabia Monetary Agency (SAMA), the Central Bank of Saudi Arabia, to the UAE Central Bank regarding questionable funding.
• Core 9/11 funding from Dubai to 9/11 terrorists in Florida
• Terrorist related bank accounts in United Arab Emirates (UAE)
• Questionable defense contract worth $3 billion involving an Ex-US General
• Questionable bank account for a US State Senator from Florida
• Bank accounts for Victor Bout the largest arms dealer in the world, wanted by INTERPOL
• Arms bazaar of Abu Dhabi
• Money laundering involving the Prince
• Questionable funding from Algeria
• Russian Money laundering Spider Web going to the Middle East
• Money laundering Operations of a top bank in the World
• Black Camel, an inside story into the UAE Financial System
and much more! All true stories from the diary of an auditor who examined the banking records of the HSBC Central Bank in the United Arab Emirates (UAE).
Events like 9/11 will continue to rock the world and the next target could be the Big Ben of London, the Eiffel Tower of Paris, the Pyramids of Egypt or the Taj Mahal of India. I appeal to World Leaders to control their banking industries! If you want to control terrorism, you must hit them where it counts – in the funding. Do not close your eyes to this trend or ignore auditors like me, when questionable account activities are uncovered!
February 25th, 2006 at 5:36 amHere’s the link to the facts on the United Arab Emirates Central Bank & 9/11 Financing:
http://uaecentralbankand911.com/
Here’s an an incriminating document on the UAE’s money laundering terrorist financing practices:
http://uaecentralbankand911.com/
February 25th, 2006 at 5:57 amBush Cites Reasons Against Outsourcing US Ports to UAE/Dubai http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010920-8.html
“On September the 11th, enemies of freedom committed an act of war against our country” 2 9/11 Hijackers were from the UAE. UAE is a known affliate of Osama Bin Laden and known to harbor terrorists.
“We will ask, and we will need, the help of police forces, intelligence services, and banking systems around the world.” UAE has refused to allow outside inspection of the UAE banking system after reports of UAE terrorist money laundering.
“Our enemy is a radical network of terrorists, and every government that supports them.” 2 9/11 Hijackers were from the UAE. UAE is a known affliate of Osama Bin Laden and known to harbor terrorists.
“They want to drive Christians and Jews out of vast regions of Asia and Africa.” UAE will not allow visitors into the country with passports stamped with Iraeli passport stamp.
“And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism.” 2 9/11 Hijackers were from the UAE. UAE is a known affliate of Osama Bin Laden and known to harbor terrorists.
“They will hand over the terrorists, or they will share in their fate.” 2 9/11 Hijackers were from the UAE. UAE is a known affliate of Osama Bin Laden and known to harbor terrorists.
“From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.” 2 9/11 Hijackers were from the UAE. UAE is a known affliate of Osama Bin Laden and known to harbor terrorists.
“We will come together to take active steps that strengthen America’s economy, and put our people back to work.” Outsourcing jobs puts Americans out of work.
February 25th, 2006 at 8:41 amWhat I really have a problem with is operations in our major ports are being sold to a state-owned company. I have to question whether that is the smartest thing to do while we our in the war on terror. That invariably mixes politics (well, foreign relations, to be specific). and business.
February 25th, 2006 at 1:09 pmBut then again, our friends in the White House don’t have a problem with that, now do they?
The previous administration spearhead by Clinton himself wanted to turn over operations of a defunk Naval Base to A Chinese goverment owned company. The deal was ultimately nixed by the Congress. The Chinese had existing port terminals operations before the proposed deal and expanded after the deal…they just didn’t get the defunk Naval Base. There are roughly 3000 port terminals in the United States, no supposed authority seems to know how many of them are foriegn owned.
February 25th, 2006 at 2:06 pmTypical Bush diversionary tactic. Whenever someone nails Bush for the crap he’s doing today some apologetic Bush lacky throws Clinton’s name out. Nevermind holding Bush accountable, keep beating your Clinton drum. Thats all you can do since its obvious Bush is utterly corrupt. You certainly can’t defend Bush. You’d look like a fool..well a bigger fool anyway.
February 25th, 2006 at 2:34 pmHmm…I don’t see where I was defending Bush. Didn’t make mention of him. I didn’t express one way or the other weather I was for or against the port deal. Merely pointed out the Chinese are already here and that we have many other terminals that we should figure out who owns them. I could care less about the politics and want instead some straight up answers. When you take a political side on the right or left you leave yourself open to only knowing half truths. Instead of taking someones word for it you should seek out the truth for yourself or you are a fool. Americas safety is better served without politics.
February 25th, 2006 at 2:47 pmAnytime someone attempts to hold Bush accountable, some jackass Bush supporter makes excuses for Bush by mentioning Clinton. Clinton hasn’t been in the white house for over 5 years. Get some new material. Bush is a filthy scum bag traitor who makes deals with terrorists and gets Americans killed. Bush should be impeached immediately and jailed with Saddam for crimes against humanity.
February 25th, 2006 at 2:52 pmOk lets hold Bush accountable. First, he is a traitor how? Serious charge but it needs some substance. In America we are innocent until proven guilty, correct? If you could prove it we could skip the impeachment because treason is punishable by death. Jailing him with Saddam would be real ironic considering Saddam wouldn’t be in jail for crimes against hummanity if it weren’t for the fact that Bush decided he as you put it “Gets Ammericans Killed” Personally I was hoping Gephart would have got the nomination from the Democratic party last time around as I would have voted for him. His focus seemed to be on the country and not his politcal affiliation. We need substance in our goverment and not the rants of the latest politcal mood. HAteing Bush is old material too. What are your solutions for the country? Is it just to hate Bush? Do you have any proposals, direction? What do we have to do to make this country better? I imagine you will say get rid of Bush to the last one…but then what?
February 25th, 2006 at 3:09 pmHating Bush is old material because he’s done alot to be hated for. But until now, most people were afraid to say anything because chickenshit Bush supporters like you always attempted to turn the tables on the people that saw through his criminalbehavior. You don’t sound convinced Bush has done anything wrong. Ignoring 50 reports on how terrorist specifically planned to attack the US. Taking the US into a war based on lies. Getting Americans and innocent Iraqis killed. Spying on Americans and then turning around and making deals with the corrupt governments that support the terrorists that attacked the US. If we can Impeach a president for getting a blow job, the least we can do is Impeach Bush. And it would be fitting to see Bush sharing a jail cell with his old buddy Saddam. They’re no different in my book, and Bush apologetics like you are edging awful close as well Dennis.
February 25th, 2006 at 3:19 pmI can do you one better FS. Round up all Bush supporters like Dennis and give em two choices. Either serve as human slaves in the UAE or be air dropped out of a C141 into Fallujah with bayonets only. That way they have to look the Iraqis in the eye when they fight ‘em hand to hand. Dennis would be shitting a trail of green all the way down from the plane.
February 25th, 2006 at 4:06 pmOK, all weel and good. The question remains. How does your hate for Bush increase the security at our ports? Will your hate for Bush help us figure out how many of the US port terminals are currently owned by foriegn entities and of those how many are hostile to the US? I have been researching terminal ownership and it is no easy trick. It would be nice to have like minded indiduals wheather Democrat or Republican doing the same. We have a serious problem right now with our port system weather or not this UAE deal goes through or not. I’d like to find some help and solutions. If you could free up some of your Bush hating time for some “I Love America Time” maybe we could make the USA a safer place. As I have said United States Security is better served without politics.
February 25th, 2006 at 4:07 pmGreat solution “Closecombat” but how does that solution make you different from those you say are so corrupt. The old “freedom of speech” as long as you say what I want you to or I will kill you? What a great American you are.
February 25th, 2006 at 4:12 pmDennis, get off your high horse. You know god damned well that there isn’t a god damned thing we can do about the corruption in this country as long as we have a corrupt regime headed by criminal occupying the executive chair. He’s got cronies a mile deep looking the other way for him while he tears this country apart. Hitler had the Brown Shirts, Gestapo,and the Third Reich running interference for him. Bush has Limbaugh, Hannity, Oreilly, the Senate, the House, not to mention you running interference for him. As for Freedom of Speech, Cindy Sheehan can’t even wear a T-shirt without getting arrested yet her son can DIE for Bush and his war based on lies. Bush can pass the patriot act, spy on Americans, arrest people without provocation and hold them indefinately and you have the gaul to question anyone elses patriotism? Bottom line is this. IF you support George Bush in any way, whether you elected him or you simply enjoy his right wing fundamentalist agenda, you should be over in Iraq fighting his war at the bare mimimum. The rest of us that realize a criminal is holding the USA hostage should be doing everything in their power to impeach George Bush and his criminal cronies before he makes another dirty deal with another corrupt terrorist regime that costs more Americans their lives. Dennis, stop attacking the people that want to hold Bush accountable. You have no intention of solving anything other than pointing fingers at everyone else but the person directly responsible. And anyone that served in the military knows a leader is responsible for the lives of his subordinates. The same holds true for the commander in chief. 3000 Americans died under his watch on 9/11/2001. Nearly 3000 Americans have died under his watch in Iraq and countless others have been seriously wounded and scarred or life because they followed the orders of a lying criminal who stole the election in 2000. There is nothing that can be done as long as we have the Republican Mafia running this country into the ground Dennis. And as long as you can’t see that, you’re part of the problem. Do us all a favor and find a way to get yourself over to Iraq. Sacrificing yourself for Bush is the least you could do to help keep someone’s son or daughter from dying in your place.
February 25th, 2006 at 5:51 pmI am not attacking anyone “ProAmerican” and I am not supporting anyone. I am concerned about port security (Wich is the issue). You keep railing about Bush and you keep implying that I am a Bush supporter. Personaly I am more synical than political. I have a tendancy to think the majorty of politicians are corrupt and the whole lot of them (Republican & Demacrat) desperately need to be voted out. They spend so much time arguing among themselves, Bin Laden could walk right by them and no one would notice. But I digress. What is the solution to the Port problem “ProAmerican”. Its not black and white. It is not an easy answer. There are many factors to consider. Do you even know what those factors are? We have established that you hate Bush but we haven’t established what you know about world poltics and the port situation. (exsept that you would like to send everyone who disagrees with you to Iraq silencing any oppositin to you. Sounds like what you say about the people you oppose. Life is full of those kind of ironies) Dazzel us with your intelligence. Enlighten us. I have asked you this before and you always go back to Bush. Does your life consist of anything else? Is there more depth to you than your hate?
February 25th, 2006 at 6:27 pmProAmerican, you forgot he owns the Supreme Court. Thats how he stole the election in 2000. Yep, I agree. Anyone that voted for Bush should be in Iraq. Bush fans like to say that the soldiers dying in Iraq had a choice but when Bush outsources all the jobs and cuts all the federal tuition assistance, it doesn’t leave young people many options. Thats a sneaky way of forcing people to join the military without actually reinstituting the draft. Pretty soon Bush will have an entire group of longshoremen signing up to take the ASVAB.
February 25th, 2006 at 6:30 pmInteresting that someone would use my name on the above comment. Better to confuse the issue. Thats why politics should stay out of security. Everybody is to busy trying to win and America winds up undefended.
February 25th, 2006 at 6:35 pmDennis it was BUSH THAT THREATENED TO VETO IF CONGRESS OPPOSED THE DEAL WITH DUBAI!!!! THATS WHY WE ARE TALKING ABOUT BUSH! Get that through your head. If someone else was in charge and forcing the USA to deal with known terrorists we’d be screaming that persons name. You want me to give you some ideas about outsourcing? STOP DOING IT! Its not a difficult concept but you make it complicated. Just SAY NO Dennis, just like Rush Limbaugh should’ve said no to OxyContin aka Hillbilly Heroin.
February 25th, 2006 at 6:41 pmWell that is better. You only said his name once and I believe that is the first time you said what your position is on the port aquistion. Now inquiring minds would like to know why are you opposed to the deal? Is it just because Bush supports it or is there more to your opposition? I’d really like to know. If you use facts in your answer they make you appear intelligent. Unsubstantiated clams will make you appear less intelligent.
February 25th, 2006 at 6:51 pmOh geesh…maybe I shoul tell you what my position is? But then again you never seemed to take the time to ask. Do you even want to know? Or do you think you have me figured out?
February 25th, 2006 at 6:58 pmDennis, you sure try to make this look like rocket science. We’re up to 557 messages in this thread and alot of people have been posting “facts.” I have a pretty good idea where you stand just by reading your previous posts and attempts to divert attention away from the “facts.” But since scrolling back seems to be beyond your capability, lets just start with the “facts” located at the top of the thread. Oh btw Dennis, thanks for telling me how to “sound intelligent.” Maybe you should take your own advice. Go ahead and feel free to lay out your big spiel. I’ll be back later with my hip waders on to check it out.
“Some facts about the UAE:
– The UAE was one of three countries in the world to recognize the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan.
– The UAE has been a key transfer point for illegal shipments of nuclear components to Iran, North Korea and Lybia.
– According to the FBI, money was transferred to the 9/11 hijackers through the UAE banking system.
– After 9/11, the Treasury Department reported that the UAE was not cooperating in efforts to track down Osama Bin Laden’s bank accounts.
February 25th, 2006 at 7:55 pm– The UAE was one of three countries in the world to recognize the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan.
“The other 2 were Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. Its important to check the facts for yourself to make sure someone isn’t feeding you a bunch of crap.”
– The UAE has been a key transfer point for illegal shipments of nuclear components to Iran, North Korea and Lybia.
There have been ilegal shipments of potential nuclear componants from Britain, France, China and the United States as well. In the case of Britain, France and the US the shipments were stopped and confiscated. In regaurds to China it is suspected that many key componates are still being smuggled. China owns and operates Port Terminals in the US.
– According to the FBI, money was transferred to the 9/11 hijackers through the UAE banking system.
Transferred from the UAE banking system to the US banking system. Where it remained undetected until after 911. Prior to 911 there didn’t seem to be any interest by the US to track or close Bin Ladens bank accounts. This is true with President Bush’s and President Clinton’s administrations. Both parties dropped the ball.
– After 9/11, the Treasury Department reported that the UAE was not cooperating in efforts to track down Osama Bin Laden’s bank accounts.
Strictly greed on that one. Probably wanted to keep the money for themselves since they weren’t going to see Bin Laden anymore. They act like they were Americans.
All very valid points! By themselves they are only part of the story. We need the full story in order to make an informed decision.
Whats the down side if we nix the deal? We could insult not just the UAE but many of our allies in the Middle East. Worst case scenario what would we loose? Our stategic position in the Middle East.
Al Dhafra Air Base, Abu Dhabi, US Air Force
1 installation, no further details
Bahrain
Bahrain, Bahrain, US Navy
Muharraq Airfield
Kuwait
Camp Doha, Kuwait City, US Army
Camp Udairi, Kuwait City, US Army
Ahmed Al Jaber Air Base, US Air Force
Ali Al Salem Air Base, US Air Force
Oman
Masirah Island MPT, Dhuwwah, US Air Force
Seeb MPT, Sib, US Air Force
Thumrait MPT, Salalah, US Air Force
Qatar
Al Udeid Air Base, Al Udeid, US Air Force
1 Einrichtung ohne weitere Angaben
Saudi Arabia
Eskan Village Air Base, US Air Force
Riyadh Air Base, Riyadh, US Air Force
King Abdul Aziz Air Base, Dhahran, US Air Force
King Fahd Air Base, Taif, US Air Force
King Khalid Air Base, Khamis Mushayt, US Air Force
We have to be carefull and think long and hard. Iran is gunning for a nuke. Who do you think they want to nuke. If I was a betting man I’d say it wasn’t gonna be their buddy France…more likely, say uh…”The Great Satan”
In the coming times we are going to need some friends in the Middle East. They don’t have to be our best freinds either. To say yes or no to the UAE is not something I am trying to make complex. It just is complex.
You could argue it either way and not be wrong. I lean towards letting the deal go through. We can keep an eye on them here and I would like to see the US keep alot of firepower within arms reach of Iran. There aint nothing like a nuclear weapon to ruin your day.
February 25th, 2006 at 8:52 pmWorld politics isn’t much differnt from our politics here in the US. You want to make the best choice but because of poor canidates you are instead forced to pick the lesser of two evils. We need more people who will vote for what’s good for the country as opposed to what will get them re-elected. The majority of our politicians few the port contreversy as a campain tool and not a security issue. Both Democrat and Republican.
February 25th, 2006 at 9:22 pmHi Dennis, I took couple of days off from reading any comments, after the last bit of exhausting debate with Slowtrain and others.
However I just wanted to say, you have correctly and very aptly captured and pointed out in comments 558 & 559 why it is better this deal go thru. People have to open up and truly look at things from a long term perspective. I have been listening to what Peter King, Charles Schumer and others (including bloggers on this site have been saying about the UAE i..e 9/11, money laundering, OBL connection – however no one seems to cover the story in it’s fully. Dennis you have pointed out some valid facts/points.
February 25th, 2006 at 11:01 pmThanks Roshan…the truth is going to always be the truth. A half truth will always be a lie. I don’t believe in black and white issues. Nothing is ever that simple.
February 25th, 2006 at 11:31 pmDennis I read your responses to the bullet points at the beginning of this thread. Obviously you disagree with many of the author’s points, in particlar, the allegations made regarding the UAE and its ties to terrorist financing and money laundering.
– After 9/11, the Treasury Department reported that the UAE was not cooperating in efforts to track down Osama Bin Laden’s bank accounts.
“Strictly greed on that one. Probably wanted to keep the money for themselves since they weren’t going to see Bin Laden anymore. They act like they were Americans.”
Comment by Dennis — February 25, 2006 @ 8:52 pm
Your “probibility” assessment of the UAE’s motives for concealing their assets and bank activities from the US after ties were identified between the UAE and Bin Laden is suspect. I question the validity of your assessment which does not appear to be based on a qualified opinion or empircal data (btw its a good idea to support your conclusions with emprical data if you wish to appear intelligent Dennis). Earlier in this thread there was a post regarding a book produced by an accountant who worked for the UAE named Iqbal Ismail Hakim.
I listened to an interview a few days ago with Mr. Hakim. He appears to have first hand knowledge of the UAE’s terrorist ties and money laundering practices. He also said he’s receiving numerous death threats from the UAE for publishing their “mafia” like activities in his book. Mr. Hakim’s statements regarding the UAE are far more convincing than any arguments you’ve made to the contrary. I suggest you check out his book and website which contains excerpts from his book and (empirical data) copies of the detailed financial transactions of the UAE. Here are the bullet points from his book along with his brief commentary. The links to his website are also posted below.
United Arab Emirates Central Bank & 9/11 Financing (Paperback)
by Iqbal Ismail Hakim
Publisher: GAAP Publishing (July 2005)
ISBN: 0615127096
•Pre-9/11 warning from Saudi Arabia Monetary Agency (SAMA), the Central Bank of Saudi Arabia, to the UAE Central Bank regarding questionable funding.
• Core 9/11 funding from Dubai to 9/11 terrorists in Florida
• Terrorist related bank accounts in United Arab Emirates (UAE)
• Questionable defense contract worth $3 billion involving an Ex-US General
• Questionable bank account for a US State Senator from Florida
• Bank accounts for Victor Bout the largest arms dealer in the world, wanted by INTERPOL
• Arms bazaar of Abu Dhabi
• Money laundering involving the Prince
• Questionable funding from Algeria
• Russian Money laundering Spider Web going to the Middle East
• Money laundering Operations of a top bank in the World
• Black Camel, an inside story into the UAE Financial System
and much more! All true stories from the diary of an auditor who examined the banking records of the HSBC Central Bank in the United Arab Emirates (UAE).
Events like 9/11 will continue to rock the world and the next target could be the Big Ben of London, the Eiffel Tower of Paris, the Pyramids of Egypt or the Taj Mahal of India. I appeal to World Leaders to control their banking industries! If you want to control terrorism, you must hit them where it counts – in the funding. Do not close your eyes to this trend or ignore auditors like me, when questionable account activities are uncovered!
Comment by readthis — February 25, 2006 @ 5:36 am
Here’s the link to the facts on the United Arab Emirates Central Bank & 9/11 Financing:
http://uaecentralbankand911.com/
Here’s an incriminating document on the UAE’s money laundering terrorist financing practices:
http://uaecentralbankand911.com/
Comment by CorruptUAEFactFinder — February 25, 2006 @ 5:57 am
February 26th, 2006 at 3:48 amYour headline text is false and misleading. The work was already outsourced to P&O and nothing is the Dubai Ports deal gives control of the ports to the company.
February 26th, 2006 at 11:03 amSecurity is the responsibility of the the Port Authority, the US Customs Service, the US Coast Guard and a number of other federal agencies. The company is obliged to comply with the security requirements mandated by these authorities.
The company is responsible for freight management and forwarding, and the work of stevedors, longshoremen and administrative staff.
Could we please just deal with the facts rather than the fog drummed up by ill informed hysterics?
This is an eitirely bogus issue.
Sorry Albert but the “liar liar pants on fire” method of disqualifying information doesn’t work here. You’ll have to provide concrete data outlining the bonofide contractual agreements for the ports. You’ll have to excuse us for not swallowing your diatribe like an intern trying to get sponsored by weight watchers. See the above message 564 for an example.
February 26th, 2006 at 12:06 pmOoops, I meant to reference message #562, that Dennis and Albert seem to be avoiding.
February 26th, 2006 at 12:09 pmVery true Albert – what I cannot understand is that all the other countries where P&O operates has approved the deal for the DP purchase. The 6 ports is only 10% of the global deal – yet we seem to be bringing the heavens down and as you say ignoring facts and running into fog with tons of hysteria. Ignoring, perhaps the only Arab country with development plans for it’s future.
Comments to BushvsUAE – no country is perfect. Infact if we look at the history of our own country, the US has perhaps more imperfections than the UAE. I like to point out the German and Japanese examples from World war II. Just look at the investments and growth the three countries have achieved by doing business with each other.
UAE is a 34 year old country and perhaps some of the issues BushvsUAE pointed out may be true, that does not mean they are not taking security steps and procedures to correct them.
I believe most of the Democrats who oppose this deal is doing solely for political purposes. This is an election year and Bush has been beating the Dems overthe head with Security and terrorism the past 5 years, and they choose to play with the public who are (understandabl) hysterical about the ME regiona with limited knowledge about UAE as a nation – to hammer back at Bush. Sadly this is not good for anybody.
February 26th, 2006 at 12:19 pmTruth Seeker, could you also compare all the “facts” as you say listed out in comment 562 and review if these are applicable to the USA as well.
I mean if we are facting it out with a nation like the UAE, obviously we should check if the same facts are applicable to us as well. I think it’s only fair, perhaps it can give us a picture who we are dealing with here.
February 26th, 2006 at 12:24 pmOh and one more request – perhaps you may want to find out the current status of the “facts” listed under comment 562 i.e. has (or is) UAE taken steps to correct these practices/issues or ignoring them even as we debtate.
February 26th, 2006 at 12:27 pmRoshan, the #562 says the UAE is trying to take steps to correct the problem by attempting to assassinate the source of information Iqbal Ismail Hakim.
February 26th, 2006 at 12:29 pmInteresting “BushvsUAE” Your are absolutely correct in that my assesment in #558 of the UAE Banking issue is a stretch. I try to think of it in term of what the US banking system would have done had the tables been reversed. How helpfull would the US banking system be if say the UAE goverment wanted to access the ENRON acounts. Track them and freeze them. I imagine they would have ran into the same wall here that we ran into there.
Or maybe another good example would be how difficult it is for the US to financial records from France to track down those responsible for the “Oil for Food” scandle. I really should’nt pick on France as there are lots of countries that are stone walling.
Your book that you are trying to sell has many points but I guess unless we buy the book we won’t be able to see if those points are backed by facts? I read what little is on the link. I found very little in the way of facts and more in the way of vaugeness.
I did find some of the authors comments interesting, I will quote them.
“I had joined Central Bank with a lot of hopes, but
soon realized that expatriate staff is seldom promoted and
there is no annual raise in the salary packet.”
“I demanded the same emoluments which they were paying to their British Staff deputed from the UK as I was not interested in selling myself cheap, noting the strict environment in Saudi Arabia”
“In any other country, I would have instantly become
famous, on picking up that one of the largest banks in the
world was deeply involved in laundering funds.”
He sounds like he is disgrunteled and perhaps a little disapointed he is not famous? What is that all about? I don’t recall the accountant who caught ENRON doing the David Letterman Show.
The point I was ultimately trying to make in my comment #558 is not to defend the UAE they have done some questionable things but to point out there are many other issues involed and perhaps it would be a good idea to take everything into consideraton before we rush to judgement. This is not a black and white issue. There are no easy answers.
February 26th, 2006 at 12:30 pmComment to truthseeker re: 569 – and you “believe” that?
February 26th, 2006 at 12:35 pmComment to truthseeker re: 569 – “UAE is trying to take steps to correct the problem by attempting to assassinate the source of information Iqbal Ismail Hakim.”
You really believe that?
February 26th, 2006 at 12:35 pm[...] Fact: Federal law (50 USC App. 2170) requires the President or his designee investigate the impact on national security of a foreign aquisition if the aqusition “could result in control of a person engaged in interstate commerce in the United States that could affect the national security of the United States.” (from thinkprogress.org) [...]
February 26th, 2006 at 1:17 pmFact: That process has already taken place and been approved by the Presidents designee. Even though the requirement of the law has been fullfilled, the Senate and Congress will go beyond that law to demand a second approval process. Those Senators and Congressmen whom are in opposition have a vested intrest in seeing the deal fail because of the election year politics.
Fact: Raccial profiling is illeagal in the United States.The argument that Congress and the Senate are not racialy profiling in this matter, is that the opposition is not due to the fact that its an Arab company but a company controled by a foriegn state. This rings hollow as the Chinese goverment operates companies that own and operate port terminals in the US. There was and currently is no outcry about the Chinese companies when they were purchasing American port terminal leases. Prior Presidents have encouraged the Chinese purchases.
February 26th, 2006 at 1:59 pmFact: Bush and his grandfather Prescott Bush have been “Raccial profiling” since WW2.
February 26th, 2006 at 2:45 pmGore Vidal on George Bush: “This is as close to a nobody as you can get as a President”
February 26th, 2006 at 2:49 pm“Bushshucks” do you have any proof of Bush’s racial profiling. Can you substatiate the claim? Perhaps a link to where you read this. Or is it because he has the most racial diverse cabinet that any President has ever had? Could that be considered racial profiling? Then do I understand that if you could give facts to prove that allegation your overall argument would be that because Bush breaks the law it is then OK for the Senate and Congress to break the law? I am not sure what the point of your argument is.
February 26th, 2006 at 4:23 pmHello “Gorevidaltrumpsbush”
Gore Vidal also said:
“There is not one human problem that could not be solved if people would simply do as I advise.”
A little more info….
As a prep school student, Gore Vidal was a supporter of the America First Committee. Unlike other supporters of the movement, he continues to hold that the United States should not have become involved in World War II
Gore Vidal is most noteably known for his works of fiction.
February 26th, 2006 at 4:33 pmFact: Jeff Gannon, aka Dennis, was a (we’ll call him intern) most notably known as the male version of Monica Lewinsky for the Bush administration.
February 26th, 2006 at 5:01 pmFact: The UAE is a fledgling fascist regime.
February 26th, 2006 at 5:39 pm-Basically, that is all the CFIUS needed to OK this deal.It is also a fact that CFIUS is an agency that has a conflict of interest in making decisions like these, since CFIUS is virtually controled by the treasury(snow). Since the treasury dept ,rarely will not discourage any kind of foreign investment, it just goes to show that we may need an overhaul on just how we define the tasks of this panel. Another reason the system needs an overhaul was in light of the fact that nearly all of the preidents “designees” were aware of the deal until the %hit hit the fan. We need to keep the uproar alive so as to slow down the takeover the corporate facsists are planning.
correction-”Another reason the system needs an overhaul was in light of the fact that nearly all of the preidents “designees†were UNaware of the deal until the %hit hit the fan. “
February 26th, 2006 at 5:42 pm“Bushshucks†do you have any proof of Bush’s racial profiling. Can you substatiate the claim? Perhaps a link to where you read this. Or is it because he has the most racial diverse cabinet that any President has ever had? Could that be considered racial profiling? Then do I understand that if you could give facts to prove that allegation your overall argument would be that because Bush breaks the law it is then OK for the Senate and Congress to break the law? I am not sure what the point of your argument is.
Comment by Dennis — February 26, 2006 @ 4:23 pm
Well Denny…Once upon a time, wayyyyy back in the good ole days when the negro slaves picked cotton fo the massah, great grand pappy Bush let some negros sleep in the house with him to keep him compny at night…kinda like lil ole Condaleeza do. We call them bunch the house negros. Massah Prescott liked his house negros too thats why he double crossed the Nazis back in W W 2. But he still liked alot money mo so he let the Nazis sneak out the back doh. But that ole Mr Lincoln he messed things up awful good for massah Bush. The Bush massahs have been mad and lonely at night ever since…And thats why Bush wants to go to Dubai, the land with a whole bunch of slaves to buy…
February 26th, 2006 at 6:16 pmOK HailMassaBush….I take it that you will not provide any facts to support your claim that President Bush is guilty of racial profiling. I would gather from your comment and inference that Condilisa Rice is a “House Negro” that you are quite comfortable with racial profiling yourself and it would further seem that you don’t seem to think a person of color can fill a cabinet position and be qualifed to do so? Correct me if I am wrong. You have not said what your position for your argument is…..I’ll give you a freebie. Bush is a racial profiler…dirty rotten one to. OK you win that part of the argument. The question still remains because Bush racialy profiles, does that make it right for the Senate and Congress to do the same? That seems to be what your arguing for. Would you mind clarifying
February 26th, 2006 at 6:36 pmDennis, please don’t waste your energy with HailMassaBush. He is not debating, but aiming for blows below the belt.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/02/26/ports.dubai/index.html
I was browsing cnn.com and came upon this article (link above) especially the last para:
“In addition to commitments previously made to the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, DP World has pledged its North American port operations will be “a completely separate business unit”; that it will not exercise control over the management of U.S. operations; and that the chief security officer for P&O’s North American operations will remain a U.S. citizen, unless the U.S. Coast Guard — which oversees security at American ports — agrees otherwise.”
February 26th, 2006 at 6:58 pmWhat congress is asking for has nothing to do with racial proliling, only what is provided for within the law
February 26th, 2006 at 7:02 pmyou have 2 much info.
February 26th, 2006 at 7:11 pmroshan – what is your point? i don’t see any.
February 26th, 2006 at 7:14 pmUAE is still a fascist regime!!! Security is not the main and only problem with this deal. It has nothing to do with racism or who runs security at the ports, that is known. Who would be most likely to pull some wool over the american people’s eyes, would be a more fitting question. While UAE’s history is short, it is duplicitous. Not an IDEAL situation, me thinks.
Sara,
I agree with most of what you are saying. I am a girl from the Us whose father just recently moved over to the UAE (about a year and a half ago.) I have lived in the UAE for about 6 months in 2005 and plan on going back there in July 2006 for about 2 years again. I went to an American International School there for the 6 months I was there. You are correct. It is mutlinational country, in the north there are many germans and russians, then again there are many europeans (alot from the Uk) and yes even Americans “big shocker” … I too wish Bush were not in power, but then again I don’t even have the right to vote, yet! As for respect of the nationalities,slavery, etc. I not only agree with Sara that you should not judge the people there but go see for yourself. I mean in the grocery stores for example,the women have their own grocery line to pay for their items, no men are allowed to pay at the (usually 2,3 or 4) registers. And at the round abouts on the roads, the women there know that they are respected highly, they feel free to walk across the busy street when cars are coming because, they expect every car to wait for them to cross. Now I am not saying all women there do that, I wouldn’t out of common sense do that because I know not every person abides by laws,respectfullness and other things like that. I would certainly not cross a busy road when cars are coming.
As fo rhte child camel jocking, didnt they recently pass a law in March 2005 that no child under the age of 16 is to be able to even participate in camle jocking TrojenHorseDubai? It is even reported on various news articles that using child camel jockeys has been illegal in the UAE under various international and domestic laws since 1980. Lok it up!
*The use of children as camel jockeys in the UAE has been prohibited since 1980 under:
o UAE Federal Labour Code No. 8 (1980): Section 20 prohibits employment of any child labour under the age of 15.
o The UAE’s independent Camel Jockey Association has had a rule since the early 1990s that using children younger than 14 or lighter than 45 kilograms as camel jockeys is illegal.
o In 1993 UAE President Sheikh Zayed bin Sultan al-Nahyan banned the use of children as camel jockeys.
o In July 2002, Head of the Camel Racing Federation, Minister of State for Foreign Affairs Sheikh Hamdan bin Zaid al-Nahyan, announced that from 1 September 2002, using camel jockeys under 15-years-old and those less than 45 kilograms would be banned and offenders punished.
Yes still as I said earlier not all people will abide by the law, but look in your own backyard, start by racking up the non-law-abiders in your own country before worrying about others I mean I would know, look at our drug users and robbers of course many people would say yeah but look at other countries. NO! start with your own, I will do the same as gudk I am from the US and well and going to start living in the UAE. I have to go to school tomrrow so I will log off now and be back later, but as for now this is my entry.
February 26th, 2006 at 7:19 pmSlowtrain,
February 26th, 2006 at 7:38 pmI agree with you somewhat and then again do not agree that the issue is not about about the country itself, I believe it has alot to do with the country. Trust for one example.
To: Democratic checkfact
I agree with you 100% on your post number 499.
February 26th, 2006 at 7:39 pmIf this goes thru ill be on the front line to fight to the … I have 5 kids and I work to hard to see what my gran parents & their siblings died for… “Freedom” funny we don’t have any freedom to stop this kind of bull crap?? If some one like me broke the law I would be put in jail.. But when the bush boys break the law we do nothing..
people smarten up… bush & Cheney clan have sold us out… its much more important to them to set them self’s & their investments up at any cost to the American people..
How do you bring a country down… with in…. don’t let this scum bag do it… refuse to pay taxes… are they going to throw all of in jail… hell no!!! The only way to get at these guys is money… don’t go to ant gas station that sells over seas oil.. Buy only USA… then do not pay taxes… that will be a start
The facts are to the dumb s h i t s that believe that we would be in control still. I have a couple of things to say to you.. Ask your self why would they want control of the untied states ports?? Do they sell goods?? Nope>>> but there must be some reason?? Dose it make lots of money?? Nope>>> if so why sell?? The fact is these people would have total access to cruceal fitel information on what port and what containers to smuggle info on to.. look at the uae owen ports.. Selling drugs to the south Asia sea countries.. Not to mention nuclear parts sold to rouge states.. It’s not what they want to smuggle in .. it what they want to smuggle out….
Why were at kick china ass out of the USA ports to..(The kettle calling the pot black) thank for that one Clinton.. They all work for the same rich people.. But did you really expect any different from this president?? After all it took a rigged election to get him in office.. God bless the usa.. We are going to need it.
February 26th, 2006 at 9:03 pmPatriot – I am so sorry, but “Freedom” is not under attack here. This is the REAL ISSUE with most American public now – lack of knowledge on countries and cultures which make up the ME region i.e. anything Arab and Muslim = terrorists!!!
No one is giving up or selling this country, yes there is gloabl trade, i.e. American companies purchase assets of other countries every year. Please don’t confuse issues such as Freedom, America under attack, future of your family – just because a legit country is going to operate few terminals in 6 US ports. And for HEAVEN’s sake UAE is not BUYING NEITHER IS THE US SELLING ANY PORTS!!! DP world is only operating a few TERMINALS in the 6 US ports!
Jesus – Freedom my a**
February 26th, 2006 at 9:29 pmPATRIOT – I am just venting a bit, it’s very frustrating to hear people go on and on and on and them more about this stupid deal when absolute no knowledge of the facts. Sorry if sounded rude :(
February 26th, 2006 at 9:31 pmWhy Roshan I’ve never heard you vent ;}
February 26th, 2006 at 9:37 pmBut when people DO have facts u dont respond! The fact is we the people do not this fascist country cozying up to this corrupt administration. WE all know it is not a good deal for the american worker, and this deal was handled improperly and something needs to be done. WE CANNOT sit idle any more!!!!!!
February 26th, 2006 at 9:57 pmWell Tee zjack you used 6 exclamation points when you said we cannot sit idle any more….does this mean that you are going to push your chair away from you computer and go do something productive? I am sure I speek for everyone when I say we’ll miss your rants and tirades 8)
February 26th, 2006 at 10:03 pmDennis it’s amazing how you keep up all, these days on this site. I am only contributing my two cents on this topic – because I have lived, studied, worked and made wonderful friends in the UAE. I have SEEN how the UAE has developed from an improvished country to something pretty amazing in just a short 34 years since it’s independence from Britain. That too in the ME region, where western culture and civilization was not too welcome.
Yes the country has many many flaws, however the country and it’s rulers, led by Dubai is working tirelessly to have laws, policies, procedures in place. No place is perfect, but as an American I really want to support what America truly stands for – help those who try to be successful (having monies alone is not success, look at Saudi Arabia).
In this instance it’s operation of few TERMINALS in 6 ports in the US – but the issue is more than just terminals and ports. Some of you should truly do some homework on Dubai Ports and it’s humble beginings. If we turn away the first success story from the ME region – it’s going to have so many ramifications going forward for quite a few generations.
And PLEASE for god’s sake – there is no bomb heading your way because Dubai ports is operating TERMINALS in 6 ports in the US.
It is one reason to dislike Bush, however it is wrong to simply stand against everything he does or supports. BELIEVE ME I KNOW NOW!
February 26th, 2006 at 11:03 pmI meant to say BELIEVE ME I NOW KNOW!- taking a break, keep up the debtate.
February 26th, 2006 at 11:05 pmToday is the day! Congress returns on February 27
February 21, 2006
Menendez, Clinton, Lautenberg, Boxer Urge Frist to Immediately Consider Legislation to Block Foreign Governments from Controlling Operations at U.S. Ports
Washington, DC – Four United States Senators today urged Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist to schedule for immediate consideration when Congress returns on February 27 legislation being introduced by Senators Robert Menendez and Hillary Clinton to block the sale of U.S. port operations to foreign governments. Unless President Bush or Congress acts, Dubai Ports World, a company owned by the government of the United Arab Emirates, is set to take control of operations at six major U.S. ports on March 2.
“This sale will create an unacceptable risk to the security of our ports,†the Senators wrote to Frist. “We therefore request that emergency legislation we are introducing to ban foreign governments from controlling operations at our ports be slated for immediate consideration when the Senate convenes on February 27.â€
Menendez and Clinton announced on Friday, February 17 that they would introduce legislation to ban companies owned by foreign governments from controlling operations at U.S. ports. Today, Frist announced that if the administration does not reverse its decision to approve the Dubai Ports World sale, he will urge the Senate to act. Senators Frank Lautenberg and Barbara Boxer joined Menendez and Clinton today in announcing that they would sponsor legislation.
“This issue transcends philosophical posturing and partisan bickering – it is about our nation’s security,†the letter continued.
The full text of the letter to Frist is below.
February 21, 2006
The Honorable William H. Frist, M.D.
Majority Leader
United States Senate
Washington, DC 20510
Dear Senator Frist:
We thank you for joining the call of lawmakers who are gravely concerned about the Dubai Ports World deal. As you know, unless Congress acts, operations at six major U.S. ports, and other U.S. port facilities, will be turned over to Dubai Ports World, a company owned by the government of the United Arab Emirates, on March 2. This sale will create an unacceptable risk to the security of our ports. We therefore request that emergency legislation we are introducing to ban foreign governments from controlling operations at our ports be slated for immediate consideration when the Senate convenes on February 27.
Dubai Ports World has announced plans to buy P&O Ports, the company that runs commercial operation at ports in New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia. The transaction was reviewed and approved by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), a committee made up of representatives of different federal departments and agencies.
Since that approval, however, numerous questions have been raised about the quality of that review and the prospect of a company owned by a foreign government controlling operations at U.S. ports. Only 5 percent of containers that enter the United States through ports are actually inspected, despite repeated warnings by security experts that ports are a prime target for terrorist attacks.
The president has the authority to reverse or approve decisions made by CFIUS. However, in the absence of presidential intervention, the Senate must show leadership and act quickly. We urge you to bring up for debate legislation we are authoring to prevent sales of U.S. port operations to companies owned by foreign governments. This issue transcends philosophical posturing and partisan bickering – it is about our nation’s security.
The Senate must act fast and show leadership on this issue because too much is at stake. We look to your leadership in assisting our efforts in making this legislation a priority.
Sincerely,
ROBERT MENENDEZ
United States Senator
HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON
United States Senator
FRANK R. LAUTENBERG
United States Senator
BARBARA BOXER
United States Senator
February 27th, 2006 at 3:13 amI sure do wish that one party or the other would start talking in full truths….
“and the prospect of a company owned by a foreign government controlling operations at U.S. ports”
It is not a prospect..the Chinese are here already operating port terminals in the Untited States. It is selective posturing and outrage. I would question all the Senators sincereity. Will they push to remove China from our ports? The Senators are fully aware of the Chinese as Senator McCain has recently reminded them.
One way or another it has to be the same for all. If we are suspending the UAE deal then in all fairness we should imediately suspend the Chinese operations until there is a review.
Many of these politicians who oppose the deal have thier hands in the pockets of the Chinese. BOTH REPUBLICAN AND DEMOCRAT. Watch in the coming days how the Chinese are granfathered in under this new law that they want to pass. Watch who supports it and you will see who is being payed in Yen and just how important American security is to them.
This isn’t about security it is all about elections. The Congress and the Senate is rife with people out for themselves both sides of the isle. They could care less about us until it is time for us to vote.
It is the nature of polititians to try and tell you what to think. It is your resposibilty as an Americans to think for yourselves. DON”T GET CAUGHT UP IN THEIR GAME!!
February 27th, 2006 at 4:16 amBush Puts Port Safety
In Some Dubious Hands
By: Joe Conason
Date: 2/27/2006
When Washington politicians protest the purchase of American port facilities by an Arab company, it is natural to suspect prejudice or protectionism or both. When normally supine Republicans such as Bill Frist and Peter King defy the Bush administration to join Democrats like Hillary Rodham Clinton and Charles Schumer, the smell of election-year opportunism is almost overwhelming.
Yet in this case, the bipartisan opposition may be not only populist but prudent.
Certainly, there are valid reasons to question the White House decision to allow the purchase of the British company that now operates several major U.S. ports by Dubai Ports World, a firm owned by the United Arab Emirates. While the President and his family may adore the Emirates—as they do most of the oil-producing dictatorships in the Persian Gulf—that peculiar Bush preference doesn’t necessarily reflect broader American interests.
Questions about the U.S. approval of Dubai Ports World should begin with the fact that it is not a private business but a government-owned enterprise. The “free-market†fanatics of the Bush administration and the conservative movement should explain exactly why they believe a corporation owned by a foreign state is an acceptable business partner, when they so vigorously oppose public ownership of any economic entity within the United States. Even the Cato Institute, that bastion of libertarian thought, is urging the approval of the Dubai deal.
Imagine the ideological fury among conservatives if our own federal government proposed to take over the operation of American ports (which might not be such an awful idea, considering the risk we now confront from nuclear or other threats that could be shipped into our cities by terrorists). They would scream about “socialism†and unfair competition with private enterprise. After all, they resisted the establishment of the Transportation Security Administration after 9/11 because of their knee-jerk preference for private security firms.
Yet the tribal rulers of the U.A.E. evidently should be encouraged to profit from government enterprise, while the free people of the United States cannot.
The sheiks who run the Emirates permit no such foreign incursion in their own national enterprises. Although they give lip service to open trade—and encourage foreign participation in their designated free-trade zones—they strictly regulate foreign investment in key sectors. According to the State Department and the U.S. Trade Representative, foreign investment in the U.A.E. is heavily restricted. Americans cannot own land there. No business can operate there without majority U.A.E. ownership.
Those rules reflect the harsh and undemocratic nature of the Emirates, whose government is rooted in Wahhabi Islam. The blessings of liberty as enunciated by the Bush doctrine have made little impression there—a country where labor unions are banned, free speech and association are unknown, and violations of human rights are common.
The State Department’s most recent report on human trafficking in 2005 denounced the U.A.E. for its failure to act against that evil practice. Busloads of workers are herded into the country annually under conditions resembling indenture, and planeloads of women are flown in for sexual exploitation. Even children are not exempt from the medieval labor market, with thousands of boys illegally imported to serve as “child camel jockeysâ€â€”which sounds like a stupid joke but is emphatically unfunny, as hundreds of them are maltreated and injured every year.
The ruling Emirate families make every important decision secretly and without accountability—in conditions that preclude transparency while encouraging corruption and intrigue. But the Bush administration insists that despite all those flaws, the Emirates are now our staunch allies in the war on terror.
Not so many years ago, those same ruling families were deeply involved in financing terrorism, dating back to their investment in the Bank of Credit and Commerce International. Emirate leaders formerly maintained intimate ties with the Taliban and Al Qaeda. Indeed, a missile strike intended for Osama bin Laden had to be called off in 1999 because certain Emirate royals were present at his hunting camp in Afghanistan. Later, the 9/11 conspirators—who included at least two U.A.E. citizens—operated through safe houses and bank accounts located in Dubai, according to the 9/11 Commission report.
As President Bush pointed out in 2004, the U.A.E. also provided a convenient cover for A.Q. Khan, the Pakistani physicist who operated an Islamist nuclear-weapons ring that threatened global security. Undisturbed by the usually meddlesome government, Mr. Khan’s deputy ran a computer firm in Dubai for years as a front for the ring.
Now, that unfortunate history notwithstanding, the Secretaries of Defense and Homeland Security promise that the Dubai deal will not jeopardize our safety. Bland assurances from Donald Rumsfeld and Michael Chertoff mean little, given their own poor records and stupid decisions. The United States has no obligation to trust its ports to the Emirate sheiks—and every obligation to place public safety above oligarchic profit.
http://www.observer.com/20060227/20060227_Joe_Conason_opinions_conason.asp
February 27th, 2006 at 4:55 amWOW, dennis, such an ingenious response. Besides the fact that you cant make a point, and aside the fact that you can count to six(see #596), you have proven my point.
February 27th, 2006 at 8:01 amQuite frankly, this contract has opened the eyes of many americans, seeing how little attention is paid to our ports. And regardless of who is managing our ports, it can be said that a little more scrutiny, at the very least, is needed. The status quo is unacceptable, therefore ,since the administration, wont , and has no desire, to change the system, it REQUIRES congress to step in , and mandate reform.
It is the nature of polititians to try and tell you what to think. It is your resposibilty as an Americans to think for yourselves. DONâ€T GET CAUGHT UP IN THEIR GAME!!
Comment by Dennis — February 27, 2006 @ 4:16 am
Indeed. Thats why we aren’t going to get caught up in Bush’s game or dirty business deals. We won’t regurgitate his “newspeak” like his puppets Limbaugh, Hannity, and Oreilly. Thanks for the advice Dennis.
February 27th, 2006 at 8:34 amResponse to TrojanHorse comment# 601
“Emirates permit no such foreign incursion in their own national enterprises. Although they give lip service to open trade—and encourage foreign participation in their designated free-trade zones—they strictly regulate foreign investment in key sectors.
This country only has OIL and now DP world and Emirates Airlines and a few other companies which are huge yet not global.
What would you want them to do – give control of these companies to foreign companies.
Again – you really have to understand the UAE, it’s economy and income sources, especially Dubai. Do you think if the US had only 2 or 3 main companies which are global – we would let foreigners control them?
According to the State Department and the U.S. Trade Representative, foreign investment in the U.A.E. is heavily restricted. Americans cannot own land there. No business can operate there without majority U.A.E. ownership”
Again – people choose to ignore the truth in it’s entirety and use “selective facts” or half truths. Yes this was true 4 years ago. UAE being a young country (34 yrs old) would not allow foreigners from owing land or property. However now they ALLOW foreigners to own land/property. My parents who are British and Candian citizens have been living there since 1969 and they own their first apartment for the past 2 years.
I could go on about the article – some of the facts listed are true – yes the UAE has a ruling family, infact each Emirate has a ruling family. Please do not compare or assess your understanding of “ruling faimlies” with those of Saudi Arabia. There is huge difference between the two. Also, living in the US, most often we may think Democracy is the best form of government – however there are positive aspects with the ruling family sort of government too – this is another debate altogether.
The article really picks and chooses facts – it’s truly is half-truths , just like Dennis points out in several of his comments.
February 27th, 2006 at 10:10 amWell I haven’t looked here in a couple of days and I see that the fearmongers have stepped up the rhetoric even more. The Republican bashing is why the Democrats will not be the party of the people again. If this debate is because of concerns about the security of the US then focus. The current review board for the acquisition of leasing rights was put in place by Congress after the scandal generated by the Clinton administration with regards to the Chinese acquiring control of the Long Beach Base after arms from China were found in transport to the gangs in L.A. and the campaign monies from Chinese nationals supporting the DNC and Presidential elections.
The review of the Dubai Ports buyout of O&P was reviewed and approved by the Congressionally mandated board. The notion that this was a quickie done by Bush is B.S., the first announcements for the buyout were in all transport and maritime newsletters and magazines in October.
If you are saying that for security reasons the ports should revert to local state/city control, think again. The US ports need a constant influx of money and resources to keep up with the volume of freight for both import and export. If this is left to local control then expect major tax increases and the usual patronage positions being created. This in turn will increase the prices for the goods and then a steady rise in the inflation rate. A quasi-public authority doesn’t work under a profit driven system, it survives by debt bonds and government assistance.
So, pick your poison. Another government black hole or a corporation that wants to be profitable and has the needed resources to provde the needed capital improvements and expansion capabilities while reducing costs.
February 27th, 2006 at 10:45 amAs I stated days ago no security concerns were raised when Deutsche Post (granted went public in 2000, but still 45% owned by German government controlled KfW Bank) took over Airborne and DHL, making it the number 3 carrier in thew world. Deutsche Post is the German Post office and now has the contract for competing with Gr. Britains Royal Post.
Germany is a close ally of the US. But:,
A)It has been reported that Saddam Hussein had ordered Iraqi domestic businesses to show preference to German companies as a reward for Germany’s “firm positive stand in rejecting the launching of a military attack against Iraq.â€
B)Direct trade between Germany and Iraq amounted to about $350 million annually, and another $1 billion is reportedly sold through third parties.
C)Germany is owed billions by Iraq in foreign debt generated during the 1980’s
D)Officials are investigating a German corporation accused of illegally channeling weapons to Iraq via Jordan. The equipment in question is used for boring the barrels of large cannons and is allegedly intended for Saddam Hussein’s Al Fao Supercannon project. An article in the German daily Tageszeitung reported that of the more than 80 German companies that have done business with Baghdad since around 1975 and have continued to do so up until 2001, many have supplied whole systems or components for weapons of mass destruction.
Nice ally.
For another kick in the pants the KfW Bank was created by monies given to Germany under the Marshall Plan. Our taxpayers money at work again.
This should be more concerning then control of a couple of terminals, these companies have fleets with thousands of vehicles delivering to most addresses in the US and a fleet of planes flying around our airspace daily.
February 27th, 2006 at 11:24 amRequired reading
February 27th, 2006 at 12:05 pmPeople:
It is clear to me that the issue has been completely hijacked and derailed, at least in this forum, by people like Roshan, who would have you believe that the issue is what it is not. Their tactic is blackmail, pure and simple. In the least, it is gross misinformation, to create a diversion from the real issue. And everyone seems to be falling for it. The facts should speak for themselves and the implications thereof should not be minimized. Such should be enough for objective arguments. As stated in the introduction of this topic:
1. The UAE was one of three countries in the world to recognize the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan.
2. The UAE has been a key transfer point for illegal shipments of nuclear components to Iran, North Korea and Libya.
3. According to the FBI, money was transferred to the 9/11 hijackers through the UAE banking system.
4. After 9/11, the Treasury Department reported that the UAE was not cooperating in efforts to track down Osama Bin Laden’s bank accounts.
Above all the concerns, stemming from the above troubling facts, which no objective minded person would deny, minimize or rationalize, there is also the fact, that UAE is an Islamic country and undemocratic, where many people, motivated by religion, hate America and would do her harm or delight in seeing harm done to America. On 9/11, many Muslims all over the world, the UAE included, openly celebrated the destruction visited on America by fellow Muslims. Call them what you will, but they were Muslims, acting in the name of Islam. And if many Muslims did not see them as such, they would not have celebrated them, their leader, Osama bin Laden (whose face adorns countless homes from Nigeria to Indonesia, from Pakistan to Saudi Arabia, and so on) and their dastardly deeds on 9/11.
Most, if not all Muslims (and I don’t say this lightly) rationalize this act, one way or another by blaming America for supporting Israel or for the sake of Palestinians, as they always do when Muslims commit terrorists acts on the West and its interests, whether it is in America, London, Madrid, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia or East Africa. Some even claim that the 9/11 attack was masterminded and carried out by Israel and Jews in Americans.
The truth needs to be spoken, much as it might make people uncomfortable, much as many people, particularly Arabs and Muslims are quick to declare any connection of these terrorist acts to Islam “anti-Islamic†and people that voice them as “enemies of Islamâ€, which is a very dishonest response, considering the fact that the Islamic empowerment is not only anti-West, but seeks to destroy any idea that does not stem from Islam or conform to Islam, often playing by the rules of the system they seek to destroy, in order to achieve their purpose. This is precisely the reason for establishing and seeking to establish Islamic states wherever there is a significant populace of Muslims, e.g. Nigeria.
As one Islamic leader recently said of the West, “we will use your democracy to destroy you†and another declared in 1983, in a speech marking the dedication of an Islamic Center in Stockholm, Sweden, “In the next fifty years, we will capture the Western world for Islam. We have the men to do it, we have the money to do it, and above all, we are already doing it.” On September 7, 2003, Muqtedar Khan, a visiting fellow at the Brookings Institute and a Muslim, wrote of Muslims in America, in the New York Times “Many religious and community leaders were convinced that Islam would manifest itself in its truest form in this country. Some even proclaimed that one day America would be an Islamic state.”
We should not argue for the sake of arguing. The fact is that Americans are concerned for their safety, and rightly so. They have not only recent history backing them, but also the threat of persistent clear and present danger. This danger may not be state sponsored, but some states are more hospitable environments for those who pose that danger. The U.A.E, though involved in fighting that danger, is a more suitable environment for those who pose that danger than the U.K.
No honest person should fault Americans for being concerned for their safety and for seeking measures to ensure their own safety. The fact is that American ports have direct and serious implications for America’s security and should not be treated as just as another “merchandise†in global trade. If DP World is serious about recognizing the concerns Americans have on this issue, it should pullout of the deal altogether, at least out of respect for the people of this country. As for the administration, which is eager to reward the UAE for its corporation in the global war on terror, there are other ways to do so and to show America’s gratitude to the U.A.E, without jeopardizing the safety of Americans.
February 27th, 2006 at 12:27 pm607 Required reading?
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO109C.html
This shows what helped start all this. Just think if we pissed off 1 person so much, by lying and pulling the aid and assistance to them and what could happen when we do it to whole countries and change laws or requirements mid-stream whenever we feel like it.
February 27th, 2006 at 12:30 pmAn anonymous source has provided the Northeast Intelligence Network with a translated copy of a recovered Al Qaeda document from Afghanistan dated 14 May/June 2002. The text informs officials of the UAE that “we have infiltrated your security, censorship, and monetary agencies along with other agencies that should not be mentioned.”
In light of the current debacle with Dubai Ports World, and fears of security vulnerabilities at 21 American port facilities, this document is further evidence of the need for a full, no-stone-left-unturned review of the transaction and its implications.
The full translated text of the Al Qaeda document recovered in Afghanistan:
In the Name of Allah the Most Compassionate and Mericful
Number ________ Date 14/May/June/2002
Al Jihad Qaida’s
{Get the idolaters out of Arab island}
To: Officials in the United Arab Emirates and especially the two emirates of
Abu-Dhabi and Dubai:
We have come to know definitely that the Emirate country is committing acts of
injustice against the striving youth of the Emirates and others who sympathize
with us in order to appease the Americans’ wishes which include spting,
persecution, and detainments. The United Emirates authorities have recently
detained a number of Mujahideen and handed them over to suppressive
organizations in their country in addition to having a number of them still in its
custody. Undoubtedly, these practices bring the country into a fighting ring in
which it cannot endure or escape from its consequences especially since the
Emirates’ social composition is the most productive, and very explosive.
You are well aware that we have infiltrated your security, censorship, and
monetary agencies along with other agencies that should not be mentioned.
Therefore, we warn of the continuation of practicing such policies, which do not
serve your inteests and will only cost you many problems that will place you in
an embarrassing state before your citizens. In addition, it will prove your
agencies’ immobility and failure. Also, we are confident that you are fully
aware that your agencies will not get to the same high level of your American
Lords. Furthermore, your intelligence will not be cleverer than theirs, and your
censorship capabilities are not worth much against what they have reached. In
spite of all this Allah has granted us success to get even with them and harm
them.
However, you are an easier target than them; your homeland is exposed to us.
There are many vital interests that will hurt you if we decide to harm them,
especially, since you rely on shameless tourism in your economic income!!!
Finally, our policies are not to operate in your homeland and/or tamper with your
security because we are occupied with others which we consider are enemies of
this nation. If you compel us to do so, we are prepared to postpone our program
for a short period and allocate some time for you.
Therefore, we ask you to release all the Mujahideen detainees since September.
The author of this official communication from Al-Qaeda to the government of the UAE :
أسامة بن
February 27th, 2006 at 1:00 pmUsama bin Laden.
Slowtrain…in response to #609
Correct me if I am wrong! Are you saying that all Muslims are suspect? Not to be trusted?
While your manner of delivery is outwardly calm your message is still one of hysteria. If you follow your argument to its inevitabe conclusion then for the security of the nation we should:
Expell all Muslims from American soil.
Not allow any Muslims to enter the United States
Not allow flights into the United States of any Arab airlines or any flight that contains a Muslim crew.
Not allow an Arab flagged ship or a ship with any Muslim crew members to use any of our ports.
Sever ties to any country that allows Muslims to run for politcal office. We can’t after all trust our security to a country that has allowed themselves to be infiltrated by Muslims.
We can’t trust them right? Bin Laden is as you say their leader…..
The truly sad thing is that there are many people who will buy into your bigotry and paranoia. The seeds you sow are the same ones Hitler planted.
February 27th, 2006 at 1:15 pmWell this has been very entertaining. I’ve been following this thread since its conception and I must say there have been only 3 voices out of MANY on this thread that continue to beat the same Bush supporting drum. I’ve seen numerous times when these individuals are confronted for their obvious Bush slant, yet they attempt to play it off as being “fair and balanced” yadda yadda yadda. We know that old tune. We don’t buy it anymore.
We’ve had 5 years of Bush in office. What has he accomplished in that time? Within 1 year of his taking office 3000 Americans were murdered. Thats right folks, right under Bush’s watchful eye. Then Mr. Bush decided to send another 3000 Americans to their deaths and injured another 20,000+ on a wild goose chase. Since 9/11 Mr. Bush and his network of cronies have managed to terrorize this country in the process…sending us from one Orange alert to the next…whipping our fear to an all time high. Meanwhile, the primary suspect for the terrorist attacks, Osama Bin Laden remains at large. Amazing isn’t it?
After nearly 5 years of scaring the hell out of the American people, portraying the middle east as the face of evil, Bush wants us to do a 180 and embrace the very same people he’s been telling us were affiliated with the terrorist attacks of 9/11. Lets be honest, the UAE had more direct involvement with 9/11 than Iraq did, (ITS DOCUMENTED EVERYWHERE) yet we’ve managed to destroy the infrastructure of Iraq, kill at least 100,000 Iraqis, and more than likely be responsible for contributing to a civil war in that poor country. This btw is the consolation prize for being less affiliated with Osama Bin Laden that the UAE. So what do we do with the UAE when its obvious they launder money for terrorists and built their infrastructure on the backs of human slaves? We reward them by offering the UAE an opportunity to manage our ports for us. This is insanity, pure and simple.
For those of you that believe this ploy of villifying the American people as racists or unamerican for not supporting this 180/about-face, I really feel sorry for you. If you actually believe this Bush utopian fallacy, you must be absolutely despate to hold onto your house of cards. The American people are catching onto this hogwash the Bush Administration has been pulling on us. And I will tell you this, come the next election, you better make sure those ballot boxes are rigged if you want to re-elect anyone affiliated with Bush.
You don’t beat us over the head with fear of terrorism for 5 years and then tell us we’re bad people for not wanting to run over and hug the people you’ve been telling us we should be hunting down and killing. No one in their right mind would do such a thing. This time Bush & Co, you’ve gone too far. And sooner or later, your house of cards will fall.
February 27th, 2006 at 1:53 pmResponse to Dennis # 609:
This is precisely what I am talking about; the tendency to blackmail (as you seem to do here) anyone who would look at the issue objectively. You know exactly what you are doing, you clearly understand that people can easily be silenced or dismissed by calling them bigots and for fear of being accused of all the absurd conclusions that you have invoked. That should fool no one.
No one, certainly not I, is suggesting the highly dishonest and misleading assumptions you have arrived at. Yes, Dennis you are wrong in your analysis and your conclusion therein. I am not saying and I am not suggesting that “all Muslims are suspect? Not to be trusted?†I am simply stating the obvious, which no objective person can deny; the fact that there is a prevalence of sympathy and support towards Al Qaeda and other Islamic groups that has done America harm and continues to seek to do so in many Islamic countries including the UAE. For you to equate that comment to the list below is totally absurd.
I have always qualified my statements to make clear that I do not generalize nor imply a generalization of fault. If you could only, step out of your sentiments briefly, to patiently read and think about what I wrote and put it the specific relevant perspective, not on apparent persistent sentimental hangover and profuse generations, you will see my comments in their proper perspective. How could you arrive at the conclusions that my comments in 608 are tantamount to:
1. Expell all Muslims from American soil.
2. Not allow any Muslims to enter the United States
3. Not allow flights into the United States of any Arab airlines or any flight that contains a Muslim crew.
4. Not allow an Arab flagged ship or a ship with any Muslim crew members to use any of our ports.
5. Sever ties to any country that allows Muslims to run for politcal office. We can’t after all trust our security to a country that has allowed themselves to be infiltrated by Muslims.
6. We can’t trust them right? Bin Laden is as you say their leader…..
Try and be a little more objective, Dennis. Crying foul on every hand raised, does more disservice to those you claim to defend. In fact you are being overly patronizing to them and as far I am concerned that is a disservice and an insult.
February 27th, 2006 at 2:21 pmOk, so the Americans have army bases all over the Muslim world and if a company in Dubai (Americans have an army base there too) wants to do business and run a few American ports, why is everybody up in arms? So what if two of the 9/11 hijackers were from the UAE? It’s like the Pakistani government saying, “I don’t think we should let the Americans run KFCs and McDonalds here. Jose Padilla and John Walker are both American terrorists and we can’t trust the Americansâ€. This goes to show the ignorance in the American government. I guarantee you that the people who are against this deal were not even able to point to the UAE on the map before 9/11. To those who oppose this deal: I challenge you to visit Dubai and see how much of a terrorist government you guys think it is.
February 27th, 2006 at 2:38 pm…And if I might add, Dennis, with reference to #611 and 613. Your conclusions are like saying that any association of slavery and segregation with the United States implies that all Americans are slave owners, racists and segregationists or that any association of the Holocaust with Germany implies that all German’s were Nazis. This notion utterly preposterous; what you are saying is that no one should mention these facts where they are relevant; else they are automatically labeled bigots. This is nothing but PC run amok.
February 27th, 2006 at 2:39 pmTo those who oppose this deal: I challenge you to visit Dubai and see how much of a terrorist government you guys think it is.
Comment by Farhan — February 27, 2006 @ 2:38 pm
Farhan, I would go visit the UAE but they don’t allow anyone into the UAE that has been to Israel.
“Some Arab countries will not allow travelers to enter if their passports show any evidence of previous or expected travel to Israel. Other Arab countries apply the ban inconsistently, sometimes refusing and at other times allowing entry when a passport shows evidence of travel to Israel. If passport restrictions imposed by other countries may be a problem for you, contact the nearest U.S. passport agency, embassy, or consulate for guidance.”
http://travel.state.gov/travel/tips/regional/regional_1175.html
Also, if I was allowed into the UAE, I’d be afraid they’d revoke my Visa and force me into slavery.
http://www.iranian.ws/cgi-bin/iran_news/exec/view.cgi/2/2675
So maybe if the UAE decides to lift its ban on Israel, democratically elect it’s government, free it’s slaves, allow the US full access to it’s bank accounts associated with terrorism and money laundering, I might eventually support some trade with Dubai. I doubt I’ll come around to supporting the outsourcing of anything to any country.
One really good thing has come out of all of this though. Americans are alot more aware of the problem of outsourcing in general. And we’re also a bit more aware of how greedy the Bush administration is but most of us already knew that much.
February 27th, 2006 at 3:02 pmFarhan, I find it very difficult to believe that you cannot tell the difference in security implications between KFC or McDonald and the sea ports. Tell me you are not serious in that analogy.
Speaking of bases all over Muslim world, it is like faulting America for having bases in Japan and South Korea. The fact is that the Muslim countries, such as Saudi Arabia, that you allude to, as Japan and S. Korea, wanted those bases there because they provide security to those lands. As to whether the bases should be, is another matter altogether, perhaps one that should be subjected to a national debate such as this.
You can be sure that at then end of this debate more will be known about the UAE and the DPW and everyone will be better for it. That is the benefit of democracy. Unfortunately, we cannot say the same of “Muslim landsâ€(and I imply no sarcasm here), not even the UAE, especially if you continue to make excuses on their behalf and blackmail people who have valid concerns prompted in the first place, by realities that emerged from those lands.
February 27th, 2006 at 3:05 pmBush is just plain stupid and thats all there is to say about it, this isn’t the first thing he has done to put our country at risk and anyone who thinks he is even a semi good president is not thinking clearly.
February 27th, 2006 at 3:08 pmWe cant visit UAE. Its on the US governments advisory of unsafe nations for its citizens to visit.
“I don’t think we should let the Americans run KFCs and McDonalds here. Jose Padilla and John Walker are both American terrorists and we can’t trust the Americansâ€.
That statement is about as logical as the muslims who are protesting america because some danish guys drew cartoons depicting the prophet. And besides, the KFC and Mc Donalds in Pakistan are not owned by Americans.
February 27th, 2006 at 3:09 pmThere is a consistent thread here implicating Bush as the mastermind for this. I don’t get it.
I understand that specific people (departments) of the current administration briefly reviewed the deal between DPW and P&O and gave it approval to move forward. But how do we get from a private business deal between two foreign nations to an evil plan masterminded by G. Bush?
Granted, he is digging in his heels to protect it, but what authority does this administration (Bush) really have to force this deal through or even shut it down? Isn’t this ultimately P&O’s call on whom they sell to? I don’t think it’s a matter of America stopping the sale, but more a matter of continuing a business relationship with the new proprieter(s).
Bottom line, I’m glad everyone involved decided to delay until a further security review can be done, but shouldn’t the final word on what compromises we (Americans) make on business transactions and security for our nation include our elected officials in Congress…and not dictated one man (The President)and his appointed associates?
Whatever we do, I hope we don’t sacrifice a key element of our infrastructure for the sake of good business and political correctness.
I sincerely hope for all involved this isn’t about race or religion. I truly believe it’s about American people being justifiably nervous when talking about trusting people that helped our enemies with access to an important American economic and military resource. It’s that basic.
At the risk of sounding paranoid, how trusting should we be?
I don’t know.
February 27th, 2006 at 3:10 pmI agree Nick with the exception of how we describe Bush. The word “Bush” is a euphemism is actually a reference to Bush and those that surround him. No one actually believes George Bush is smart enough to tie his shoes without being told how.
February 27th, 2006 at 3:20 pmYour words Slowtrain:
The truth needs to be spoken, much as it might make people uncomfortable, much as many people, particularly Arabs and Muslims are quick to declare any connection of these terrorist acts to Islam “anti-Islamic†and people that voice them as “enemies of Islamâ€, which is a very dishonest response, considering the fact that the Islamic empowerment is not only anti-West, but seeks to destroy any idea that does not stem from Islam or conform to Islam, often playing by the rules of the system they seek to destroy, in order to achieve their purpose.
You have deftly labled Muslims who disagree with terrorist acts as dihonest. That is the equivelent of saying that Christians who disagree with abortion clinic bombings are dishonest. You use the word destroy quite deftly but we’ll go with it but lets shake it up a little bit:
“considering the fact that the Christian empowerment is not only anti-East, but seeks to destroy any idea that does not stem from Christianity or conform to Christianity, often playing by the rules of the system they seek to destroy, in order to achieve their purpose.”
Not exactly true but not exactly untrue. Leaves you with a real sinister feeling though.
For the record I din’t automaticaly label you a biggot. I didn’t come to that conclusion until your #609
February 27th, 2006 at 3:26 pmDennis, your interpretation of the word “bigot” and its application is about as subjective as Bill Clinton’s usage of the word “sex.”
February 27th, 2006 at 3:34 pmNick I guess the civics lessons weren’t retained by most people.
Executive Branch- The executive branch of Government makes sure that the laws of the United States are obeyed. The President of the United States is the head of the executive branch of government. The Vice President, department heads (Cabinet members), and heads of independent agencies are included here. The President is the head of the executive branch and plays a large role in making America’s laws. His job is to approve the laws that Congress creates. When the Senate and the House approve a bill, they send it to the President. If he agrees with the law, he signs it and the law goes into effect.
If the President does not like a bill, he can refuse to sign it. When he does this, it is called a veto. Congress can override a veto, but to do so two-thirds of the Members of Congress must vote against the President.
Despite all of his power, the President cannot write bills. He can propose a bill, but a member of Congress must submit it for him.
In addition to playing a key role in the lawmaking process, the President has several duties. He serves as the American Head of State, meaning that he meets with the leaders of other countries and can make treaties with them. However, the Senate must approve any treaty before it becomes official.
Also, the President is the official head of the U.S. military. He can authorize the use of troops overseas without declaring war. To officially declare war, though, he must get the approval of the Congress.
The President and the Vice-President are the only officials chosen by the entire country.
Legislative- The legislative branch of government is made up of the Congress and government agencies, such as the Government Printing Office and Library of Congress, that provide assistance to and support services for the Congress. Article I of the Constitution established this branch and gave Congress the power to make laws. Congress has two parts, the House of Representatives and the Senate.Its primary duty is to write, debate, and pass bills, which are then passed on to the President for approval.
Other Powers of Congress
Makes laws controlling trade between states and between the United States and other countries.
Makes laws about taxes and borrowing money.
Approves the making of money.
Can declare war on other countries.
House Specific-
Start laws that make people pay taxes.
Decide if a government official should be put on trial before the Senate if s/he commits a crime against the country (impeachment).
Senate Specific-
Say yes or no to any treaties the president makes.
Say yes or no to any people the president recommends for jobs, such as cabinet officers, Supreme Court justices, and ambassadors.
Can hold a trial for a government official who does something very wrong (impeachment).
Judicial- The judicial branch of government is made up of the court system. The Supreme Court is the highest court in the land. Article III of the Constitution established this Court and all other Federal courts were created by Congress. Courts decide arguments about the meaning of laws, how they are applied, and whether they break the rules of the Constitution.
February 27th, 2006 at 3:36 pm“The Bush administration has approved the takeover of British-owned Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation Co. to DP World, a deal set to go forward March 2 unless Congress intervenes.”
UAE terminal takeover extends to 21 ports
By PAMELA HESS
UPI Pentagon Correspondent
WASHINGTON, Feb. 24 (UPI) — A United Arab Emirates government-owned company is poised to take over port terminal operations in 21 American ports, far more than the six widely reported.
The Bush administration has approved the takeover of British-owned Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation Co. to DP World, a deal set to go forward March 2 unless Congress intervenes.
P&O is the parent company of P&O Ports North America, which leases terminals for the import and export and loading and unloading and security of cargo in 21 ports, 11 on the East Coast, ranging from Portland, Maine to Miami, Florida, and 10 on the Gulf Coast, from Gulfport, Miss., to Corpus Christi, Texas, according to the company’s Web site.
President George W. Bush on Tuesday threatened to veto any legislation designed to stall the handover.
Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y. said after the briefing she expects swift, bi-partisan approval for a bill to require a national security review before it is allowed to go forward.
At issue is a 1992 amendment to a law that requires a 45-day review if the foreign takeover of a U.S. company “could affect national security.” Many members of Congress see that review as mandatory in this case.
But Bush administration officials said Thursday that review is only triggered if a Cabinet official expresses a national security concern during an interagency review of a proposed takeover.
“We have a difference of opinion on the interpretation of your amendment,” said Treasury Department Deputy Secretary Robert Kimmitt.
The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, comprised of officials from 12 government departments and agencies, including the National Security Council and the Department of Homeland Security, approved the deal unanimously on January 17.
“The structure of the deal led us to believe there were no national security concerns,” said Homeland Security Deputy Secretary Michael P. Jackson.
The same day, the White House appointed a DP World executive, David C. Sanborn, to be the administrator for the Maritime Administration of the Department of Transportation. Sanborn had been serving as director of operations for Europe and Latin America at DP World.
Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John Warner, R- Va., said he will request from both the U.S. attorney general and the Senate committee’s legal counsel a finding on the administration’s interpretation of the 1992 amendment.
Adding to the controversy is the fact Congress was not notified of the deal. Kimmitt said Congress is periodically updated on completed CFIUS decisions, but is proscribed from initiating contact with Congress about pending deals. It may respond to congressional inquiries on those cases only.
Iowa Republican Sen. Charles Grassley stated in a letter to Bush on Feb. 21 that he specifically requested to be kept abreast of foreign investments that may have national security implications. He made the request in the wake of a controversial Chinese proposal to purchase an oil company last year.
“Obviously, my request fell on deaf ears. I am disappointed that I was neither briefed nor informed of this sale prior to its approval. Instead, I read about it in the media,” he wrote.
According to Kimmitt, the deal was reported on in major newspapers as early as last October. But it did not get critical attention in the press until the Associated Press broke the story Feb. 11 and the Center for Security Policy, a right-leaning organization, wrote about it Feb. 13. CSP posited the sale as the Treasury Department putting commerce interests above national security.
Kimmitt said because the 2005 Chinese proposal had caused such an uproar before it ever got to CFIUS, the lack of reaction to the Dubai deal when it was reported on last fall suggested it would not be controversial enough to require special notification of Congress.
Central to the debate is the fact that the United Arab Emirates, while a key ally of the United States in the Middle East, has had troubling ties to terrorist networks, according to the Sept. 11 Commission report. It was one of the few countries in the world that recognized the al-Qaida-friendly Taliban government in Afghanistan; al-Qaida funneled millions of dollars through the U.A.E. financial sector; and A.Q. Khan, the notorious Pakistani nuclear technology smuggler, used warehouses near the Dubai port as a key transit point for many of his shipments.
Since the terrorist attacks, it has cut ties with the Taliban, frozen just over $1 million in alleged terrorist funding, and given the United States key military basing and over-flight rights. At any given time, there are 77,000 U.S. service members on leave in the United Arab Emirates, according to the Pentagon.
Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England warned that the uproar about the United Arab Emirates involvement in U.S. ports could risk alienating the very countries in the Middle East the United States is trying to court as allies in the war on terrorism.
“It’s very important we strengthen bonds … especially with friends and allies in the Arab world. It’s important that we treat friends and allies equally around the world without discrimination,” he said.
The security of port terminal operations is a key concern. More than 7 million cargo containers come through 361 American ports annually, half of the containers through New York-New Jersey, Los Angeles and Long Beach, Calif. Only a small percentage are physically searched and just 37 percent currently screened for radiation, an indication of an attempt to smuggle in nuclear material that could be used for a “dirty bomb.”
After the September 11 terrorist attacks, the government began a new program that required documentation on all cargo 24 hours before it was loaded on a ship in a foreign port bound for the United States. A “risk analysis” is conducted on every shipment, including a review of the ship’s history, the cargo’s history and contents and other factors. Each ship must also provide the U.S. government 96 hours notice of its arrival in an American port, along with a crew manifest.
None of the nine administration officials assembled for the briefing could immediately say how many of the more than 3,000 port terminals are currently under foreign control.
Port facility operators have a major security responsibility, and one that could be exploited by terrorists if they infiltrate the company, said Joe Muldoon III. Muldoon is an attorney representing Eller & Co., a port facility operator in Florida partnered with M&O in Miami. Eller opposes the Dubai takeover for security reasons.
“The Coast Guard oversees security, and they have the authority to inspect containers if they want and they can look at manifests, but they are really dependent on facility operators to carry out security issues,” Muldoon said.
The Marine Transportation Security Act of 2002 requires vessels and port facilities to conduct vulnerability assessments and develop security plans including passenger, vehicle and baggage screening procedures; security patrols; establishing restricted areas; personnel identification procedures; access control measures; and/or installation of surveillance equipment.
Under the same law, port facility operators may have access to Coast Guard security incident response plans — that is, they would know how the Coast Guard plans to counter and respond to terrorist attacks.
“The concern is that the UAE may be our friend now … but who’s to say that couldn’t change, or they couldn’t be infiltrated. Iran was our big buddy,” said Muldoon.
In a January report, the Council on Foreign Relations pointed out the vulnerability of the shipping security system to terrorist exploitation.
Since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, the U.S. customs agency requires shippers to follow supply chain security practices. Provided there are no apparent deviations from those practices or intelligence warnings, the shipment is judged low risk and is therefore unlikely to be inspected.
CFR suggests a terrorist event is likely to be a one-time operation on a trusted carrier “precisely because they can count on these shipments entering the U.S. with negligible or no inspection.”
“All a terrorist organization needs to do is find a single weak link within a ‘trusted’ shipper’s complex supply chain, such as a poorly paid truck driver taking a container from a remote factory to a port. They can then gain access to the container in one of the half-dozen ways well known to experienced smugglers,” CFR wrote.
© Copyright 2006 United Press International, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Want to email or reprint this story? Click here for options.
http://www.upi.com/SecurityTerrorism/view.php?StoryID=20060223-051657-4981r
February 27th, 2006 at 3:41 pmWhhhhhyyyyy would you post all of that? That story is on every major news site. :(
February 27th, 2006 at 3:44 pmSteve –
Thanks for the refresher in civics. I vaguely remember the system and it’s complexities, but I’m usually too busy putting bread on the table to exercise that knowledge.
So in reality, I guess the Presidents power in this, except as cheerleader, is quite minimal? Interesting.
Do you think the ammendment for the required 45 day extension for security review was purposely ignored by the Bush Administration? If so, what now? Is the pending review mandatory, or was it a conciliatory measure by the Bush Administration?
Don’t get me wrong. I have no personal grind against Bush…heck I even voted for him. But I’m also not the greatest judge of character. I won’t fault a person based on rumor and baseless opinions, but the recent track record of the current administration does not instill the greatest confidence in their decision making process.
Steve, do you think the best interest of the USA are being served here in the port deal? You seem very well versed in the mechanics of our Government, so I would value your opinion on this.
Regards.
Thanks again.
February 27th, 2006 at 4:02 pmSorry about that Deez but it only seemed fair since Steve was attempting to sidetrack the discussion with excerpts from his junior high school American Government text book.
February 27th, 2006 at 4:08 pmSlavery of Children and women in UAE
Jun 20, 2004
Morteza Aminmansour
The UAE was one of the 19 countries in the world that the United States blacklisted for human trafficking. The trafficking as a modern form of Slavery leaves no land untouched..
With camel racing heavily patronized by the oil rich rulers, who have least respect in the legislature, thousands of small children from Indian sun continent face a black and future.
Women migrated from Azerbaijan, Iran, Kazakhstan, Ukraine, India and Eastern Europe have reported being lured with fraudulent promises of lucrative opportunities, legitimate jobs and then forced into sexual exploitation. Women who dared resist encountered harsh punishment from their employers, including physical assault. Their status as illegal migrants made the women particularly vulnerable to attacks by customers and traffickers alike. UAE has joined the growing global criminal activity of sex trafficking.
Exact number of victims is impossible to obtain, but according to an official source in UAE, there has been increase in the number of teen-age girls in prostitution (forced to work from Iran and other countries). The magnitude of the statistic conveys how rapidly this form of abuse has grown. The popular destinations for victims of the sex slave trade are the Arab countries in the Persian Gulf (UAE, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar). Traffickers target girls between 13 and 17 to send to Arab countries. The number of Iranian women and girls who are deported from Persian Gulf countries indicates the Magnitude of the trade.
A measure of Islamic fundamentalists success in controlling the society is the depth and totality with which they suppress the freedom and rights of women.
The Islamic fundamentalists in Iran have for example expended tremendous amounts of time and efforts controlling, harassing, and punishing women and girls in the name of Islam. In Tehran, there are an estimated 84,000 women and girls in prostitution, many of them are on the Streets, others are in the 250 brothels that reportedly operate in the City. The trade is also international. Thousands of Iranian women and girls have been sold into sexual slavery abroad. The Sex Slave Trade is one of the most Profitable activities in Iran today. Iranian governments officials are involved in buying, selling and sexually abusing women and girls. One factor contributing to the increase in prostitution and the sex slave trade is the number of female teens who are running away from home. In Tehran alone there are an estimated 25,000 Street Children, most of them girls. Many of the girls come from impoverished Rural areas. Some addicted parents sell their Children to support their habits…A number of prostitution and slavery rings operating from Tehran that has sold girls and women to Britain, France, and Germany. In Iranian Province of Khorasan, local police report that girls are being sold to Pakistani men as
They have passed and enforced humiliating and sadistic rules and punishments of women and girls, enslaving them in a system of segregation.
Many Mullahs and officials are involved in the sexual exploitation and trade of women and girls. Women who are arrested for prostitution say they must have sex with the arresting officer. There are reports of police locating young women for sex for the wealthy and powerful mullahs. Some may think a thriving sex trade in a theocracy with clerics possibly acting as pimps is a contradiction in a country founded and ruled by Islamic fundamentalists.
I would like to define the slavery as work done without any
compensation under the threat Of violence.
The modern-day of slavery are forced labor, forced prostitution. Slavery is technically illegal everywhere but they are estimated 27 million enslaved worldwide than ever before, while the moral argument against slavery has been won, the practical struggle to end slavery is by no means over. Camel racing in the Persian Gulf(UAE), for example is known to be slave work only by human rights experts or locals. Until poverty is overcome, some forms of slavery will always exist. Some argue that slave labor built up western capitalist development.
One of the fastest growing means by which children are enslaved today is trafficking. Girls as young as six are trafficked to work as maids in UAE and Saudi Arabia. Men and women and children live and work as slaves or in slave-like conditions. The sexual enslavement of children is part of the generation exploitation of children in impoverished parts of the world.
Literatures :
1-Slavery by Harry Rosenberg
2-Modern-day slavery iAbolish
3-Sex slavery new face of oppression of women in Iran By Sepehrrad and Hughes.
Morteza Aminmansour
Seattle,WA 2004
USA
http://www.iranian.ws/cgi-bin/iran_news/exec/view.cgi/2/2675
February 27th, 2006 at 4:11 pmMorteza Aminmansour -
In my humble opinion, slavery is unacceptable anytime, anywhere. How does this relate to the Emirate of Dubai or DPW?
So, Dubai (DPW) should NOT(?) be entrusted with access to U.S. ports for human rights violation concerns? Is the Emirate of Dubai currently engaged in this activity?
I think we established that there are questionable portions of the UAE, but I think we need to concentrate on the immediate concern of the Emirate of Dubai, and specifically DPW and their standing as a prospective business partner.
Do we trust their ability to resist/thwart terrorist infiltration, or not? Human rights violations are disturbing where global associations are concerned, but the focus here is the prospect of facilitating another terrorist attack on the USA based on this port deal.
- “As I would not be a slave, so I would not be a master. This expresses my idea of democracy. Whatever differs from this, to the extent of the difference, is no democracy.” – Abraham Lincoln – August 1, 1858
February 27th, 2006 at 4:46 pmDeath in Dubai
Every year, scores of kidnapped children are smuggled from South Asia to the Middle East where they are maimed and killed, all for the amusement of the oil-rich rulers of kingdoms on the camel racing circuit
By Ron Gluckman/Dubai, UAE
ONE OF THE WORLD’S TOP JOCKEYS poses for a photo by the track. His smile says it all. Two front teeth are missing. Raji Shubir ranks with the youngest champions of the race course.
The six-year-old tyke has won scores of trophies. Yet he claims no secret skills. His success stems from two factors known well by the local press and punters. The tiny Indian child is the lightest on the track. And he’s always roped to his mount.
The races Raji runs are dangerous brushes with death in the camel pits of Dubai. No riches await young riders like Raji, who are stolen or bought from beggar parents in the slave markets of India, Sri Lanka and Pakistan. And fame is a foolish notion. Fans will never see Raji’s name in magazines, not even if he is trampled to death during a race or murdered afterwards by jealous child jockeys.
But die they do, kicked to death by camels or killed by rival baby riders. Such is the sad, short life in the fast lane for untold slave children shipped to the camel pits of the United Arab Emirates (UAE).
Raji, whose name was changed for this article, arrived in Dubai like hundreds of other children from the Asian subcontinent. He was sold by his pauper family to a servant of an Arab lord. Raji slipped through immigration, posing as the child of the Indian servant.
This is typical, according to authorities in India, who smashed several child-selling gangs during the early 1990s. The kids are sold for as little as US$3. Hundreds more are kidnapped, often toddlers as young as two.
UAE immigration and police turn a blind eye to the baby trade that serves the sordid sports of sheiks and sultans of the oil-rich emirates. Even tales of vicious brutality are brushed aside.
A five-year-old rider was beaten to death by other child jockeys last year. But neither he, nor his six-year-old assailants, were mentioned in media or police reports. “This happens often, too often,” says a local reporter, who requested anonymity for fear of reprisal.
Arab officials maintain the races are a vital link to the nation’s Bedouin birthright. “Our interest in camels is not because it is a good sport or because it is economically important to us, but because the camel is part of our heritage, part of the Arab environment,” said Sheik Mohammed bin Rashid, UAE Defense Minister, at the opening of the first International Camel Symposium in Dubai in February 1992.
Camels, called the “Ships of the Desert,” have an indisputable place of prominence in UAE history. A 7,000-year-old camel fossil drawing was found on an island near Abu Dhabi, capital of the seven-state confederation known as the United Arab Emirates.
However, modern camel racing resembles nothing from the past. These desert dwellers once raced camels at festivals and weddings, but they never rode so hard for so long. A camel must be trained for years to maintain the ungainly pace of a race. At full throttle, its legs all kick in different directions, a bizarre sort of bounding that is most abnormal for the animal.
And while camels were the mode of transport long before there was oil for the nation’s numerous Mercedes and Land Rovers, few racing camels actually originate in the UAE. Dubai, for instance, has an estimated 50,000 of the world’s 14 million camels, but only a fraction are born here. Thousands are imported every year from Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Africa. The arrivals of the camels are heralded by local headlines that refer to the “VICs” – Very Important Camels.
The costs are astronomical, even without counting perks or adding expenses. Champion camels can sell for US$500,00 or more.
The stakes are equally high. Betting is banned by the government, which, instead, showers winners with prizes and publicity. The races are covered live by television, and written up in the sports pages of the local dailies. The camels become celebrities. The jockeys, often as young as four, are never mentioned. Instead, praise is heaped upon the rich owners of both animals and riders, who claim prizes that include luxury cars, four-wheel-drive trucks, yachts and cash. Last season’s finale in April, 1992 featured 15,000 camels and prizes that included over 120 luxury cars and jeeps and US$1.5 million in cash.
Yet participants insist that prizes aren’t the appeal of camel racing. “It’s a big honor to win,” says Khamis Harib, who keeps five camels and has been racing for 20 years. “It’s very competitive. If you win, you get your name in the newspaper and on television.”
More important than all the cars he has won, Harib says, “If you win, everybody comes to kiss you on the nose.”
Long ago, Harib himself was a jockey. “I rode in races when I was five or six,” he says through a translator. “But these days, all of them are Indian and Pakistani. For the past three years or so. Before, they were all from Dubai.”
There are 15 racetracks throughout the UAE, but nowhere is the sport bigger than in Dubai, which claims two of the six main stadiums, as well as a modern Camel Hospital near the larger of the two, Ned Al Sheba. The season runs from October into April. Races begin at four kilometers, gradually increasing to reach the full 10 kilometers.
The training is grueling, lasting years. Camels are fed a rich diet most likely monitored better than yours or mine. Special factories prepare the grain, with magnet sweeps for metal, and vacuuming of any dirt. Racing camels munch high-nutrition trail mix consisting of milk, dates, honey, barley and clover, sometimes spiked with vitamins. Yet camels often vomit this breakfast before or after the race. Trainers consider that a good sign, indicating a camel that is ready to run.
Camels move at four different speeds, which all involve unique leg patterns. At its fastest, the camel has been clocked at 65 km/h, but not for long. Females can maintain a steady speed of 40 km/h for a full hour, which makes them the more competitive camel.
Fifteen to 20 camels usually participate in each race, but the field grows to six dozen at the close of the season.
Riding camels can be difficult, on or off the race course. The single hump of Arabian camels makes seating a serious quandary. When tourists take short treks, camels are usually kitted with a rope saddle. You try and maintain this perch while holding the rein with one hand and hanging onto the hump with the other.
The bouncing during a race is treacherous. There are stories of children not only being roped to the mounts, but attached with Velcro. It’s a dangerous sport. Slipping from the saddle can result in broken bones or being dragged to death.
“Maybe this is why they are using foreign children,” says one western worker. “You won’t see any Arab children out there.”
During random visits to the Dubai track, children from Pakistan, India, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka were all represented, but none from the UAE. The children ran in packs and behaved like standard street urchins. Many were charming as they posed for pictures in between races. All cowered from the trainers.
The tiny riders are kept to a painful pace. As soon as they finish one race, they are pulled from the camels, tossed in vans, and saddled up for the next, which starts within minutes. Jockeys wear the colors of their owners, jogging suits of blue, white, red and green, topped with tiny helmets or headgear. Many are equipped with small radios, so the trainers can signal every swing of the riding crop.
The children scream loudly at the starting line, shrieks of pure terror. This is part of the plan. Their startled cries excite the camels, pushing them to top speeds. Trainers say it is impossible to find Arab children who will scream with such fright at the camels.
As the camels lurch around the sandy track, a convoy of vans follow on a ring road. Video cameras catch the action, which is replayed on television screens mounted on poles in front of the viewing stands.
There are several segregated sections. Sheiks and sultans claim the luxury boxes in the middle, while common folk sit off to the right. The last section is for western guests and gawking tourists.
Tea and tiny sandwiches are served in an environment that reeks of colonialism, all the more startling since Dubai and the other emirates tossed out the British in the 1960s. Still, relations remain close. British nationals are the only visitors who can move with even a mockery of freedom about the UAE. All other visitors must obtain sponsors for visas, even the baby jockeys.
Yet, when child-selling gangs have been busted in India, the investigation never goes beyond the local buyers and sellers. Nobody questions how the kids can clear immigration so easily, when even the global jetset is grounded.
“We believe that the trade can only be stopped if the authorities in the receiving countries take steps to control the issuing of entry visas to children under 18,” says Anne Marie Sharman, a spokesperson for Anti-Slavery International, in London. She adds that the group has protested through British diplomatic channels and received assurances that UAE law prohibits children under the age of 11 from racing.
Indeed, Dubai officials, when queried for this story, responded with written statements that the tracks are closely monitored to ensure no children under the age of 11 are involved. However, no riders over the age of eight could be found during several spot checks of the track. “They become too heavy,” confided a trainer.
Middle East Watch, the human rights group, has been considering an investigation of violations in the UAE, including those reported in the camel pits. Anti-Slavery International worries about what happens when these children grow too old to race. Local reporters are afraid to probe that matter, as well.
“We’re not allowed to print news stories on the races, on what goes on behind the scenes,” says one local reporter, blaming strict state control of UAE media. “It’s simply too controversial. We can’t print anything critical of the government. It’s not allowed.”
Nor are race officials willing to lift the veil of secrecy for foreign reporters. Repeatedly denied access to the young riders, this reporter walked among them and was immediately accosted by a muscular guard. He twisted my camera gear and threatened arrest until a roll of film of the baby jockeys was surrendered – the first I’ve lost to a goon anywhere in over a decade of snooping.
“We’ve had problems before with reporters,” explains my guide, apologizing for the rudeness. Not of the races themselves, but my rough treatment. “They just wouldn’t understand in the West,” he adds.
But in Dubai, the situation is condoned at every level, including the government, from immigration authorities to police. It’s more than status quo, it’s what happens when society standards are set by the state. In a kingdom ruled by oil, where the media is muffled and everyone sets aside ethics to placate the sheiks and sultans.
Locals accept the races, even if they don’t participate. Arabs hold to the heritage line. Those of Indian descent, who might be expected to express outrage, especially since they outnumber Dubai natives by three to one, accept the situation as just another ugly condition of wealth. And westerners are noticeably nervous to broach the subject, especially when notepads are present.
“Besides, this may sound like bad taste,” says one western worker, “but the kids probably have a better life here than at home.”
Then, he waits for the taste of the statement to settle, and adds: “We all do.”
Ron Gluckman is an American reporter based in Hong Kong, who researched this story during a trip to Dubai and several other states of the United Arab Emirates in 1992. This report was soundly criticized by officials in Dubai and across the UAE, as was a widely-shown BBC documentary that followed this report. However, the facts in the story were never repudiated.
In 1993, the UAE announced a ban on child jockeys, but the law is widely ignored. In mid-1999, authorities rescued many children from the camel racing circuit, including one tyke who became a baby jockey after being smuggled in from Pakistan as a 5-year-old.
February 27th, 2006 at 5:10 pmHmmm…What was this forum’s topic again?
February 27th, 2006 at 5:20 pmResponse to Dennis #622 — I did not label “Muslims who disagree with terrorist acts as dihonest”, and I did not speakly deftly, I spoke plainly, by citing facts and experience.
Once again you have tended, perhaps inadvertently, to pull the discussion off track by inventing an issue of Islam Vs Christianity from my comments. In doing so, you have seem to betray the same deep seated sentiments of many Muslims towards the West as “Crusadersâ€. Christianity has nothing to do with it. Nevertheless, even if the “great Christian Commission” calls for Christians to win the world for Christ, it was not to be by anything similar to the “great Islamic Commission” of old (jihad) and what we have seen lately, where people yelling “AllÄhu Akbar†slice of the heads of innocent people or blow themselves up with explosives, just to kill as many innocent people as possible, even those actively working to improve their lives. This is not to say that all Muslims are guilty of this wrong, but it is wrong to discredit, dismiss or label anyone who talks about it, with regards to the motivations of those who are indeed guilty of the act.
There is no where in this world, not even Islamic countries, where Muslims enjoy more freedom than in places perceived as “Christian†or where Christians are numerically dominant. Even after 9/11, many Americas are risking their lives for the good of Muslims at home and abroad. Unfortunately, the same could not be said for Christians.
There you have it Dennis; you have succeeded in pulling me of track.
February 27th, 2006 at 5:20 pmNick, just got back in. Do I think Bush had a hand in this prior to last week? No, I’m sorry but this administration hasn’t been able to keep a secret from day 1. If now everyone on this board is claming that he has kept this quiet since October and has been able to keep thousands of congressional aides and staffers, along with the whole elected Legislature blind to this, man o’ man, if true, this man is a freakin’ genius. Put him in for 4 more years. As far as the initial review, I can only hope that the board acted as Congress mandated them to do. The additional 45 days seems to be a concilliatory gesture by Dubai Ports to help calm down the rhetoric.
I think that the discussions have been slamming Bush & Co. and never once has anyone said what the alternatives are. Would we have never said anything if P&O never sold, would the Chinese and the Danes and the others be left alone, status quo?
Do we federalize the ports, then hire the TSA scanners at $26,000 per year and trust them to scan for nuclear and/or other contraband entering our ports? The TSA has gone back to Congress for increases for training these people because there is no retention of help. My daughter was making the same money scanning and working the register at a local grocery store.
Whether federalizing or returning operational control to the local and/or state governments bring the same problems. Most of these Authorities are headed by politcal appointees, and as such may not be there after the next election. Every election hiring management doesn’t seem like a security minded decision.
What about the monies received by the local government that is facing a fiscal crisis, instead of upgrading or purchasing new equipment for the port, being spent to fix potholes, paying teachers, police, fire? No elected official in there right mind would stand before the electorate and claim the $100,000,000 sitting in the Port Authority account can’t be used for the offset.
Privatization is the best way out. The leasing entities have the operational and management knowledge to make the ports a profitable concern. If you want to enact laws regarding port security, fine, just make sure all ports are held to the same rules.
February 27th, 2006 at 5:38 pmSlowtrain – Sincere apologies, however I have no intention to “Hijack” or “Sidetrack” any issue. See my response to your comments below
1. The UAE was one of three countries in the world to recognize the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan.
Yes it was. You have to understand, in the Middle East UAE’s stance is that of Switzerland in the world i.e. neutral. They recognized the Taliban, however had little trade with the Taliban.
The strategic reasons why they recognized the Taliban is another topic altogether i.e. for example, there are hardworking families from Afghanistan in the UAE, who support their helpless families in Afghanistan. I am sure here in the US too we have Afghan families who would like to support their helpless relatives caught in the ruckus in Afghanistan – and you have the guts to point out the UAE recongized the Taliban. Why don’t you also say the US supported the TALIBAN and OBL and his croonies in the 1980’s – something the UAE has never done! Perfect example of “HALF TRUTHS” which Dennis has been pointing out. No country is perfect mate – however you have to LOOK at the corrections made going forward
2. The UAE has been a key transfer point for illegal shipments of nuclear components to Iran, North Korea and Libya.
Perhaps it was, well let me accept it was a key transfer point. However, once this practice was discovered, it has become now illegal in the UAE.
3. According to the FBI, money was transferred to the 9/11 hijackers through the UAE banking system.
You have to understand Dubai is the Financial center of the ME region. Transfer of monies thru the UAE banking system is equivalent to tracing monies from Warren Buffet to Wall street. Another example of Half truths – did all the monies ORIGINATE from the UAE or was it “transferred” thru the UAE using it’s banking system. Just the same way the monies were “transferred” into the US banking syste?
4. After 9/11, the Treasury Department reported that the UAE was not cooperating in efforts to track down Osama Bin Laden’s bank accounts.
Perhaps they want to keep it on their own. Do you think the US or any other country would give the monies back -once it was known OBL could not raise any legal claim to the monies.
Please take your comments on “Hijacking” somewhere else. It is pretty annoying, when all I am trying to do is bring some “awareness” and you keep implying the Hijack word.
Let me be clear – by “Hijacking” the 100 or fewer bloggers on this website – I will not achieve anything. However bringing an awareness to most of the folks on this blog on the UAE is something I really would like to do. Only because it is very evident, people in the US know little about countries in the ME region. Everything Arab and Muslim equates to bloody terrorism and I am so sick and tired of hearing it day in day out!
February 27th, 2006 at 5:43 pmPublished on Thursday, July 14, 2005 by TomDispatch.com
Sinister Paradise
Does the Road to the Future End at Dubai?
by Mike Davis
The narration begins: As your jet starts its descent, you are glued to your window. The scene below is astonishing: a 24-square-mile archipelago of coral-colored islands in the shape of an almost finished puzzle of the world. In the shallow green waters between continents, the sunken shapes of the Pyramids of Giza and the Roman Coliseum are clearly visible.
In the distance are three other large island groups configured as palms within crescents and planted with high-rise resorts, amusement parks, and a thousand mansions built on stilts over the water. The “Palms” are connected by causeways to a Miami-like beachfront chock-a-block full of mega-hotels, apartment high-rises and yacht marinas.
As the plane slowly banks toward the desert mainland, you gasp at the even more improbable vision ahead. Out of a chrome forest of skyscrapers (nearly a dozen taller than 1000 feet) soars a new Tower of Babel. It is an impossible one-half-mile high: the equivalent of the Empire State Building stacked on top of itself.
You are still rubbing your eyes with wonderment and disbelief when the plane lands and you are welcomed into an airport emporium where hundreds of shops seduce you with Gucci bags, Cartier watches, and one-kilogram bars of solid gold. You make a mental note to pick up some duty-free gold on your way out.
The hotel driver is waiting for you in a Rolls Royce Silver Seraph. Friends have recommended the Armani Hotel in the 160-story tower or the seven-star hotel with an atrium so huge that the Statue of Liberty would fit inside, but instead you have opted to fulfill a childhood fantasy. You always have wanted to be Captain Nemo in Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea.
Your jellyfish-shaped hotel is, in fact, exactly 66 feet below the sea surface. Each of its 220 luxury suites has clear Plexiglas walls that provide spectacular views of passing mermaids as well as the hotel’s famed “underwater fireworks:” a hallucinatory exhibition of “water bubbles, swirled sand, and carefully deployed lighting.” Any initial anxiety about the safety of your sea-bottom resort is dispelled by the smiling concierge. The structure has a multi-level failsafe security system, he reassures you, that includes protection against terrorist submarines as well as missiles and aircraft.
Although you have an important business meeting at the Internet City free-trade zone with clients from Hyderabad and Taipei, you have arrived a day early to treat yourself to one of the famed adventures at the Restless Planet dinosaur theme park. Indeed, after a soothing night’s sleep under the sea, you are aboard a monorail headed for a Jurassic jungle. Your expedition encounters some peacefully grazing Apatosaurs, but you are soon attacked by a nasty gang of velociraptors. The animatronic beasts are so flawlessly lifelike — in fact, they have been designed by experts from the British Museum of Natural History — that you shriek in fear and delight.
With your adrenaline pumped-up by this close call, you polish off the afternoon with some thrilling snowboarding on the local black diamond run. Next door is the Mall of Arabia, the world’s largest mall — the altar of the city’s famed Shopping Festival that attracts 5 million frenetic consumers each January — but you postpone the temptation.
Instead, you indulge in some expensive Thai fusion cuisine at a restaurant near Elite Towers that was recommended by your hotel driver. The gorgeous Russian blond at the bar keeps staring at you with almost vampire-like hunger, and you wonder whether the local sin scene is as extravagant as the shopping…..
The Sequel to Blade Runner?
Welcome to paradise. But where are you? Is this a new science-fiction novel from Margaret Atwood, the sequel to Blade Runner, or Donald Trump tripping on acid?
No, it is the Persian Gulf city-state of Dubai in 2010.
After Shanghai (current population: 15 million), Dubai (current population: 1.5 million) is the world’s biggest building site: an emerging dreamworld of conspicuous consumption and what locals dub “supreme lifestyles.”
Dozens of outlandish mega-projects — including “The World” (an artificial archipelago), Burj Dubai (the Earth’s tallest building), the Hydropolis (that underwater luxury hotel, the Restless Planet theme park, a domed ski resort perpetually maintained in 40C heat, and The Mall of Arabia, a hyper-mall — are actually under construction or will soon leave the drawing boards.
Under the enlightened despotism of its Crown Prince and CEO, 56-year-old Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid al-Maktoum, the Rhode-Island-sized Emirate of Dubai has become the new global icon of imagineered urbanism. Although often compared to Las Vegas, Orlando, Hong Kong or Singapore, the sheikhdom is more like their collective summation: a pastiche of the big, the bad, and the ugly. It is not just a hybrid but a chimera: the offspring of the lascivious coupling of the cyclopean fantasies of Barnum, Eiffel, Disney, Spielberg, Jerde, Wynn, and Skidmore, Owings & Merrill.
Multibillionaire Sheik Mo — as he’s affectionately known to Dubai’s expats — not only collects thoroughbreds (the world’s largest stable) and super-yachts (the 525-foot-long Project Platinum which has its own submarine and flight deck), but also seems to have imprinted Robert Venturi’s cult Learning from Las Vegas in the same way that more pious Moslems have memorized The Quran. (One of the Sheik’s proudest achievements, by the way, is to have introduced gated communities to Arabia.)
Under his leadership, the coastal desert has become a huge circuit board into which the elite of transnational engineering firms and retail developers are invited to plug in high-tech clusters, entertainment zones, artificial islands, “cities within cities” — whatever is the latest fad in urban capitalism. The same phantasmagoric but generic Lego blocks, of course, can be found in dozens of aspiring cities these days, but Sheik Mo has a distinctive and inviolable criterion: Everything must be “world class,” by which he means number one in The Guinness Book of Records. Thus Dubai is building the world’s largest theme park, the biggest mall, the highest building, and the first sunken hotel among other firsts.
Sheikh Mo’s architectural megalomania, although reminiscent of Albert Speer and his patron, is not irrational. Having “learned from Las Vegas,” he understands that if Dubai wants to become the luxury-consumer paradise of the Middle East and South Asia (its officially defined “home market” of 1.6 billion), it must ceaselessly strive for excess.
From this standpoint, the city’s monstrous caricature of futurism is simply shrewd marketing. Its owners love it when designers and urbanists anoint it as the cutting edge. Architect George Katodrytis wrote: “Dubai may be considered the emerging prototype for the 21st century: prosthetic and nomadic oases presented as isolated cities that extend out over the land and sea.”
Moreover, Dubai can count on the peak-oil epoch to cover the costs of these hyperboles. Each time you spent $40 to fill your tank, you are helping to irrigate Sheik Mo’s oasis.
Precisely because Dubai is rapidly pumping the last of its own modest endowment of oil, it has opted to become the postmodern “city of nets” — as Bertolt Brecht called his fictional boomtown of Mahoganny — where the super-profits of oil are to be reinvested in Arabia’s one truly inexhaustible natural resource: sand. (Indeed mega-projects in Dubai are usually measured by volumes of sand moved: 1 billion cubic feet in the case of The World.)
Al-Qaeda and the war on terrorism deserve some of the credit for this boom. Since 9/11, many Middle Eastern investors, fearing possible lawsuits or sanctions, have pulled up stakes in the West. According Salman bin Dasmal of Dubai Holdings, the Saudis alone have repatriated one-third of their trillion-dollar overseas portfolio. The sheikhs are bringing it back home, and last year, the Saudis were believed to have ploughed at least $7 billion into Dubai’s sand castles.
Another aqueduct of oil wealth flows from the neighboring Emirate of Abu Dhabi. The two statelets dominate the United Arab Emirates — a quasi-nation thrown together by Sheik Mo’s father and the ruler of Abu Dhabi in 1971 to fend off threats from Marxists in Oman and, later, Islamists in Iran.
Today, Dubai’s security is guaranteed by the American nuclear super-carriers usually berthed at the port of Jebel Ali. Indeed, the city-state aggressively promotes itself as the ultimate elite “Green Zone” in an increasingly turbulent and dangerous region.
Meanwhile, as increasing numbers of experts warn that the age of cheap oil is passing, the al-Maktoum clan can count on a torrent of nervous oil revenue seeking a friendly and stable haven. When outsiders question the sustainability of the current boom, Dubai officials point out that their new Mecca is being built on equity, not debt.
Since a watershed 2003 decision to open unrestricted freehold ownership to foreigners, wealthy Europeans and Asians have rushed to become part of the Dubai bubble. A beachfront in one of the “Palms” or, better yet, a private island in “The World” now has the cachet of St. Tropez or Grand Cayman. The old colonial masters lead the pack as Brit expats and investors have become the biggest cheerleaders for Sheikh Mo’s dreamworld: David Beckham owns a beach and Rod Stewart, an island (rumored, in fact, to be named Great Britain).
An Indentured, Invisible Majority
The utopian character of Dubai, it must be emphasized, is no mirage. Even more than Singapore or Texas, the city-state really is an apotheosis of neo-liberal values.
On the one hand, it provides investors with a comfortable, Western-style, property-rights regime, including freehold ownership, that is unique in the region. Included with the package is a broad tolerance of booze, recreational drugs, halter tops, and other foreign vices formally proscribed by Islamic law. (When expats extol Dubai’s unique “openness,” it is this freedom to carouse — not to organize unions or publish critical opinions — that they are usually praising.)
On the other hand, Dubai, together with its emirate neighbors, has achieved the state of the art in the disenfranchisement of labor. Trade unions, strikes, and agitators are illegal, and 99% of the private-sector workforce are easily deportable non-citizens. Indeed, the deep thinkers at the American Enterprise and Cato institutes must salivate when they contemplate the system of classes and entitlements in Dubai.
At the top of the social pyramid, of course, are the al-Maktoums and their cousins who own every lucrative grain of sand in the sheikhdom. Next, the native 15% percent of the population — whose uniform of privilege is the traditional white dishdash — constitutes a leisure class whose obedience to the dynasty is subsidized by income transfers, free education, and government jobs. A step below, are the pampered mercenaries: 150,000-or-so British ex-pats, along with other European, Lebanese, and Indian managers and professionals, who take full advantage of their air-conditioned affluence and two-months of overseas leave every summer.
However, South Asian contract laborers, legally bound to a single employer and subject to totalitarian social controls, make up the great mass of the population. Dubai lifestyles are attended by vast numbers of Filipina, Sri Lankan, and Indian maids, while the building boom is carried on the shoulders of an army of poorly paid Pakistanis and Indians working twelve-hour shifts, six and half days a week, in the blast-furnace desert heat.
Dubai, like its neighbors, flouts ILO labor regulations and refuses to adopt the international Migrant Workers Convention. Human Rights Watch in 2003 accused the Emirates of building prosperity on “forced labor.” Indeed, as the British Independent recently emphasized in an exposé on Dubai, “The labour market closely resembles the old indentured labour system brought to Dubai by its former colonial master, the British.”
“Like their impoverished forefathers,” the paper continued, “today’s Asian workers are forced to sign themselves into virtual slavery for years when they arrive in the United Arab Emirates. Their rights disappear at the airport where recruitment agents confiscate their passports and visas to control them”
In addition to being super-exploited, Dubai’s helots are also expected to be generally invisible. The bleak work camps on the city’s outskirts, where laborers are crowded six, eight, even twelve to a room, are not part of the official tourist image of a city of luxury without slums or poverty. In a recent visit, even the United Arab Emirate’s Minister of Labor was reported to be profoundly shocked by the squalid, almost unbearable conditions in a remote work camp maintained by a large construction contractor. Yet when the laborers attempted to form a union to win back pay and improve living conditions, they were promptly arrested.
Paradise, however, has even darker corners than the indentured-labor camps. The Russian girls at the elegant hotel bar are but the glamorous facade of a sinister sex trade built on kidnapping, slavery, and sadistic violence. Dubai — any of the hipper guidebooks will advise — is the “Bangkok of the Middle East,” populated with thousands of Russian, Armenian, Indian, and Iranian prostitutes controlled by various transnational gangs and mafias. (The city, conveniently, is also a world center for money laundering, with an estimated 10% of real estate changing hands in cash-only transactions.)
Sheikh Mo and his thoroughly modern regime, of course, disavow any connection to this burgeoning red-light industry, although insiders know that the whores are essential to keeping all those five-star hotels full of European and Arab businessmen. But the Sheikh himself has been personally linked to Dubai’s most scandalous vice: child slavery.
Camel racing is a local passion in the Emirates, and in June 2004, Anti-Slavery International released photos of pre-school-age child jockeys in Dubai. HBO Real Sports simultaneously reported that the jockeys, “some as young as three — are kidnapped or sold into slavery, starved, beaten and raped.” Some of the tiny jockeys were shown at a Dubai camel track owned by the al-Maktoums.
The Lexington Herald-Leader — a newspaper in Kentucky, where Sheikh Mo has two large thoroughbred farms — confirmed parts of the HBO story in an interview with a local blacksmith who had worked for the crown prince in Dubai. He reported seeing “little bitty kids” as young as four astride racing camels. Camel trainers claim that the children’s shrieks of terror spur the animals to a faster effort.
Sheikh Mo, who fancies himself a prophet of modernization, likes to impress visitors with clever proverbs and heavy aphorisms. A favorite: “Anyone who does not attempt to change the future will stay a captive of the past.”
Yet the future that he is building in Dubai — to the applause of billionaires and transnational corporations everywhere — looks like nothing so much as a nightmare of the past: Walt Disney meets Albert Speer on the shores of Araby.
Mike Davis is the author of Dead Cities
http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0714-31.htm
February 27th, 2006 at 5:49 pmResponse to WMDeezNuts
We cant visit UAE. Its on the US governments advisory of unsafe nations for its citizens to visit.
” Yet you have world class American sports personalities from Tiger woods to Andre Agassi, Lindsay Davenport, Williams sisters all playing in sporting events in the UAE.
http://www.dubaitennischampionships.com/
Yet I grew up going to a British run convent run by British, American and Italian nuns since I was 5 years old.
Yet – all the Americans who work at IBM, Microsoft, Haliburton AND tons of other American companies in the UAE continue to work and live there for decades.
February 27th, 2006 at 5:51 pmSteve -
So the bottom line is, working with DPW may not increase the risk, or you are saying we need to encourage the security efforts in the private sector to compensate for what may be a perceived increase in risk?
Maybe we should be doing that anyway.
Good stuff. I am really looking forward to the way this is questioned and explained once the review begins. At the very least I am getting educated on this and I will be watching more c-span. :o/
I’ll check back for a reply later. Thanks for the breakdown and honest opinion(s).
Have a good night!
February 27th, 2006 at 6:21 pmRoshan it appears you were one of the lucky 5 year olds in Dubai that wasn’t forced to ride camels as a human slave and risk your life or beaten to death by rival slaves or used in a Dubai slave brothel. Maybe you should go out and buy a lottery ticket and see if your luck holds out.
February 27th, 2006 at 6:22 pmNick,
I don’t honestly think the risk is any greater with Dubai Ports. I truly think that all of the current lease holders are lax in regard to security measures, much the way this whole country was prior to 9/11. We have to learn to stop pointing fingers and looking for monsters under the bed. Start making laws that actually provide for security and not just a knee jerk reaction. The titular head of our country isn’t the problem. It’s the ever flying rhetoric from both sides trying to justify their existence. The scary part is that the 2 parties are more alike, than they are different.
As you can see from some of the above blogs want to point fingers at a country emerging into a world market. Is camel racing enough to discredit a whole race of people. We don’t have to look too far back to see some of our blunders, yet the above comments make us feel better.
February 27th, 2006 at 6:32 pmSteve you obviously condone the human slavery existing in Dubai. You probably don’t have a problem with Dubai’s money laundering and terrorist dealings either. Infact, Steve you sound like one heck of a guy. I just wouldn’t want to leave you alone with any children…or women…or anyone else…
February 27th, 2006 at 6:37 pm“…women were being trafficked into forced prostitution in Dubai”
Kyrgyz security forces have removed more than 60 women from a plane due to fly from the city of Osh to the United Arab Emirates. The Kyrgyz authorities claim that they have evidence that the women were being trafficked into forced prostitution in Dubai and other cities in the UAE. The women were mainly from Uzbekistan and it is believed that stringent checks carried out when women fly from that country to the Gulf have lead to traffickers taking them to Kyrgystan first. Osh may have become a hub city for women being trafficked to the UAE. Many of the women aged between 17 and 38 had been promised jobs as waitresses, but others knew they were going to the sex trade. One woman said “I knew that I would be making money there, perhaps through sex work, but I don’t have any choice. I am an orphan, with no job and no means to survive.†Sadly she may have found herself in conditions of slavery and earning little or no money for herself.
Despite clear evidence that women and children are being trafficked into the UAE, the authorities there continue to deny the problem and refuse to take further action. In reply to an ongoing campaign from Business Travellers against Human Trafficking, the Dubai authorities decided to make no changes to protect the victims of human trafficking or to break the link between trafficked women and children and local hotels. The campaign continues.
http://www.protest4.com/
February 27th, 2006 at 6:41 pmChange your name to whatever suits you,
Did you see a condoning of human slavery, money laundering or terrorist in my comments? If so the ink blots must have you crapping in your pants with fear. They seem to be addressing their problems much like we do, the war on drugs, controlling the borders, universal health care.. ………….. Make some more constructive advice and maybe we’ll move you up from a simian.
February 27th, 2006 at 6:44 pmSteve, you support a corrupt regime (Dubai) that promotes human slavery among other crimes against humanity, terrorism, money laundering, drug trafficking, etc. Apparently you can’t see anything beyond the money. I hope you bring alot of ice because it’ll be awful hot where you’re going.
February 27th, 2006 at 6:51 pmDubai and The Bush Dynasty Deal with the Devil
The Bush family has always had a deal with the devil.
As Kevin Phillips, the man who originally crafted the GOP “Southern Strategy” for Nixon, told BuzzFlash, the Bush family only excels at two things: corporate cronyism and stealing elections.
In the introduction to our 2004 interview with Philips about his book “American Dynasty: Aristocracy, Fortune and the Politics of Deceit in the House of Bush,” we wrote:
“Few have looked at the facts of the family’s rise, but just as important, commentators have neglected the thread — not the mere occasion — of special interests, biases, scandals (especially those related to arms dealing), and blatant business cronyism” Phillips writes in his preface. “The evidence that accumulates over four generations [of the Bush family dynasty] is really quite damning.”
“Three generations of immersion in the culture of secrecy…deceit and disinformation have become Bush political hallmarks,” Phillips notes.
Entitlement, elitism, privilege, secrecy, mediocrity, corruption, financial cronyism, bailouts of family failures by the taxpayers — these are some of the true characteristics of the Bush Dynasty, according to Phillips.
To Phillips, however, the greatest threat to America posed by the Bush dynasty is not its inherent unfitness to rule. What most offends and angers Phillips is the threat that the imposition of the Bush dynasty on America poses to democracy itself. The American rebellion in 1776 represented the creation of a nation built on the foundations of a government elected by the people, not determined by the restoration to power of corrupt bloodlines.
So it came as no surprise to BuzzFlash that the secret, labyrinthian corporate cronyism of the Bush Dynasty would ultimately unfold in a betrayal as bold as turning over our port security to a nation that has enjoyed close ties with Osama bin Laden and Al-Qaeda. After all, Bush went to war with Iraq when it was Saudi Arabians who were the primary financiers of Al-Qaeda and 15 of the 19 hijackers on 9/11 were Saudi, and the Wahabi religious faction nurtured by the Saudi royal family is the leading Islamic promoter of terrorism against the West.
It has nothing to do with Dubai being an Arab nation (that would be racist); it has everything to do with Dubai (as part of the United Arab Emirates) cozying up to the terrorists who threaten us in order to buy them off and prevent an overthrow of their corrupt sheikdom, as is the case in Saudi Arabia.
The treasonous port deal brings into direct conflict the primary domestic and foreign agendas of the Bush Administration. The former “faith-based” coordinator didn’t call the White House staff the Mayberry Machiavellis for nothing.
First, you have the Rovian agenda of using the “appearance” of “a war on terrorism” to instill fear in the American Public and using that primal emotion to secure Republican victories in the voting booth (along with voter suppression and stealing an election or two, just ask Al Gore). Rove is a master of manipulating “perception,” not accomplishing national security goals. In fact, a feeling of national insecurity better serves his political goals than implementing measures to assure our safety as a nation. In short, the “war on terrorism” is a political construct.
Yes, there are terrorists out there, and we should protect ourselves against them, but that is precisely not what the Bush Administration is doing. They are as incompetent in fighting terrorism as they were in dealing with Hurricane Katrina. In fact, their policies increase the risk of terrorism and the number of terrorists.
While Rove played the domestic fear fiddle, Cheney used foreign policy to advance big oil and financial interests in the Middle East. The big oil/big banking/big business agenda has a lot of leeway for friendly relationships with nations that condone or overlook the terrorists in their midst. In fact, as we and others have pointed out, the Saudi Arabian and Dubai (United Arab Emirates) royal families have paid “insurance money” to terrorists in order to prevent themselves from being overthrown.
What the Dubai port deal represents is the seedy, treacherous, greedy, cynical underside of the Bush dynasty. They are experts at playing the American public for suckers while they and the Republican Party — which is really their Royal Treasury (along with private firms like Halliburton and the Carlyle Group) — gorge themselves at the trough of big oil and multinational corporate sellouts.
The Dubai arrangement is perfectly reasonable to Bush: it’s about the money. And as Kevin Phillips might tell you, for the Bush Dynasty, money and corporate cronyism trump national security any old day.
What you have here is a collision in the goals of our two real co-presidents: Rove for domestic affairs and Cheney for international affairs.
Maybe it was because Cheney was distracted with his big Saturday: a couple of beers, shooting some quail, shooting a man, followed by a “hold off the hangover” cocktail at the Armstrong ranch, an early night’s sleep and desperate calls to Mary Matalin to bail him out.
Or maybe it is because Rove was distracted by a still possible indictment for betraying the nation by being involved in the outing of a CIA operative specializing in the tracking of illicit weapons of mass destruction.
But whatever the cause of the distraction, it’s clear that the fault line of the insane clown posse has temporarily been exposed for all to see, even the Kool-Aid drinking rubber stamp Republican Congress.
It is like the San Andreas fault plates reaching the point of tension that they have to snap and cause an earthquake.
But remember that after an earthquake, things settle back to “normal” after awhile.
That’s what the Bush Dynasty is counting on.
Of course, it’s only our national security that is at stake.
A BUZZFLASH EDITORIAL
http://www.buzzflash.com/editorial/06/02/edi06016.html
February 27th, 2006 at 7:03 pmChange your name to whatever suits you,
I guess because I’ve tried to offer alternatives, I must support a terrorist
February 27th, 2006 at 7:25 pmI guess because I don’t see evil behind every door, I must support a terrorist.
I disagree with your racial statements, I must support a terrorist.
I think that they have a right to have any type of government that works for them, I must support a terrorist.
I realize that certain human rights violations haven’t been addressed as quickly as we might like, I must support a terrorist.
I think that they have big cojones for being allied with the US, living in that region, I must support a terrorist.
If you think the money laundering comes close to the amount the Columbian cartel washed through our reputable US Banks, I must support a terrorist.
Migrant farm workers living in cardboard shacks in the southwestern US, I must support a terrorist.
I disagree with your racial statements
Comment by Steve — February 27, 2006 @ 7:25 pm
Poor Steve, a loyal Bush supporter who’s been a racist for years just loves finding an excuse to call someone else racist. Steve, are you jealous that Condaleeza gets to spend all that quality time with Bush?
A Gay Prostitute Inside Bush’s Inner Media Circle
Wednesday, 16 February 2005, 11:32 am
Article: Alastair Thompson
A Gay Prostitute Inside Bush’s Inner Media Circle
Scoop Links: A Jeff Gannon (James D. Guckert) Primer
Compiled By Scoop’s Alastair Thompson
In the past few days one of the most bizarre stories in US political media ever emerged via the blogosphere, and has since spilled out into the mainstream.
While on first blush the story appears a wee bit prurient – thanks to the involvement of prostitution and homosexuality themes – the central thesis of the story does involve some serious issues of journalistic ethics.
Jeff Gannon, a reporter from an extremely partisan web based news service operating under a false name, is working in the White House, and is even selected to ask questions of the President himself at his January 26th press conference.
This same reporter is discovered brazenly boasting about his access to classified CIA documents related to outed CIA undercover agent Valerie Plame, the wife of Ambassador Joseph Wilson who publicly exposed the Vice President’s knowledge of the fact that the Niger yellow-cake documents used to justify the Iraq war were forgeries.
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0502/S00178.htm
February 27th, 2006 at 7:40 pmComment to DubaiSlaveTraders # 639. Yup I have been quite lucky in my life mate. Including being lucky enough to have this debate with you.
Also lucky/blessed enough to have lived in six countries, including the UAE and the US – which enables me to give you some honest perspective of life in the UAE.
By no means will I claim, life in the UAE is better than the US. However neither will I say life in the US is better than the UAE. Both sides have positive and negative traits. If there is child jockeys in the UAE, there is child pornography and prostitution and broken families in the US.
DubaiSlaveTraders – PLEASE do not paint a foolish picture of yourself by highlighting ONLY the negative traits of a country, thereby presuming the worst – and accepting this is all that happens in the UAE.
If you are ever LUCKY enough to visit the UAE – then you will know what I am talking about here.
February 27th, 2006 at 7:46 pmSteve, I agree with your comment 101%.
Really – people have to open up and find out for themselves what is right and wrong, do not always listen to politicians, they always have an agenda.
It’s really sad – I mean the level of ignorance amongst most people on this site.
What is even worse is the hatred/dislike of Bush has now become blind hatred/dislike – to the extent that, even if he says or does something positive, it’s clouded in negativity.
February 27th, 2006 at 7:52 pmWell then. In this case, since America is hesitating to let the UAE run American ports, I think the UAE should ask the Americans to remove their army bases from UAE land. Its a simple concept. An eye for an eye.
February 27th, 2006 at 7:54 pmChange your name to whatever suits you,
Again slash and burn. If someones disagrees with you or calls you out on your moronic statements, slash and burn.
Why not try contributing to the human race by offering some real advice or suggestions instead of being the clown at the back of the room snickering because the teacher said penis.
February 27th, 2006 at 7:56 pmSteve, everyone knows that Bush supporters like you are the only real racists in the US. You guys sure are desperate to pass that label onto liberals.
“New Orleans Chaos Exposes Bush’s Racism” – Rapper – 05/09/2005
Rapper Kanye West has surprised viewers of an NBC benefit concert for Hurricane Katrina victims by accusing President George W Bush of racism.
Rapper Kanye West has surprised viewers of an NBC benefit concert for Hurricane Katrina victims by accusing President George W Bush of racism.
“George Bush doesn’t care about black people,” West said from New York during the show aired live on the US East Coast on NBC, MSNBC, CNBC and Pax, just before cameras cut away to comedian Chris Tucker.
West, who is black, suggested moments earlier that delays in providing relief to survivors of the hurricane that hit the US Gulf Coast on Monday and flooded New Orleans were deliberate.
He said America was set up “to help the poor, the black people, the less well-off, as slow as possible”.
The Grammy award-winning singer, who was paired with comedian Mike Myers, also said in what NBC described as unscripted remarks, “We already realised a lot of the people that could help are at war right now, fighting another war, and they’ve given them permission to go down and shoot us.”
He was apparently referring to shoot-on-sight orders issued to National Guard troops to halt violence and looting in New Orleans.
West also criticised the media’s portrayal of blacks, saying: “I hate the way they portray us in the media. If you see a black family, it says they’re looting. See a white family, it says they’re looking for food.”
In a statement, NBC said, “Kanye West departed from the scripted comments that were prepared for him, and his opinions in no way represent the views of the networks.
“It would be most unfortunate,” the statement continued, “if the efforts of the artists who participated tonight and the generosity of millions of Americans who are helping those in need are overshadowed by one person’s opinion.”
The program, hosted by Matt Lauer of NBC News, urged viewers to donate to the American Red Cross Disaster Relief Fund.
It included 18 presenters, and featured performances by New Orleans natives Harry Connick Jr and Wynton Marsalis, as well as Louisiana native Tim McGraw and Faith Hill of Mississippi, which was also struck by Katrina.
-Reuters
http://www.abc.net.au/dig/stories/s1453009.htm
February 27th, 2006 at 8:52 pmSo, is this article a way to improve the security of the ports? No, of course not. Just through out the racist label when you have nothing constructive to say. Get some other liberal yahoos to agree with you and hijack the post to where you feel comfortable. Don’t offer advice, smear.
February 27th, 2006 at 9:00 pmCommander-In-Thief
Ed Naha: ‘Bush: Any pout in a storm’
Posted on Monday, February 27 @ 10:26:50 EST
Ed Naha
After five years of sitting in the Oval Office, George W. Bush has finally found something he’s good at…pouting.
Last week, when Congress reacted with outrage at the Bush Administration’s allowing a company largely owned by the United Arab Emirates to take over eight American ports and threatened legislation to kill the deal, Bush collared every journalist within reach on Air Farce One to declare: “They ought to listen to what I have to say about this. They ought to look at the facts, and understand the consequences of what they’re going to do. But if they pass a law, I’ll deal with it…with a veto.” Awwww. Poor widdle monkster.
He also quipped: “I want those who are questioning it to step up and explain why all of a sudden a Middle Eastern company is held to a different standard that a Great British (?) company. I’m trying to conduct foreign policy now by saying to people of the world, we’ll treat you fairly.”
Well, for one thing, Sparky, the British outfit that previously ran the ports was a publically traded company, not an extension of a foreign government.
When ABC’s Jessica Yellin asked him about the political ramifications of the deal, Bush sniffed: “I don’t view it as a political fight. So do you want to start your question over? I view it as good policy.” So there! I’m taking my toys and going home, you poopy-heads!
Of course, a day later, the White House revealed that our pouting popinjay wasn’t even AWARE of the deal until last week after the secretive 12 member Committee on Foreign Investments in the United States, CFIUS, had already signed off on it.
Headed by the Treasury Department, CFIUS has been quietly selling off American assets to foreign corporations with little or no Congressional oversight. In fact they’ve blocked only one out of 1,500 takeovers. They gave IBM’s PC business to China. They sold off strategic underwater cable assets for pennies on the dollar to an Indian government-owned company connected with India’s military.
And, if queried about their actions, CFIUS members can claim that they can’t reveal details because they’re all “classified.”
So classified that, this past week, when asked for his opinion, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld replied: “I’m reluctant to make judgments based on a minimal amount of information I have, because I just heard about this over the weekend.”
In fact, not only were Bush and Rummy in the dark, but Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff and even Treasury Secretary John Snow didn’t know about the deal until after it was finalized. Most of Congress found out via the media. Can you say “asleep at the wheel?”
And it gets better. According to “The New York Daily News,” because this purchase of American assets is by a foreign government, a 1993 congressional measure requires a 45-day probe because the deal “could result in control of a person engaged in interstate commerce in the U.S. that could effect the national security of the U.S.” BushCo’s probe lasted 23 days. Pretty zippy, eh?
Also, according to “The Daily News,” Treasury Secretary John Snow, whose agency heads the panel that signed off on the $6.8 billion Dubai Ports World, was chairman of the CSX rail firm that sold its own international port operation to DP World for $1.5 billion in 2004, the year after Snow joined BushCo.
And Davis Sanborn, who runs DP’s European and Latin American operations was picked by Bush, last month, to head the U.S. Maritime Administration. (Can you see any cronyism here? I sure can’t!)
And the UAE tossed $100 million our way to aid Katrina victims, shortly before negotiations began allowing DP World to buy out the former U.S. port-runners, U.K.-based Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company.
Ummmm.
And, as a bonus, BushCo. cut a deal with DP World stating that they don’t even have to keep any records about the business they do on American soil! Wow! Just think of the money they’ll save on book-keepers! Is this a great country or what!
After trying unsuccessfully to play his Islamophobia card and seeing that he was being accused by just about everybody of threatening our national security, Bush tried to play “Dubya Knows Best” with the nation. Dropping such bon mots as: “The more people learn about the transaction that has been scrutinized and approved by my government, the more they’ll be comforted that our ports will be secure.”
I don’t know about you, but I’m not comforted by Bush calling OUR government, HIS government.
Try this one on for size: “This wouldn’t be going forward if we weren’t certain our ports would be secure.” This from a man who has done virtually nothing to secure our ports wherein only 4% of current cargo containers are actually screened.
And, then, there’s this masterpiece: “And so people don’t need to worry about security. The deal wouldn’t go forward if we were concerned about the security for the United States of America.” I actually wish they were concerned about our security…and grammar.
Bush’s bromides prompted CNN’s Lou Dobbs to declare: “Bush said he wanted those who are critical and questioning of this port deal to ’step up and explain why.’ (The UAE should be treated differently than a U.K. company.)
“Well, Mr. President, to equate any country to your principal partner in the coalition ignores that special relationship this country’s enjoyed with the United Kingdom for decades and decades. Dubai Ports World is a UAE government controlled and owned company. The money used to fund the 9/11 attacks, most of it, was sent to the hijackers through the UAE banking system. The UAE stonewalled U.S. efforts to track al Qaeda bank accounts after 9/11. In addition, the Emirates does not recognize Israel. And the UAE was a transfer point for shipments of nuclear technology to Iran, North Korea and Libya. And if those aren’t good enough reasons, I would just suggest I’m at a complete loss to offer what might be considered good reasons.”
Oh, yeah, the UAE were big fans of both the Taliban and bin-Laden, too. And their ports have a reputation as a smuggler’s Heaven on earth, used by arms traffickers, drug dealers and terrorists, apparently including the assassins of Lebanon’s ex-Prime Minister Rafik Hariri. Oops.
On the plus side, Bush has proven himself a uniter not a divider, bringing together such diverse folks as Dennis Hastert, Bill Frist, Hillary Clinton and Carl Levin to fight the deal. As “The Daily News” put it: “That giant sucking sound you hear is one really big mob of congressional Republicans evacuating their side of the aisle en masse and galloping over to agree with their left-coast colleagues as fast as they possibly can that the summary sell-off of U.S. port operations to Dubai is your basic bad idea. Why, this whole heretofore sorrowfully rent nation has suddenly just come together as one.”
At a hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee Thursday, Sen. Carl Levin, the ranking Democrat, asked Deputy Treasury Secretary Robert Kimmitt if he was aware of the 9-11 commission’s assertion that the United Arab Emirates represents “a persistent counterterrorism problem” for the United States.
Kimmitt replied that administration figures involved in the decision to approve the deal “looked very carefully” at information from the intelligence community.
“Any time a foreign-government controlled company comes in,” Kimmitt said, “the intelligence assessment is of both the country and the company.”
“Just raise your hand if anybody talked to the 9-11 commission,” Levin told the administration representatives at the witness table. Nobody raised a hand.
(Bush’s own State Department says Americans in the UAE “should exercise a high level of security awareness.”)
And the hits just came on coming.
Rep. Peter King of New York, the Republican chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, said the conditions, if finalized, are evidence the administration was concerned about security. “There is a very serious question as to why the (company’s) records are not going to be maintained on American soil subject to American jurisdiction,” King said.
New Jersey’s Democratic governor, Jon Corzine, whose port of Newark is part of the deal, has filed suit. “We were told that the president didn’t know about the sale until after it was approved. For many Americans, regardless of party, this lack of disciplined review is unacceptable,” Corzine declared.
Republican Rep. Mark Foley of Florida called Bush politically tone-deaf. “Of all the bills to veto, if he lays down this gauntlet, he’ll probably have 350 members of the House ready to accept that challenge.”
Curt Weldon, a Republican congressman from Pennsylvania, stated: “This White House did nothing to communicate with Congress on this deal. With all the concern about port security going on in America right now, at a minimum leaders of both parties should have been brought in from both houses and had this deal reviewed. That didn’t occur. We’re not going to stand for that.”
Here’s the entire text of a letter sent to Blinky: “In regards to selling American ports to the United Arab Emirates, not just NO — but HELL NO!” wrote Republican Rep. Sue Myrick of North Carolina. (No hugs and kisses before the signature, either.)
Homeland Security’s chair King and New York Dem. Chuck Schumer are introducing emergency legislation to stop the port deal. Schumer predicted the legislation would go through Congress “like a hot knife through butter” this week.
“I will fight harder than ever for this legislation, and if it is vetoed I will fight as hard as I can to override it,” said King.
Uber-Republican Bill Frist declared: “If the administration cannot delay the process, I plan on introducing legislation to ensure that the deal is place on hold until this decision gets a more thorough review.”
“The fact that you are putting a company in place that could already be infiltrated by al Qaida is a silly thing to do,” said Mike Scheuer, who headed the CIA’s bin Laden unit until 1999.
The raging storm prompted this exchange between Lou Dobbs and Frank Gaffney, author and President of the Center for Security Policy:
DOBBS: “Well let’s not be oblique about it. But the fact is that two terrorists from 9/11 originated from the United Arab Emirates. Funding for the terrorists originated, much of it, from the United Arab Emirates. It — the United Arab Emirates was a focal point in the transfer of nuclear technology from Pakistan to Iran and North Korea. I mean, that much, it’s incontrovertible.”
GAFFNEY: “Yes, and when you think that this company will have the opportunity to ‘in place’ personnel, it will have oversight of the cargo coming into these ports — and by the way it’s EIGHT ports now, including TWO that they will be operation for the UNITED STATES ARMY. (Note: emphasis mine.)
“And then you have the fact that they will be read in on the security plans for these facilities. It’s just mind-boggling, as has been said. I think the best that you can say is it’s sort of an attractive nuisance, like a swimming pool without a fence around it. You’re inviting terrorists to take advantage of these opportunities at our great expense, I’m afraid.”
Bluntly, a company owned by a foreign government will have access to the lay-out of the ports, the shift schedules, the security in place and the arrival times of overseas shipments. So, vot’s to worry?
By week’s end, Bush and Congress were still doing the Mortal Kombat polka.
Homeland Security Chief Chertoff defended the deal, then did a two-step when it was revealed that Homeland Security initially opposed it.
However, DP World agreed to (kinda, sorta) delay the deal for 45 days and hired former Senator Bob “Woody” Dole to lobby Congress on their behalf. (”Is that a loading platform or are you glad to see me?”)
And, getting all touchy-feely, the White House trotted out Dan Bartlett, head of communications, who vowed to convince Congress that the folks at DP World were A-OK.
“We’ve worked with them all across the world. They own ports across the world that send cargo to our country on a regular basis,” he said.
Larry Johnson, a former counterterrorism official at the CIA and the state department, and now a private security consultant, countered that the UAE had a poor record of security: “Their ports are some of the biggest smuggling centers in the world.”
And what about those 45 extra days? Surely, they can be used to examine the company thoroughly. A-nope. Pouting Bush says the deal is done…even though he was out of the loop and didn’t know anything about it. So, Americans? Just live with it. So, how will those extra 45 days be spent? Well, Karl Rove has been exhumed from his crypt and he’s determined to talk the Republicans in Congress into giving a big thumb’s up to this fiasco. In other words, it’s arm twisting time!
(Either agree with Bush or you, too, can go hunting with Dick Cheney!)
Now, irony is something non-existent in Bushzarro World, but you’ve gotta love it. For five years, Bush has preached the Gospel of Fear for his own political gain. Fear the terrorists. Fear Saddam. Fear WMD. Fear attacks. Batten down the hatches. Buy that duct tape.
Now, when Americans have the good sense to actually catch a whiff of potential danger? He tells us that we’re idiots or Islamophobes and we should simply trust him. Because, as we all know, he’s been right, so far, across the board – from domestic debacles to his FUBAR foreign policy decisions. This is a short-pantsed pouter who has truly earned our trust. A-heh-heh-heh. And, as we all know, pigs can fly.
Perhaps syndicated columnist Kathleen Parker summed up this latest pile of Bushit best when she remarked: “The Greeks and Sigmund Freud had a name for what may ail President George W. Bush: Thantos. The death wish.”
Just another week in Bushzarro World.
And how’s that Iraq thaing going?
Source:
February 27th, 2006 at 9:04 pmhttp://mkanejeeves.com/?p=184
So, is this article a way to improve the security of the ports? No, of course not. Just through out the racist label when you have nothing constructive to say. Get some other liberal yahoos to agree with you and hijack the post to where you feel comfortable. Don’t offer advice, smear.
Comment by Steve — February 27, 2006 @ 9:00 pm
Awwww, poor Steve doesn’t like it when people use his own Republican smear tactics against him. You need a nap Steve?
February 27th, 2006 at 9:06 pmSecurity Concerns, Political Considerations
By Mark R. Levin
I have to address another knee-jerk defender talking point that I thought was so obviously flawed it didn’t require a response. Yes, the UAE is our ally now in the war on terrorism. For that we are grateful. And there are many ways to reward such support short of running various aspects of certain U.S. ports. I note that Joseph Stalin was our ally during WWII. Nonetheless, I can’t imagine FDR would have agreed to allow Stalin to have anything to do with our domestic ports in recognition of our alliance. Great Britain was also our ally during WWII. It’s our ally today. It was our ally before WWII. It was our ally before and after 9/11. So, of course there’s no objection to a private British company, with a long and solid record of operating ports, operating U.S. terminals/ports.
The truth is that we still know precious little about the security arrangements in this deal. The administration says the Coast Guard and Customs, not the UAE, will handle security; the administration also says that the UAE-run company has agreed to enhanced security requirements. Maybe the knee-jerk defenders can sort this out for the rest of us since it makes no sense to me. What we do know is that according to the deputy secretary of the Treasury, the truncated secret committee review did not include a national-security investigation, which he argued was “discretionary.â€
My hope is that Congress, the administration, and the UAE will agree to much enhanced security requirements (i.e., something more than leaving it up to the Coast Guard and Customs) and greater control over the company’s operations by U.S. personnel along the lines that my friend Michael Ledeen suggests on The Corner. Congress must also change its own pre-9/11 law which created this situation in the first place. It must overhaul the secret process it set-up to approve such deals, at least where national security assets are involved in foreign purchases. No, Congress should not undertake executive branch functions. Besides, there are simply too many demagogues in Congress to make such a direct congressional review workable. But Congress, in consultation with the president, could create the equivalent of an SEC, but with a security expertise. And there can certainly be more public transparency in the review process without revealing a foreign company’s critical proprietary information. It’s done everyday where U.S. companies purchase U.S. companies. If these improvements are made, they won’t be thanks to the knee-jerk defenders of the current secret deal, who arrogantly claim to know more than the rest of us when, in fact, they, like the detractors, know very little.
I don’t much care what the anti-Patriot Act, anti-NSA intercept program, anti-military tribunals, anti-detention Left — i.e., the likes of Chuck Schumer — think about any of this, nor should the president. They’re motivated by politics, their hate for the president, and pressure from union bosses. I don’t much care what the isolationists think about any of this, nor should the president. You can begin to see some movement by the administration and certain members of Congress toward some kind of resolution. But there are legitimate issues and serious concerns shared by a large majority of Americans that must be effectively addressed. And if they’re not, then the deal will likely die, and should.
by MarkLevinFan @ 10:11 am.
Filed under National Review Online, Mark R. Levin
http://marklevinfan.com/?p=916#more-916
February 27th, 2006 at 9:10 pmOh, by the way, was it Bush who didn’t mobilize the area busses to evacuate the seniors and invalids? Was it Bush who kept exclaiming that people were being killed in the Dome? Was it Bush who didn’t use the 2 days notice to evacuate? Was it Bush who refused the AMTRACK train offer for evacuation? No, it was the Mayor of New Orleans.
Was it Bush who gave her staff explicit instructions not to be disturbed while she rested and the levees crested? Was it Bush who refused Federal intervention the night of the hurricane? Was it Bush who couldn’t mobilize the LA National Guard. No it was the Governor.
February 27th, 2006 at 9:10 pmSteve -
Thanks again for your opinion.
Whatever is decided, I hope that at least those involved revisit and revamp whatever security is required to put some of the folks here in America at ease. Including me, myself and I.
But, from your opinion on existing security measures, it almost sounds like we are allowing an already difficult situation to become worse with this deal.
Anyway, lets hope not. If the deal goes through after Congress’ review, I hope the anxiety we all feel doesn’t become “I told you so.” I would be pleasantly surprised to have my instinct proven wrong on this one.
Regards.
February 27th, 2006 at 10:50 pmIsn’t it funny how everytime something goes wrong in this country, Bush and his supporters find some patsy to blame. Well this time we have Bush on record saying he’ll veto congress for opposing the deal with Dubai. And in true form the propaganda artists have come out swinging, labeling anyone in opposition as “racists” and “hysterical” in order to discredit their position. You can label me anything you want. I still don’t support the deal with Dubai and I wont be intimidated into changing my opinion. Hopefully Congress wont be intimidated either.
February 28th, 2006 at 2:23 amWe’ve got Bush finaly!!!
We also knew we would nail his ass to a cross!! We have him now!! To think he would even think about pulling this crap!!
Sell the Arabs our ports!! I don’t think so!! I don’t care if they leagaly purchased those leases!! The UAE sue us where do they get off. They won’t find a lawyer in my USofA that will represent their asses…..but remember lets keep up the fight against Bush on all sides. Lets not forget Guantonamo Bay, those Arabs still need lawyers because we play fair!! Lets keep this straight…the Arabs that are out for a buck screw them and screw the law. The Arabs that actually killed Americans lets give them lawyers and spring them!! Remember that bastard Bush is the one who told us to be scared about Arabs and even though we don’t want to do anything he says because he is a liar…we’ll make the exception this time and believe his ass so we can be rightously indignet about this deal. You know my motherf@#king car needs a wash and it Bushes f@#king fault. Can’t trust that bastard for sh#t!!!! Faciast pig, dictator dumbass thinks he is king. Stole the election…sneaky sucker since it was a liberal supreme court that did it for him. He owned them…!!! Go Hillary girl!! You’ll show Bush and put him in his place. You should be Saint Hillary because its a miracle that everyone believes the security crap…you’ll look like a Hawk by 2008 and then you can dismantle that fricken nasty war machine after your elected!! Paint those battleships pink girl!! Keep up the good fight!!! As long as we HATE that dirty rotten bastar Bush the world will be a better place!!!!
February 28th, 2006 at 3:19 amBushWearsWomensUnderwear:
You’re trying too hard. You’re obviously a Bush fan attempting to make anyone that oppposes Bush look foolish. Instead of pointing out why your car didn’t get washed, why not point out that 3000 Americans died in 9/11 on Bush’s watch, nearly 3000 troops died under Bush’s command in Iraq and nearly 30,000 troops were wounded in Iraq under Bush’s command on a war based on lies, Bush admits to unlawfully spying on Americans, Bush’s cronies continue to be indicted on various charges of fraud and money laundering… Bush terrorizes Americans then expects them to support deals with Dubai.
This whole deal with Dubai smells like a smokescreen for the countless other nefarious activities the Bush administration is up to. Your drunken Vice President shoots his hunting buddy, what do you do? Shift the focus away with some insane business deal with one of the three countries in the world that recognizes the Taliban as a legitimate form of government. All Bush has to do to fool the American people is keep providing nice Dubai type distractions while he and his cronies continue to sneak into the back door of the hen house. Great tactic…kinda like what this guy who calls himself “BushWearsWomensUnderwear” is doing.
Whether you call yourself BushWearsWomensUnderwear, or Steve, or Dennis, or Roshan, or Nick, your mission is to promote Bush no matter how corrupt he is. And “you’re doing a heck of a job Brownie.”
You know the more I read about this deal with Dubai
February 28th, 2006 at 7:49 amDubaiCoverUp,
FYI, I was named Steve, I go by Steve and I don’t need to use any other name.
I realize that you hate/despise/loathe Bush, and you have that right. So, politics aside. The question that I am asking is:
If you can block the lease exchange from P&O to Dubai Ports what is the next step?
P&O doesn’t exist anymore. The corporate buyout was approved by Britain, the shareholders and initially approved by the Committee on Foreign Investments in the United States.
Who will take the interim operational control and responsibilty of the ports?
Close the ports, until we clearly define the security procedures and responsibilties, then open the leases for bid?
If security and control of the ports are the concern, will we also move against COSCO, wholly owned by the Chinese government? This country has in fact used troops against the US, supplied nuclear technology to third world countries, has been in violation of numerous human right violations, used monies to influence US elections and has been caught many times spying on both the corporate and government levels.
Lastly, I imagine that each lease also contains a buyout number for refusing to turn over the entitled facilities to DPW. Who takes the financial hit on this?
February 28th, 2006 at 8:48 amSteve, i understand your point and have asked myself the same question. I dont know but in its current state the ports in question are operated by a brittish company. I dont feel comfortable with a country as shady as UAE running our ports. Its time we handle our own affairs and stop pimping ourselves to foreign nations. Heres an intresting view:
Please watch.
February 28th, 2006 at 9:26 amI find it interesting how Bush supporters always attempt to inject emotion into a discussion:
“I realize that you hate/despise/loathe Bush, and you have that right. So, politics aside.”
Ask a prosecuting attorney if she hates/despises/loathes the defendant in a criminal case. Why would she? She’s just doing her job in prosecuting a criminal. Do you loathe/despise/hate a rabid dog? No, you simply take the appropriate action. If Bush is in violation of laws and standing in the way of the safety of this country we don’t need to hate him. Its the job of the American people to simply impeach him and his accomplices, hold them accountable, and elect people that don’t break the law.
As for the outsourcing of US Ports, its obvious to me that we shouldn’t be outsourcing anything, much less to countries that support terrorists and don’t support democracy. And that standard should apply to our dealing with any country in the world whether it be China or Dubai.
February 28th, 2006 at 9:27 amUncleSam,
I put that statement there because every time a question is asked the usual response is in that vein, rather than trying to honestly have a discussion. So, again I’ll asked the above questions without the injected emotion.
February 28th, 2006 at 9:32 amWho cares what money will be lost? Safety and future economic security is more important than the almighty dollar. I dont think these ports would stay idle too long anyway. If we can throw 300 billion dolars into some hole in a desert , me thinks we can afford a few days acouple of ports remain idle. IT IS wrong to turn over our ports to a gov’t-controlled company, when it is a fact that we dont have port security under control. I would reconsider this deal if we HAD port security in place,and the contract was not so secretive, but at this time, we have neither
February 28th, 2006 at 11:16 amOkay Tee,
We don’t have port security under control. The company P&O is gone, bought out by DPW. The contracts that exist were signed by P&O, if the are inadequate now they have been for years.
We have a company ready and willing to assume operations of the same ports, giving us additional access to the inner workings, have agreed to set up a US corporation, is giving us the sovereign right to inspect all containers before they’re loaded onto ships and has already committed almost $7 billion to acquire the rights, assets and leases held by P&O. All this in addition to agreeing to further investigation and possible re-negotiation of any of the terms that we may find objectionable.
Is this not how to do business?
February 28th, 2006 at 11:45 amI agree Tee zjack. The Bush administration has thrown away not Billions, but TRILLIONS of dollars on their agenda. Like saving money ever mattered to BushCo. At this point, I’m more concerned about the safety of Americans. We should take all steps necessary to ensure that. That means controlling our own ports, perdiod. But I’m starting to think this entire deal with Dubai was a smokescreen to distract us from focusing on BushCo corruption. Cheney shoots a guy and refuses to get tested for 14 hours. This little story died like ancient history as soon as we started talking about Dubai/UAE. This is the most corrupt administration in the history of the United States of America. We’re in big trouble folks.
February 28th, 2006 at 11:55 amBig,
We have never given up ownership of the ports. These are leases, if security isn’t where it should be, it’s our fault, not the leasing companies.
If I am reading your statement properly, you are stating that this deal, started prior to October and included other bidding companies to purchase P&O (initial offer was $5.4 billion), was done to provide Dick Cheney sufficient cover when he shoots somebody in February?
February 28th, 2006 at 12:13 pmAmerican ports used to be controlled by a corruption prone alliance of politicians and unions. One can recall with nostalgia a half century ago, Marlon Brando, Karl Malden, Lee J. Cobb, Rod Steiger and Eva Marie Saint in “On the Waterfront,” offering us a glimpse of this relationship.
The historical reality that American ports were long bastions of the unholy alliance of corrupt politicians, bureaucrats and union officials. No wonder all of the unions, from teachers to longshoremen, are behind Chuck and Hillary on this issue.
Port Security may be the issues of the bloggers here, but assuredly this is not the agenda of the Democrats.
So, let’s nationalize the ports and watch as we go into a death spiral. Outsourcing will be the least of our problems.
February 28th, 2006 at 12:31 pmIn WWII we allied ourselves with Stalin. It had its share of problems but in the broader we could have not won the war without him. We should take a broader view in this case as well.
The UAE is of very important stratigic value!! It may go a long way to saving this country when it comes to the Irainian Nuclear threat. A real world not imaginary problem that the Europeans are not likel;y to fix for us.
While China does not provide us with a great statigic capibility, we should aslo maybe take into account as we kick them out of our ports, that they own most of the American debt. They could make life very difficult for us.
First we should fix our security at our Ports. I think we all agree that our port security is not effective reguardless of the status of the Dubai deal. Why is the focus of this debate not on that? There maybe a dirty bomb already sitting in one of our ports as we sit here and argue.
Will the politicians, Rep & Dem focus on that at any point after this debate about Dubai is over? Unlikely as it is a huge problem with no easy answers. Politicians prefer easy answers particuarly in an election year.
Our borders are not up to speed. I live 60 miles from the border and can tell you that you could drive anything you want across without to much difficulty. Rep & Dem continue to do nothing 8(
Should we also not consider all the unfriendly countries that are a part of the United Nations. My understanding is these people are not subject to custom searches? Why is this not an issue? Are these no less a threat?
We can focus on the minute issue but we are better served taking a broader view and dicussing without politcal bickering what is best for the security of the nation.
February 28th, 2006 at 12:41 pmWhile you are talking about nationalizing the US ports, remember, we are only talking about a couple of dozen ports that are owned by large corporations (some foreign), the rest of the ports are held by small independent or small regional owners. The security issue must apply accross the board, blind to ownership.
February 28th, 2006 at 12:45 pmDennis,
February 28th, 2006 at 12:48 pmNice comments, but every time questions are asked or a discussion takes place the usual B.S. starts.
Steve
Yep I know Steve….but if we as Americans can’t figure out how to put politics aside and solve these problems with more than just lip service and a band aid, we really will be doomed for another major attack.
February 28th, 2006 at 1:03 pmOk, WERE ALL GONNA DIE!!!!!!!!!!!!!! End Of Story
February 28th, 2006 at 1:06 pmSteve-
February 28th, 2006 at 1:12 pmEveryone knows that they are leases, why do you keep spinning the same crap over and over again.
The contracts were not agreed upon in october, maybe negotiations between P & O and DPW started then, but the contract has only been in CFIUS possession for 24 days!! and since Shrub didnt know about the agreement til last week, me thinks proper consideration still needs to be made since 45 days are alotted, esp since someone at homeland security and the coast guard questioned the security matter. And i say someone at homeland security, because it wasnt Chertoff since he didnt know about the agreement til last week. And that list continues to grow, since Rummy said he didnt know about it either, and whats more , now Snow , who heads the committee(CFIUS) that is supposed to review the contract, says he didnt know about it til last week. Apparently, somebody had knowledge of the agreement, i hope, but it really is starting to really smell of a sneaky charade.(maybe just a smokescreen to take the heat off of Cheney)
Steve, Dennis, and their alter egos just love clouding the issue with inane specifics. The bottom line is WE DONT WANT TO INVOLVE TERRORST COUNTRIES IN THE OPERATIONS OF ANYTHING IN THE US. And I don’t give a goddamn if we’ve been doing it in the past, so why not give the UAE a shot at. It needs to stop now. We need to go back and take a hard look at anything this country has outsourced and put the breaks on it. We need to eliminate NAFTA while we’re at it and anything else that allows any form of OUTSOURCING TO ANYONE. We don’t need a deal with Dubai and quite frankly I don’t give a god damned what anyone else thinks if we don’t allow it. We pick up Arabs right off the street and detain them indefinately for nothing. We just lost a law suit to a man from Egypt to the tune of 300,000 dollars for doing this. THE UNITED STATES IS CURRENTLY OCCUPYING AN ARAB COUNTRY AND KILLING THEM. Since when does the Bush administration give a goddamn what anyone else but investors think eh? You son’s a bitches that keep trying to spin this into some kind of racist, hysterical crap that jeopardizes foreign relations are a bunch of goddamned lying son’s a bitched. And quite frankly anything you say is a goddamned pack of lies. You just keep spreading your hogshit and we’re gonna keep countering it. And when the next election rolls around, we’re gonna kick you son’s a bitches out of office onto your asses. And when the Republican run Executive office, Senate, House, and Supreme Court has been cleansed of you greedy son’s a bitched, we’re gonna prosecute your asses for crimes against humanity, not to mention treason. You goddamn apologetics for the Bush Crime family are the most cowardly yellow bellied dogs that every lived. You tarnish the image of America and make us look like dirty, lying, greedy scum. Go take a hard look in the mirror because you people are the reason these criminals are in power. And by supporting a corrupt, criminal regime, that makes you all accomplices and should be arrested and prosecuted for treason as well. But I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt and just chalk your ignorance up as Bush Utopian herd mentality. All you Bush supporters do is regurgitate the same old diatribe we hear on the radio or see on Fox. Why dont you challenge your own bigotry, your own fear, and your own delusions. I challenge all of you to generate an independant thought you didn’t parrot from your corrupt heroes. Do it before you waste any more time or any more of our time spewing the Bush regime’s nonsense.
February 28th, 2006 at 2:53 pmTee,
My mistake, the first time I read of the takeover was 10/31 in Transport Topics. So, other than people reading this article no one else knew about it. Also, in November both the AP and Wall Street Journal had articles regarding the takeover. So,there was no good faith research done by any parties prior to the posting of a $5.7 billion bid, that was increased to $6.8 billion to knock out PSA a Singapore company. They didn’t ascertain if the assets (which includes the leases) were able to be transfered without difficulty and prejudice. N.M. Rothschild, Citigroup, Morgan Stanley were the consultants.
And I have never said that a further review wasn’t a good thing. The whole security setup needs to be overhauled. My point is to utilize this company to make some of the immediate changed and work with all ports to bring them up to date.
February 28th, 2006 at 3:07 pmThis may fan the flames more but, P&O purchased the leases from ITO in June of 1999 and if you actually go to P&O’s corporate site, you’d find that there are 23 port locations where P&O conducts business.
What nobody in either the media or in the government has bothered to discover is that P&O provides general stevedoring services all along the East and Gulf Coasts of the United States, as well as the West Coast of Canada. These services would be available at the following ports:
1. Portland (Maine)
2. Boston
3. Davisville
4. New York
5. Newark
6. Camden
7. Wilmington
8. Philadelphia
9. Baltimore
10. Norfolk
11. Newport News
12. Portsmouth
13. Miami
14. Gulfport
15. New Orleans
16. Baton Rouge
17. Lake Charles
18. Beaumont
19. Port Arthur
20. Galveston
21. Houston
22. Freeport
23. Corpus Christi
Note the following:
1. There are over 300 ports in the US. P&O had operations at 23. That’s less than 7.7% of our ports.
2. There are over 3,700 cargo and passenger terminals at those 300+ ports. P&O operates 13 cargo and 3 passenger terminals. That’s less than one-half of 1% of the cargo and passenger terminals at US ports. Here’s the breakdown:
a)New York: 1 sub-terminal (within 1 of the 7 major cargo terminals of the port), 1 passenger
b)Philadelphia: 4 cargo sub-terminals (within 4 of the port’s 7 major cargo terminals), 1 passenger
c)Baltimore: 3 cargo sub-terminals (within 3 of the 6 major public port terminals)
d)Miami: 1 cargo (of 9), 1 passenger (of 7)
e)New Orleans: 4 cargo (of 12)
The rest are terminals P&O provides stevedoring services.
Let’s remember that less than 3% of the 6,000+ commercial ships making the 60,000+ port calls in these great United States fly under our flag. That means, potentially, that 97% of the ships entering our 300+ ports and 3,700+ cargo and passenger terminals are owned, operated and crewed by “foreigners”.
COSCO- Wholly owned by Chinese Goverment
Baltimore – Stevedore and Terminal Operations
February 28th, 2006 at 3:11 pmBoston – Stevedore
Charleston -Stevedore and Terminal Operations
Chicago – Stevedore
Henderson – Stevedore
Houston – Stevedore and Terminal Operations
Long Beach – Stevedore and Terminal Operations
Miami – Stevedore and Terminal Operations
New Orleans – Stevedore and Terminal Operations
New York – Stevedore and Terminal Operations
Norfolk – Stevedore and Terminal Operations
Oakland – Stevedore and Terminal Operations
San Francisco – Stevedore
Savannah – Stevedore and Terminal Operations
Secaucus – (HQ)
Seattle – Stevedore and Terminal Operations
IMPEACHBUSHNOW,
Well, we see what you want. What I want is not to have a friggin moron like you making any decisions that may affect my family or friends. Go back in your hole, stab your Bush and Cheney dolls and jerk off to pictures of Hillary.
February 28th, 2006 at 3:25 pmFUCK YOU STEVE YOU SIMPERING LITTLE COWARD. I HOPE YOUR PUNK ASS PRESIDENT SENDS YOUR ASS TO IRAQ WHERE YOU BELONG. I’M SICK TO DEATH OF COWARDLY BUSH SUPPORTERS LIKE YOU THAT CRY FOUL AFTER THE TACTICS YOU’VE BEEN USING YOUR ENTIRE LIFE. HILLARY IS TWICE THE MAN YOU ARE AND THATS WHY SHE INTIMIDATES YOU. WHO YOU CALLING A MORON YOU FUCKING MORON!
February 28th, 2006 at 3:33 pmOoooh mammie, he’s yellin’ at me
February 28th, 2006 at 3:41 pmDo you eat with that mouth, cause you sure as shit don’t know how to use it for speech.
February 28th, 2006 at 3:43 pmBy the way fuck face, you are the only one crying foul. There are simple questions that I provided for your simple mind, and all we got was a slobbering rage filled rant.
February 28th, 2006 at 3:46 pmSteve, your Bush phallic fetish is rearing it’s ugly head again. Maybe you should go back to talking about Clinton and Monica. That’ll ease your pain a bit.
February 28th, 2006 at 3:51 pmAre you taking your happy pills? Cause you sure aren’t staying on point in any discussion so far.
February 28th, 2006 at 3:55 pmHey IMPEACH,
What happened? Nappy time, or did mommy catch you on the ‘puter again?
February 28th, 2006 at 4:06 pmThis blog is idiotic. Yes, the UAE was one of three countries that did have ties to the taliban and alQaeda, but they were the first to sever ties with alQaeda in the terrorist attacks. In America there is transfer of weed and coke on my school grounds every day. does this make america a bad country? Just because the UAE banking system was used to transfer money dosent mean its to blame. And let me remind you that no one has been cooperating with efforts to capture osama bin laden. Thats why hes still at large. if you go to a neutral site or listen to a neutral news station you will learn the real facts. This is a biased report made to demeanor the UAE, who have supported America since the start on the war on terror.
February 28th, 2006 at 4:26 pmalso, impeachbushnow and steve. arguing on the internet is like running in the special olympics. even if you win, your still retarded.
February 28th, 2006 at 4:30 pmjose,
You’re right.
February 28th, 2006 at 4:46 pmThe real problem with Dubai Ports has nothing to do with terrorism or Arabphobia etc. This deal has been common knowledge for months, the articles number in the hundreds.
The problem is Dubai Ports is the most efficient port operator in the world. They operate with more automation and less labor than anyone in the field. So when this become a real problem? When the unions lit up the polititians in Washington, fed the union line to the liberal press, and are making sure the Dubai Ports people understand who is really in charge at US ports.
February 28th, 2006 at 4:56 pmThis blog is idiotic. Yes, the UAE was one of three countries that did have ties to the taliban and alQaeda, but they were the first to sever ties with alQaeda in the terrorist attacks. In America there is transfer of weed and coke on my school grounds every day. does this make america a bad country? Just because the UAE banking system was used to transfer money dosent mean its to blame. And let me remind you that no one has been cooperating with efforts to capture osama bin laden. Thats why hes still at large. if you go to a neutral site or listen to a neutral news station you will learn the real facts. This is a biased report made to demeanor the UAE, who have supported America since the start on the war on terror.
Comment by Jose — February 28, 2006 @ 4:26 pm
If this blog is idiotic why are you here? I believe the reason Steve is here for example is specifically to discredit and undermine the people that are trying to get the information out affecting this country. Steve came here with a specific intent of trying to suppress people from the exchange of ideas and exposing the truth. He constantly clutters the board with insignificant details in order to distract people from what is really going on. Yesterday he was reciting his Junior High American Government text book as if people on this site aren’t aware of how the government works. Is that why you’re here Jose? Are you here to support the one’s responsible for the corruption in this government? If you don’t like this blog, I suggest you try Fox news. I’m sure you’ll agree with everything they have to say like Steve does.
February 28th, 2006 at 6:00 pmSteve feels terrorists should control our ports. Maybe they can get an atomic bomb into the country which no-doubt is going to happen sooner or later whether Dubai, which has ties to osama bin laden and also believes Israel should not exist, controls our ports or not.
Theres lots of people like steve.
But dont get in an uproar over what Steve says. Steve might not even be American and living in the USA.
February 28th, 2006 at 6:13 pmGood point WMD. Steve is no doubt a terrorist himself attempting to divide Americans and convince us to open our ports up to terrorist attacks. Thank you for providing the voice of reason in these dark times.
February 28th, 2006 at 7:00 pmNice,
February 28th, 2006 at 7:09 pmYouse guys is playmates. Play nice together and agree alot. This will make you grow up big and strong and full of liberal knowledge. Because there can be no other.
How’s the Taliban treating you Steve? Say hi to Osama for me.
February 28th, 2006 at 7:22 pmSteve has managed to do what the Bush Administration has failed to do in 5 years, locate Osama Bin Laden. Granted Steve works for Osama but hey, at least someone knows where he is.
February 28th, 2006 at 7:28 pmHad to copy this again, because the great Schumer and Clinton have said in many statements about the 6 ports. The actual count is 5. Those boneheads along with the rest of the media are including Vancouver, BC in these numbers. Unless we’ve acquired another state, then the liberals have jumped so quickly they don’t even have the correct info.
P&O purchased the leases from ITO in June of 1999 and if you actually go to P&O’s corporate site, you’d find that there are 23 port locations where P&O conducts business.
What nobody in either the media or in the government has bothered to discover is that P&O provides general stevedoring services all along the East and Gulf Coasts of the United States, as well as the West Coast of Canada. These services would be available at the following ports:
1. Portland (Maine)
2. Boston
3. Davisville
4. New York
5. Newark
6. Camden
7. Wilmington
8. Philadelphia
9. Baltimore
10. Norfolk
11. Newport News
12. Portsmouth
13. Miami
14. Gulfport
15. New Orleans
16. Baton Rouge
17. Lake Charles
18. Beaumont
19. Port Arthur
20. Galveston
21. Houston
22. Freeport
23. Corpus Christi
Note the following:
1. There are over 300 ports in the US. P&O had operations at 23. That’s less than 7.7% of our ports.
2. There are over 3,700 cargo and passenger terminals at those 300+ ports. P&O operates 13 cargo and 3 passenger terminals. That’s less than one-half of 1% of the cargo and passenger terminals at US ports. Here’s the breakdown:
a)New York: 1 sub-terminal (within 1 of the 7 major cargo terminals of the port), 1 passenger
b)Philadelphia: 4 cargo sub-terminals (within 4 of the port’s 7 major cargo terminals), 1 passenger
c)Baltimore: 3 cargo sub-terminals (within 3 of the 6 major public port terminals)
d)Miami: 1 cargo (of 9), 1 passenger (of 7)
e)New Orleans: 4 cargo (of 12)
The rest are terminals P&O provides stevedoring services.
Let’s remember that less than 3% of the 6,000+ commercial ships making the 60,000+ port calls in these great United States fly under our flag. That means, potentially, that 97% of the ships entering our 300+ ports and 3,700+ cargo and passenger terminals are owned, operated and crewed by “foreignersâ€.
COSCO- Wholly owned by Chinese Goverment
Baltimore – Stevedore and Terminal Operations
February 28th, 2006 at 7:42 pmBoston – Stevedore
Charleston -Stevedore and Terminal Operations
Chicago – Stevedore
Henderson – Stevedore
Houston – Stevedore and Terminal Operations
Long Beach – Stevedore and Terminal Operations
Miami – Stevedore and Terminal Operations
New Orleans – Stevedore and Terminal Operations
New York – Stevedore and Terminal Operations
Norfolk – Stevedore and Terminal Operations
Oakland – Stevedore and Terminal Operations
San Francisco – Stevedore
Savannah – Stevedore and Terminal Operations
Secaucus – (HQ)
Seattle – Stevedore and Terminal Operations
Here we go with the same “the percentages are so small” argument. What does that mean? It’s kinda like me saying on an average day there is thousands of flights taking off and leaving airports. So on 9/11 about 1% of the flights had terrorists on them. Maybe less?
February 28th, 2006 at 7:49 pmIt means, that 97% of the ships entering our 300+ ports and 3,700+ cargo and passenger terminals are owned, operated and crewed by “foreignersâ€. Never mind about the 20%+ ports that may have foreign interests within them. If you are as Xenophobic as your writings, then these should be major concerns.
It also means that like Schumer and Clinton, you don’t read and comprehend very well.
February 28th, 2006 at 8:00 pmSpeaking of statistics, here’s 100 stats as of October 30, 2004 (November 8, 2004 issue)
100 Facts and 1 Opinion: The Non-Arguable Case Against the Bush Administration
Judd Legum
IRAQ
1. The Bush Administration has spent more than $140 billion on a war of choice in Iraq.
Source: American Progress
2. The Bush Administration sent troops into battle without adequate body armor or armored Humvees.
Sources: Fox News, Boston Globe
3. The Bush Administration ignored estimates from Gen. Eric Shinseki that several hundred thousand troops would be required to secure Iraq.
Source: PBS
4. Vice President Cheney said Americans “will, in fact, be greeted as liberators” in Iraq.
Source: Washington Post
5. During the Bush Administration’s war in Iraq, more than 1,000 US troops have lost their lives and more than 7,000 have been injured.
Source: globalsecurity.org
6. In May 2003, President Bush landed on an aircraft carrier in a flight suit, stood under a banner proclaiming “Mission Accomplished,” and triumphantly announced that major combat operations were over in Iraq. Asked if he had any regrets about the stunt, Bush said he would do it all over again.
Source: Yahoo News
7. Vice President Cheney said that Iraq was “the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault for many years, but most especially on 9/11.” The bipartisan 9/11 Commission found that Iraq had no involvement in the 9/11 attacks and no collaborative operational relationship with Al Qaeda.
Source: MSNBC , 9-11 Commission
8. National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice said that high-strength aluminum tubes acquired by Iraq were “only really suited for nuclear weapons programs,” warning “we don’t want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud.” The government’s top nuclear scientists had told the Administration the tubes were “too narrow, too heavy, too long” to be of use in developing nuclear weapons and could be used for other purposes.
Source: New York Times
9. The Bush Administration has spent just $1.1 billion of the $18.4 billion Congress approved for Iraqi reconstruction.
Source: USA Today
10. According to the Administration’s handpicked weapon’s inspector, Charles Duelfer, there is “no evidence that Hussein had passed illicit weapons material to al Qaeda or other terrorist organizations, or had any intent to do so.” After the release of the report, Bush continued to insist, “There was a risk–a real risk–that Saddam Hussein would pass weapons, or materials, or information to terrorist networks.”
Sources: New York Times, White House news release
11. According to Duelfer, the UN inspections regime put an “economic strangle hold” on Hussein that prevented him from developing a WMD program for more than twelve years.
Source: Los Angeles Times
TERRORISM
12. After receiving a memo from the CIA in August 2001 titled “Bin Laden Determined to Attack America,” President Bush continued his monthlong vacation.
Source: CNN.com
13. The Bush Administration failed to commit enough troops to capture Osama bin Laden when US forces had him cornered in the Tora Bora region of Afghanistan in November 2001. Instead, they relied on local warlords.
Source: csmonitor.com
14. The Bush Administration secured less nuclear material from sites around the world vulnerable to terrorists in the two years after 9/11 than were secured in the two years before 9/11.
Source: nti.org
15. The Bush Administration underfunded Nunn-Lugar–the program intended to keep the former Soviet Union’s nuclear legacy out of the hands of terrorists and rogue states–by $45.5 million.
Source: armscontrol.org
16. The Bush Administration has assigned five times as many agents to investigate Cuban embargo violations as it has to track Osama bin Laden’s and Saddam Hussein’s money.
Source: Associated Press
17. According to Congressional Research Service data, the Bush Administration has underfunded security at the nation’s ports by more than $1 billion for fiscal year 2005.
Source: American Progress
18. The Bush Administration did not devote the resources necessary to prevent a resurgence in the production of poppies, the raw material used to create heroin, in Afghanistan–creating a potent new source of financing for terrorists.
Source: Pakistan Tribune
19. Vice President Cheney told voters that unless they elect George Bush in November, “we’ll get hit again” by terrorists.
Source: Washington Post
20. Even though an Al Qaeda training manual suggests terrorists come to the United States and buy assault weapons, the Bush Administration did nothing to prevent the expiration of the ban.
Source: San Francisco Chronicle
21. Despite repeated calls for reinforcements, there are fewer experienced CIA agents assigned to the unit dealing with Osama bin Laden now than there were before 9/11.
Source: New York Times
22. Before 9/11, John Ashcroft proposed slashing counterterrorism funding by 23 percent.
Source: americanprogress.org
23. Between January 20, 2001, and September 10, 2001, the Bush Administration publicly mentioned Al Qaeda one time.
Source: commondreams.org
24. The Bush Administration granted the 9/11 Commission $3 million to investigate the September 11 attacks and $50 million to the commission that investigated the Columbia space shuttle crash.
Source: commondreams.org
25. More than three years after 9/11, just 5 percent of all cargo–including cargo transported on passenger planes–is screened.
Source: commondreams.org
NATIONAL SECURITY
26. During the Bush Administration, North Korea quadrupled its suspected nuclear arsenal from two to eight weapons.
Source: New York Times
27. The Bush Administration has openly opposed the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, undermining nuclear nonproliferation efforts.
Source: commondreams.org
28. The Bush Administration has spent $7 billion this year–and plans to spend $10 billion next year–for a missile defense system that has never worked in a test that wasn’t rigged.
Sources: http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04409.pdf, Los Angeles Times
29. The Bush Administration underfunded the needs of the nation’s first responders by $98 billion, according to a Council on Foreign Relations study.
Source: nationaldefensemagazine.org
CRONYISM AND CORRUPTION
30. The Bush Administration awarded a multibillion-dollar no-bid contract to Halliburton–a company that still pays Vice President Cheney hundreds of thousands of dollars in deferred compensation each year (Cheney also has Halliburton stock options). The company then repeatedly overcharged the military for services, accepted kickbacks from subcontractors and served troops dirty food.
Sources: The Washington Post, The Taipei Times, BBC News
31. The Bush Administration told Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan about plans to go to war with Iraq before telling Secretary of State Colin Powell.
Source: detnews.com
32. The Bush Administration relentlessly pushed an energy bill containing $23.5 billion in corporate tax breaks, much of which would have benefited major campaign contributors.
taxpayer.net, Washington Post
33. The Bush Administration paid Iraqi-exile and neocon darling Ahmad Chalabi $400,000 a month for intelligence, including fabricated claims about Iraqi WMD. It continued to pay him for months after discovering that he was providing inaccurate information.
Source: MSNBC
34. The Bush Administration installed as top officials more than 100 former lobbyists, attorneys or spokespeople for the industries they oversee.
Source: Source: commondreams.org
35. The Bush Administration let disgraced Enron CEO Ken Lay–a close friend of President Bush–help write its energy policy.
Source: MSNBC
36. Top Bush Administration officials accepted $127,600 in jewelry and other presents from the Saudi royal family in 2003, including diamond-and-sapphire jewelry valued at $95,500 for First Lady Laura Bush.
Source: Seattle Times
37. Secretary of Homeland Security Tom Ridge awarded lucrative contracts to several companies in which he is an investor, including Microsoft, GE, Sprint, Pfizer and Oracle.
Source: cq.com
38. President Bush used images of firefighters carrying flag-draped coffins through the rubble of the World Trade Center to score political points in a campaign advertisement.
Source: Washington Post
THE ECONOMY
39. President Bush’s top economic adviser, Greg Mankiw, said the outsourcing of American jobs abroad was “a plus for the economy in the long run.”
Source: CBS News
40. The Bush Administration turned a $236 billion surplus into a $422 billion deficit.
Sources: Fortune, dfw.com
41. The Bush Administration implemented regulations that made millions of workers ineligible for overtime pay.
Source: epinet.org
42. The Bush Administration has crippled state budgets by underfunding federal mandates by $175 billion.
Source: cbpp.org
43. President Bush is the first President since Herbert Hoover to have a net loss of jobs–around 800,000–over a four-year term.
Source: The Guardian
44. The Bush Administration gave Accenture a multibillion-dollar border control contract even though the company moved its operations to Bermuda to avoid paying taxes.
Sources: New York Times, cantonrep.com
45. In 2000, candidate George W. Bush said “the vast majority of my tax cuts go to the bottom end of the spectrum.” He passed the tax cuts, but the top 20 percent of earners received 68 percent of the benefits.
Sources: cbpp.org, vote-smart.org
46. In 2000, candidate George W. Bush promised to pay down the national debt to a historically low level. As of September 30, the national debt stood at $7,379,052,696,330.32, a record high.
Sources: http://www.georgewbush.com , Bureau of the Public Debt
47. As major corporate scandals rocked the nation’s economy, the Bush Administration reduced the enforcement of corporate tax law–conducting fewer audits, imposing fewer penalties, pursuing fewer prosecutions and making virtually no effort to prosecute corporate tax crimes.
Source: iht.com
48. The Bush Administration increased tax audits for the working poor.
Source: theolympian.com
49. In 2000, candidate George W. Bush promised to protect the Social Security surplus. As President, he spent all of it.
Sources: georgewbush.com, Congressional Budget Office
50. The Bush Administration proposed slashing funding for the largest federal public housing program, putting 2 million families in danger of losing their housing.
Source: San Francisco Examiner
51. The Bush Administration did nothing to prevent the minimum wage from falling to an inflation-adjusted fifty-year low.
Source: Los Angeles Times
EDUCATION
52. The Bush Administration underfunded the No Child Left Behind Act by $9.4 billion.
Source: nwitimes.com
53. In 2000, candidate George W. Bush promised to increase the maximum federal scholarship, or Pell Grant, by 50 percent. Instead, each year he has been in office he has frozen or cut the maximum scholarship amount.
Source: Source: edworkforce.house.gov x
54. The Bush Administration’s Secretary of Education, Rod Paige, called the National Education Association–a union of teachers–a “terrorist organization.”
Sources: CNN.com
HEALTHCARE
55. The Bush Administration, in violation of the law, refused to allow Medicare actuary Richard Foster to tell members of Congress the actual cost of their Medicare bill. Instead, they repeated a figure they knew was $100 billion too low.
Source: Washington Post, realcities.com
56. The nonpartisan GAO concluded the Bush Administration created illegal, covert propaganda–in the form of fake news reports–to promote its industry-backed Medicare bill.
Source: General Accounting Office
57. The Bush Administration stunted research that could lead to new treatments for Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, diabetes, spinal injuries, heart disease and muscular dystrophy by placing severe restrictions on the use of federal dollars for embryonic stem-cell research.
Source: CBS News
58. The Bush Administration reinstated the “global gag rule,” which requires foreign NGOs to withhold information about legal abortion services or lose US funds for family planning.
Source: healthsciences.columbia.edu
59. The Bush Administration authorized twenty companies that have been charged with fraud at the federal or state level to offer Medicare prescription drug cards to seniors.
Source: American Progress
60. The Bush Administration created a prescription drug card for Medicare that locks seniors into one card for up to a year but allows the corporations offering the cards to change their prices once a week.
Source: Washington Post
61. The Bush Administration blocked efforts to allow Medicare to negotiate cheaper prescription drug prices for seniors.
Source: American Progress
62. At the behest of the french fry industry, the Bush Administration USDA changed their definition of fresh vegetables to include frozen french fries.
Source: commondreams.org
63. In a case before the Supreme Court, the Bush Administrations sided with HMOs–arguing that patients shouldn’t be allowed to sue HMOs when they are improperly denied treatment. With the Administration’s help, the HMOs won.
Source: ABC News
64. The Bush Administration went to court to block lawsuits by patients who were injured by defective prescription drugs and medical devices.
Source: Washington Post
65. President Bush signed a Medicare law that allows companies that reduce healthcare benefits for retirees to receive substantial subsidies from the government.
Source: Bloomberg News
66. Since President Bush took office, more than 5 million people have lost their health insurance.
Source: CNN.com
67. The Bush Administration blocked a proposal to ban the use of arsenic-treated lumber in playground equipment, even though it conceded it posed a danger to children.
Source: Miami Herald
68. One day after President Bush bragged about his efforts to help seniors afford healthcare, the Administration announced the largest dollar increase of Medicare premiums in history.
Source: iht.com
69. The Bush Administration–at the behest of the tobacco industry–tried to water down a global treaty that aimed to help curb smoking.
Source: tobaccofreekids.org
70. The Bush Administration has spent $270 million on abstinence-only education programs even though there is no scientific evidence demonstrating that they are effective in dissuading teenagers from having sex or reducing the transmission of sexually transmitted diseases.
Source: salon.com
71. The Bush Administration slashed funding for programs that suggested ways, other than abstinence, to avoid sexually transmitted diseases.
Source: LA Weekly
ENVIRONMENT
72. The Bush Administration gutted clean-air standards for aging power plants, resulting in at least 20,000 premature deaths each year.
Source: cta.policy.net
73. The Bush Administration eliminated protections on more than 200 million acres of public lands.
Source: calwild.org
74. President Bush broke his promise to place limits on carbon dioxide emissions, an essential step in combating global warming.
Source: Washington Post
75. Days after 9/11, the Bush Administration told people living near Ground Zero that the air was safe–even though they knew it wasn’t–subjecting hundreds of people to unnecessary, debilitating ailments.
Sierra Club , EPA
76. The Bush Administration created a massive tax loophole for SUVs–allowing, for example, the write-off of the entire cost of a new Hummer.
Source: Washington Post
77. The Bush Administration put former coal-industry big shots in the government and let them roll back safety regulations, putting miners at greater risk of black lung disease.
Source: New York Times
78. The Bush Administration said that even though the weed killer atrazine was seeping into water supplies–creating, among other bizarre creatures, hermaphroditic frogs–there was no reason to regulate it.
Source: Washington Post
79. The Bush Administration has proposed cutting the budget of the Environmental Protection Agency by $600 million next year.
Source: ems.org
80. President Bush broke his campaign promise to end the maintenance backlog at national parks. He has provided just 7 percent of the funds needed, according to National Park Service estimates.
Source: bushgreenwatch.org
RIGHTS AND LIBERTIES
81. Since 9/11, Attorney General John Ashcroft has detained 5,000 foreign nationals in antiterrorism sweeps; none have been convicted of a terrorist crime.
Source: hrwatch.org
82. The Bush Administration ignored pleas from the International Committee of the Red Cross to stop the abuse of prisoners in US custody.
Source: Wall Street Journal
83. In violation of international law, the Bush Administration hid prisoners from the Red Cross so the organization couldn’t monitor their treatment.
Source: hrwatch.org
84. The Bush Administration, without ever charging him with a crime, arrested US citizen José Padilla at an airport in Chicago, held him on a naval brig in South Carolina for two years, denied him access to a lawyer and prohibited any contact with his friends and family.
Source: news.findlaw.com
85. President Bush’s top legal adviser wrote a memo to the President advising him that he can legally authorize torture.
Source: news.findlaw.com
86. At the direction of Bush Administration officials, the FBI went door to door questioning people planning on protesting at the 2004 political conventions.
Source: New York Times
87. The Bush Administration refuses to support the creation of an independent commission to investigate the abuse of foreign prisoners in American custody. Instead, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld selected the members of a commission to review the conduct of his own department.
Source: humanrightsfirst.org
FLIP FLOPS
88. President Bush opposed the creation of the 9/11 Commission before he supported it, delaying an essential inquiry into one of the greatest intelligence failure in American history.
Source: americanprogressaction.org
89. President Bush said gay marriage was a state issue before he supported a constitutional amendment banning it.
Sources: CNN.com, White House
90. President Bush said he was committed to capturing Osama bin Laden “dead or alive” before he said, “I truly am not that concerned about him.”
Source: americanprogressaction.org
91. President Bush said we had found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, before he admitted we hadn’t found them.
Sources: White House, americanprogress.org
92. President Bush said, “You can’t distinguish between Al Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror,” before he admitted Saddam had no role in 9/11.
Sources: White House, Washington Post
BIOGRAPHY
93. George Bush didn’t come close to meeting his commitments to the National Guard. Records show he performed no service in a six-month period in 1972 and a three-month period in 1973.
Source: Boston Globe
94. In June 1990 George Bush violated federal securities law when he failed to inform the SEC that he had sold 200,000 shares of his company, Harken Energy. Two months later the company reported significant losses and by the end of that year the stock had dropped from $3 to $1.
Source: The Guardian
95. When asked at an April 2004 press conference to name a mistake he made during his presidency, Bush couldn’t think of one.
Source: White House
SECRECY
96. The Bush Administration refuses to release twenty-seven pages of a Congressional report that reportedly detail the Saudi Arabian government’s connections to the 9/11 hijackers.
Source: Philadelphia Inquirer
97. Last year the Bush Administration spent $6.5 billion creating 14 million new classified documents and securing old secrets–the highest level of spending in ten years.
Source: openthegovernment.org
98. The Bush Administration spent $120 classifying documents for every $1 it spent declassifying documents.
Source: openthegovernment.org
99. The Bush Administration has spent millions of dollars and defied numerous court orders to conceal from the public who participated in Vice President Cheney’s 2001 energy task force.
Source: Washington Post
100. The Bush Administration–reversing years of bipartisan tradition–refuses to answer requests from Democratic members of Congress about how the White House is spending taxpayer money.
Source: Washington Post
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20041108/facts
February 28th, 2006 at 8:08 pmHere’s some more statistics for you stat mongers.
Top 25 Censored Stories of 2006
#1 Bush Administration Moves to Eliminate Open Government
#2 Media Coverage Fails on Iraq: Fallujah and the Civilian Death
#3 Another Year of Distorted Election Coverage
#4 Surveillance Society Quietly Moves In
#5 U.S. Uses Tsunami to Military Advantage in Southeast Asia
#6 The Real Oil for Food Scam
#7 Journalists Face Unprecedented Dangers to Life and Livelihood
#8 Iraqi Farmers Threatened By Bremer’s Mandates
#9 Iran’s New Oil Trade System Challenges U.S. Currency
#10 Mountaintop Removal Threatens Ecosystem and Economy
#11 Universal Mental Screening Program Usurps Parental Rights
#12 Military in Iraq Contracts Human Rights Violators
#13 Rich Countries Fail to Live up to Global Pledges
#14 Corporations Win Big on Tort Reform, Justice Suffers
#15 Conservative Plan to Override Academic Freedom in the Classroom
#16 U.S. Plans for Hemispheric Integration Include Canada
#17 U.S. Uses South American Military Bases to Expand Control of the Region
#18 Little Known Stock Fraud Could Weaken U.S. Economy
#19 Child Wards of the State Used in AIDS Experiments
#20 American Indians Sue for Resources; Compensation Provided to Others
#21 New Immigration Plan Favors Business Over People
#22 Nanotechnology Offers Exciting Possibilities But Health Effects Need Scrutiny
#23 Plight of Palestinian Child Detainees Highlights Global Problem
#24 Ethiopian Indigenous Victims of Corporate and Government Resource Aspirations
#25 Homeland Security Was Designed to Fail
http://www.projectcensored.org/censored_2006/
February 28th, 2006 at 8:17 pmAgain, nothing to do with port security. We know how much you hate Bush, Cheney and whoever disagrees with or offers alternative ideas to yours.
With the rancor that you are showing, I believe that you are looking more secular and fanatical than some of the regimes that you seem so against.
February 28th, 2006 at 8:32 pmSteve, how’s Osama doing? Make yourself useful. Turn him in and Collect that 25 Mil reward.
February 28th, 2006 at 8:44 pmAre you saying that Steve works for Bush or the Taliban? Or are you suggesting he works for both? Both makes alot more sense to me.
February 28th, 2006 at 9:00 pmIt has been 11 days since this furor has started. In that time not one Senator or Congressman has put forth any type of legislation to improve current port security. No legislation has been put forth to secure our border with Canada and Mexico. Democrats and Repulican leaders continue to drop the ball and point fingers at each other. Both sides continue to sit on their collective butts while the American people continue to be left at risk. These additudes trickle down to us common folks and divide us. This is supposed to The “UNITED” States!!! The extremes of both parties Republican and Democrat preach their hate and vileness to the American people. I remember shortly after 911…the great tragedy of my lifetime…the overwhelming sorrow I felt but also the overwelming pride I felt when America stood “UNITED”. 3000 people died that day NOT because of a Democrats fault and NOT because of a Republicans fault but becuse we had forgotten that we Americans only are strong when we are “UNITED”. The true tragedy of the 911 deaths is that we so quickly forgot that lesson! Do we have to take that test again? You can call yourself Republican or you can call yourself Democrat…me personally I am an American first and my politcal affiliations are a far far second. Both sides continue to preach their hate and that is real problem that is the real injustice and that is the real security gap. Until we find some common ground and tackle this problem with respect and reason for each other, we will be terrorist toast!
On that note I owe an apology to Slowtrain, I shouldn’t have called you a biggot and for that I am sorry and to Tee Zjack I was more than a liitle condecening with you, it was not appropriate, I’m sorry.
For those of you whom wish to attack this statement…you have every right to.
February 28th, 2006 at 10:08 pmBush Stats – I am with you on all the facts layed out re: comment 701 & 702
But what’s these got to do with DP world with a legit business deal. I don’t support Bush, hell I almost got into trouble for standing up against the Iraq war. I was born and raised in the ME region and I knew what sort of disaster would engulf if we went into Iraq. Not to mention the 10’s of thousand Iraqi civilians killed and/or maimed. Destruction of the arts and culture, museums etc I visited as a child on school trips – i.e. the earliest civilization(Mesapotamia/Babylon)all destroyed. And believe me, I was and am so bloodt mad, so angry – you cannot even imagine.
HOWEVER – I can’t hold that grude when Bush (silver lining in a dark cloud perhaps) approves a legit business deal, can I?
For once – keep aside your politics and look at the deal and what is best for America in the long run – no hidden messages, just an honest request.
February 28th, 2006 at 10:11 pmGood evening Roshan welcome to the madhouse…8)
February 28th, 2006 at 10:21 pmWell said Mr Dennis :)
May I also add, there are Americans and Arabs. There are hardworking families across the globe, be it American, Arab, European, Asian etc all who want to make a decent life and living for their kids and the future.
Whatever the world says about the US, we help the world the most.
Prime example – having lived in the ME region most of my life, even though I was part American and part Brit/Inidan- I never knew what it was like to vote. Why? because in the UAE we never had elections, these were ruled by Sheikhs and their offsprings etc.
However now with the Iraq war and whatever form of Democracy is being introduced and implemented in Iraq – it is a huge change, a new change, a new phenomenon for most souls in the ME region.
I believe if the DP world deal goes thru – the UAE and it’s citizens (please bear in mind this is probably the most western civilzed nation in the ME region) wll be more held accountable to introduce some sort of Democratic system. As someone who has lived in the ME region I cannot tell you how much of a difference this could be to most souls in that part of the world.
Infact – the US and Europeans are already pressuring the UAE to extend naturalization to people born in the UAE and to people who have lived in the UAE. Bring in more freedom of press like in the US.
I believe, there is a reason why perhaps this nation (the US) is so blessed, and I believe we have to share and introduce the freedoms we enjoy in this country to the less fortunate acros the world.
February 28th, 2006 at 10:26 pmPardon the spelling/grammar in my comment 709.
Just one more point – the DP world deal to Dubai in terms of numbers and monies is nothing. Perhaps a drop in the well. However I really believe if we send this current message (mostly commented on this site) to the UAE and the ME region – the world will become a less happy & safer place.
For how long can we ignore the rest of the world and live in our homes and go to our jobs. Like it or not – the US is involved in various activities with all sorts of countries in the world. Most often, our intentions are positive and we truly do extend a lot of help across the world. Don’t you guys think, we should take a chance in this DP world deal? Just “think” of the huge positive developments that can come out of such a gesture in the ME region – where America, unfortunately does not have the best identity.
February 28th, 2006 at 10:34 pmTO: UAESlaveTraders
I just want to know where you got your information, you really would know because you have been there and know exactly just how the country works, right. I have. This is a true fact. …. about 60% of the American News from the east to west coast is either misinterpretted(sp.), or just plain wrong. I happen to know because my spouse works for the AAMN
February 28th, 2006 at 10:41 pm(American Association of Misinterpretted News) in Denver,Co.
Roshan, It is obvious that you are an idealist and a bleading heart but despite my conservitive nature I find it a breath of fresh air. When this issue passes and we again find ourselves on opposites sides of the newest issues, I will see things a little clearer and with more understanding…..and maybe just a smidgieon more liberaly. 8)
February 28th, 2006 at 11:00 pmI wanted to see what this site was all about, and some statements I agree and then some I disagree. But I think that you guys should talk about politics seriously and not waste space just to put silly and insulting comments about each other because you disagree.
Example : # 704 (that was unessesary in my opinion)
February 28th, 2006 at 11:12 pmNot only that though. Not to pick on you AmericanJusticePrevails
Roshan, It is obvious that you are an idealist and a bleading heart but despite my conservitive nature I find it a breath of fresh air. When this issue passes and we again find ourselves on opposites sides of the newest issues, I will see things a little clearer and with more understanding…..and maybe just a smidgieon more liberaly. 8)
Comment by Dennis — February 28, 2006 @ 11:00 pm
Very entertaining Dennis. Perhaps our resident blogger from the Taliban, Steve said it best:
Nice,
Youse guys is playmates. Play nice together and agree alot. This will make you grow up big and strong and full of liberal knowledge. Because there can be no other.
Comment by steve — February 28, 2006 @ 7:09 pm
February 28th, 2006 at 11:18 pmI wanted to see what this site was all about, and some statements I agree and then some I disagree. But I think that you guys should talk about politics seriously and not waste space just to put silly and insulting comments about each other because you disagree.
Example : # 704 (that was unessesary in my opinion)
Not only that though. Not to pick on you AmericanJusticePrevails
Comment by Alexandra — February 28, 2006 @ 11:12 pm
Thats very touching Alexandra. Perhaps we should fly to Iraq and have picnic together near some tank wreckage blown up by depleted uranium shells…you know the kind the little Iraqi children play in in a daily basis.
February 28th, 2006 at 11:22 pmGood evening “NotFooled”
You seem troubled…I hope your heart finds peace this night. When I get angry like that I usally head out for a walk. Fresh air helps sometimes..or sometimes I call a friend just to talk or maybe vent a little. Takes some of the edge off. Any way I hope you feel better.
February 28th, 2006 at 11:37 pmDennis you’re a riot. You should write Hallmark greeting cards and send them to the families of people that died in 9/11. Perhaps the message would read something like this:
“You seem troubled…I hope your heart finds peace this night. When I get angry like that I usally head out for a walk. Fresh air helps sometimes..or sometimes I call a friend just to talk or maybe vent a little. Takes some of the edge off. Any way I hope you feel better. And please support the decision to lease our ports to Dubai/UAE. Don’t let one minor setback (the death of your loved one) stand in the way of you making the right choice. Afterall, we don’t want to disappoint our business partners in the middle east. And just because they recognize the Taliban as a legitimate government and laundered money for terrorists and engage and refused the US access to their bank accounts, and engage in Human Slavery, doesn’t mean they don’t deserve the opportunity to run the ports. I mean, afterall, whats the worst that could possibly happen? Thanks for understanding. Take care.
Your best friend,
Dennis”
March 1st, 2006 at 12:00 amPerhaps “NotFooled” I have missed my calling or perhaps we have both missed our calling as greeting card writers 8)
Yes I do support the sale in princple but I am glad it is going to go to a further review. This time around I am sure people like Senator Clinton will make sure its done right and is above board. The have enough votes at this point I think to override any veto. Makes the issue more clouded though because we will get new facts and points of view as we learn more from this investigation. Harder to effectively form an opinion when not all the facts are in.
I may change my mind by the time its over and then again I may not…but bottom line I don’t want to see Americans die. I really don’t think anyone one does. Being an American I am very sentimental that way. It affects me more than say an Iraqi death. I sometimes feel a little guilty that that an American life is more valuable to me than say an Iraqi but thats just my Catholic upbringing. We are a very guilt oriented religion.
I would sugest that you get involved in a group that wants to block the sale. Maybe a letter writing campain or some sort of protest if your near a port or the capital. Active participation may help abate some of your anger as well and who knows what you do may really help block the sale.
I am going to let this new invetigation run its course and see what new things I can learn. Maybe your arguments will sway me yet but for the time being when you weigh the pros and cons of it is so so close and I still lean to the sale.
Peace
March 1st, 2006 at 12:29 amThis will all blow over once the ILA through their media and political supporter is able force Dubai Ports to guarantee that no ILA jobs will be eliminated either from terminal operations or from stevedore operations. At that point all the fear mongering will go away just like it did when China began running terminal operations on the US West Coast during the Clinton administration.
March 1st, 2006 at 10:40 amThe only real legal question affecting this deal is UAE’s refusal to recognize Israel, which could be a sticking point. Though I believe this will in the end be ignored.
Kezik – if the UAE “recognizes” Israel, it’s probably going to be bombed into oblivion by Iran, the Taliban, OBL and his bloody croonies.
Anyways – please don’t preach Israel as the country which is the “victim” here. I just don’t buy that. My mother, a doctor – works for the UN and she often visits the Palestinian refugee camps in west bank and Gaza on her. I have been to Bethlehem and it is heart wrenching to see the daily humuliation and lives of Palestinian people under Israeli occupation.
We here in the US get to see NOTHING close to the truth (except when a bomber blows himself up) on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.
Well this is another debate altogether.
Someone mentioned on this site – the UAE does not allow visitors from Israel or people who have Israeli stamps in their passport. This is absolutely false – at the IMF meeting last year, there were dignatories from Israel and several other countries.
March 1st, 2006 at 10:54 amDennis,
Apology accepted, i think, but not really neccessary.
Quite frankly, the 45 days congress has asked for and received turns out to be a scam, since the deal goes through tomorrow regardless. So it will not matter what,where,when, why,how the deal went thru a process immorally, if not illegally. So DPW will be operating these ports for at least, a year or 2 or more?, because it will have to go through a court process to get overturned. I suppose i do get some gratification by the ineptness that was exposed in the handling of this venture, although that has a double-edge on it too. For the Shrub is my president and it is OUR gov’t that looks like buffoons to the rest of the world.
re post 718 by dennis:
“I may change my mind by the time its over and then again I may not…but bottom line I don’t want to see Americans die. I really don’t think anyone one does. Being an American I am very sentimental that way. It affects me more than say an Iraqi death. I sometimes feel a little guilty that that an American life is more valuable to me than say an Iraqi but thats just my Catholic upbringing. We are a very guilt oriented religion.”
This statement is very bothersome to me since i have had a catholic upbringing and was not brought up that way. What makes an american life more valuable than an iraqi life? A human life is a human life, period!! As far as guilt goes, i know that story. MY guilt lies moreso in the fact that i was not able to help more to change the results in our last elections and possibly there would be less blood on our hands now.
re post #691 by kezik:
March 1st, 2006 at 12:02 pmWas wondering what makes you think more automation is better or even more efficient? It baffles my mind how that mindset runs rampant through this country. In the long run , i can see how it can be cheaper, but in all my years of working in the manufacturing industry it has only made things easier, not better or more efficient. I could give alot of examples, but efficiency is predicated by the humanness behind the automation. That said, yes, i am a union worker, tho not neccessarly very pro-union. Unions have their deficiencies, but overall they are good for workers, more precisely, for AMERICAN workers as a whole. Every benefit that even non-union workers have are owed to the fight that unions fought over the years, and that goes up and down the work field from us blue-collars to the white-collars to even congressmen and the such. There are very few that havent been affected.
From that and what was stated in post#691, i feel this deal was mainly consumated for the benefit of busting more union-workers. A slight reach for some to think, but in reality, it is very major concern for this administration. There is nothing wrong with wishing that someone can lead a modest, comfortable life for the sake of larger profits. So economic safety is very much on my mind.
Ultimately, i feel our port security sucks, and it sucks that my president does not want to spend more $$$$ on it, yet give more tax cuts to the top 1% moneymakers, while we ARE at WARS!! Most probably, if al queda wanted or wants to get something thru our ports, they probably could or will, regardless of who is managing them, DPW or otherwise. I just dont think it is advisable for any security issues we would have to share with DPW at this time, is a very good idea.
I’m running on and on, and my points are moot, given that the deal is done, in spite of what ever facade is being put on now, although it may not happen again. : )
A note to all: ” You can bomb the world to pieces, but YOU cant bomb it to PEACE.”…………………………………………………….I’m done venting
ok this is fucked up what are you arguing about this is pointless who cares if arabs take over waterports it’s not like its gonna affect us all we care is about our life, our job, our family that’s it.
March 1st, 2006 at 12:40 pmI cannot believe that this is actually happening. Have we honestly lost American to the highest bidder. What happened to America defending Americans. Jefferson, Washington, Hamilton, Adams are all turning in their graves. This seriously makes me wonder what America will be like for my children. I am now at a loss for words, my heart belongs to America and its seems like all it takes is some money for it to be sold to an Arab country. May God show mercy on our stupidity.
March 1st, 2006 at 12:59 pmDavid – are you oblivious to American companies and Americans being the most afluent/rich “buyers” across the world, where companies and assets of foreign companies are purchased almost every month?
This is a different world from Jefferson days. NOBODY is selling AMERICA – but in today’s world of commerence, purchase and sale and repurchase of foreign assets is a given fact.
March 1st, 2006 at 1:22 pmAlso in this port deal – NOBODY is SELLING ANY US PORTS! NOBODY IS BYING ANY PORTS.
DP world is only LEASING certain TERMINALS in SIX US PORTS.
March 1st, 2006 at 1:24 pmTHE PORTS ARE OWNED BY THE US.
Hey, I am an English Teacher, and I’d like to invite my 10th grade La Vernia High School students to join this discussion. What do you think?
March 1st, 2006 at 1:37 pmRoshan
I was not making any geopolitical judgements about Israel. I was referring to US laws prohibiting certain dealings with countries that do not recognize the country of Israel. Basically, this deal might violate US law.
In no way was I intending to justify any actions by Israel against their neighbors.
tee jack
I pointed out the fact that Dubai Ports is recognized by the maritime industry as a company that will automate as much as possible and eliminate ILA jobs. This is a fact, not denounciation of labor unions, I am making no judgements at all. Just pointing out the facts as I hear them from my contacts at P&O Ports because I thought it germain to the discussion.
March 1st, 2006 at 2:22 pmDennis re: comment 712. Thanks, and feel the same way if & when the next liberal or conservative debate comes up : ) Have to admit, your views have made me see things a bit more clearer from the conservative aspect – also makes me realize, the other side is not always wrong, as there are valid points.
March 1st, 2006 at 2:48 pmMy bad Kezik – thanks & noted.
March 1st, 2006 at 2:50 pmKristen,
March 1st, 2006 at 3:26 pmMy guess is you are going to use this forum to show how the english language and punctuations are battered, which i think is fine, i guess. But there is alot of emotional outbursts , which result in some heavy-duty language. Nothing 10th-graders probably havent seen, especially havent heard before. I, being of a liberal mind think that it is a terrific idea, though i have reservations on what your school district might think. all the power to y’all!!!
The takeover of P&O by DP World has seemingly brought out every nut to make sword rattling against this corporate takeover a part of their daily routine. This supposed “National Security Problem” has also brought out a lot of mis-information by both sides and outright lies by others:
1) No fact checking seems to have been done by either our government officials or the media. By going to the P&O site, the facts would state that the U.S. port leases that were being sold numbered 5 (five), the sixth port is Vancouver, BC. Just about every reported comment has made the same mistake, the New York & New Jersey Ports are 1 (one) entity. The P&O operation within the NY&NJ Port Authority is actually in the Port of Newark. Now unless we have taken on the new state of British Columbia, the statements have been incorrect. As a side note; P&O has operations in 23 (twenty three) U.S. ports, the others are stevedoring operations.
2) Our members of Congress making a big deal out of the CFIUS handling of the details of this deal. The following from the CFIUS Fact Sheet:
After a transaction has been filed, CFIUS conducts an initial review, utilizing the full intelligence and national security infrastructure of the U.S. government, based on detailed information from the parties, which frequently receive questions and requests for clarification from CFIUS. The scope of these reviews focus on two key thresholds:
Test 1: Is there credible evidence that the foreign interest exercising control might take action that threatens national security?
Test 2: If yes, do laws other than Exon-Florio and the International Emergency Economic Powers Act provide adequate and appropriate authority for the President to protect national security?
If consensus exists that no credible threat to national security exists, or threat has been mitigated, CFIUS decides – within 30 days – not to open a further investigation.
If the U.S. Congress has a problem with a bill or law that they themselves have written, shouldn’t they stand up and take the blame and not accuse the Executive branch of using backdoor and underhanded methods when the appropriate measures were taken?
3) A senior Homeland Security official, Stewart Baker, said this was the first-ever sale involving U.S. port operations to a state-owned company. “In that sense this is a new layer of controls,†he said. Baker added that U.S. intelligence agencies were consulted “very early on to actually look at vulnerabilities and threats.â€
Maybe we really do have a major problem, when I can name at least 1 (one) other “state-owned” company, COSCO is a Chinese state-owned company doig business in the following ports:
Baltimore – Stevedore and Terminal Operations
Boston – Stevedore
Charleston -Stevedore and Terminal Operations
Chicago – Stevedore
Henderson – Stevedore
Houston – Stevedore and Terminal Operations
Long Beach – Stevedore and Terminal Operations
Miami – Stevedore and Terminal Operations
New Orleans – Stevedore and Terminal Operations
New York – Stevedore and Terminal Operations
Norfolk – Stevedore and Terminal Operations
Oakland – Stevedore and Terminal Operations
San Francisco – Stevedore
Savannah – Stevedore and Terminal Operations
Secaucus – (HQ)
Seattle – Stevedore and Terminal Operations
4) The following statement by former President Wm. J. Clinton, who told reporters at a meeting of the nation’s governors that the process by which a multi-agency panel approved the deal was “too secretive, too low-level.†Mr Clinton knows too well the CFIUS route:
CNN Cox Report 5/25/99
China Ocean Shipping Company (COSCO), the PRCs state-owned shipping company which operates under the direction of the Ministry of Foreign Trade and Economic Cooperation and answers to the PRC State Council, attempted to lease port space that was being vacated by the U.S. Navy in Long Beach, California. The lease proposal led to a heated debate between Congress, which wanted to prevent the lease based on national security concerns, and President Clinton, who supported the lease. Legislation passed by both houses of Congress in 1997 barred the lease and voided the Presidents authority to grant a waiver.
Other information indicates COSCO is far from benign. In 1996, U.S. Customs agents confiscated over 2,000 assault rifles that were being smuggled into the United States aboard COSCO ships. “Although presented as a commercial entity,” according to the House Task Force on Terrorism and Unconventional Warfare, “COSCO is actually an arm of the Chinese military establishment.” The Clinton administration has determined that additional information concerning COSCO that appears in the Select Committees classified Final Report cannot be made public“. (An expanded report from the Library of Congress, Congressional Research Service can be found at ) http://www.fas.org/man/crs/97-476.txt
5) If (4) is correct, then why would Senator H.R. Clinton make such foolish statements concerning the P&O acquisition. Are we to believe she wasn’t aware of her husbands’s previous dealings, then, she didn’t ask a former President that she is married to, what the CFIUS panel did, how did it work or if he had any other knowledge to shed light on the whole procedure? Or, to take the former Presidents quotes in (4) and add her own aspirations and make good copy for her future political aspirations?
These are just a few of some of the comments that concern me and should concern everyone.
March 1st, 2006 at 4:15 pmBTW, Senator Susan Collins-(R ME)stated that CFIUS started this process on December 13, 2005. Just to allay any comments that this just happened and couldn’t be looked at this quickly.
March 1st, 2006 at 4:39 pmBush drops ball on Katrina, ignores warnings.
White House Got Early Warning on Katrina
By Joby Warrick
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, January 24, 2006; A02
“I don’t think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees. They did anticipate a serious storm,” Bush said in a Sept. 1 interview on ABC’s “Good Morning America.”
In the 48 hours before Hurricane Katrina hit, the White House received detailed warnings about the storm’s likely impact, including eerily prescient predictions of breached levees, massive flooding, and major losses of life and property, documents show.
A 41-page assessment by the Department of Homeland Security’s National Infrastructure Simulation and Analysis Center (NISAC), was delivered by e-mail to the White House’s “situation room,” the nerve center where crises are handled, at 1:47 a.m. on Aug. 29, the day the storm hit, according to an e-mail cover sheet accompanying the document.
The NISAC paper warned that a storm of Katrina’s size would “likely lead to severe flooding and/or levee breaching” and specifically noted the potential for levee failures along Lake Pontchartrain. It predicted economic losses in the tens of billions of dollars, including damage to public utilities and industry that would take years to fully repair. Initial response and rescue operations would be hampered by disruption of telecommunications networks and the loss of power to fire, police and emergency workers, it said.
In a second document, also obtained by The Washington Post, a computer slide presentation by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, prepared for a 9 a.m. meeting on Aug. 27, two days before Katrina made landfall, compared Katrina’s likely impact to that of “Hurricane Pam,” a fictional Category 3 storm used in a series of FEMA disaster-preparedness exercises simulating the effects of a major hurricane striking New Orleans. But Katrina, the report warned, could be worse.
The hurricane’s Category 4 storm surge “could greatly overtop levees and protective systems” and destroy nearly 90 percent of city structures, the FEMA report said. It further predicted “incredible search and rescue needs (60,000-plus)” and the displacement of more than a million residents.
The NISAC analysis accurately predicted the collapse of floodwalls along New Orleans’s Lake Pontchartrain shoreline, an event that the report described as “the greatest concern.” The breach of two canal floodwalls near the lake was the key failure that left much of central New Orleans underwater and accounted for the bulk of Louisiana’s 1,100 Katrina-related deaths.
The documents shed new light on the extent on the administration’s foreknowledge about Katrina’s potential for unleashing epic destruction on New Orleans and other Gulf Coast cities and towns. President Bush, in a televised interview three days after Katrina hit, suggested that the scale of the flooding in New Orleans was unexpected. “I don’t think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees. They did anticipate a serious storm,” Bush said in a Sept. 1 interview on ABC’s “Good Morning America.”
The reports echo warnings given around the same time by Max Mayfield, head of the National Hurricane Center, who began sounding the alarm when forecasters first placed Katrina on a collision with the Gulf Coast on the evening of Aug. 26. But the FEMA and NISAC reports provided much more detail and covered a wider range of possible consequences, from damaged ports and oil terminals to spikes in energy prices.
The White House declined to comment yesterday on the specifics of the reports but noted that the president has repeatedly acknowledged his displeasure with preparations for Katrina. “No one was pleased with the response by the government — federal, state or local,” spokesman Trent Duffy said. “We have already taken steps to be better prepared for future hurricanes, as you saw in the response to the hurricanes that followed Katrina.”
The disclosure of the reports comes as the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee prepares to convene new hearings today into the federal government’s performance during Katrina. Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (Conn.), the committee’s ranking Democrat, responded to the documents in a statement saying the administration’s failure to fully heed the warnings of its analysts “compounded the tragedy.”
“Two to three days before Katrina hit the Gulf Coast, it became clear that it would be the ‘Big One’ everyone has been talking about for years,” Lieberman said.
© 2006 The Washington Post Company
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/23/AR2006012301711.html
March 1st, 2006 at 6:30 pmBush responsible for 9/11, ignores warnings.
Is Bush to blame for 9/11?
By Mike Hersh, Apr 6, 2004
I wrote this more than two years ago, and stand by every word.
The Bush White House is trying block investigations into the 9-11 terror attacks. Democrats demand public investigations, but Bush and Cheney are desperate to prevent this. Here’s why: The Saudis hired several current and former top Bush administration officials. These officials looked the other way – or worse – before and after the Saudi-sponsored terrorist attacks.
Saudi $millions compromised the patriotism of top current and former Bush officials including George Walker Bush, George Herbert Walker Bush, James A. Baker III, and many others who work or worked in both Bush administrations. Ties between the Bush and bin Laden families, the Carlyle Group and top Saudi officials let the Oil Royals beat the US like a rented camel.
How close are Bush family ties to Saudi Arabia? “Nowhere is the revolving U.S.-Saudi money wheel more evident than within President Bush’s own coterie of foreign policy advisers, starting with the president’s father, George H. W. Bush,” according to the Boston Herald.
Jimmy Breslin says, “Our government knows … that Saudi Arabians were the murderers on the planes on Sept. 11. The leader was this guy Atta, from Saudi Arabia, and he flew the plane into the north tower.” Breslin concludes, “It’s All About Oil.”
Does all this Saudi oil money in the pockets of Bush’s friends and family hurt us? The Boston Herald reports: “Those lucrative financial relationships call into question the ability of America’s political elite to make tough foreign policy decisions about the kingdom that produced Osama bin Laden and is perhaps the biggest incubator for anti-Western Islamic terrorists.”
Greg Palast examined “The CIA and Saudi Arabia, the Bushes and the Bin Ladens” on the BBC Newsnight program and asked, “Did their connections cause America to turn a blind eye to terrorism?” Palast identified Washington, DC suburb Falls Church, Virginia as a nest of bin Laden terrorists.
FBI documents obtained by the Guardian shown on BBC Newsnight and show that they sought to investigate two of Osama bin Laden’s relatives in Washington and a Muslim organization, the World Assembly of Muslim Youth,” also known as WAMY.
National security agents confirmed that Bush ordered them to “back off” their investigations into the bin Ladens, WAMY, and other terrorists living nearby. Bush obsequiousness toward Saudis with alarming connections to terrorism is nothing new.
Citing a document marked Secret. Case ID – 199-Eye WF 213 589, Palast explained Washington field office special agents were investigating Osama Bin Laden’s brother Abdullah Bin Laden and WAMY — a suspected terrorist organization — but Bush ordered them to “back off.”
The Pan Am International Flight Academy reported suspicious behavior, and outlined the specific threat to the Bush FBI and FAA. The Bush administration spiked the warnings. Now they’re denying they were warned with enough specificity.
According to a Minneapolis-St. Paul Star Tribune story published December 21, 2001: “Besides alerting the FBI about [indicted terrorist Zacarias] Moussaoui, the school’s Phoenix office called the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) early this year about another student — Hani Hanjour, who was believed to be the pilot of the plane that flew into the Pentagon on Sept. 11.”
Look how specific the warning was over a month before the 9/11 attacks: “Do you realize how serious this is?” the instructor asked an FBI agent. “This man wants training on a 747. A 747 fully loaded with fuel could be used as a weapon!” – this quoted from briefings to Congressional offices, as reported in the Star Trib. One of the suspicious men reported to the FBI flew the jet into the Pentagon. The other is about to stand trial for terrorism.
Pan Am reported suspicions about these men to the Bush FBI and the Bush FAA. Nothing happened. It looks as if Bush ordered the investigators to “back off” because Bush’s family makes millions of dollars in business dealings with the bin Ladens and other Saudis, thereby jeopardizing our national security to coddle Saudis. Again, as reported in the Star Tribune:
“An FAA representative sat in on a class to observe Hanjour, who was from Saudi Arabia.” Did this Bush official report Hanjour to the FBI? No. He “discussed with school officials finding an Arabic-speaking person to help him with his English, said Minnesota Representative Oberstar and others with direct knowledge of the school’s briefings.”
Rather than haul in this terrorist in training for questioning, the Bush FAA helped him learn to fly one of our jets into one of our buildings. Pan Am personnel weren’t as trusting as the Bush administration, and sought to alert law enforcement.
The Star Trib reports: “When the instructor phoned, the FBI agent strongly urged him to pursue the matter but gave him the wrong agent to call, the sources said. The instructor made three more calls before reaching the right agent on August 15, the sources said. Moussaoui was arrested the next day and held on an immigration violation.”
Despite these specific warnings, the Bush administration blocked FBI and other investigations into terror suspects including brothers of Osama bin Laden, operating in the very shadow of the Pentagon!
Palast and David Pallister wrote in the London, UK-based Guardian newspaper, on November 7, 2001, “US intelligence agencies have come under criticism for their wholesale failure to predict the catastrophe at the World Trade Centre. But agents complain that their hands were tied.”
Bush concerns for Saudi sensibilities fatally compromised our national security. Pan Am reported suspicions about these men to the Bush FBI and the Bush FAA. Because Bush’s family makes $millions in business with the bin Ladens and other Saudis, Bush ordered the investigators to “back off,” jeopardizing our national security to coddle Saudis.
The pattern of deception and secrecy began months ago. Why did the Bush administration delay releasing the bin Laden videotape, and why did their translation omit or change critical passages?
ABC News doesn’t question why the Saudi police would help a so-called “dissident” meet with a supposed pariah bin Laden, but reports that on the tape, Harbi “tells bin Laden that in Saudi Arabia, several prominent clerics — some with connections to the Saudi government — made speeches supporting the attacks on America.”
Despite two generations of Bushes slavishly serving Saudi interests, the arrogant oil sheiks escalate their demands and flout their support of bin Laden and terror. Saudi state-run media and top officials lash out at “U.S. media [they consider] critical about the lack of Saudi support for the ongoing investigations.” Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah micromanages the Bush Middle East policy.
The New York Times rang the alarm bell in an October 14, 2001 editorial called “Reconsidering Saudi Arabia.” Our blood is on Saudi hands, because “money and manpower from Saudi Arabia helped create and sustain Osama bin Laden’s terrorist organization.”
According to this insightful editorial, “Saudi Arabia sponsor[ed] Afghanistan’s ruling Taliban movement, along with Pakistan. Also, “The Saudi government has allowed Saudi [pro-terror] organizations to funnel money to Al Qaeda and its terrorist network.”
The Saudis supported our enemies when they “barred Washington from using Saudi air bases to launch attacks against Afghanistan.” The Arabic News.Com reported, “The Saudi defense minister Sultan Bin Abdul Aziz has accused Zionism of being behind the media campaign against Saudi Arabia in the US. Whose side is Bush on?
Of course Bush’s Saudi masters oppress their women, and never allow their people the right to vote – just like the Taliban the Saudis supported. The Bush administration helped a few dozen bin Laden relatives flee the US the same time they were trying to obscure their family ties to the Bushes.
Here’s the smoking gun that links Bush family financial interests to the breakdown in national security on 9/11: Palast reports, “I received a phone call from a high-placed member of a US intelligence agency [who said] under George Bush the agencies were told to ‘back off’ investigating the Bin Ladens and Saudi royals, and that angered agents.”
The Bushes, James A. Baker III – the fixer who helped Bush steal the election – Dick Cheney, the Carlyle Group, and the band of Texas oil barons who have backed Bush’s political career wanted a pipeline built through Afghanistan. Like his father before him, Bush placates his Saudi masters like some appointed colonial satrap.
Saudis led the terrorist attacks on 9/11, but rather than directing our anger at them, Bush attacked Afghanistan — the poorest, weakest nation in the region. He said this was to bring back bin Laden – “dead or alive” – but recently Bush said that’s no longer a priority. If it ever was. Then why did we attack Afghanistan?
The BBC and other international media report many of Bush’s top campaign contributors have been trying to build a pipeline through Afghanistan. They negotiated with the Taliban for years. When talks broke down, the Bush administration stepped in threatening to carpet bomb Afghanistan if the Taliban blocked the deal.
This doesn’t explain why our administration is still taking orders from the Saudis. Bush can only serve one nation: the US or Saudi Arabia. How much American blood will Bush risk for Saudi oil? The Bush people are “either with us or against us.” The Saudis are not “with us.” Which side are the Bushes on?
Official Arab sources are even more specific about lack of Saudi cooperation with our efforts to combat terrorism. The Arabic News.Com reported, “The Saudi defense minister Sultan Bin Abdul Aziz has accused Zionism of being behind the media campaign against Saudi Arabia in the US.”
The same source reported: “Saudi Arabia has refused to comply with a US request to freeze bank accounts Washington suspects that they have links to certain terrorist groups.” [sic] Saudi officials see nothing wrong with their support for terror and their obstruction of American efforts to combat terror. They dismiss even deferential questioning of their pro-terror activities as “Zionism” in the US media.
As usual, Bush’s mouthpieces are trying to blame President Clinton for these security lapses. This ignores the facts. The Clinton Administration took strong and certain steps to protect us from terrorism. As the Washington Post reported, President Clinton threatened the Taliban with sure retribution:
“Assistant Secretary of State Michael A. Sheehan, the department’s counterterrorism coordinator, delivered the new message directly to the Taliban. He telephoned Foreign Minister Ahmed Waqil and read him a formal declaration known as a demarche. ‘If bin Laden or any of the organizations affiliated with him attacks the United States or United States interests,’ he told Waqil, ‘we will hold you, the leadership of the Taliban, personally accountable. Do you understand what I am saying? This is from the highest level of my government.’”
President Clinton held a loaded gun to back up his ultimatum. Again, according to the Washington Post: “The Clinton administration ordered the Navy to maintain two Los Angeles-class attack submarines on permanent station in the nearest available waters, enabling the U.S. military to place Tomahawk cruise missiles on any target in Afghanistan within about six hours of receiving the order.”
President Clinton had two nuclear submarines aimed at the Taliban, and he told them so. Clinton was poised to fire missiles at any location where our agents spotted bin Laden. Bush ordered those submarines to stand down.
Bush coddled the Taliban because his father and friends were trying to build a pipeline through Taliban territory. President Clinton didn’t put a pipeline over protecting our people. He read the riot act to the Taliban. He directly threatened to counterattack them if bin Laden attacked us.
Other Republicans are complicit in selling out our security for greedy gain. Al Gore led a commission to improve air security in the US, but the Republican Congress blocked this. Gore stressed action against bin Laden in his 2000 Campaign Platform. He would have continued Clinton / Gore policies holding the Taliban accountable while pursuing Al Queda.
From the 2000 Democratic Platform: “Battling Terrorism. Whether terrorism is sponsored by a foreign nation or inspired by a single fanatic individual, such as Osama Bin Laden, Forward Engagement requires trying to disrupt terrorist networks, even before they are ready to attack.
“We must improve coordination internationally and domestically to share intelligence and develop operational plans. We must continue the comprehensive approach that has resulted in the development of a national counter-terrorism strategy involving all arms and levels of our government.
“We must continue to target terrorist finances, break up support cells, and disrupt training. And we must close avenues of cyber-attack by improving the security of the Internet and the computers upon which our digital economy exists.
“As President, Al Gore will tolerate no attack against American interests at home or abroad: terrorists must know that if they attack America, we will never forget. We will scour the world to hunt them down and bring them to justice.”
Like Bill Clinton, Al Gore would have done all he could to prevent the attacks. W. Bush cannot say that. Al Gore would not have sold out our security to Saudi Arabia as Bush did. Bush lifted the Clinton / Gore protections. He reversed these policies. Our enemies saw Bush’s weakness as their opening and attacked. Bush is to blame for 9/11. That’s what Bush is trying to hide from the American people.
CBS News, The Washington Post and Newsweek report Bush wants all inquiry into 9-11 limited to the House and Senate intelligence committees which keep their proceedings secret. On May 16, 2002, CBS Evening News quoted Senate Leader Tom Daschle stating that Cheney repeatedly pressured him to keep quiet about 9-11.
Daschle refuses to bow to the pressure, saying: “Intelligence is just a piece of it. People need to know what happened.” Bush rejected this answer, and had Vice President Richard Cheney threaten Sen. Daschle to keep quiet. “Press the issue, Cheney implied, and you risk being accused of interfering with the [war on terrorism].”
Senator Robert Torricelli also wants a broad and public inquiry: “We do not meet our responsibilities to the American people if we do not take an honest look at the federal government and all of its agencies and let the country know what went wrong.”
Bush ordered our national security agents to “back off” the bin Laden terrorists. A former CIA agent appeared BBC TV saying: “We were just told, ‘You get caught spying on the Saudis or looking into their affairs, and you will lose your head!’”
When Representative Cynthia McKinney asked “Why then does the administration remain steadfast in its opposition to an investigation into the biggest terrorism attack in history?” the White House sent its attack dogs to ridicule McKinney.
Bush’s spokesman Ari Fleischer laughed: “The congresswoman must be running for the hall of fame of the Grassy Knoll Society.” Now Fleischer is denying Bush had specific warnings about the 9/11 attacks. We know that’s just not true.
The Bush administration is trying to lean on and laugh off our elected officials who demand answers. We’re not laughing. The terrorist attacks were a massive, tragic failure. Our Defense Department failed to protect its home, the Pentagon itself. We cannot afford secrecy over security.
People are debating about the 9/11 terrorist attacks which killed 1000s of people, and changed life as we know it forever. Some say Bush’s FBI and CIA knew the attacks were coming, and let it happen anyway.
I personally do not believe these theories, however, because these are the most serious accusations imaginable, we must investigate them. It doesn’t matter whether or not we think they’re true. We have to dispel even the specter of doubt and prevent what will look like a cover up.
I can’t settle that issue here. We need a serious, public, in-depth investigation to do that, but this much I know. Whether or not the FBI and / or CIA knew about the attacks ahead of time, the Bush “national security” team allowed the biggest attack on the US since the war of 1812. At best, Bush is at fault for the attacks because of fatally poor judgment and gross recklessness.
The buck stops there.
Bush’s decisions left us wide open, in effect encouraged the attacks on the Pentagon and World Trade Center. President Clinton had 2 nuclear submarines aimed at the Taliban, and he told them so. Clinton was poised to fire missiles at any location where our agents spotted bin Laden. Bush ordered those submarines to stand down.
Bush coddled the Taliban, apparently because his father and friends were trying to build a pipeline through Taliban territory. President Clinton didn’t put a pipeline over protecting our people. He read the riot act to the Taliban. He directly threatened to counterattack them if bin Laden attacked us.
Al Gore would have kept us safe. Gore led a commission to improve air security in the US. He stressed action against bin Laden in his 2000 Campaign Platform. He would have continued Clinton / Gore policies holding the Taliban accountable while pursuing Al Queda. Like Bill Clinton, Al Gore would have prevented the attacks.
Bush lifted the Clinton / Gore protections. He reversed these policies. Our enemies saw Bush’s weakness and softness as their opening and attacked. Bush is to blame for 9/11.
More Reasons Al Gore Should Be President
Other than the fact Al Gore won the election, carrying the USA and the state of Florida, Al Gore is far more qualified than AWOL Bush, and he might have prevented the 9/11 terrorist attacks.
Al Gore led a commission which would have greatly increased air safety, if not blocked by Republicans in Congress. Al Gore would not have sold out our security to Saudi Arabia as Bush did.
Unlike Bush, Democrats and Al Gore considered protecting American lives against Osama bin Laden important enough to put that in their Campaign Platform. It seems Al Gore and Democrats deserve credit as Bush speech writers.
AWOL Bush’s “born again” concern for our lives and fighting terror includes plagiarizing the Democratic platform, but little else. He thinks he’s keeping us safe by rounding up innocent Americans, and bombing Afghans for terror his Saudi friends sponsored and committed.
From the 2000 Democratic Platform
http://www.democrats.org/issues/platform/platform.html
Osama Bin Laden Mentioned in the excerpt below:
“Battling Terrorism. Whether terrorism is sponsored by a foreign nation or inspired by a single fanatic individual, such as Osama Bin Laden, Forward Engagement requires trying to disrupt terrorist networks, even before they are ready to attack.
“We must improve coordination internationally and domestically to share intelligence and develop operational plans. We must continue the comprehensive approach that has resulted in the development of a national counter- terrorism strategy involving all arms and levels of our government.
“We must continue to target terrorist finances, break up support cells, and disrupt training. And we must close avenues of cyber- attack by improving the security of the Internet and the computers upon which our digital economy exists.
“As President, Al Gore will tolerate no attack against American interests at home or abroad: terrorists must know that if they attack America, we will never forget. We will scour the world to hunt them down and bring them to justice.”
Bush is to blame for 9/11. Bill Clinton and Al Gore anticipated trouble from bin Laden, and took steps which had kept us safe until Bush reversed those policies. Bush even ordered the FBI and CIA to “back off” bin Laden terrorists operating in the US!
See: http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/cta/progs/newsnight/attack22.ram
Bush’s incompetent coddling of the Saudi terrorists and the Taliban left us wide open. This weakness encouraged the attacks. Bottom line: Bush is to blame for 9/11.
We demand investigations into links between the Bush and bin Laden families, Bush’s father and former US officials in the Carlyle Group, the Saudi Royal family, and other conflicts of interest. Bush is blocking such an investigation.
Did $millions of Saudi money in Bush’s pocket influence him to order US intelligence agents to “back off” terrorists?
Did conflicts of interest cause 1000s of American deaths? We deserve a complete answer. If the facts substantiate our concerns, let the impeachment begin.
http://www.mikehersh.com/Is_Bush_to_blame_for_911.shtml
March 1st, 2006 at 6:34 pmUS Coast Guard expressed concerns regarding Dubai, Bush Ignores Warnings
Port deal warning
Coast Guard last year said it could not gauge whether Dubai firm would provide platform for terrorists
Email this story
Printer friendly format
Photo
Sen. Charles Schumer (Getty Images)
Feb 27, 2006
Vote: Is it a security risk?
Do you think it is a security risk to turn over control of 6 U.S. ports to an Arab company?
Yes
No
I’m not sure
I don’t care
Talk Back: Ports deal
Share your thoughts on the pending sale of shipping operations at six major U.S. seaports to a business in the United Arab Emirates.
——————————————————————————–
Who is the man that would sell out his brother man for “business interests.” Bush. Worst President ever.
Submitted by: John Shaft
1:47 PM EST, Mar 1, 2006
——————————————————————————–
How can our president use a veto power that is privalaged and for the benefit of the american people to fight for a foreign company and country. And his only argument is that he didn’t know about the deal and that america is racist and thats why we don’t want the deal.
Submitted by: T
1:14 PM EST, Mar 1, 2006
——————————————————————————–
Read more comments or post your own
Special Section
Coverage of ports deal
The deal
The British company that now manages six U.S. ports would cede operations to Dubai Ports World.
Dubai would hire the longshoremen that unload ships, but US. Customs and immigration would inspect the crews and cargo.
Dubai manages more than 20 ports and terminals worldwide, including its home base in the United Arab Emirates.
Graphics
Graphic: Ranking U.S. ports
Graphic: Securing U.S. ports
Graphic: Managing ports globally
BY CRAIG GORDON AND GLENN THRUSH
NEWSDAY WASHINGTON BUREAU
February 28, 2006
WASHINGTON — Despite repeated White House assurances that the Dubai ports deal poses no significant threat, the Coast Guard warned last year that it couldn’t say whether the company involved would provide a platform for “terrorist operations” at U.S. seaports.
A significant lack of information on Dubai Ports World operations, personnel and “foreign influence” on the company raised “potential unknown threats against a large number of potential vulnerabilities,” according to the December Coast Guard report
There are many intelligence gaps … that preclude an overall threat assessment,” it added.
The surprising revelation threatened to re-ignite controversy over the deal that the White House, Republican leaders in Congress and the company had hoped to tamp down with a compromise announced Sunday.
DP World agreed to voluntarily submit to a new 45-day security review of its deal to take over a British company’s operations at six U.S. ports.
Instead, the fresh information appeared to bolster some congressional critics. Rep. Peter King (R-Seaford) had talked Sunday of holding off on introducing a bill to require Congress to approve of the deal, but now is expected to go forward this week, sources said.
In the Senate, a bipartisan group of 10 senators led by Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) introduced a similar bill Monday.
And Schumer’s New York colleague, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, said earlier in the day that she doubted she could ever support a United Arab Emirates-owned company operating U.S. ports, even after a review.
The Coast Guard intelligence report surfaced at a Senate briefing by Bush administration officials on the DP World decision to seek a new review, designed to head off a veto showdown between President George W. Bush and Republicans in Congress this week.
Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), a co-sponsor of Schumer’s bill, revealed the unclassified assessment, then sharply challenged Coast Guard and Homeland Security department officials to explain it.
“I am more convinced than ever that the process was truly flawed,” said Collins, the Senate Homeland Security committee chairwoman. “I can only conclude that there was rush to judgment and that there wasn’t the kind of painstaking analysis that needed to be done.”
But the Coast Guard said in a statement that the concerns addressed in the report were answered later by other intelligence agencies.
“The Coast Guard, the intelligence community and the entire CFIUS panel believed this transaction received the proper review, and national security concerns were, in fact, addressed,” the Coast Guard said. CFIUS is short-hand for the Committee on Foreign Investments in the United States, a multi-agency panel that reviews foreign purchases of vital U.S. assets.
That once-obscure panel has been the center of the controversy, as critics say it sidestepped a legally mandated 45-day review of the DP World deal simply by declaring that the ports deal posed no national security threat.
At the hearing, Stewart Baker, an assistant secretary for homeland security, said the “letter of assurances” specifically addressed the Coast Guard’s worries. The letter requires DP World to comply with any U.S. investigation of its operations and open its records to U.S. inspection on demand.
“We now have access to information we didn’t have before. … It’s no longer a ‘gap.’ We can have it anytime we like,” Baker said.
After the 45-day review, Bush has a chance to approve or disapprove of the deal. In the King and Schumer bills, Congress is seeking the right to have a veto over the deal.
But it appeared even that wouldn’t be enough for some in Congress. Asked whether she would support the Dubai deal if the company was cleared in the probe, Clinton said, “I doubt it.”
“I’m worried that they have prejudged the outcome and basically they are just throwing a bone to us,” said Clinton, who favors a blanket prohibition on giving port operation contracts to companies owned by foreign countries.
http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/ny-usport0228,0,3477169.story?coll=ny-top-headlines
March 1st, 2006 at 6:39 pmBush, The Boy Who Cried Wolf
by WILLIAM GREIDER
[posted online on February 23, 2006]
David Brooks, the high-minded conservative pundit, dismissed the Dubai Ports controversy as an instance of political hysteria that will soon pass. He was commenting on PBS, and I thought I heard a little quaver in his voice when he said this was no big deal. Brooks consulted “the experts,” and they assured him there’s no national security risk in a foreign company owned by Middle East Muslims–actually, by an Arab government–managing six major American ports. Cool down, people. This is how the world works in the age of globalization.
Of course, he is correct. But what a killjoy. This is a fun flap, the kind that brings us together. Republicans and Democrats are frothing in unison, instead of polarizing incivilities. Together, they are all thumping righteously on the poor President. I expect he will fold or at least retreat tactically by ordering further investigation. The issue is indeed trivial. But Bush cannot escape the basic contradiction, because this dilemma is fundamental to his presidency.
A conservative blaming hysteria is hysterical, when you think about it, and a bit late. Hysteria launched Bush’s invasion of Iraq. It created that monstrosity called Homeland Security and pumped up defense spending by more than 40 percent. Hysteria has been used to realign US foreign policy for permanent imperial war-making, whenever and wherever we find something frightening afoot in the world. Hysteria will justify the “long war” now fondly embraced by Field Marshal Rumsfeld. It has also slaughtered a number of Democrats who were not sufficiently hysterical. It saved George Bush’s butt in 2004.
Bush was the principal author, along with his straight-shooting Vice President, and now he is hoisted by his own fear-mongering propaganda. The basic hysteria was invented from risks of terrorism, enlarged ridiculously by the President’s open-ended claim that we are endangered everywhere and anywhere (he decides where). Anyone who resists that proposition is a coward or, worse, a subversive. We are enticed to believe we are fighting a new cold war. But are we? People are entitled to ask. Bush picked at their emotional wounds after 9/11 and encouraged them to imagine endless versions of even-larger danger. What if someone shipped a nuke into New York Harbor? Or poured anthrax in the drinking water? OK, a lot of Americans got scared, even people who ought to know better.
So why is the fearmonger-in-chief being so casual about this Dubai business?
Because at some level of consciousness even George Bush knows the inflated fears are bogus. So do a lot of the politicians merrily throwing spears at him. He taught them how to play this game, invented the tactics and reorganized political competition as a demagogic dance of hysterical absurdities, endless opportunities to waste public money. Very few dare to challenge the mindset. Thousands have died for it.
Bush’s terrorism war has from the start been in collision with the precepts of corporate-led globalization. One practices hyper-nationalism–Washington gets to decide where it goes to war, never mind the Geneva Convention and other “obsolete” international restraints. Yet Bush’s diplomats travel the world banging on governments for trade rules that defenestrate a nation’s sovereign power to run its own affairs. The US government regards itself as comfortable with this arrangement since it assumes the superpower can always get its way. Most citizens are never consulted. They are perhaps unaware that their rights have been given away, too.
It would be nice to imagine this ridiculous episode will prompt reconsideration, cool down exploitative jingoism and provoke a more rational discussion of the multiplying absurdities. I doubt it. At least it will be satisfying to see Bush toasted irrationally, since he lit the match.
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060313/greider
March 1st, 2006 at 6:43 pmCan I ask what posts 733 Katrina and 734 Sept 11 have to do with the DP World takeover of P&O?
March 1st, 2006 at 6:52 pmAlso are posts 735 & 736 a statement, a question or space fillers?
March 1st, 2006 at 6:57 pm#733 Bush drops ball on Katrina, ignores warnings
#734 Bush responsible for 9/11, ignores warnings
#735 US Coast Guard expressed concerns regarding Dubai, Bush Ignores Warnings
March 1st, 2006 at 7:01 pmOK, US Coast Guard expressed concerns regarding Dubai, Bush Ignores Warnings.
The Senate oversight panel asked the head of the Coast Guard the direct question and was told that all security concerns were removed when the Coast Guard had the opportunity to sit with the other security services. When asked specifically what was the exact information that made this possible, the reply was because of National Security that info couldn’t be released in a public forum.
March 1st, 2006 at 7:12 pmOK, US Coast Guard expressed concerns regarding Dubai, Bush Ignores Warnings.
The Senate oversight panel asked the head of the Coast Guard the direct question and was told that all security concerns were removed when the Coast Guard had the opportunity to sit with the other security services. When asked specifically what was the exact information that made this possible, the reply was because of National Security that info couldn’t be released in a public forum.
Comment by steve — March 1, 2006 @ 7:12 pm
Ahhh, The old “National Security would be compromised if we told the truth” excuse again eh? How many times have we heard that one used by the Bush Administration or from people censured under it’s control?
March 1st, 2006 at 7:54 pmYou would like to place National Security issues on C-Span? Smart move.
March 1st, 2006 at 7:59 pmNo Steve, but I’d love to see Bush Impeached on C-Span. That’d be a real smart move.
March 1st, 2006 at 8:00 pmMaybe you will get your wish. But the general framework of items like this port takeover are laws that have to be worked with. If you take away the evil Bush, it still doesn’t make for a perfect world.
March 1st, 2006 at 8:09 pmI hate to say this but even Mussolini got the trains to run on time and restored the Vatican as the Papal State.
March 1st, 2006 at 8:17 pmMaybe you will get your wish. But the general framework of items like this port takeover are laws that have to be worked with. If you take away the evil Bush, it still doesn’t make for a perfect world.
Comment by steve — March 1, 2006 @ 8:09 pm
Impeaching Bush wont make the world perfect, but its a helluva great start in the right direction. I’d like to see him try to veto his Impeachment or use his standard responses “I don’t even know what Impeachment is” or “No one had any idea I was going to be Impeached…” What a pathetic excuse for the worst President in US History he turned out to be.
March 1st, 2006 at 8:22 pmSteve, why are you so “for” Dubai taking over our ports in question?
March 2nd, 2006 at 1:05 amTo be truthful, I really didn’t start out as an advocate for the DP World takeover. When I researched it a little in Nov & Dec it seemed like a pretty good deal for the U.S. I was concerned with Singapore jumping in to takeover P&O and when the DP World price increased to $6.8 billion that was a good sign. Then the firestorm happened, and a lot of mis-information was flying around.
I jumped into the research a little harder and that is when the deal seemed like a win-win situation for all. Maybe Bush had gotten something right. We have an ally with DEEP pockets for improving some of our major ports, and a finger in the face of some of the fanatical Islamic regimes. Has Dubai made mistakes as a country, sure, but they are trying to cram western ideas into thousands of years of secular rule. They have come to the top of the world’s financial and shipping stage in the first 35 years of their existence. Christ, it took us 150 years to give women the vote, then an additional 30 years to go against segregation.
I’m not for turning port security over to terrorists or communist concerns, but China has already had a major presence and if details of port security hadn’t been sold to radical factions already, I felt they would be in a matter of time. At least with DP World we could use there DEEP pockets to help improve the security and make what was already known, obsolete.
Then I made a journey into the cyberspace ro see what the current opinions were and this is one of the sites I stopped at. Where I have been accused of being a terrorist, working with Osama, being with the Taliban, being a Bush & Co puppet and also having somebody wish me to Iraq for apparent death. Interestingly enough these had occurred by just asking real questions about something people seemed at the surface had some knowledge about. But it seems that a lot of people only want to blog with like creatures and if an outsider dares place a question or comment that doesn’t follow the line, then attack mode at all costs.
I have some real questions and concerns, I have already e-mailed AP, Reuters, Fox, MSNBC, CNN and DHS’s Stewart Baker about some of these statements. So we’ll see what happens.
March 2nd, 2006 at 2:12 amThis entire deal with Dubai is a farce and a slap in the face of the American people. But lets take a minute to give Dubai/UAE and Bush the benefit of the doubt here.
Lets just assume that the government of the UAE/Dubai can be trusted to manage our ports and in no way represents a threat to our national security. Lets just assume that the UAE/Dubai has changed their ways, no longer recognizing the Taliban as a legitimate form of goverment, no longer engages in money laundering for terrorists, and no longer engages in human slavery and civil rights violations. Lets just assume that the UAE applies the same standards and practices to countries like Israel that it applies when dealing with the US. Lets just assume that the Dubai/UAE will eventually become a democracy. Lets just assume that the Dubai Port deal will not affect the jobs and quality of life of any american currently working at the ports. Lets just assume that the Dubai/UAE government can actually do a better job managing our ports than an American company can. Lets just assume that the port deal with Dubai has nothing to do with our own government officials engaging in money laundering and big defense contract kickbacks with Dubai/UAE after selling them a fleet of F18’s. Lets just assume that George Bush, while having bungled the security of the country, whether it be deliberately or accidently on several occassions, costing many Americans their lives and tax dollars, has somehow done something right for once in his unsuccessful life and term in office by supporting a deal with “DEEP POCKETS” Dubai/UAE. Lets just assume that this entire Dubai/UAE port deal isn’t just another premeditated media circus and an elaborate smokescreen designed to distract Americans from focusing on the real problems in this country and with this administration.
With everything that has happened over the last 5 years under the control of the Bush administration, is it any surprise that the American people question the integrity of anything the Bush administration supports, Dubai/UAE port agreement notwithstanding? At the bare minimum, this appears to be just one more act in a series of Bush administration blunders the American people are supposed to “assume the position” on and accept without question. Is the opposition to the Duba/UAE port agreement really about racism, fear and hysteria? Or is this reaction regarding the Dubai/UAE port agreement from the American people really about being insulted and angry, feeling betrayed by what appears to be a corrupt administration that consistently fails to protect us…then turns around and asks us to let them do it again and again and again.
When you connect the dots, the Dubai/UAE port agreement looks like just another slap in the face of the American People, no matter how good it looks on paper after the BUSH PR machine gets done sugar coating it.
March 2nd, 2006 at 10:06 amSteve
Well said. It would be comical if it weren’t so sad how when you have an opposing view the name calling starts. I don’t know how a person thinks that by infering that I am a homosexual terrorist who sleeps with Bush is going to sway my point of view on the issue.
I was not for this deal when this port issue came to light. My imediate reaction was like most people. I thought it would be like letting the fox into the hen house.
The reaction was interesting as the issue split people on not by the usual politcal lines. It turned Doves into Hawks and Hawks into Doves and left the issue more confused than ever.
After much research on the matter I came to the conclusion that in gaining a foothold in the Arab world the UAe was critcal. They above all other Arab nations have the most potential to become a progressively oriented pro American
country and we should encourage that.
Is there a potential for danger of infiltration of terrorist into the Dubai company. Absolutely….but I don’t think any more so that any other foreign company operating port terminals in the United States at this point. The most likely scenario for future attcks will be from caucasion radical Muslims form the US or Brtain or many other countries.These people we are fighting are not dumb. They know our focus is on Arabs and they will exploit that.
Currently our relationship with the UAE and our military presence in the UAE is helping to save American lives in Iraq. Our relationship is going to be critical in our effort to prevent Iran from gaining a nuclear weapon.
Currently President Bush, former President Bush, former President Jimmy Carter and yes, even former President Clinton supports the deal.
Senotrs and Congressmen whom currently oppose the deal are using the issue as a way to drum up votes. In the end most of those Senators and Cogressmen already understand the larger issues of this deal and do in secret support it. The hype is no more than a ploy, a velvet lie.
If you don’t believe me, watch the bill that Hillary put forward to block the sale of pot terminal leases to foriegn ownership. She gained what votes she could by presenting the bill but she will not fight to have the bill put into law. Just election year dramatics
The deal will go through in the end because ALL leaders understand the importance of the relationship.
March 2nd, 2006 at 10:56 amThe deal will go through in the end because ALL leaders understand the importance of the relationship.
Comment by Dennis — March 2, 2006 @ 10:56 am
The deal with go through in the end becase most if not ALL politicians are essentially corrupt and want their piece of the pie, no matter what the cost to the American people. You make an excellent point Dennis, Clinton and Bush are actually on the same team and at the end of the day after all the political theatrics used to manipulate the hearts and minds of Americans concludes, they will be drinking a cold one together and laughing at how they managed to whip up the American people against each other. How very tragic.
March 2nd, 2006 at 11:20 amHi Notfooled – I have never read such pessimistic comments or felt such void in trust.
It seems everything is gloom & doom?
March 2nd, 2006 at 11:29 amNotFooled,
I will attempt to address your points, but, these are not always my personal beliefs, they are mostly what have been reported.
All Dubai Ports World ports are ISPS (International Ship and Port Facility Security) certified, as are the P&O ports in the U.S.
I realize that the recognition of the Taliban government is troubling, but we are one of the few countries to not recognize Cuba, does this mean we can’t be involved in international agreements?
According to the State Dept and FBI the UAE has been instrumental in identifying suspect banking activities.
As far as human/civil rights violations, they say they are eliminating them.
Is a democratic government the only type that can provide its citizens with a secure and prosperous life, protect their borders and engage in world trade? The U.S. is not a true Democracy; we are a Federalist Democratic Republic.
The current ownership is not American, did that affect the quality of life to the workers? I don’t know.
The sad truth is that over 80% of the U.S. ports are foreign owned and a few of those are foreign state owned.
This deal is the sale of a British company that had 2 bidders, PSA- a state-owned Singapore company and DP World- A state-owned Dubai Company. The U.S. had no say in the sale or the bidding that was part of this deal.
The upcoming sale of P&O to DP World was presented to the CFIUS board on Dec 13th for there investigation under a Congressionally mandated procedure. This is for the most part a fairly secret review of foreign investment, which is not voted on by Congress because Congress realized that voting would politicize something and possibly place unneeded restrictions on free market.
As far as the fears, each person should handle that within themselves.
This seems to be a political move all around. Senator Clinton, who stated that even if this deal with Dubai is deemed safe and in this countries best interest, she would not vote for it, made one of the more disconcerting comments. Then this piece appears:
About two weeks ago, the Dubai leaders called former President Bill Clinton and he suggested that they submit to the full and regular scrutiny process and that they should put maximum safeguards and security into any port proposal.” Bill Clinton’s involvement with the U.A.E. may spring from his apparently chummy relationship with the country he calls “a good ally to America.†Clinton in 2002, after leaving the White House, was paid $300,000 to address a summit in Dubai.
March 2nd, 2006 at 11:34 amSteve
That was one of many Clinton speaking engagements in the UAE. The last was November 15th 2005. He shared the podium with Senator Edwards.
March 2nd, 2006 at 11:50 am
March 2nd, 2006 at 11:53 am
Thank you Dennis. The one part of Sen. Clintons remarks that for some reason I dropped was that if the final outcome was between DP World and Halliburton, who would she vote for: Haliburton
March 2nd, 2006 at 11:58 amComment by NotFooled
I have an uncanny knack of knowing what happens when assumptions, like the ones you mentioned, are made. Methinks someone is trying to make an ASS out of U and ME. Oh well, is not the first time for me.
While i am certainly not an authority on ports, security or even politics, for that matter, but i have to admit when i 1st read about this deal 3 or 4 weeks ago, i was ecstatic about it. Not because i thought the contract was a good idea, but i knew the furor it would bring in the american people, pretty much almost unanimously. And the shrub and his henchmen would become truly exposed for the greed-meisters they are. But, it didnt take long for me to form opinions about how bad of an idea this really was. Now, i have alot of guilt for feeling the euphoria that i had. For all i know, maybe this entire deal was a ploy for the GOP to re-gain some of their momentum for the mid-terms, and never really was a chance of ever happening. It’s not all that far-fetched if the GOPers that are in danger of getting re-elected can claim they opposed it vehemently.
Steve-
“Interestingly enough these had occurred by just asking real questions about something people seemed at the surface had some knowledge about.”
The only questions i’ve seen you ask were the ones where you were really trying to belittle someone, sometimes deservedly tho. IT seems that you are an authority on the PORTWORLD, so i find it hard to accept the fact that you were searching this site for some answers, seeing all the “talking points” and other BS-facts that you spew out. And most of the so-called facts you post, hardly relate to the concerns of most us. But i suppose you get off by spewing them. Whatever turns you on!
” At least with DP World we could use there DEEP pockets to help improve the security and make what was already known, obsolete.”
How naive is that statement? The only way that 6.8 billion will be used for port security is if, we the people, kick some congressmens’ asses, so they legislate it. The shrub needs that money for bribery payments, in the form of tax cuts for the poor guys that didnt get the deferred compensation and stock options that some of his cronies got( see snow and cheney with CSX and haliburton).
What the hell do i know anyhow? …I’m just a working schmuck, trying to raise a family, with way too many bills to pay.
March 2nd, 2006 at 12:05 pm“WAR!!! Good Godja, what is it good for?…..absolutely nuthin’”
“WAR!!! Good Godja, what is it good for?…..absolutely nuthin’â€
Comment by tee zjack —
Sometimes war is the only way to keep yourself from getting killed.
March 2nd, 2006 at 12:16 pmTo: Notfooled
Thanks for the offer, but I’m going to have to turn you down. Obviously you didn’t anything out of the statement earlier. And in case you didn’t notce we are talking the ports coming here from UAE not IRAQ !!!
March 2nd, 2006 at 12:37 pmTo: Notfooled
Thanks for the offer, but I’m going to have to turn you down. Obviously you didn’t anything out of the statement earlier. And in case you didn’t notce we are talking the ports coming here from UAE not IRAQ !!!
Comment by Alexandra — March 2, 2006 @ 12:37 pm
In case you missed 9/11, THE MURDER OF 3000 AMERICANS, the UAE was proven to be more complicit in the attacks against the US than Iraq. In fact, one could probably make a stronger case for allowing the Iraqi government to operate US ports than the UAE government.
March 2nd, 2006 at 12:43 pmok IM GONNA FUCK AN ASS
March 2nd, 2006 at 12:45 pmComment: Why didn’t anyone suggest that another
March 2nd, 2006 at 12:48 pmright-wing nut like Tim McVeigh might be the
terrorist? Why didn’t anyone declare “war” on
terrorism back when the murderers were white,
Anglo-Saxon Protestants? Perhaps because the 9/11
massacre was much worse…or perhaps because we have a
racist, xenophobic cowboy mentality. Perhaps because a
home-grown killer is “a boy gone wrong” while a
foreign killer is “evil incarnate.”
Ok notfooled I guess i wrote my comment #760 out wrong, but you don’t have to brhave like such a jerk. Just put a cork in it when u have sumthin negative to say because no one wants to hear it. Unless someone wants to speak up.
March 2nd, 2006 at 12:51 pmTee,
The only questions i’ve seen you ask were the ones where you were really trying to belittle someone, sometimes deservedly tho. IT seems that you are an authority on the PORTWORLD, so i find it hard to accept the fact that you were searching this site for some answers, seeing all the “talking points†and other BS-facts that you spew out. And most of the so-called facts you post, hardly relate to the concerns of most us. But i suppose you get off by spewing them. Whatever turns you on!
Maybe some of my retorts were to belittle, but it comes with frustration when questions are asked and the responses are just idealogical rants with no relationship to the questions. I am by no means an authority of PortWorld, I am in transportation with very few dealings with port activities. Some intersting views have been shared, some from UAE citizens and some with common sense. As far as some of my latest “talking points”, the crux of the problem that I see is that if all these government officials (Dem, Rep, DHS, Executive, Congress) along with the media, can’t identify what the sale actually involves and haven’t bothered to put any research into, how can they be for or against this deal.
It may sound like B.S. to you, but you have both Schumer and Clinton representing NY state, and for years the NY&NJ Port Authority has existed as one entity. But, neither one of these Senators has made that distinction? Not one media outlet has made this distinction, what are they all just parroting what they hear? The total is 6 ports in North America with 5 being in the U.S. and 1 in Canada. What else have they misconstrued, misinterpreted or just wasn’t worth the effort to look into? Now people are rushing bills to the House and Senate, who’s checking them?
An Assistant Sec of DHS making a statement that this is the first sale to a foreign state owned entity, again wrong. There are many more that could be addressed.
How naive is that statement? The only way that 6.8 billion will be used for port security is if, we the people, kick some congressmens’ asses, so they legislate it. The shrub needs that money for bribery payments, in the form of tax cuts for the poor guys that didnt get the deferred compensation and stock options that some of his cronies got( see snow and cheney with CSX and haliburton).
The $6.8 billion has nothing to do with the U.S. That money is going to the shareholders of P&O. But what we do have is a company that has an almost unlimited cash flow. If we aren’t smart enough to place significant security related items into the lease agreements, then shame on us. Major port expansions are needed now to accomodate the larger container vessels being built.
As far as tax cuts and bribery, the House can only submit tax items for legislation and if bribery is found, impeach.
March 2nd, 2006 at 12:52 pmTim McVeigh is not recognized by the UAE as a legitimate form of government, whereas the Taliban, the primary suspects in the terrorist attacks and MURDER of 3000 AMERICANS on 9/11 is recognized as such. The last time I checked, no one was accusing the UAE of laundering money for Tim Mcveigh. And anyone complicit with Tim Mcveigh should not be operating US ports. The same holds true for those complicit with the Taliban.
March 2nd, 2006 at 12:54 pmAlexandra, if I’m behaving like a “jerk” maybe its because I’m not thrilled about the idea of people complicit with those responsible for the deaths of 3000 MURDERED AMERICANS running our ports. Being a “jerk” is nothing compared to the ramifications of this endeavor.
March 2nd, 2006 at 12:58 pmTo Notfooled:
This is going to be my first negative comment to anyone on this site. However you are behaving like a jerk, because you seem to be associating the whole of UAE to 9/11, because you have no freaking clue about the UAE or ME region, because you have so much anger and hate for th politicians and refuse to see beyond, because you use foul language and because you are simply an ignorant piece of crap!!!!
People are trying to have a civil discussion and all that you do is be as obnoxious and rude as possible – and for heaven sake don’t use “9/11, THE MURDER OF 3000 AMERICANS” excuse you coward. We lost citizens and colleagues too!!!
March 2nd, 2006 at 1:51 pmAs far as some of my latest “talking pointsâ€, the crux of the problem that I see is that if all these government officials (Dem, Rep, DHS, Executive, Congress) along with the media, can’t identify what the sale actually involves and haven’t bothered to put any research into, how can they be for or against this deal.
Well then, why are you wasting your valuable time with us blithering idiots, get your ass down to the Capitol, so u can do some ’splaining to them.
It may sound like B.S. to you, but you have both Schumer and Clinton representing NY state, and for years the NY&NJ Port Authority has existed as one entity. But, neither one of these Senators has made that distinction? Not one media outlet has made this distinction, what are they all just parroting what they hear?
First of all i dont have a schumer or a clinton and how the hell do u have access to EVERY media outlet? …. u must be a god!!!…..or just a narcissist :(….and who is it that u r parroting?
The $6.8 billion has nothing to do with the U.S. That money is going to the shareholders of P&O. But what we do have is a company that has an almost unlimited cash flow. If we aren’t smart enough to place significant security related items into the lease agreements, then shame on us. Major port expansions are needed now to accomodate the larger container vessels being built.
As far as tax cuts and bribery, the House can only submit tax items for legislation and if bribery is found, impeach.
…^%&.spew…..&(**semantics….&(*&talking points…the point is none of the $$$$$(not the 6.8 in this deal)earned through having the UAE at our ports is designated for port security and as far as the tax and bribery issue….is that a denial or an acknowledgement?
So why is it that u really r using this site? people get tired of ur spewing at the “peasants” blog? and why dont u propose something that is worthwhile to those of us who have to do real work for a living?
March 2nd, 2006 at 1:51 pmTee zjack,
Well, again you posed questions and/or statements to me, I responded. ’nuff said.
I would propose to take a vote on who thinks that you are a moron, but I fear that we might hurt your fragile psyche. I sure as hell wouldn’t want to feed your paranoia with substantiating that nobody likes you.
March 2nd, 2006 at 2:17 pmit figures u wouldnt answer the real questions and u dont have to worry about my psyche…..remember, i said i am a working stiff!(try it sometime) but it does my heart good that u r concerned….maybe there is some hope
March 2nd, 2006 at 2:21 pmWow read this! and Mrs Clinto – I don’t think you are going to be as good as your husband IF you become President – it is evident you are doing this for your political good.
WASHINGTON (CNN) — The chairman of Israel’s largest shipping firm has strongly backed a deal that would give a Dubai-based shipping company control of several U.S. port terminals.
The revelation comes as Britain’s Royal Court of Justice tentatively approved the $6.8 billion merger between DP World and Britain’s P&O, the current operator of terminals at six key U.S. ports.
But pending an appeal by U.S.-based cargo handler Eller & Co., the judge has stayed that approval until 3 p.m. Friday. Nonetheless, DP World has agreed not to assume control of P&O’s port operations until a 45-day security review can take place.
In a letter to Sen. Hillary Clinton, obtained exclusively by CNN, Israel’s Zim Integrated Shipping Services CEO, Idon Ofer, called DP World a strong business partner, despite the United Arab Emirates’ boycott of Israel. (Read the letter — PDF)
“During our long association with DP World, we have not experienced a single security issue in these ports or in any of the terminals operated by DP World,” Ofer said in a letter written February 22. “We are proud to be associated with DP World and look forward to working with them into the future.”
March 2nd, 2006 at 2:30 pmWell if you knew how to pose a question, maybe it would get answered.
March 2nd, 2006 at 2:32 pmBut Roshan,
You must know that Bush, Cheney and Halliburton diverted funds to Zim for the submittal of this letter.
Come on, are we to believe this Anti-Zionist region has been able to separate the political rhetoric from good business? NAH, no way..
March 2nd, 2006 at 2:43 pmSteve, I am confused, are you being sarcastic or is this for real? You gotta be kidding me mate?
March 2nd, 2006 at 2:55 pmsarcastic, sorry
March 2nd, 2006 at 2:58 pmDid that letter take the air out of the balloon? No comments.
March 2nd, 2006 at 3:08 pmI think it did Steve. For an Israeli company to say something like this about an Arab company – says a lot about both parties involved in this business and about the company DP world itself.
March 2nd, 2006 at 3:16 pmTo Notfooled:
This is going to be my first negative comment to anyone on this site. However you are behaving like a jerk, because you seem to be associating the whole of UAE to 9/11, because you have no freaking clue about the UAE or ME region, because you have so much anger and hate for th politicians and refuse to see beyond, because you use foul language and because you are simply an ignorant piece of crap!!!!
People are trying to have a civil discussion and all that you do is be as obnoxious and rude as possible – and for heaven sake don’t use “9/11, THE MURDER OF 3000 AMERICANS†excuse you coward. We lost citizens and colleagues too!!!
Comment by Roshan — March 2, 2006 @ 1:51 pm
Roshan, the fact is 3000 AMERICANS WERE MURDERED on 9/11. The fact is, the UAE is complicit in harboring known terrorists and in recognizing the Taliban as the primary suspect in the KILLING and MURDERING of 3000 AMERICANS on 9/11/2001. Americans supported the invasion of Iraq which led to the death of nearly 3000 Americans and over 100 thousand Iraqi’s based on the premise that Iraq was complicit in the MURDER of 3000 AMERICANS. Since that time we have disovered that Iraq had no direct involvement in 9/11 nor did they have weapons of mass destruction at the time of the US Invasion. However, the fact remains that the GOVERNMENT of the UAE WAS COMPLICIT in the MURDER of 3000 AMERICANS on 9/11/2001 in as much as the GOVERNMENT OF THE UAE has business ties with OSAMA BIN LADEN. The GOVERNMENT OF THE UAE blocked US investigations of OSAMA BIN LADEN’s bank accounts in the UAE. These are well documents facts. You are entitled to dispute those facts but that does not dismiss them as being false. It is unfortunate that you feel business deals with DUBAIE/UAE take priority over the DEATH AND MURDER of 3000 AMERICANS on 9/11/2001 but that appears to be the case. I was born in the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. I have SERVED and continue to SERVE THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and I believe in protecting those that live in the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. I DO NOT SERVE the UAE. You appear to serve the economic interests of the UAE. Thats fine. I will not condone any business dealings with those that support or have supported the MURDER OF 3000 AMERICANS on 9/11/2001. And if that bothers you, so be it. Thats just the way its gonna be. And oh btw, there are MILLIONS of AMERICANS that feel exactly the way I do about PROTECTING the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. That is our priority, NOT SUPPORTING business deals with DUBAI/UAE. Until the terrorists responsible for the MURDER OF 3000 AMERICANS on 9/11/01 are brought to justice, that sentiment will prevail among us.
March 2nd, 2006 at 3:22 pmDude – if you haven’t already call the mental asylum or check yourself into some clinic. I don’t know if this stupid deal would go thru – but if it does, from reading your comment above, you are going to need ALL THE HELP YOU CAN GET!
March 2nd, 2006 at 3:37 pmDude – if you haven’t already call the mental asylum or check yourself into some clinic. I don’t know if this stupid deal would go thru – but if it does, from reading your comment above, you are going to need ALL THE HELP YOU CAN GET!
Comment by Roshan — March 2, 2006 @ 3:37 pm
Dude, apparently the MURDER of 3000 AMERICANS ON 9/11/2001 mean very little to you. Your supporting the deal with DUBAI/UAE after its a known fact that DUBAI/UAE has KNOWN TIES WITH TERRORISTS AND OSAMA BIN LADEN leads me to the conclusion that YOU SIR, need your head examined. Maybe the MURDER of 3000 AMERICANS means nothing to you but fortunately for me and 300 Million Americans who still remember, it means something to us. So you are free to go play with DUBAI/UAE and yourself for that matter. Meanwhile, loyal, patriotic Americans will continue to support keeping AMERICA SAFE from TERRORISTS and those that support the TERRORISTS like the UAE/DUBAI. Good luck with selling your crap to someone else but AMERICANS CAN RUN THEIR OWN PORTS AND WE DON’T NEED DUBAI/UAE or ANYONE ELSE to do it. Thanks for the offer though and have a nice day.
March 2nd, 2006 at 3:45 pmYup – you need help alright.
This is my only response to the crap you insinuate. Don’t want to have another conversation with you – and SHAME on you for even “implying” “MURDER of 3000 AMERICANS ON 9/11/2001 mean very little to you”.
Get some help – if it’s not too late already.
March 2nd, 2006 at 3:57 pm“If anyone is to blame for an intelligence failure, it is us, the stakeholders in our democracy. And, of course, those we elect to serve us.
But let’s not be too harsh on ourselves right now. Instead, let’s try to be constructive. Let’s look at another failure—-a big failure—behind the mess we face in Afghanistan and the larger world of radical Islam. Maybe this will help explain why we so quickly turned our eyes from the obvious.
The failure was this: The U.S. had a lot to do with bringing this grief upon itself.
The CIA has a term for operations that go out of control: blowback. That’s what happened in Afghanistan.
These angry radicals who have now declared war on the West emerged from a movement we financed and armed. Then it turned against us. Blowback. These holy warriors are the children of an American foreign policy that once before, as now, split the world into friend or foe. The Soviet Union was our Cold War adversary in the late 1970s. The enemy of our enemy is our friend, the U.S. decreed. Our friends, these anti-Soviet rebels, received about $500 million a year in U.S. support and weaponry.”
http://www.bluecorncomics.com/binladen.htm
In the fight against terrorism of all forms, it is important to understand who or what is our enemy. We can only fight against this horror if we understand its causes and motivations. What motivates a person to lash out in this violent, inhumane way? That is something that all of us — mental health professionals, politicians, and common people — need to understand, so that we can address the issues more honestly, prevent more violence, and find ways to work towards lasting peace.
In Islam, several things are clear:
March 2nd, 2006 at 4:01 pm
I hate posting long copy and i have a hard time reading loooong posts but this article is going to be my last post on this dead thread.. hope it persuades a few people and educates some in the process..enjoy and thanks for an intresting topic.
1 March 2006: The pending deal to allow the United-Arab-Emirates-owned Dubai Ports World Company to run six major US ports poses more dangers than most Americans realize. US Army supplies such as tanks, and other vital military equipment at an additional two US ports will also be effected. While daily news items only mention six US ports of entry, in reality Dubai Ports World Company may gain access to as many as twenty US ports overall that periphally are connected to the six main ports in question.
That the attacks on 9/11 were financed and planned through insitutions in the U.A.E. should be cause enough for sensible American leaders to quash the deal. But another important factor people should also be concerned about is how the deal will affect Israel, the USA’s only stable and reliable democratic ally in the Middle East.
The Bush administration claims the company managing the ports is not responsible for security and then says that job is the responsibility of the Department of Homeland Security and the US Coast Guard. The fact is everyone working at ports has security responsibility just as individuals are responsible for locking their own cars and homes, not the police. The company managing the ports will have special access to all shipments, timetables, routes, container content, bills of lading, secured holding areas and, most worrisome to intelligence analysts, access to information about secret US shipments around the world including where such items are being shipped to and from. The information gathered by any port operator, placed in the wrong hands, can easily be offered to foreign agents without the US knowing it, thus foreign management can create an intelligence security nightmare for the US. A good outcome of this issue coming to light is that in the future no foreign entity should be allowed to control this vital part of US security. At least the Brits were close democratic allies, but Dubai and the U.A.E. are dictatorships and dictatorships have a way of spiraling out of control in successive years–look at Iran and Iraq.
While the United Arab Emirates is friendly to the US now and allows US Naval ships to dock there, there is more to the U.A.E. story than just that. Simply put, the U.A.E. needs us more than we need them since they are staring across the waters at Islamic revolutionary Iran and things are still unstable with Osama Bin Laden running around and the Iraqi insurgency almost next door.
The U.A.E. was formed in 1971 and is a federation of seven Emirates, including Dubai. The U.A.E. has limited federal powers, leaving many governmental powers to member emirates, and not all member emirates are part of the federation court system which has both civil and Islamic courts. Those Islamic courts rule over all family matters and women do not have the right to vote anywhere in the U.A.E. This raises questions about human rights that we as Americans all support. Should our ports be operated by a nation that denies women the right to vote and will encourage misogyny? Will U.S. unions walk out on potential strikes demanding the right of women in the Middle East to vote before working for Dubai Port Works in the future? Considering that women working US docks are union members, that we may expect to hear from them comes as no surprise.
The U.A.E. is also currently a major drug transshipment point for Southwest Asian drug producing countries and, being a major financial center, this makes the U.A.E. an ideal locale for the money laundering that is often associated with the drug trade. The U.A.E. has undefined and open borders with Saudi Arabia and Oman, thus allowing drugs and other goods, including weapons, to be moved between those countries without scrutiny. A Middle East open-borders crisis occurred in 2002 when North Korean SCUD missiles were shipped to Yemen and then vanished. Considering that the U.A.E. has open borders and would control ports on both ends of a single shipment, we need to be seriously concerned with U.A.E. control of our ports.
The U.A.E. is also a member of the Arab League and is a signatory member of the Arab boycott of Israel. The Syrian-based Central Office for the Boycott of Israel, a.k.a. the Central Boycott Office, enforces the pan-Arab boycott of Israel on 3 levels:
First, CBO-enforced primary boycotts forbid Israeli products into any Arab country, including Israeli components in finished goods(Arabs were upset, for example, when they found Israeli batteries in Apple computers and demanded the suppliers remove all such batteries from future shipments).
Such secondary and tertiary boycotts are generally boycotts of companies that work with companies that have other business with Israel, regardless if any element of a shipment emanates from Israel. In a global economy, such boycotts are harder to enforce on a wide scale. These elements of the Arab boycott of Israel are, however, managed by the CBO which also goes as far as banning any ship that ever docked in any Israeli port from any future docking at an Arab country port. The official boycott list is tightly held and is estimated to include more than 200,000 companies. Recent Arab League meetings have included agreements to strengthen the Arab boycott of Israel, thus the Arab boycott of Israel is still very active.
A recent US Trade Representative report on trade barriers states that although the U.A.E. no longer enforces the secondary and tertiary aspects of the boycott, it still enforces the primary boycott and “occasional government contracts continue to contain pro forma provisions requiring a contractual obligation to ‘observe all regulations and instructions enforced from time to time by the League of Arab States regarding the boycott of Israel especially those related to blacklisted companies, ships, and persons.’â€
In 1977, the US government passed a law creating the Office of Antiboycott Compliance in the Department of Commerce in order to prevent any US persons from joining into foreign sanctioned boycotts against nations friendly to the US, thus preventing individuals from creating de facto foreign policy. This law primarily applies to the Arab boycott of Israel, making it illegal to take actions in furtherance of that boycott. The OAC primarily concerns itself with prosecuting businesses that supply information about Israeli product content and other business dealings with Israel to boycotting nations. To get around the secondary aspects of this law, Arab countries simply require declarations that the goods shipped are 100% US made, thus Arab importers accomplish their boycott goals by assuring the product contains no Israeli components. OAC-imposed fines for supplying information about Israeli product content to boycotting nations can be hundreds of thousands of dollars, plus denial of future export licenses. But the OAC seldom enforces the law.
Second, the bill of lading is documentation about every shipment via truck, train or ship and contains detailed information about a shipment’s content, quantities, origin and destination. With this information, the U.A.E. via Dubai Ports World would be able to examine detailed information about shipments to and from Israel, a nation the U.A.E. actively boycotts. Even if such information is guaranteed to remain in the US, digital copies of such data can be made and emailed globally. The DPW deal would therefore facilitate the supply of information contained in the bills of lading of commercial products to be used by the Arab League nations to offer alternative products to US buyers, thus creating a trade barrier for Israeli exporters. In fact, by Dubai having this information, the Arab world would be able to launch a full-scale economic war against Israel by using shipping information to enact total disruption of Israeli exports in the US and around the world.
This is not a cloak and dagger fantasy. The Arab League and its members have been running several campaigns to ruin Israel economically on a global scale for years. The first such campaign was the Arab League boycott which started as early as 1921, twenty-seven years before Israel was a state, and which is still in full force today. A second “divest-from-Israel” campaign was enacted to, in the words of its organizers, make Israel ‘economically unbalanced’ and to create a ‘one state solution’ meaning a Palestinian state without Israel. A third such campaign, which was enacted while the Palestinian Authority was claiming to negotiate with Israel in good faith for a Palestinian state, is the PA-organized economic blockade of Israel in Malaysia.
Third, having DPW-managed ports would also make shipping military goods to Israel difficult. Tanks, trucks and other large military hardware do not fit into shipping containers, thus they can not be hidden, even by the CIA. This is not information the US or Israel wants in the hands of countries sworn to Israel’s destruction. When push comes to shove, Israel is still the most reliable American ally in the Middle East and another democracy.
Since the DPW deal would facilitate the bill of lading information for all shipments through DPW-managed ports to Israel to be given to directly to every Arab nation that is sworn to the destruction of Israel, the DPW deal should ring alarm bells for both American and Israeli security.
On the terror front, since the U.A.E. is a major drug port and DPW will have access to secured shipping areas, ceding our ports to Arab control may potentially be opening US ports to a new channel of drug and weapons imports, including terror weapons imports and money laundering. It is true the Coast Guard and Department of Homeland Security are responsible for port security, but when the same company runs both the import and export port for a single shipment, security can too easily be compromised. For that same reason, we should not allow, for example, a Columbian or Mexican port operating company to have operational access to US ports for shipments to and from those countries either to staunch drug shipments.
The US Antiboycott laws are vital to prevent boycotts from being used to create de facto foreign policy. The DPW deal would cause irreparable harm to Israel’s economy. Although US ships visit many foreign ports, we have to ask ourselves if we want to bring economic harm and possibly devastating harm to another democratic ally, namely Israel, that ultimately may fall back on ourselves.
Some pundits have argued that DPW can manage the ports more inexpensively than any US company can, but the price of those savings will be too high –and deadly. It is time to stand up for America and demand that American companies run American ports.
March 2nd, 2006 at 4:03 pmhttp://islam.about.com/cs/currentevents/a/suicide_bomb.htm
March 2nd, 2006 at 4:07 pmWMDeezNuts Read comment 771 or goto CNN.
March 2nd, 2006 at 4:14 pmAn editorial from a leading English daily in Dubai
http://www.gulfnews.com/opinion/columns/nation/10022382.html
March 2nd, 2006 at 4:24 pmYou may want to re-write some of your facts ….
The ruler of Abu Dhabi, Sheikh Khalifa bin Zayed, is the current president of the UAE. He took over from his father, Sheikh Zayed Bin-Sultan Al Nahyan, who had been president from 1971 until his death in 2004. Re-elected every five years since 1971, Sheikh Zayed instilled the values of religious tolerance and equality, especially for women, into his policies, which greatly enhanced the stability of the UAE.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/world/middle_east/3784765.stm
March 2nd, 2006 at 4:27 pmYou may want to re-write some of your facts ….
The ruler of Abu Dhabi, Sheikh Khalifa bin Zayed, is the current president of the UAE. He took over from his father, Sheikh Zayed Bin-Sultan Al Nahyan, who had been president from 1971 until his death in 2004. Re-elected every five years since 1971, Sheikh Zayed instilled the values of religious tolerance and equality, especially for women, into his policies, which greatly enhanced the stability of the UAE.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/ 1/ low/ world/ middle_east/ 3784765.stm
March 2nd, 2006 at 4:28 pm“It is time to stand up for America and demand that American companies run American ports.”
Comment by WMDeezNuts
So are you saying that each country should run it’s own ports in this last sentence. Because not only is America running UAE ports but ports all over the world. I guess every other country should let their own country run their own ports, then see how we handle things.
March 2nd, 2006 at 4:36 pmCIA Wotld Fact Sheet:
The UAE is a drug transshipment point for traffickers given its proximity to Southwest Asian drug producing countries; the UAE’s position as a major financial center makes it vulnerable to money laundering; anti-money-laundering controls improving.
France- transshipment point for and consumer of South American cocaine, Southwest Asian heroin, and European synthetics.
Germany- source of precursor chemicals for South American cocaine processors; transshipment point for and consumer of Southwest Asian heroin, Latin American cocaine, and European-produced synthetic drugs; major financial center
Singapore- as a transportation and financial services hub, Singapore is vulnerable, despite strict laws and enforcement, to be used as a transit point for Golden Triangle heroin and as a venue for money laundering
Jamaica- major transshipment point for cocaine from South America to North America and Europe; illicit cultivation of cannabis; government has an active manual cannabis eradication program; corruption is a major concern; substantial money-laundering activity; Colombian narcotics traffickers favor Jamaica for illicit financial transactions
Afghanistan- world’s largest producer of opium; cultivation of opium poppy reached unprecedented level of 206,700 hectares in 2004; counterdrug efforts largely unsuccessful; potential opium production of 4,950 metric tons; potential heroin production of 582 metric tons if all opium was processed; source of hashish; many narcotics-processing labs throughout the country; drug trade source of instability and some antigovernment groups profit from the trade; 80-90% of the heroin consumed in Europe comes from Afghan opium; vulnerable to narcotics money laundering through informal financial networks
and finally: United Kingdom-producer of limited amounts of synthetic drugs and synthetic precursor chemicals; major consumer of Southwest Asian heroin, Latin American cocaine, and synthetic drugs; money-laundering center
Just random pickings
March 2nd, 2006 at 4:38 pm“And I also want to address another issue I just talked to the press about on Air Force One, and that is this issue of a company out of the UAE purchasing the right to manage some ports in the United States from a British company. First of all, this is a private transaction. But it — according to law, the government is required to make sure this transaction does not, in any way, jeopardize the security of the country. And so people responsible in our government have reviewed this transaction.
The transaction should go forward, in my judgment. If there was any chance that this transaction would jeopardize the security of the United States, it would not go forward. The company has been cooperative with the United States government. The company will not manage port security. The security of our ports will be — continue to be managed by the Coast Guard and Customs. The company is from a country that has been cooperative in the war on terror, been an ally in the war on terror. The company operates ports in different countries around the world, ports from which cargo has been sent to the United States on a regular basis.
I think it sends a terrible signal to friends around the world that it’s okay for a company from one country to manage the port, but not a country that plays by the rules and has got a good track record from another part of the world can’t manage the port.
And so, look, I can understand why some in Congress have raised questions about whether or not our country will be less secure as a result of this transaction. But they need to know that our government has looked at this issue and looked at it carefully. Again, I repeat, if there was any question as to whether or not this country would be less safe as a result of the transaction, it wouldn’t go forward. But I also want to repeat something again, and that is, this is a company that has played by the rules, that has been cooperative with the United States, a country that’s an ally in the war on terror, and it would send a terrible signal to friends and allies not to let this transaction go through.”
-Ananoymos
March 2nd, 2006 at 4:40 pmJust to be fair
United States- consumer of cocaine shipped from Colombia through Mexico and the Caribbean; consumer of heroin, marijuana, and increasingly methamphetamine from Mexico; consumer of high-quality Southeast Asian heroin; illicit producer of cannabis, marijuana, depressants, stimulants, hallucinogens, and methamphetamine; money-laundering center
March 2nd, 2006 at 4:45 pm
March 2nd, 2006 at 4:55 pmResponse to WMDeezNuts comment, ” “It is time to stand up for America and demand that American companies run American ports.†”
Would you also then say American companies should not acquire any other foreign companies or assets of foreign countries – i.e. no mergers, acquisitions, foreign investments etc all?
I mean – if you are implememting such a policy, let’s just make sure it is across the board.
I think it’s unfair to go the Lou Dobbs way – i.e. talk talk and more talk on American jobs be outsourced to foreign countries but no mention of American investments and acquistions of foreign companies and assets.
March 2nd, 2006 at 4:57 pmI think that people should start dropping the money laundering and drug shipping as excuses. In fact the only country from my quick list that the CIA gave any creedence to anti-laundering money controls improving was the UAE. Not even the U.S. got that comment.
March 2nd, 2006 at 5:09 pmAny comments for #791 ?
March 2nd, 2006 at 6:15 pmYup – you need help alright.
This is my only response to the crap you insinuate. Don’t want to have another conversation with you – and SHAME on you for even “implying†“MURDER of 3000 AMERICANS ON 9/11/2001 mean very little to youâ€.
Get some help – if it’s not too late already.
Comment by Roshan — March 2, 2006 @ 3:57 pm
Shame on YOU Roshan for suggesting that we relinquish our ports to the UAE, a government known for supporting HUMAN SLAVERY and the same TERRORISTS responsible for the MURDER OF 3000 AMERICANS! And even if that were not the case, the UAE is in bed with Bush and Bin Laden and thats enough reason for me to be against the deal. There is nothing you can say that will convince me otherwise and the fact that you despise me is very comforting. All you prove to me is that you care more about making your corrupt UAE look good. You don’t care about the risks to the American people. The UAE offers a Trojan Horse and I speak for many when I say we don’t need anything DUBAI has. Even our fool of a leader Bush says we’re addicted to oil. So the truth is, we dont need anything from DUBAI/UAE and shouldn’t be relying on anything outside of the US anyway. NAFTA should be ELIMINATED as well as our dependence on foreign oil. Our sovereignty as a nation relies upon our ability to self reliant and not controlled or influenced by foreign interests. If DUBAI/UAE was a democrat nation without recent and known affliations with TERRORISTS and numerous HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS, I might be more willing to entertain this DUBAI/UAE port deal. But the BOTTOM LINE IS THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA DOES NOT NEED ANY FOREIGN CONTROL. And I dont agree with the US occupying Iraq or any other foreign terrorities so don’t throw that lame excuse out. We shouldn’t be there either.
“It is time to stand up for America and demand that American companies run American ports.â€
Comment by WMDeezNuts
DAMN RIGHT WMD!
March 2nd, 2006 at 7:01 pmWhat do you think Al Qaeda would want most right now? For this deal to go through? Do you think Al Qaeda think they could possibly get one of their agents into the ports with all the scrutiny? Or do you think they want to see the deal fail so that we might enrage another entire Arab country and breed more anti American sentiment in the region?
Do you think Al Qaeda will get more sympathy for their cause in the UAE if we let the deal stand or if we block the deal?
My guess would be that Al Qaeda recruitment will skyrocket in the UAE if the deal is blocked.
In America as a property owner if you have a lease with a bussiness and that bussiness is sold, you must honor the length of the lease. If there is a violation of the lease by the new owner then you can terminate it. When the lease expires you do not have to renew it.
If I owned a property and it had a bussiness that say was bought by Mexicans and I terminated the lease on the basis that I didn’t want to run the risk of having them there because some Mexicans were in gangs and the ones that weren’t were sypathetic to Mexicans in gangs and I felt it was a security risk…I would be a racialy profiling and some other things and WRONG.
No offence to Mexicans…I happen to love your culture and especially your food….I just needed an example.
March 2nd, 2006 at 7:58 pmThe Saudi Arabia seminar that was addressed by former Vice President Al Gore over the weekend in a speech that criticized the U.S. for being too tough on Arabs was sponsored, in part, by Osama bin Laden’s family.
On Saturday, the state-run Saudi news outlet Arab News reported that the Jeddah Economic Forum, where Gore spoke, was funded by “Saudi Arabian Airlines, the Saudi Binladin Group, Gulf One Investment Bank, Saudi Basic Industries Corp.” and an array of other big companies with ties to the Middle East.
March 2nd, 2006 at 8:17 pmResponse to WMDeezNuts: Honestly I could not care less about an ignorant soul like you.
Yes 9/11 happened it was tragic, horrible, act from hell by the most evil doers perhaps ever created. THAT by no means gives you or anyone to paint a terrorist picture on an up and coming country.
YOu know what, there is no point – absolutely no point in wasting another breath/word bringing any “awareness” to idiots like you.
Oh and one more thing – it is surprising – when I stood up against the Iraq war and my friend was heading to Iraq (she is back home safely now) I was stamped Anti-American by the republican crowd.
This time, there is this legit deal with a legit purpose and legit management – and all you, an absolute ignorant idiot can think of is terrorism, because the country is in the Middle East and had links to 9/11 . There are several countries with links to the 9/11 you idiot – most of all our own USA.
Now piss off!
March 2nd, 2006 at 8:43 pmTo all the others on the site I am sorry – I had to post the above stupid comment, it just amazes and upsets me, how some of the so called Democrats now are ready to tarnish anyone who does not agree with their views as Anti-American and a gold digger and uses 9/11 incidents as blows below the belt – Shame on you WMDeezNuts & Notfooled, shame on you!
March 2nd, 2006 at 8:50 pmRoshan…you digress. Your behavior will win you no arguments. It is easy to get mad when someone badgers you but you hurt no one but yourself. You have many valid points but they become lost in your anger.
I am glad your freind made it back safely….
March 2nd, 2006 at 8:52 pmYes you are correct Dennis – silly anger and comments are not the way to react and conduct this debate. It’s just that my best friend in the whole world, believed she was heading to Iraq to protect America and Americans (including me) from another 9/11.
The several months she was in Iraq, I cannot tell you how little sleep I have had and how many times, her mom and I would have dinner and watch TV, hoping to get a glimpse of her.
It makes me so MAD – when people like WMDeezNuts and Not Fooled, insinuate BS views and try label them on others.
However, Dennis you are correct, and I shouldn’t have, hence my apologies.
March 2nd, 2006 at 9:20 pmRoshan, ITS A FACT THAT THE UAE has ties to the TERRORISTS IDENTIFIED AS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MURDER OF 3000 AMERICANS ON 9/11. THIS IS NOT SOME MADE UP FACTOID. ITS DOCUMENTED. NOW ITS TOO GODDAMNED BAD THAT FACT INTERFERES WITH YOUR PRESCIOUS UAE GOVERNMENT GETTING THEIR GLORIOUS PORT CONTRACT WITH THE US BUT I COULD GIVE A GODDAMNED LESS. My main concern are the LIVES of AMERICANS, not some rediculously insane profit driven contract. Anyone who dares tarnish the memory of those MURDERED AMERICANS by suggesting we do business with those even partly responsible, and perhaps more so than we know, is the lowest form of life that exists. How dare you INSULT the MEMORY of those MURDERED AMERICANS ON 9/11 with the INSANE notion that the SAME GOVERNMENT, the UAE , which RECOGNIZED THE TALIBAN as LEGITIMATE, VACATIONED WITH OSAMA BIN LADEN, held OSAMAN BIN LADEN’s MONEY IN UAE BANKS, and TURNS A BLIND EYE TO DOCUMENTED HUMAN SLAVERY, to be considered in this transaction. THIS IS THE MOST INSANE STUNT THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION HAS PROPOSED THUSFAR!!!!!! IF you think the UAE is so goddamned terrific, get your asses on a plane and move there!
March 2nd, 2006 at 9:40 pmResponse to Notfooled:
To pick and choose half truths is what silly, ignorant people like you do. You keep talking about 3000 American people dead with the DP world deal.
It truly shows, how LITTLE you know abou the UAE, about Dubai, about the Middle East Region and about Arabs.
I have posted several comments on this website detailing the difference between Emaritis from the UAE and Arabs across the ME region. I have also posted several comments about Dubai and the UAE since it’s humble beginnings 34 years ago – again, you choose to ignore those.
US governemnt was involved with OBL & Taliban during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. US banks helped launder the monies for 9/11 from various countries including the UAE to America. I don’t want to get into the slavery, Civil war or Martin Luther King debate that is part of American history. However just the way USA a 200+ year old country is recognizing and correcting it’s flaws – so is a 34 year old country, the UAE. You have to live in the UAE and experience the changes the country has made in such a short span of time to now what I am talking about.
And lastly, it’s really sad when you say you “CARE” about Americans – however it’s true you really care is only about YOURSELF - because you will use the 9/11 to make your lame ass points anywhere possible, with no knowledge of facts, experiences or actual exposure to the other side !
March 2nd, 2006 at 10:07 pmLets not belittle the families of other countries that lost family.
* Australia: 10
* Bangladesh: 6
* Belarus: 1 [1]
* Belgium: 1
* Bermuda: 1
* Brazil: 3
* Canada: 24
* Chile: 2
* China: 4
* Côte d’Ivoire: 1
* Colombia: 17
* Democratic Republic of the Congo: 2
* Dominican Republic: 1
* El Salvador: 1
* Ecuador: 3
* France: 1
* Germany: 11
* Ghana: 2
* Guyana: 3
* Haiti: 2
* Honduras:1
* India: 1
* Indonesia: 1
* Ireland: 1
* Israel: 3
* Italy: 4
* Jamaica: 16
* Japan: 26
* Lebanon: 3
* Lithuania: 1
* Mexico: 16
* Moldova: 1
* New Zealand: 2
* Nigeria: 1
* Peru: 5
* Philippines: 16
* Portugal: 3
* Poland: 1
* Russia: 1
* South Africa: 2
* Sweden: 1
* Taiwan: 1
* Ukraine: 1
* Uzbekistan: 1
* United Kingdom: 67
* Venezuela: 1
Total: 236. Excludes the 19 perpetrators.
Your use of these of these numbers and memories is sickening. I hope that something of this magnitude never touches your life. I’m sure that you wouldn’t appreciate your loss being demeaned by someone using it in a mean spirited rant to try and prove a point. Grow up.
March 2nd, 2006 at 10:09 pm
March 2nd, 2006 at 10:19 pmResponse to NotFooled
“IF you think the UAE is so goddamned terrific, get your asses on a plane and move there!”
I visit my parents every Christmas in the UAE, where I also have friends, some of whom graduated from schools in the US, and work/live in the UAE.
There are several discussions I have with citizens/residents on the postive aspects of the US, such as the freedom of press, first amendment rights, 5th amendement rights, equality amongst most societies etc. These people are receptive to such discussions and they hope to have similar rights going forward, infact some of these rights are being discussed as I write this comment.
Ofcourse, I keep topics of people like you at bay.
Get out there, travel the world, experience different cultures, countries and get to know the people instead of ranting and raving from your basement in some cowtown.
March 2nd, 2006 at 10:21 pmYour use of these of these numbers and memories is sickening. I hope that something of this magnitude never touches your life. I’m sure that you wouldn’t appreciate your loss being demeaned by someone using it in a mean spirited rant to try and prove a point. Grow up.
Comment by steve — March 2, 2006 @ 10:09 pm
No, your advocating the selling AMERICA out to those who share responsibility for the deaths of 3000 AMERICANS on 9/11, the UAE, is SICKENING. You’re a low life Steve, no matter what you believe in your demented little pea brain.
March 2nd, 2006 at 11:17 pmWe all share in the responsibilty of the 9/11 dead. Me, you the rest of the country. We ignored and isolated ourselves from the hate growing around the world toward the United States. We treated the Arab world in a way that bred contempt.We have an opprotuniy in one Arab nation to change the overriding perception of the United States. Shall we miss that opprotunity and prove all our Arab critics right? Shall we prolong the hate? Shall the new Al Qaed recruiting poster be one of Uncle Sam saying “We don’t want you!”. To block the sale is a facade for security. An imaginary illsion to make us feel safe. When in actuality it puts us in more danger than ever.
March 3rd, 2006 at 3:01 amThats a load of horse manure Dennis. We’ve been doing business with the middle east for decades. Who do you think financed these 9/11 lunatics by purchasing a steady stream of oil flowing out of the middle east in the first place? 9/11 didn’t occur because someone was mad at the US for not doing business with them. If anything, its our business dealings with the middle east that led to that event. When you lie down with dogs you rise with fleas. We need to stop dealing with countries that don’t believe in democracy, engage in or support terrorism, human slavery, and corruption. And we’ve boycotted Cuba for how long? We formed blockades to shut down the flow of anything into Iraq at one point. We’ve imposed trade embargoes and sanctions countless times. Since when does the US bow to foreign pressure? We don’t need to do business with anyone out of fear of how they might respond. Since when does the United States of America and its citizens cower in fear of angering some other foreign power? On those grounds alone, I would definately not support any deal with anyone on the basis of not doing so might anger them. Thank you for providing me with yet another reason not to support that deal Dennis. I’ll never support any deal with anyone out of fear of reprisal for not doing so. I don’t believe in giving up lunch money to bullies.
“The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.â€
Franklin D. Roosevelt (American 32nd US President (1933-45)
“This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience…we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.”
March 3rd, 2006 at 5:06 amPresident of the United States (and former General of the Army) Dwight D. Eisenhower in his Farewell Address to the Nation on January 17, 1961:
March 3rd, 2006 at 7:44 amDennis your comment#810 – Well said, I could not have said it better.
March 3rd, 2006 at 9:32 amI love how the liberal mantra is only applied to issues or causes that suit the need at that time. The unmitigated gall of people demanding that the only countries we should deal with are democratic is an absolute two-faced position. It seems that you only want it to apply to Arab countries, because when you see pictures of starving people of Rwanda or the Congo, you have no problem sending hundreds of millions of dollars in support. So, it must mean that if a country really doesn’t need us, then we won’t deal with them if they don’t become a democracy? Most of the countries in the Middle East and Northern Africa have learned about democracy by being at the bottom of the boot to British and French colonial rule.
Then we get to listen to you lamenting about how much you hate our government and how corrupt it is. When you have the opportunity to debate or discuss issues, you’d rather spew illogical and sometimes hateful dialogue to cover your own inconsistencies in thought. Lets put this type of government into a new developing country.
But, I guess the ranting and illogical behavior comes from the top of the DNC with Howard Dean and trickles down to you. BTW, how did ranting help the Democrats Presidential bid?
March 3rd, 2006 at 10:53 amYou know what guys, if you want to keep ranting and including references to Sept. 11th as a reason to do or not do certain things, then continue. I know when I hear Sept. 11th, I see heroism, a united country and a resolute stand against terrorism under the leadership of Rudy Giuliani and President Bush. Talk about blowback.
March 3rd, 2006 at 11:45 amTo AmericanPatriot
In resonse to your comment:
“We don’t need to do business with anyone out of fear of how they might respond. Since when does the United States of America and its citizens cower in fear of angering some other foreign power? On those grounds alone, I would definately not support any deal with anyone on the basis of not doing so might anger them.”
I have never been accused of taking a position of fear.
I take positions of practicality. I see from my research on this issue the chance to win the hearts and minds of the UAE. A often used but rarely successful military strategy. In this case I see a higher than normal degree for success. The best way to eliminate an enemy is to make them your friend.
In situations where that is not possible (Iran for example) I adhere to a policy of overwelming force. A don’t screw with the tougheast guy on the block policy and if it pisses anyone off, oh well. Deal with it.
When you appoarch a stitution from a position of strengh and without fear you are better able to make the correct decisions.
March 3rd, 2006 at 12:17 pmThis just in…
March 3rd, 2006 at 3:12 pmcomment 797
The statement you made being “we don’t anything from them” including oil. The thing is we are addicted to oil, because WE NEED IT! WE USE IT IN OUR EVERYDAY LIVES. So don’t even try to say we don’t need oil from them, because we do!
March 3rd, 2006 at 4:07 pmSince the USA is such a despicable country, THE major source of evil in the world. I say lets drop all pretense and start doing the things we are accused of doing.
Then the children of the Alger Hiss/Rosenburgs ilk can say “Aha, we were right”. And. Everyone pompous king of the world wannabee little jerks in their half-assed little countries will be shaking in their boots.
What the hell, Americans are the most generous, forgiving,
decent people in the world, and the most hated. What is the difference?
This Dubai ports scuffle, is bringing out the anti-Bush crowd touting their agenda against Bush. Why because of the Dubai ports deal? NO. It is just another platform for them to use against Bush. I doubt they even hate Bush, what they hate is not being in power which is their fault. But it is always easier for this crowd to blame others for their own shortcomings.
Think about it…When any of you have disagreed with this crowd using logical well thought out points. How do they react? With personal attacks, vulgarity, hate, and the same tired old liberal diatribes heard for the last 40 years.
So lets say to hell with it and be the evil land we are believed to be around the world. They won’t love us but at least they will respect us.
March 3rd, 2006 at 4:58 pmIf you really want to improve the security of American Ports and other areas of vital interests, I would suggest:
Term Limits for the Senate and Congress
Campaign finance reform
Severe restrictions on lobbyiests
One vote for one bill, no slipping extras in last minute.
Severe penalties for the Senators and Congressmen when they break the rules, and don’t let them be in charge of the enforcement. A body that investigates themselves is a body that is corrupt.
A flat tax so they can stop dinkering around using our money as a politcal weapon, holding the American people hostage to their whims and take care of other pressing matters.
AND ABOVE ALL DON”T LET THE SENATE AND CONGRESS TRY AND DO THEIR OWN REFORMS!!! IT”S LIKE LETTING A MENATAL PATIENT PRESCRIBE THEIR OWN MEDICATION!!! LET THE AMERICAN PEOPLE VOTE ON SANE REFORM REFERENDUMS!!!
I agree in principle with one argument to the opposition of the ports deal We need to take our country back….I just think we need to take it back from the politicians!
March 3rd, 2006 at 6:25 pmKezik, Dennis,
The problem is always going to be politicians. Sometimes the problem is they are in office too long, sometimes not long enough. If you look at the business world, they operate from a business plan, set goals and provide for both long and short term contingencies. If the company doesn’t fulfill its goals, then a shakeup occurs. We have a country with no real long-term goals, and if there are any, they can be changed by the next Congress or President. I truthfully would rather vote for the platform and the short and long term goals, and let the politicians rise to the occasion. We don’t need to vote for personalities, we need to vote for consistency.
March 3rd, 2006 at 6:38 pmWell, Roshan, Nick, Steve, Alexandra and all those who support the deal. The opposition seems to have have gone silent.
You all handled yourselves, mostly with dignaty. Even I had a moment or two where the hate and derogatory comments directed at me became so bad that I lashed back. After collecting myself I got back on track and made my points with dignity, without mud and commend you all for doing the same.
This is an interesting thread, it has by far generated more comments than any other on this site. It seems to be the only one that maintained any sort of balance. The rest are mostly endless tirades and one sided views.
I found it interesting that those who tried to handle themselves with dignity and keep to the issue, all used their real names as user names….while those whom wanted to play in the mud did not. Make your own conclusion there.
This was my first time at one of these boards..it has been most enlightning and eye opening.
March 3rd, 2006 at 8:54 pmChild camel jockeys in the UAE
In 2004, Anti-Slavery International sent a photographer to the United Arab Emirates (UAE) to photograph children racing and training in the Gulf state. The photographs prove that, despite the Government’s repeated statements that this practice has stopped, it is still a problem. Two years ago, the Government announced that using children under 15 and lighter than 45 kilograms to race camels would be banned from 1 September 2002 and offenders punished. For more about this issue, see our submission to the UN.
All the photographs below were taken in 2004 at the Nad Al Sheba racecourse in Dubai, but children were seen racing and training across the country.
If you would like to use any of these images, see photographs (conditions of use) or contact Becky Shand on +44 (0)20 7501 8922 or email b.shand@antislavery.org
All photos © CDP/Anti-Slavery International
© CDP/Anti-Slavery International
Some boys are so young they have to be tied onto the camel
© CDP/Anti-Slavery International
Only owners get money or prizes for winning, the children get nothing.
© CDP/Anti-Slavery International
Most camel jockeys are under 10 years old and are seen as too heavy when they reach 15.
© CDP/Anti-Slavery International
Boys have been seriously injured during races and from their treatment, some have died as
a result.
© CDP/Anti-Slavery International
Despite the harsh reality, child camel jockeys are a tourist attraction.
© CDP/Anti-Slavery International
Most jockeys only have a sheet on the sand for a bed and basic shelter.
© CDP/Anti-Slavery International
Children are frequently deprived of food and water to keep them light.
© CDP/Anti-Slavery International
In summer, children race, train and tend the camels in over 40C heat.
© CDP/Anti-Slavery International
Camel racing using childen as jockeys is clearly visible across the Emirates.
http://www.antislavery.org/homepage/resources/cameljockeysgallery/gallery.htm
March 3rd, 2006 at 11:32 pmWell, Roshan, Nick, Steve, Alexandra and all those who support the deal. The opposition seems to have have gone silent.
Comment by Dennis — March 3, 2006 @ 8:54 pm
Hmmmm…action photos of child slaves under the rule of non-democratic, “Deep Pockets” Dubai. This is who Bush does business with. Now who’s gone silent? Whats the matter Dennis and alter egos Roshan, Nick, Steve, Alexandra, cat got your tongues?
“I sometimes feel a little guilty that that an American life is more valuable to me than say an Iraqi but thats just my Catholic upbringing. We are a very guilt oriented religion.â€
Comment by Dennis — March 1, 2006 @ 12:29 am
Oh my…
March 4th, 2006 at 9:04 amResponse to Fool oh sorry NotFooled –
Nobody strong>ever denied child jockeys never took place. Infact there was a huge discussions and uproar in the UAE about this topic – and it is now illegal. Yes there are culprits who still try and evade the law, however if caught they are put into trial, like here in the US for child pornography.
So what’s this got to do with DP world – yes Dubai government owns Dubai world i.e. the management who manages DP world are worlds best shipping andport professionals from across the world, such as British, American, Canadians and Asians.
Hence if a bunch of folks indulge in child jockeys -why you AGAIN painting the whole of the UAE as child jockeys/slave traders? Do you think it is correct to paint the whole of US as child pornographers and/or podephiles?
So Fool – I mean NotFooled, do you have anything valid to say, there has been 824 plus comments in this site and not a single sane/valid comment from you- yet?
March 4th, 2006 at 10:58 amGood morning Roshan 8)
March 4th, 2006 at 11:02 amAh NotFooled,
I missed you!
Yep, President Bush does bussines with Dubai and President Clinton seems to be their new spokesman (I wonder if they pay him for that?). It is a polititians haven for paid speeking engagements. Both Republican and Democrat.
Makes you wonder how many of those fine Americans took in the local flavor of the camel races while they were there?
The CIA estimates that 14,000 to 17,000 people are trafficed in the United States every year. It is a world wide problem. It is a terrible and we should all do our part to stop it but perhaps we should start with the problem within our own country before we start to point fingers at other countries. Anything less than that would be hypocritical.
Perhaps we are not qualified to run our own ports?
I admit when I hear about an American dying in Iraq I am more affected than that when I hear about an Iraqi death. Yes, perhaps that is not a commendable view point but no one of us is perfect and I have no problem admitting my shortcomings. Call me shallow if you will.
I still think that the port deal going through is going to be the better long term solution for the United States despite my disdane for all the polititians involved.
It is a question of short term security versus long term security. Quick fixes versus real solutions.
Have a great day “NotFooled”
March 4th, 2006 at 11:02 amGood morning Dennis : ) Pleasure hearing from you.
March 4th, 2006 at 11:11 amI wonder what gave everyone the idea that the Bush administration is business pals with all the Muslims? Was it the pics of GW and Bandar Bush holding hands? Or the Billions of arab money dumped into our defense contractors? Maybe it was just us attacking and removing everyones enemy in the Middle East? Do we still have Americans dying over there each day? I dont hear an uproar about it from our public. I wonder how many of our troops will have to die before people are pissed off and fired up? 4000? 6000? 10,000? Iraqs about to fall into civil war so dont count on us pulling out anytime soon. And how will we deal with IRAN, the real threat. Too bad their enemy next door isn’t around to keep them in check. Oh well, by the time ppl get pissed off about all our dead boys Bush’s term will be over.
On that note, heres a nice video to uplift everyones spirits.
Spirit uplifter..yeah right.
March 4th, 2006 at 11:46 amWMDeezNuts-
I am not sure why it is you are encouraging people to watch you Al Qaeda propaganda video? It is a sad thing when American soldiers die worse though when it is glorified by the enemy.
In wars people die. That is the sad truth of it.You may not agree with the Iraq war but we are there and despite weather we were lied to or not we have to finish what we started. Anything less and then truly the American lives that we lost will have been in vain.
Some Statistics for a clear perspective on the remarkable accoplishment in keeping our American soliders as safe as we can during this war. (Yes if we show resolve and and properly support our soldiers we can do even better)
Murder rate in America one in every 13,888 will be murdered.
Death rate for soldier in Iraq 1 in every 15,000 will be killed. Not taking into account troop rotations, then the number would be lower.
Death rate for a soldier in Vietnam 1 in every 10 were killed.
A single day on the beaches of Normandy resulted in 10,000 American dead. That number was lower than some predicted before the invasion and considered an acceptable loss.
If we take the estimates that between 500,000 and 1,000,000 Iraqis died during Saddam’s rule (1979-2003), not including deaths from the war with Iran, it yields an annual death rate of between 25,000 to 50,000 per year under Saddam.
With a death rate of 1000 US soldiers per year it means that every single American death resulted in saving 2500 to 5000 Iraqies from Saddams murder machine.
Just food for thought.
March 4th, 2006 at 1:04 pmWMD, that video made me sick to my stomach. But so did watching those children forced into slavery in the UAE. And if I didn’t care as much about those children as I do Americans, I sure as hell wouldn’t attempt to pawn it off on “religion.” I’d identify it as “compartmentalized thinking.” Go look that concept up while you’re at it Dennis. And oh btw, that child slavery and human slavery racket going on in the UAE is happening right under the nose of the UAE government that is supposedly against it. The Truth is, the UAE/DUBAI government is under investigation by human rights groups for being complicit in human slavery and has been for a long time. The UAE rates a 6 on a scale of 1-10 for human rights violations right behind China. Is the US government complicit in the human slavery and trafficking going on here? Not if the American people have anything to say about. And thats really the difference between the US and DUBAI/UAE. The US is a democracy (when Bush isn’t in office), whereas the UAE is a kingdom. The last time some jackass king tried to run the US, a bunch of good old Americans got together and dumped about 1 million dollars worth of his blood money in the harbor. We don’t care for kings in the US, whether they’re Kings of England, Kings of Dubai, or US Presidents trying to be King. And thats what Americans are fixing to deal with come these next elections. We know the reason Bush is banking on this deal with Dubai/UAE. Its because the US is up to its eyeballs in debt….A debt that was created by the Bush administration. Guess by how much? There are estimates that the Bush administration has somehow “misplaced” around 3 trillion dollars. Thats right folks, trillion with a T. So its no wonder Bush wants help from good old mafia money bags DUBAI. Thats why we’re selling Dubai a fleet of F18’s among other things. Bush and his little cronies plan to auction off the US to the highest bidders. Ask your self why all these Republicans keep getting indicted. Another one,Rep. Randy “Duke” Cunningham, just got 8 years in prison. Guess who he was receiving kickbacks from? Defense contractors. Is anyone surprised? Not a bit. The Bush administration just loves brokering defense contracts. And let me tell you something. I didn’t vote for Clinton ever. Why? Because he was for NAFTA which smells alot like this deal with DUBAI. I don’t care for ANYONE in office that sells off anything in the US, whether it be Bush or Clinton. You Bush/Dubai apologetics want to make this into a partisan issue? I got news for you. It aint. This is about Americans vs Anti-Americans. You people that support this deal with Dubai/UAE and support Bush are Anti-Americans. The truth is coming out, no matter how you try to spin it. All of Bush’s cronies are getting indicted slowly but surely. All of Bush’s cronies are turning on eachother slowly but surely. Its only a matter of time. And time doesn’t lie. Bush and his corrupt administration are going down.
“All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.”
March 4th, 2006 at 1:15 pmArthur Schopenhauer
In wars people die. That is the sad truth of it.You may not agree with the Iraq war but we are there and despite weather we were lied to or not we have to finish what we started. Anything less and then truly the American lives that we lost will have been in vain.
Comment by Dennis — March 4, 2006 @ 1:04 pm
What I want to know is why all you people that believe we need to “finish what we started” aren’t over there finishing it for Bush? If you believe so strongly in waging war on Iraq whether Bush lied or not, how come you aren’t in boots Dennis? There are American grandparents serving in Iraq. What we need in this country is a draft. I would love to get all of you Bush supporters over there doing his dirty work and putting your asses on the line. I bet you’d be singing a different tune if it was your ass getting shot off Dennis.
March 4th, 2006 at 1:19 pmNotFooled
It is an all volunteer army. Everyone who goes into the service knows that they might be called upon to go to war. I personally believe that every American should be required to do millitary service as a requirement for citizenship. I have done mine NotFooled, have you? Your idea for a draft is interesting. Just draft Republicnas? How does this make you differnt from what you accuse Bush of? Me thinks you become the thing you hate.
March 4th, 2006 at 1:32 pmResponse to Notfooled re: comment# 831.
I would not support, if something was not good for America, however I would support, if something is good for all mankind in general.
I never supported the Iraq war, and had tons of debates and heated debates with a lot of Americans, both Democrats and Republicans – because I KNEW we were being lied to – and I KNEW most of the Americans, who have not set foot outside the US , would know nothing better, than what was fed to them by the Bush admin, by FOX news and other media.
Likewise, sort of the same story here NotFooled – like I have said numnerous times on this site. Having lived in the UAE and seeing the country change from it’s humble, improvished beginings 34 years ago to become a world player is very commendable.
I will be the first one to stand up and admit, ofcourse the UAE/Dubai has flaws, some huge ones, some little ones – but it does have flaws. The banking system had flaws, security measures within the country had flaws, child jockeys, prostitution etc are flaws. No argument there – however I ask you to also look at the efforts, means and methods, and laws put into place by the government to eradicate/control these flaws.
To me such measure is progress. If the UAE did a Saudi Arabia, i.e. turn a blind eye to it’s flaws and lived with their own version of things – I would never support any deal with the Saudis.
The only reason, I am even having this debate with you is because – there are facts you lay out, some of it is true, however like most American public you are not getting all the facts, hence unable to do a 360 degree due diligence.
All you know is the UAE links to 9/11, child jockeys slavery and then some more. YOU TRULY HAVE NO IDEA OF THE EXTENT OF THIS DEBATE IN THE UAE, THE LAWS PUT IN PLACE TO BAN CHILD JOCKEYS and more. YOU REALLY HAVE TO LIVE IN THE UAE AND experience it first hand to know what I am talking about.
Just a suggestion – take a trip to Dubai, almost all major arilines fly into Dubia via Europe. Emirates flies into Dubia, direct from JFK and YES being an American or a Jew you will be welcomeed (if no criminal history) and spent a week to get the ways of working in the UAE – honestly, only then will you really get the FULL picture.
March 4th, 2006 at 2:00 pmThanks for getting us back on track Roshan….we digressed 8)
March 4th, 2006 at 2:03 pmOne more point – I am a Democrat, however I did not vote for the last elections, because I really believed America could do better and deserved better.
I do not like Bush,I believe, WAIT I KNOW he lied to the American public on Iraq war. however I cannot simply stand up and disapprove everything he says or does – just because of that can I?
Infact I pretty much dislike everyone in his administration – except Condi Rice. I think she is a woman of substance – and if she were to ever lead American, I woul support her over Hillary Clinton – this does not have to do with bt Democratic beliefs, but the FACT that I WOULD SUPPORT A CANDIDATE WHO IS BETTER FOR AMERICA, over my preferred political party.
The ONLY REASON I am supporting Bush and DP world deal – is because I have seen the UAE’s transformation, I have seen the vision of the leaders of the UAE, how they want to be successful like a Singapore or the USA.
Hence I strongly believe, it will be a huge injustice if we the Americans, turn our backs because of this silly deal to those who are perhaps the lone ones making such changes aligned to those of a more free world.
March 4th, 2006 at 2:10 pmLooks like we are seeing more twists to the involvement of Bill, Hillary and the Dubai ports deal every day.
Columnist Bob Novak reports that President Clinton urged Dubai officials to hire his former White House Press Secretary Joe Lockhart to handle damage control on the ports, even though Lockhart’s consulting firm, the Glover Park Group, is connected to Sen. Clinton’s political operations.
Hillary, meanwhile, continues to deny that her husband discussed his conversation with the Dubai officials with her, and adding that “The president, my husband, supports my position, a position that is rooted in legitimate concerns about security.”
It was also revealed that, in addition, to accepting $300,000 to address a summit in Dubai in 2002, the ex-president also was paid $450,000 for a November 15th Dubai speech, and the United Arab Emirates contributed between $500,000 and $1 million for his presidential library.
And a few months ago, while the port deal was in the works, Bill referred to the Dubai-government as “a role model” for the Mideast. But the apparent contradictions in the family haven’t stopped Hillary from politicizing the issue, as she sent out an email on February 27th detailing her recent comments and directing donors to a Web page to make contributions to her re-election campaign.
March 4th, 2006 at 2:11 pmSorry the last sentence should have read “Hence I strongly believe, it will be a huge injustice if we the Americans, turn our backs because of this silly deal to those who are perhaps the lone ones in the Middle East region making such changes aligned to those of a more free world.
March 4th, 2006 at 2:12 pmDennis – to be honest, I never had any appreciation for Hilary CLinton. She, like Charles Schumer is clearly an opportunist, and debating this DP Deal from a political standpoint.
You have correctly pointed out – we as Americans, need to keep the interest of America at hear and mind and react accordingly and not by listening to caniving, opportunistic, self centered politicians.
March 4th, 2006 at 2:16 pmNotFooled
It is an all volunteer army. Everyone who goes into the service knows that they might be called upon to go to war. I personally believe that every American should be required to do millitary service as a requirement for citizenship. I have done mine NotFooled, have you? Your idea for a draft is interesting. Just draft Republicnas? How does this make you differnt from what you accuse Bush of? Me thinks you become the thing you hate.
Comment by Dennis — March 4, 2006 @ 1:32 pm
Methinks you have never served a day of your life in the Armed forces. And if you have, you don’t grasp the economic dynamics that drive enlistment. You saying joining the military is “all voluntary” is kinda lik saying being born into poverty is “all voluntary.” The military isn’t primarily comprised of people that have alot of financial options. I sure as hell didn’t join because my daddy could afford to send me to Yale while I drank booze and snorted coke like our articulate president. Most of the military is comprised of the underprivaledged that go in because they don’t see any other way of breaking out of poverty. I didn’t say just draft republicans but that wouldn’t be a bad idea. Of course when I say draft republicans I mean draft people with money. Unless you have alot of money, you’re not a real republican, you’re just a wanna be republican whose been sold a bill of goods. I would rather see the real republicans with real money serving in the military. You could join too Dennis, I know it would be good for you, even though you’re not a “real republican.” And oh btw, I dont have enough money to become what I hate Dennis. I doubt even Bill Gates has that much money.
March 4th, 2006 at 2:21 pmAll you know is the UAE links to 9/11, child jockeys slavery and then some more. YOU TRULY HAVE NO IDEA OF THE EXTENT OF THIS DEBATE IN THE UAE, THE LAWS PUT IN PLACE TO BAN CHILD JOCKEYS and more. YOU REALLY HAVE TO LIVE IN THE UAE AND experience it first hand to know what I am talking about.
Just a suggestion – take a trip to Dubai, almost all major arilines fly into Dubia via Europe. Emirates flies into Dubia, direct from JFK and YES being an American or a Jew you will be welcomeed (if no criminal history) and spent a week to get the ways of working in the UAE – honestly, only then will you really get the FULL picture.
Comment by Roshan — March 4, 2006 @ 2:00 pm
Actually I know a few more things than that Roshan. I know that Dubai/UAE is not a Democracy. I know that Dubai/UAE is not bound by the same laws that govern the United States. I also know that Bush and many politicians are bankrupting this country and think selling it off is the answer to their financial ruin. I also know that I don’t trust Bush or Dubai/UAE nor do I have any reason to. Neither Bush nor the government of DUBAI/UAE has done anything to prove to me as an American citizen that either can be trusted one bit. You telling me how great the deal is, or how great Dubai/UAE is, doesn’t prove anything to me. There is a great deal of information, more reliable than you, that says otherwise. And there is no way in hell I would fly anywhere in the middle east unless I was drafted and sent there with my trusty M-16 and a full load. :)
March 4th, 2006 at 2:30 pmResponse to NotFooled “Actually I know a few more things than that Roshan. I know that Dubai/UAE is not a Democracy. I know that Dubai/UAE is not bound by the same laws that govern the United States.
Yes UAE is not a Democracy – so what if it is not a Democracy? Neither are China and Singapore (a part Democracy), yet we conduc loads of business with them?
BTW – if you have lived only in a Democratic form of government, and having not “experienced” other forms of govt, say the one in Dubai, how would you know which is better of the two?
Also why are you under the presumption – if it UAE is governed by Sheikhs it makes the country evil or bad? I mean you have never lived there have you? so what is your comment based on – FOX NEWS?
I do agree Democratic form of government is perhaps the best deal out there, however in the form of government such as in the UAE, there are plus points too – for example, do you know, a citizen can walk upto the ruler in the UAE and meet at the rulers “Majlis” i.e. the ruler’s office personally to discuss any issue under the sun? Can you walk upto Clinton or Bush and do the same?
Having said that – the UAE is a 34 year old country – unless we the US, champions of Democracy do not accept the UAE citizens, how are they suppossed to believe Democracy is perhaps good for them?
“I also know that Bush and many politicians are bankrupting this country and think selling it off is the answer to their financial ruin. I also know that I don’t trust Bush or Dubai/UAE nor do I have any reason to.”
First of all Bush did not sell anything to DP world. P&O acquired LEASE terminal operations in 6 ports in the US in 1999, when Clinton was president. DP world has now acquired the terminal leases as part of it’s acquisition of P&O. Secondly, the SIX ports are US property, NO ONE IS SELLING THE SIX PORTS TO DP WORLD.
“Neither Bush nor the government of DUBAI/UAE has done anything to prove to me as an American citizen that either can be trusted one bit.”
Secondly, perhaps the fact that Dubai’s ports is the largest location in the world where American Soldiers to embark and take a break. Have you heard or read of an American casualty from the UAE yet?
“You telling me how great the deal is, or how great Dubai/UAE is, doesn’t prove anything to me. There is a great deal of information, more reliable than you, that says otherwise. And there is no way in hell I would fly anywhere in the middle east unless I was drafted and sent there with my trusty M-16 and a full load. :) ”
I NEVER said UAE/Dubai is Great – I don’t use such definitions for countries, border & boundaries created by people. I DID say – the country has made progressive changes and continue to make changes, progressive changes for a better tomorrow, more aligned towards what we have here in the US.
I know you are kidding, however believe me if you want to – you can head to Dubai in more comfort and pleasure via Emirates, British Airways, Air France or any other major airline in the world. It’s a 12 hour direct flight or a 19 hour flight with stopovers, and the F16 ain’t going to keep you comfortable.
Also no need for a loaded F16. Perhaps you may be surprised to know, unlike citizens of some countries like Iran or Iraq, Americans do not need a visa to visit the UAE – you are granted a visitor’s visa (more of a 2 minutes formality) on arrival in Dubai.
March 4th, 2006 at 3:48 pmRoshan I question the authenticity of your US citizenship when you say “we”. I was born and raised in the United States of America. I believe in the US constitution. I swore an Oath to serve and protect my country. Have you ever sworn an Oath to serve and protect the United States of America? I highly doubt you have. I don’t need to live under a King or a Dictatorship to know I prefer a Democracy and the United States of America to any other system of government. Just reading the paper every day and seeing what goes on elsewhere in the world is enough to convince me. And for your information I’ve been to 4 different continents. I prefer North America to all the rest, even in other areas that have abolished human slavery. And I don’t care if its leasing or selling the control of 6 major US ports to DUBAI/UAE. Either way, its the relinquishing of contol and management of US ports of entry to a foreign government…a foreign government I DO NOT TRUST! I will never support this, no matter how much you attempt to sugar coat this deal or whine and complain about how great DUBAI is. The security of the United States of America should not be for sale or lease to China, UAE, or any other foreign country. And even though the Coast Guard is in charge of the security, the hen house can’t be too secure with a fox managing it. Nothing you say will ever convince me otherwise and every American I know, with the exception of a few begrudgingly loyal Bush supporters are against this deal with DUBAI. This is the first time since 9/11 I have seen so many Americans on both sides of the fence come together on an issue. And oh btw, I said my trusty M-16, not F-16. I don’t care if Mother Theresa vacationed in DUBAI, I wouldn’t go to the middle east unless my country ordered me to, fully armed and prepared to take action.
March 4th, 2006 at 4:19 pmDubai Ports World Tries To Censor Lou Dobbs
CNN’s Lou Dobbs reports that Dubai Ports World (which is controlled by the government of the United Arab Emirates) is trying to censor his reporting on the UAE ports deal. They told CNN that if they didn’t “shut up Lou Dobbs” they wouldn’t allow CNN to film any of their oprations around the world, nor would they allow any CNN reporter to interview anyone from their company. You can see the video here:
http://movies.crooksandliars.com/Lou-Dobbs-Shut-up.wmv
or
http://movies.crooksandliars.com/Lou-Dobbs-Shut-u.mov
Lou Dobbs reported today that “Dubai Ports World” officials have tried to silence him and get CNN to suppress his reports.
Mark Dennis, spokesman for Dubai Ports World said: “CNN won’t shut up Lou Dobbs.” They are refusing to give any more interviews to CNN or allow them to video tape their operations overseas. To CNN’s credit they have refused to comply with their demands.
Lou gave his opinion that he believes that Bush Administration officials are not being honest with the American public about the real reason behind the ports deal.
Kudos to CNN for refusing to kowtow to the thugs at Dubai Ports World. If this doesn’t prove that this is not the company to be running our ports, I don’t know what does.
http://www.mediacynic.com/
March 4th, 2006 at 4:55 pmResponse to NotFooled:
Roshan I question the authenticity of your US citizenship when you say “weâ€. I was born and raised in the United States of America. I believe in the US constitution. I swore an Oath to serve and protect my country. Have you ever sworn an Oath to serve and protect the United States of America? I highly doubt you have.
You are free to doubt anything you want to – including, assessing if you are a fool or not a fool. I took an oath am granted a citizenship by the US governemnt, not by your daddy. My citizenship and oath is true, valid and my business.
Secondly – I swore to protect this country and it’s people, however as a human being and citizen of this world, I also have the heart and more importantly the MIND (something clearly missing in your case) to care and think about all the hard working people in this world, whose life and freedoms are no less than mine & yours. Hence I would do my part to ensure they too get to enjoy the rights & freedoms we here in the in the United States enjoy – and there is nothing wrong with that.
I have been fortunte in to have lived, learn and grow in several countries across the globe – where I had the chance to be exposed to the wonderful cultures, peoples, ways of life – the good, the bad, the ugly in of all these countries. I was brought up by wonderful human beings who always taught me -nothing is more valuable than human life and nobody’s life is less valuable be it an American’s or an Arab’s. When I make decisions, I draw on what I have seen and experienced from my experiences and exposures – and not by merely reading newspaper editorials – or BLINDLY believing what the government says for it’s own personal gain i.e. the Iraq war.
I don’t need to live under a King or a Dictatorship to know I prefer a Democracy and the United States of America to any other system of government. Just reading the paper every day and seeing what goes on elsewhere in the world is enough to convince me. And for your information I’ve been to 4 different continents. I prefer North America to all the rest, even in other areas that have abolished human slavery.
Your preference is your preference, however that does not give you the right to assume rest of the government systems prevailing is evil and no good – because you truly have not experienced it. Just visiting the 4 continents is not enough. Not Fooled – live with the people, get to know their cultures, ways of life – then you MAY perhaps get a better understanding of what sort of peoples constitues the world – and that not all Arabs are like OBL and his croonies.
The biggest drawback in your information flow is, “Just reading the paper every day and seeing what goes on elsewhere in the world is enough to convince me” – there is a HUGE difference between gathering information from newspapers and living at these places to experience it and debate issues.
And I don’t care if its leasing or selling the control of 6 major US ports to DUBAI/UAE. Either way, its the relinquishing of contol and management of US ports of entry to a foreign government…a foreign government I DO NOT TRUST! I will never support this, no matter how much you attempt to sugar coat this deal or whine and complain about how great DUBAI is. The security of the United States of America should not be for sale or lease to China, UAE, or any other foreign country. And even though the Coast Guard is in charge of the security, the hen house can’t be too secure with a fox managing it. Nothing you say will ever convince me otherwise and every American I know, with the exception of a few begrudgingly loyal Bush supporters are against this deal with DUBAI. This is the first time since 9/11 I have seen so many Americans on both sides of the fence come together on an issue.
Perhaps your views are concerning to you, then again, you have to look at the bigger picture. In this case – you have to care or you are forced to care – Just like, Lou Dobbs on CNN, you fail to look at the other side of the coin i.e. why aren’t you talking about and opposing the takeover of foreign companies and foreign country assets by the US government and US companies. US companies acquire foreign companies through out the year – resulting in loss of jobs in those foreign countries. The capitalistic nature of US businesses feeds only the rich – and not the hardworking families in those foreign countries who are being laid off or down sized -WHY AREN’T YOU TAKING THIS INTO YOUR EQUATION?
BTW – I have never sugarcoated any of my comments. I could care LESS if you hold your view or what you choose to believe. My sole intention is to bring more “awareness” to poeple (even to the ones like you) about a part of the world I have had the previlage to live and experience – and I am pretty proud of it.
If you choose to ignore and stick to your beliefs -PLEASE DO – it’s your loss entirely.
“And oh btw, I said my trusty M-16, not F-16. I don’t care if Mother Theresa vacationed in DUBAI, I wouldn’t go to the middle east unless my country ordered me to, fully armed and prepared to take action.”
FYI – Mother Teresa never vacationed in Dubai, but everyone from Bill Clinton, to Bill Gates to David Beckham to Paul McCartney have homes in Dubai. However the IGNORANCE, stupidity and blind faith – in you truly shows when you say - “I wouldn’t go to the middle east unless my country ordered me to, fully armed and prepared to take action.”.
March 4th, 2006 at 10:30 pmRoshan I have nothing to gain and everything to lose by supporting the port agreement with DUBAI UAE. To support relinquishing control of the US Ports to the UAE, a goverment that goes hunting with OSAMA BIN LADEN, provides money and support for three of the known terrorists in the 9/11 MURDER and MASSACRE of 3000 AMERICANS, refuses to cooperate with the investigation of bank accounts linked to terrorist financing, engages in human slavery and human rights violations, and the list goes on. If anything, the UAE government should be brought to justice. Rather than support a business agreement with the UAE, I’m much more in favor of a military action by the US directed toward the UAE. I would rather see the UAE government officials brought to justice and investigated for being complicit in the MURDER of 3000 AMERICANS on 9/11/2001. There is fare more evidence indicating the UAE’s involvement than Iraq’s and we invaded Iraq. So clearly, there is no way in hell I would ever allow the snakes in the UAE government access to MY country. I suggest that anyone who holds the interests of the UAE over the interests of the United States of America move to the UAE. We don’t need any anti-Americans here that support criminal governments that aided in terrorist actions against the US. Keep your money UAE, we don’t want it, we don’t need it. And I speak for the majority of Americans.
March 5th, 2006 at 2:13 amHey!!! They’ve only been in the business of government for 30-sum-odd years and they are already taking over the greatest nation in the history of the earth’s ports, as well as their defense contractors companies, and a whole assortment of other companies which im sure the american sheeple have no clue they are buying out so go easy on the UAE. Maybe the prospect of the USA one day being an islamic state is not too far fetched as come of these lunatics have claimed will one day come to pass. On the other hand its reasuring to know theres people like “Not Fooled” who study the facts and review things optimisticly and make their own judgements on current events.
March 5th, 2006 at 6:32 amResponse to Notfooled:
Roshan I have nothing to gain and everything to lose by supporting the port agreement with DUBAI UAE.
Your thoughts and you are free to assume and say what you want to. I believe mankind as such will lose if we do not learn to co-exist together, but then for someone like you, who claim to have travlled to 4 continents, but in reality lives in some dingy basement in some cowtown, would only know so much
To support relinquishing control of the US Ports to the UAE, a goverment that goes hunting with OSAMA BIN LADEN, provides money and support for three of the known terrorists in the 9/11 MURDER and MASSACRE of 3000 AMERICANS, refuses to cooperate with the investigation of bank accounts linked to terrorist financing, engages in human slavery and human rights violations, and the list goes on.
It is very evident, you are blind and totaly ignorant about facts, about the ME part of the world, as you continue to rave and rant like an illogical person on 9/11 connections to the UAE, but ignore the whole truth – hence no point talking to you about it anymore.
If anything, the UAE government should be brought to justice. Rather than support a business agreement with the UAE, I’m much more in favor of a military action by the US directed toward the UAE. I would rather see the UAE government officials brought to justice and investigated for being complicit in the MURDER of 3000 AMERICANS on 9/11/2001.
Good luck Fool – i mean Not Fooled
There is fare more evidence indicating the UAE’s involvement than Iraq’s and we invaded Iraq. So clearly, there is no way in hell I would ever allow the snakes in the UAE government access to MY country. I suggest that anyone who holds the interests of the UAE over the interests of the United States of America move to the UAE. We don’t need any anti-Americans here that support criminal governments that aided in terrorist actions against the US. Keep your money UAE, we don’t want it, we don’t need it.
Again – your ignorant thoughts, and a reminder, the USA does not belong to you or your daddy – peoples from all over the world come to live here by choice (including your ancestors) Because someone does not stand up for your silly ignorant views – gives you no right to ask them to move out – the thought and comment itself defeats the very purpose of being American – hence you are implying YOU are UnAmerican – so perhaps you may want to moveout.
Getting into an M16 or whatever crap you fancy to head to the Middle East region to Bomb a developed, law abiding, aspiring country and it’s people is what makes this country suffer – because it has dumb asses like you calling themselves Americans.
“And I speak for the majority of Americans.”
I am sorry are you the elected president of the Americans? what gives you the right to assume and speak for the rest of America. Besides someone by the name of “WMDeezNuts” I did not come across anyone who agrees with your radical and ignorant views.
Ob btw – I hope you get your M16 or Dodge Durango or whatever crap it is, filled with your fancy gadgets and sit in it, til kingdom come – ’cause you are NEVER going to be called for duty to the UAE- more importantly I do not BELIEVE you NEITHER have the courage or the Soul – like the Brave Americann soldiers to protect your country.
This country deserves better than losers like you.
March 5th, 2006 at 12:00 pmChalk another one up for the UAE!!!
Damn they are good, how do i become a citizen?!?!
March 5th, 2006 at 12:25 pmAfter the TERRORIST ATTACKS of 9/11/2001 which led to the MASSACRE and MURDER of 3000 AMERICANS, it was determined by US Governmental agencies that OSAMA BIN LADEN, the primary suspect in causing the DEATHS of 3000 AMERICANS as well as three of the TERRORIST HIJACKERS were all affiliated with the UNITED ARAB EMIRATES. Furthermore, when the United States Government determined that OSAMA BIN LADEN was a threat to the safety and security of the US in 1999, an attempt was made to neutralize him. However, because OSAMA BIN LADEN was in the company of the UAE ROYAL FAMILY, the US refrained from neutralizing him. This was a big mistake. THE UAE ROYAL FAMILY PROTECTED OSAMA BIN LADEN. OSAMA BIN LADEN should have been neutralized and the UAE ROYAL FAMILY along with him. If the UAE ROYAL FAMILY wants to recognize the TALIBAN as a legitimate government, protect and finance the TERRORISTS that MURDERED 3000 AMERICANS on 9/11/2001, the UAE ROYAL FAMILY SHOULD BE BROUGHT TO JUSTICE. The United States of America intiated a war against Iraq because Iraq was considered an imminent threat to National security and determined complicit in the TERRORIST ATTACKS of 9/11/2001. There is far more information gathered by the US GOVERNMENT that implicates the UAE’s involvement in the TERRORIST ATTACKS that led to the MURDER OF 3000 AMERICANS than Iraq’s involvement. At the bare minimum, the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA should conduct an INVESTIGATION AGAINST THE UAE GOVERNMENT and ROYAL FAMILY OF THE UAE for it’s complicity in the MURDER of 3000 AMERICANS on 9/11/2001. As far as the US port contracts are concerned, the US shouldn’t be doing deals with CRIMINALS like those in the UAE GOVERNMENT and ROYAL FAMILY. They should be arresting and prosecuting them for TERRORIST ACTIONS AGAINST THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA on 9/11/01 leading to the MURDER and MASSACRE of 3000 AMERICANS.
March 5th, 2006 at 12:53 pmBlah blah blah blah – Notfooled – you truly are ignorant and desperate to get your ill-informed messages across – pretty sad eh!
Go fly a kite.
March 5th, 2006 at 1:27 pmFlying a kite doesn’t cost the lives of 3000 AMERICANS. Its too bad the CORRUPT UAE ROYAL FAMILY wasn’t flying kites on 9/11/2001 instead of assisting TERRORISTS like their UAE hunting buddy OSAMA BIN LADEN with assets and personnel needed to MURDER and MASSACRE 3000 AMERICANS on 9/11/2001.
March 5th, 2006 at 1:44 pmNotFooled – flying a kite is perhaps what you could do better – than debate on this site.
Just because you are born and raised in America, does not make you the perfect American. My mother was born and raised in NYC (who holds dual citizenships of Canada and the US). She is a doctor, who now works with “Doctors without Borders” foundation in the West Bank and Africa, helping those in need, helping those who need help – letting them know, America is not just about weapons and wars – that there are Americans who CARE about human life and wish to bring peace and harmony across the globe.
She gave up her fantastic job and good monies here in America, to spread the goodwill and the “heart” of America across the world, by working in inhumane conditions, constant danger and minimal security.
If you are fortunate enough to see and experience how even the worst of enemies can come together to help and co-exist – you can considerate yourself fortunate.
If you start firing up your M16 – everytime you hear Arab or UAE or Dubai – as a person, it speaks very little about your intelligence and awareness of this world.
America’s founding fathers created this country and took an oath to protect it. However, I doubt they took an oath to get into an M16 everytime they had someone disagreeing with them. That is what GWB does – not true blooded Americans.
March 5th, 2006 at 2:09 pmI would only “fire up” my M-16 if my country, the USA, directed me to. And just because someone is born and raised in the ROYAL FAMILY of the UAE does not mean that person is automatically innocent of CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY, HUMAN SLAVERY, TERRORISM, MONEY LAUNDERING, CONSPIRING TO MURDER and MASSACRE 3000 AMERICANS on 9/11/01. All I see is some UAE LACKEY who goes by the name of “ROSHAN” making excuses for the UAE ROYAL FAMILY which appear to be CRIMINALS evidenced by their DOCUMENTED ASSOCIATION WITH OSAMA BIN LADEN, their recognizing the TALIBAN, their assisting 3 of the 9/11 HIJACKERS WHO KILLED 3000 AMERICANS. THE UAE ROYAL FAMILY REFUSED TO BE INSPECTED WHEN THE TERRORIST MONIES WERE TRACED TO THEM. THEY ARE CRIMINALS AND NEED TO BE PROSECUTED LIKE ANY OTHER COMMON CRIMINAL. THEY ARE NO BETTER. America’s founding fathers took an oath to defend this country, especially from TERRORISTS LIKE THE UAE ROYAL FAMILY. This has nothing to do with Arabs, this is about a CORRUPT ROYAL FAMILY that is enslaves people and murders Americans. The FOUNDING FATHERS OF THE USA would’ve already gone out and brought them to justice like TEDDY ROOSEVELT and the ROUGH RIDERS.
March 5th, 2006 at 2:28 pmAnd all I hear is some IGNORANT silly man, who even does not have the courage or the transparency to putforth his real name in this debate – raving and ranting nonsense and shamelessly using 9/11 and it’s 3000+ victims to make his moot pointless points.
I never supported the Sheikhs of the UAE when they had no laws against child jockeys – however I will support the UAE, when they bring changes for a better tomorrow – such as new tight security measures put in place for it’s banking systems, pass laws on illegality of child jockeys, prostitution and arms sale.
And above all, because two misguided souls from the UAE took part in 9/11 – I will never request the US government to PUNISH the whole country and the innocent involved – because then, there is will be no difference between OBL his croonies and the US government.
Now – if you do not have anything constructive to say, and continue to shamelessly rave and rant your silly comments, using 9/11 and it’s victims - you may want to still go fly that kite, might do you some good : )
March 5th, 2006 at 5:17 pmWow Roshan…”Go fly a kite?” Your on the edge ;}
For the record the 2 UAE people involved in 9/11 were born in the UAE but moved to Saudi Arabia when they were like 2 years old. Their religious zealousness wasn’t a result of the UAE. Just one of the many deceptive half truths floating around.
March 5th, 2006 at 7:33 pmwell lets not go so far as to we are being racists now…we have reasons to be insecure to the fact the ports have been sold…
March 5th, 2006 at 8:57 pmSamantha – FYI, THE US PORTS HAVE NOT BEEN SOLD – NO ONE IS SELLING ANY US PORT. ALL US PORTS ARE OWNED BY THE US GOVERNMENT.
DP World, acquired P&O a British port operator.
P&O leases few terminals in 6 ports in the US and as part of the P&O acquisition, DP world will now operate the few terminals in the 6 ports.
Again – NO ONE IS BUYING ANY US PORT.
March 5th, 2006 at 9:37 pmBush has lost his mind! What in the he – -! He has lost my vote if this goes thru for election time!
March 5th, 2006 at 10:06 pmWell that is good news for me, I am registered Democrat. However I do not understand what is that you seem upset about – I mean Bush admin approved the portion of DP world’s acquisition of P&O.
The US portion of this deal is only 10% of the global acquisition.
However what is it that upsets you – the fact that DP world is from an Arab country. Perhaps the most liberal, modern and developed Arab country – that does business with even Israel? or your blind Paranoia and ignorance on the cultures and countries that make up the Middle East Region?
March 5th, 2006 at 10:37 pmUmmm…Trish. Bush is done. He can’t be re-elected. So no one is going to vote for him ;}
March 5th, 2006 at 10:40 pmWhat is shameful is how people so easily forget the 3000 AMERICANS that were MURDERED in 9/11/2001 by friends of the ROYAL FAMILY of the UAE. US Intelligence as proven this to be a fact. OSAMA BIN LADEN was PROTECTED BY the ROYAL FAMILY of the UAE. THE UAE refused to allow inspection of its bank accounts which are obviously lined with TERRORIST MONEY. The UAE CURENTLY ENGAGES IN HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS AND HUMAN SLAVERY of which the ROYAL FAMILY OF THE UAE SELECTIVELY ENFORCES ITS PSEUDO LAWS TOWARD. In other words, if the UAE GOVERMENT/ROYAL FAMILY doesn’t like you, you can’t own slaves. If you pay them enough money, they look the other way. This UAE GOVERNMENT IS CORRUPT to the core and obviously has more involvement in the 9/11/01 MURDER of 3000 AMERICANS than IRAQ. As for me flying a kite, my skills would be better put to use on a deployment to take out the UAE GOVERNMENT and install a democracy. 40 for 40 but it would only take 1 per for the UAE ROYAL FAMILY, COMPLICIT IN THE MURDER OF THE 3000 AMERICANS ON 9/11/2001.
March 6th, 2006 at 1:01 am“Not only were two of the hijackers from the UAE, but 11 of the Saudi hijackers traveled to the U.S. from Dubai, and $250,000 used to bankroll the 9/11 attacks was wired through Dubai banks. There were ties between Islamist emirs in the UAE and Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan, and the UAE recognized the Taliban government.”
March 6th, 2006 at 1:19 amhttp://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/markalexander/2006/02/24/187826.html
Coming to a Port Near You–where Dubya stands for Dubai
Dear President Bush,
As a citizen concerned with your latest illogical decision to outsource America’s critical infrastructure to a nation with established terrorist ties, I implore you to recognize that the Dubai Deal will have lasting negative effects on our country’s internal security. I suggest you reconsider your latest bad decision. Here are some facts and statements that perhaps you need to review.
“YOU ARE EITHER WITH US OR WITH THE TERRORISTS”
Recognize those words, Mr. President? You should, because you uttered them immediately after the 9/11 attacks. And, that’s why I now question your recent approval of the outsourcing of our port security to an Arab nation that funded the 9/11 hijackers.
Need proof of the financial assistance provided by the UAE to the 9/11 hijackers? Then, perhaps, you should review the Moussaoui indictment laid out by the United States Justice Department. And first, remember that Moussaoui is the ONLY terrorist that we are currently “bringing to justice” (since you have yet to capture Bin Laden “dead or alive”). And, hopefully with all your recent arrogant, assumed Absolute Executive Powers, you might even persuade Attorney General Gonzales (you know, the guy who runs the Justice Department) to actually read the Moussaoui indictment, as well, since he also thinks this Dubai Deal passes the smell test.
Specifically, you and Gonzales should read the following counts in the Moussaoui indictment:
21. On or about June 29, 2000, $4,790 was wired from the United Arab Emirates (”UAE”) to Marwan al-Shehhi (#175) in Manhattan.
22. On or about July 19, 2000, $9,985 was wired from UAE into a Florida SunTrust bank account in the names of Mohammed Atta (#11) and Marwan al-Shehhi (#175).
24. On or about August 7, 2000, $9,485 was wired from UAE into a Florida SunTrust bank account in the names of Mohammed Atta (#11) and Marwan al-Shehhi (#175).
25. On or about August 30, 2000, $19,985 was wired from UAE into a Florida SunTrust bank account in the names of Mohammed Atta (#11) and Marwan al-Shehhi (#175).
26. On or about September 18, 2000, $69,985 was wired from UAE into a Florida SunTrust bank account in the names of Mohamed Atta (#11) and Marwan al-Shehhi (#175).
61. On July 18, 2001, Fayez Ahmed (#175) gave power of attorney to Mustafa Ahmed al-Hawsawi for Fayez Ahmed’s Standard Chartered Bank accounts in UAE.
62. On July 18, 2001, using his power of attorney, Al-Hawsawi picked up Fayez Ahmed’s VISA and ATM cards in UAE.
63. Between July 18 and August 1, 2001, Mustafa Ahmed al-Hawsawi caused Fayez Ahmed’s VISA and ATM cards to be shipped from UAE to Fayez Ahmed in Florida. (The VISA card was then used for the first time on August 1, 2001, in Florida.) Jarrah (#93) Travels to Germany
66. On or about July 30 and 31, 2001, in Hamburg, Germany, Ramzi Bin al-Shibh, using the name “Ahad Sabet,” received two wire transfers, totaling approximately $15,000, from “Hashim Abdulrahman” in UAE.
76. On or about August 22, 2001, Fayez Ahmed (#175) used his VISA card in Florida to obtain approximately $4,900 cash, which had been deposited into his Standard Chartered Bank account in UAE the day before.
87. On or about September 3, 2001, in Hamburg, Germany, Ramzi Bin al-Shibh, using the name “Ahad Sabet,” received approximately $1500 by wire transfer from “Hashim Ahmed” in UAE.
88. On or about September 4, 2001, Mohammed Atta (#11) sent a FedEx package from Florida to UAE.
90. On or about September 6, 2001, Satam al-Suqami (#11) and Abdulaziz Alomari (#11) flew from Florida to Boston. The Hijackers Return Excess Money to Al-Hawsawi in UAE.
92. On or about September 8, 2001, an Arab male retrieved the package from Mohammed Atta (#11) at FedEx in Dubai, UAE.
93. On September 8, 2001, Mohammed Atta (#11) wired $2,860 to “Mustafa Ahmed” in UAE.
94. On September 8, 2001, Mohammed Atta (#11) wired $5,000 to “Mustafa Ahmed” in UAE.
95. On September 9, 2001, Waleed M. al-Shehri (#11) wired $5,000 to “Ahamad Mustafa” in UAE.
96. On September 10, 2001, Marwan al-Shehhi (#175) wired $5,400 to “Mustafa Ahmad” in UAE.
97. On September 11, 2001, in UAE, approximately $16,348 was deposited into Al-Hawsawi’s Standard Chartered Bank account.
98. On September 11, 2001, in UAE, at about 9:22 a.m. local time (the early morning hours of Eastern Daylight Time), Mustafa Ahmed al-Hawsawi moved approximately $6,534 from the $8,055 in Fayez Ahmed’s (#175) Standard Chartered Bank account into his own account, using a check dated September 10, 2001 and signed by Fayez Ahmed; Al-Hawsawi then withdrew approximately $1,361, nearly all the remaining balance in Ahmed’s account, by ATM cash withdrawal.
99. On September 11, 2001, in UAE, approximately $40,871 was prepaid to a VISA card connected to Al-Hawsawi’s Standard Chartered Bank account.
“WE ARE TAKING THE FIGHT TO THE ENEMY SO WE ARE SAFER AT HOME”
Mr. President, because of your ridiculous, myopic belief that we are winning the war on terror by “taking the fight to the enemy,” you have consistently ignored logic and left our homeland sorely and recklessly under-protected. (Our port security is just one element among a slew of other vital components of homeland security that you have completely and unabashedly ignored in the past 5 years.)
Do you know that our ports handle two billion tons of freight per year – only 5% of which gets inspected and/or examined upon arrival? Do you know that our ports comprise a vital part of our nation’s infrastructure and since you have not properly funded port security and made it a real priority in the past 5 years, our nation’s ports remain a soft target favored by al Qaeda terrorists?
Are you really concerned about nuclear, chemical, and/or biological weapons being used against American citizens by al Qaeda sleeper cells–or is that just hollow rhetoric?
And, if you are certain that this Dubai Deal will not harm our national security, then why don’t you put your money where your mouth is, Mr. President. Why don’t you pass an Executive Order that will give the next group of terrorist victims the right to hold you personally accountable in a court of law if one of these six ports becomes a terrorist-door-of-entry for the next terrorist attack against this country.
“WE DON’T WANT TO SEND A BAD MESSAGE TO OUR ALLIES IN THE MIDDLE EAST”
Futhermore, Mr. President, since you have been singularly focused on your unjustified and fraudulent attack of Iraq (a nation that only became a real terrorist threat after your illegal invasion of it), nations like North Korea, Iran, and Syria have re-constituted and strengthened their nuclear weapons programs. Mr. President perhaps I need to spell this out for you: when a nation re-constitutes its nuclear weapons program, it means that it is a real, credible threat. Real nuclear weapons=real problem–get it?
Do you realize Mr. President that your little so-called “ally”–the UAE–happened to be one of the main thoroughfares through which those nuclear components traveled to North Korea, Iran, and Libya. Sir, respectfully, how can you consider that being an ally?
By the way, if you want to talk about sending “bad messages” to the Arab world, perhaps you should take a good hard look at your “torture” and “enemy combatant status” policies. Sir, those are actions that send a dangerous message to the Arab world.
But, really, how is it logical for you to condone the torture of some of the “co-conspirators” of 9/11, and cut business deals with others? Frankly Mr. President, that is a conflicted message not a bad message.
“WE ARE ADDICTED TO OIL”
President Bush, I suppose this might explain why you think Dubai is our ally. This might also explain why you think the Dubai Deal should commence without delay. We need their oil, right? (Dubya stands for Dubai?)
Or, are you going to try and tell me that they are providing us with valuable intelligence that is aiding us in our ongoing (read 100 year war against nameless, stateless, faceless enemy that demands unchecked power in your name) fight against the terrorists. Mr. President, I beg you, please do not use the “Pakistan-justification” on me because it is getting a tad tiresome.
As an aside Mr. President, perhaps you should have spent the past 5 years decreasing our dependency on foreign oil from nations like the UAE and Saudi Arabia so that maybe this deal might not have been so necessary for you to rubber stamp.
But, that is just a thought and a dream. A dream that won’t come true until you and all your oil-rich friends have sucked this planet dry of every drop of oil and in the meantime cornered the market on alternative energy resources, right? Power-grab; Power-shift?
“WE DO NOT NEGOTIATE WITH TERRORISTS”
You seem to be right on this one President Bush. We don’t “negotiate” with terrorists; we get blackmailed or “oil-mailed” by them, huh.
But, hey, if you are so confident that the UAE is truly our ally, why not release the 28 classified pages of the Joint Inquiry of Congress that investigated the 9/11 attacks. Those 28 pages remain classified and detail the foreign nations that funded the 9/11 hijackers. Until de-classified and shown to the American public, how can we–the people that you work for–really know who the terrorists are.
Unlike you, Mr. President, we are not comfortable having a floating, vacuous definition of who a “terrorist” is depending upon your power-grab of the day. We would like the facts, sir. Because, as long as those 28 pages remain classified, to quote Mr. Rumsfeld–”we don’t know, what we don’t know.” (Or, maybe you like it like that, huh?)
My opinion? No business deals in this country with any nation that funded the 9/11 hijackers. Release those 28 pages. Let the American people see exactly who were the “co-conspirators” of the 9/11 hijackers and sever ALL U.S. business ties with those foreign sponsors of terrorism–with or without the approval of your secret little group, CFIUS. And, while we are at it, let’s get a working list of what other things this cute little group has sold to the foreigners.
And know this, refusing to conduct business with nations that funded the 9/11 hijackers is not bigotry, Mr. President. It is patriotic and responsible; it is providing real homeland security during a time of war. You spout about that all the time, yet your actions do not match your words. Respectfully, Mr. President, as some Texans like to say, you are “all hat and no cattle.”
Sir, an integral part of your presidential oath of office is/was to protect this country. If this has become too difficult a task for you, perhaps it’s time you and your cabal stepped down and rode off into the proverbial sunset because the rest of us are not willing to sell our souls or our country to the highest bidder–we aren’t in this for the money, the oil, or the power. Remember that.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kristen-breitweiser/coming-to-a-port-near-you_b_16218.html
March 6th, 2006 at 1:28 amUnited Arab Emirates
In 2003, the United Arab Emirates continued to provide outstanding counterterrorism assistance and cooperation. The UAE Government publicly condemned acts of terrorism, including the attack in August against UN headquarters in Baghdad and the attack in November against a housing compound in Riyadh. In September, the UAE successfully hosted the annual International Monetary Fund/World Bank meetings, an event marked by close cooperation between the Dubai police and UAE armed forces.
In suppressing terrorist financing, the UAE Central Bank continued to aggressively enforce anti-money laundering regulations. Tightened oversight and reporting requirements for domestic financial markets resulted in a stronger legal and regulatory framework to deter abuse of the UAE financial system. The Central Bank has provided training programs to financial institutions on money laundering and terrorist financing.
It has also investigated financial transactions and frozen accounts in response to UN resolutions and internal investigations, as well as begun registering hawala dealers. The UAE has frozen the accounts of terrorist entities designated by the UN, and the US Government has provided the UAE with antiterrorism and anti-money laundering training, as well as technical assistance for bankers, prosecutors, judges, and police.
The UAE has provided assistance in several terrorist investigations. In early 2003, the UAE became a party to the 1973 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes against Internationally Protected Persons.
The UAE is a party to eight of the 12 international conventions and protocols relating to terrorism.
March 6th, 2006 at 1:44 amFrom the Centre for Research on Globalisation
An article in the French daily Le Figaro confirms that Osama bin Laden underwent surgery in an American Hospital in Dubai in July.
During his stay in the hospital, he met with a CIA official. While on the World’s “most wanted list”, no attempt was made to arrest him during his two week stay in the hospital, shedding doubt on the Administration’s resolve to track down Osama bin Laden.
Barely a few days ago Defense Secretary Rumsfeld stated that it would be difficult to find him and extradite him. Its like “searching for a needle in a stack of hay”. But the US could have ordered his arrest and extradition in Dubai last July. But then they would not have had a pretext of waging a war. Meanwhile, innocent civilians are being killed by B-52 Bombers as means “to go after” Osama bin Laden. According to UN sources, the so-called “campaign against international terrorism” could lead to the death of several million people from an impending famine.
The original article in French is also posted on the CRG webpage.
Michel Chossudovsky, CRG. 2 November 2001
The CIA met Bin Laden while undergoing treatment at an American Hospital last July in Dubai
by Alexandra Richard
Translated courtesy of Tiphaine Dickson
Le Figaro, 11 October 2001
Posted at globalresearch.ca 2 November 2001
Dubai, one of the seven emirates of the Federation of the United Arab Emirates, North-East of Abi-Dhabi. This city, population 350,000, was the backdrop of a secret meeting between Osama bin Laden and the local CIA agent in July. A partner of the administration of the American Hospital in Dubai claims that public enemy number one stayed at this hospital between the 4th and 14th of July.
Having taken off from the Quetta airport in Pakistan, bin Laden was transferred to the hospital upon his arrival at Dubai airport. He was accompanied by his personal physician and faithful lieutenant, who could be Ayman al-Zawahari–but on this sources are not entirely certain–, four bodyguards, as well as a male Algerian nurse, and admitted to the American Hospital, a glass and marble building situated between the Al-Garhoud and Al-Maktoum bridges.
Each floor of the hospital has two “VIP” suites and fifteen rooms. The Saudi billionnaire was admitted to the well-respected urology department run by Teerry Callaway, gallstone and infertility specialist. Dr Callaway declined to respond to our questions despite several phone calls.
As early as March, 2000, ‘Asia Week,’ published in Hong Kong, expressed concern for bin Laden’s health, describing a serious medical problem that could put his life in danger because of “a kidney infection that is propagating itself to the liver and requires specialized treatment”. According to authorized sources, bin Laden had mobile dialysis equipment shipped to his hideout in Kandahar in the first part of 2000. According to our sources, bin Laden’s “travels for health reasons” have taken place before. Between 1996 and 1998, bin Laden made several trips to Dubai on business.
On September 27th, 15 days after the World Trade Center attacks, at the request of the United States, the Central Bank of the Arab Emirates announced an order to freeze assts and investments of 26 people or organisations suspected of mainting contact with bin Laden’s organization, and in particular at the Dubai Islamic Bank.
“Relations between the Emirate and Saudi Arabia have always been very close,” according to sources, “princes of reigning families, having recognized the Taliban regime, often travelled to Afghanistan. One of the princes of a ruling family regularily went hunting on the land of bin Laden, whom he had known and visited for many years.”
There are daily flights between Dubai and Quetta by both Pakistan and Emirates Airlines. As to private planes from Saudi Arabia or from the Emirates, they regulariy fly to Quetta, where their arrival is rarely registered in airport logs.
While he was hospitalised, bin Laden received visits from many members of his family as well as prominent Saudis and Emiratis. During the hospital stay, the local CIA agent, known to many in Dubai, was seen taking the main elevator of the hospital to go to bin Laden’s hospital room.
A few days later, the CIA man bragged to a few friends about having visited bin Laden. Authorised sources say that on July 15th, the day after bin Laden returned to Quetta, the CIA agent was called back to headquarters.
In late July, Emirates customs agents arrested Franco-Algerian activist Djamel Beghal at the Dubai airport. In early August, French and American authorities were advised of the arrest. Interrogated by local authorities in Abu Dhabi, Beghal stated that he was called to Afghanistan in late 2000 by Abou Zoubeida, a military leader of bin Laden’s organization, Al Qaeda. Beghal’s mission: bomb the US embassy on Gabriel avenue, near the Place de la Concorde, upon his return to France.
According to Arab diplomatic sources as well as French intelligence, very specific information was transmitted to the CIA with respect to terrorist attacks against American interests around the world, including on US soil. A DST report dated 7 September enumerates all the intelligence, and specifies that the order to attack was to come from Afghanistan.
In August, at the US Embassy in Paris, an emergency meeting was called between the DGSE (French foreign intelligence service) and senior US intelligence officials. The Americans were extremely worried, and requested very specific information from the French about Algerian activists, without advising their counterparts about the reasons for their requests. To the question “what do you fear in the coming days?”, the Americans kept a difficult-to-fathom silence.
Contacts between the CIA and bin Laden began in 1979 when, as a representative of his family’s business, bin Laden began recruiting volunteers for the Afghan resistance against the Red Army. FBI investigators examining the embassy bombing sites in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam discovered that evidence led to military explosives from the US Army, and that these explosives had been delivered threee years earlier to Afghan Arabs, the infamous international volunteer brigades involved side by side with bin Laden during the Afghan war against the Red Army.
In the pursuit of its investigations, the FBI discovered “financing agreements” that the CIA had been developing with its “arab friends” for years. The Dubai meeting is then within the logic of “a certain American policy”.
The URL of this article is:
http://globalresearch.ca/articles/RIC111B.html
Copyright, Le Figaro, 2001. For fair use only.
March 6th, 2006 at 3:12 amUAE royals, bin Laden’s saviours
March 25, 2004 12:04 IST
The Central Intelligence Agency did not target Al Qaeda chief Osama bin laden once as he had the royal family of the United Arab Emirates with him in Afghanistan, the agency’s director, George Tenet, told the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks on the United States on Thursday.
Had the CIA targeted bin Laden, half the royal family would have been wiped out as well, he said.
The 10-member bipartisan commission is investigating the events leading up to the September 11, 2001 attacks in the US.
A host of Clinton and Bush administration officials have testified before the commission.
Deputy Secretary of State Richard Amritage told the commission that it was impossible to send troops to Afghanistan against the Taliban and Al Qaeda without Pakistan’s cooperation and building a new relationship with India.
“US sanctions against Pakistan on the nuclear and other issues complicated the matter and these had to be dismantled,” Armitage said.
He also suggested if the US Congress wanted to show displeasure with any country, it should think of other methods than imposing sanctions.
Former White House counterterrorism official Richard Clarke has charged that fighting terrorism was not the top priority with the Bush administration. The top priority, he suggested, was Iraq, not Al Qaeda, a claim refuted by the White House.
Clarke alleged that the White House delayed implementing the proposals he had made for eight months and adopted them only after 9/11.
http://in.rediff.com/news/2004/mar/25osama.htm/b
March 6th, 2006 at 3:15 am9/11 Families Blast Proposed Port Sale to Dubai Company as ‘Betrayal’
UAE Was Source of Two Hijackers, al Qaeda Financing
NEW YORK, Feb. 22 /PRNewswire/ — Charging the White House with rewarding a country that was a focal point in planning and financing the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the 9/11 Families United to Bankrupt Terrorism blasted the administration’s decision to allow Dubai Ports World to operate commercial port operations in Baltimore, Miami, New Jersey, New Orleans, New York and Philadelphia.
“The United Arab Emirates provided two of the 9/11 hijackers and much of the money that paid for the murder of our loved ones,” said Elizabeth and Stephen Alderman, parents of Peter Alderman who died at the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001. “It is a betrayal of their memories for the administration to permit America’s ports to be operated by a UAE state-owned corporation.”
“The owners of Dubai Ports World did not prevent Dubai from being a conduit for the flow of people and money in the 9/11 conspiracy,” said Bill Doyle, father of Joseph Doyle who died at the World Trade Center. “How can anyone trust them to prevent terrorists from using our ports to smuggle weapons of mass destruction into the U.S.?”
“The United Arab Emirates’ support of al Qaeda is no accident,” said Joan Molinaro, mother of Carl Molinaro, a New York City Firefighter who died at the World Trade Center. “It was one of only three countries to recognize the Taliban. And it was a conduit for the illegal shipment of materials to Iran’s and North Korea’s nuclear weapons programs. This is a rogue state, not an ally.”
Doyle charged the administration with a conflict of interest in supporting the deal, noting that the White House’s nominee for administrator of the U.S. Maritime Commission is David Sanborn, a top executive of Dubai Ports World. “Cronyism in the war on terror is no better than surrender,” he said.
“The 9/11 Families urge Congress in the strongest possible terms to immediately pass legislation blocking this dangerous port deal and to override any veto by President Bush,” the Aldermans said.
In charging that Dubai Ports World should not be permitted to operate the six ports, the 9/11 Family members noted that the U.S. government’s indictment of Zacarias Moussaoui cited more than a dozen wire transfers between UAE banks and 9/11 hijackers and conspirators. They also cited the following excerpts from the 9/11 Commission’s report:
* From 1999 through early 2001, the United States pressed the United Arab
Emirates, one of the Taliban’s only travel and financial outlets to the
outside world, to break off ties and enforce sanctions, especially those
related to air travel to Afghanistan. These efforts achieved little
before 9/11.
* From Pakistan, the operatives transited through the UAE en route to the
United States. In the Emirates they were assisted primarily by al Qaeda
operatives Ali Abdul Aziz Ali and Mustafa al Hawsawi. Ali apparently
assisted nine future hijackers between April and June 2001 as they came
through Dubai. He helped them with plane tickets, traveler’s checks, and
hotel reservations; he also taught them about everyday aspects of life
in the West, such as purchasing clothes and ordering food. Dubai, a
modern city with easy access to a major airport, travel agencies,
hotels, and Western commercial establishments, was an ideal transit
point.
The 9/11 Families United to Bankrupt Terrorism represents 6,161 survivors and family members of those who died in the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. The 9/11 Families are seeking to hold al Qaeda’s financiers accountable for their central role in these atrocities and to make America safer by cutting off the financial pipeline fueling global terrorism.
http://sev.prnewswire.com/homeland-security/20060222/DCW04322022006-1.html
March 6th, 2006 at 6:59 amGovernments warn against travel to UAE:
“The Bush administration has stated repeatedly that the United Arab Emirates is a reliable partner in the war on radical Islamist terrorists. But if the UAE is such a stable, dependable friend of the United States, then why is the United States State Department warning Americans on the dangers of traveling to the United Arab Emirates?
The State Department says in its current travel advisory, “Americans in the United Arab Emirates should exercise a high level of security awareness. Americans should maintain a low profile and vary routes and times for all required travel.”
That’s right, our State Department issuing a travel advisory for the United Arab Emirates, the owner of DP World that would take over operation of terminals at six major U.S. ports.
The United States, of course, is not the only government concerned about its citizens’ welfare in the United Arab Emirates. Britain advises its citizens to “avoid large gatherings” and “be aware of the threat of terrorism.”
The Australian government says, “We continue to receive reports that terrorists are planning attacks against Western interests in the Unite Arab Emirates.”
Canada is currently advising its citizens on the threat of terrorist attacks in the UAE as well.”
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0602/22/ldt.01.html
March 6th, 2006 at 8:47 amDubai & Dubya in dash for lifeboat (Urged to partner with US Firm)
Edited on Sat Mar-04-06 04:37 PM by RamboLiberal
http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/396685p-336188c….
The White House is quietly pushing a Dubai company to “significantly restructure” and partner up with a U.S. outfit to keep the port deal from sinking, sources told the Daily News yesterday.
“It’s in the hands of the company now. … They’re going to have to significantly restructure,” said a Republican source familiar with White House expectations.
A revamped deal to allow Dubai Ports World to take over six major U.S. ports – including Manhattan’s cruise ship terminal and Newark’s container depot – would have to be something along the lines of the Marine One contract.
British- and Italian-owned AgustaWestland had to take on Maryland-based Lockheed Martin to win the contract to build the President’s helicopter last year.
“A lot of people are talking about this, a subsidiary or a deal like that,” a congressional source confirmed.
Article mentions Halliburton is best equipped to take on the deal – Surprise, Surprise!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102×2146012
March 6th, 2006 at 12:13 pmBush-Bin Laden connections
the Bush dynasty has closer links to the bin Ladens than Saddam Hussein did
Wayne Madsen on the Bush-Bin Laden connections, Israeli involvement in 9/11
http://www.questionsquestions.net/bushladen/bushladen_chart.htm
March 6th, 2006 at 4:03 pmNation
Coast Guard Report Aired Concerns on Ports Deal
Morning Edition, February 28, 2006 · The political turmoil continues on Capitol Hill over the operational takeover of some U.S. port facilities by a Dubai-based firm. In a Senate briefing on Monday, lawmakers asked about a Coast Guard evaluation from last year that raised security concerns about the deal.
Special Coverage: War on Terror
U.S. Coast Guard Intelligence Concerns
Over How DP World’s Proposed Purchase
of P&O Could Affect U.S. Port Security
Find a Lawyer
War on Terror Links
Terror-Related Cases
Terrorism Documents
Terror-Related Laws
The undated, unclassified U.S. Coast Guard intelligence assessment on U.S. port security, released by Senator Susan M. Collins (R. – Maine), Chairmain of the Senate Homeland Security Committee. The Coast Guard expressed serious concern about the Dubai-based DP World’s (‘DPW’) proposed takover of security operations for a number of U.S. ports if it buys U.K.-based Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation Co. (‘P&O’), the company currently responsible for signficant U.S. port security operations.
The Coast Guard assessment concluded that “[t]here are many intelligence gaps, concerning the potential for DPW or P&O assets to support terrorist operations, that precludes an overall threat assessment of the potential DWP and P&O ports merger. The breadth of the intelligence gaps also infer potential unknown threats against a large number of potential vulnerabilities.â€
——————————————————————————–
Unclassified Document Released February 27, 2006
Source: U.S. Senate Homeland Security Committee
http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/terrorism/coastguardintelstmnt.html
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Office of Public Affairs
U.S. Coast Guard
Press Release Date: Feb. 27, 2006
Contact: Cmdr. Jeff Carter
(202) 267-1933
STATEMENT BY COAST GUARD SPOKESMAN CMDR. JEFF CARTER ON COAST GUARD PORT TRANSACTION ANALYSIS
WASHINGTON – “What is being quoted is an excerpt of a broader Coast Guard intelligence analysis that was performed early on as part of its due diligence process. The excerpts made public earlier today, when taken out of context, do not reflect the full, classified analysis performed by the Coast Guard. That analysis concludes ‘that DP World’s acquisition of P&O, in and of itself, does not pose a significant threat to U.S. assets in [continental United States] ports.’ Upon subsequent and further review, the Coast Guard and the entire CFIUS panel believed that this transaction, when taking into account strong security assurances by DP World, does not compromise U.S. security.”
###
The U.S. Coast Guard is a military, maritime, multi-mission service within the
Department of Homeland Security dedicated to protecting the safety and security of America.
https://www.piersystem.com/go/doc/786/111524/
March 6th, 2006 at 7:51 pmThe Dubai Ports World Deal – Through a Coast Guard Veteran’s Eyes
The “Port Service Company” receives, manifests, loads, offloads, and transfers the containers. Normally, this is monitored for drugs — but there are “holes.” The “Port Service Company” has the “expertise” (in a “perverse kind of way”) to know where the holes are.
Second, the “Port Service Company” frequently prepares the manifest. This is the legal document ennumerating what the ship is carrying, shipper, recipient, port on loaded, port to be off loaded. This guides (or misguides) the inspection.
Third, frequently the “Port Service Company” performs “ship chandlering” – that’s the sale of consumables and low level spare parts. This is not inventoried or manifested.
Fourth, merchant mariners’ documents. It is fairly easy to enter a country on “Merchant Mariner’s Documents” (functions like a mini-passport). No visa requirements if you stay within some distance of the port. This is popular with drug dealers – and could be a route for terrorists. In many countries a “Port Service Company” can issue “documents” (note – these are not Master, Mate, Pilot, Engineer, Radio Officer licenses or “Competency Documents”) which are good enough to get you off of the ship while it’s in port.
Historically – in my active duty days – we were looking for drug smugglers. But these techniques could work with terrorists and dirty bombs.
And Dubai is “A” cross roads of the world.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364×481615
March 6th, 2006 at 8:26 pmYou all are my close personal friends and its my pleasure to keep you informed on topical currents related to this topic, so please, take a moment and review this article.
PLEASE READ
March 7th, 2006 at 9:49 amI think that they should be allowed to be involved with the ports but not necessarily have complete contol over the ports. (it’s our land)
March 7th, 2006 at 10:16 amI think this is something we need to just get over with and not worry about what will come of it. What ever happens, happens!
March 7th, 2006 at 10:17 amI think this is dumb and Bush is the biggest fartnokker in the world. BTW his regime has officially ended and i hope i don’t have to see him anymore
March 7th, 2006 at 10:18 amif bush wants to nuke let him
March 7th, 2006 at 10:19 amhi
March 7th, 2006 at 10:21 amI’m against this because I beleive we are giving terrorists access to our country’s innerworkings.
March 7th, 2006 at 10:21 amCome on guys your liberalness is showing give Bush some credit and support your country
March 7th, 2006 at 10:21 amI agree with Luisa. I think that some people should just grow up on these forums. This is a serious matter of national security. Anyways, i think that the UAE should be on the ports just not have complete control over them.
March 7th, 2006 at 10:22 amIn dire times like these, when it is absolutely necessary to invade inoccent countries as a matter of national security, I find it very comforting to know that Bush Bin Laden is around to hand over our ports to fund terrorist activities, so that he can make a quick buck to fund the Republican campaign. God Bless America!!
March 7th, 2006 at 10:23 amright on dudes…yeah just tell bush he can destroy thousands of peoples lives like Bin Laden with nukes you buttmuncher (refer to comment 878)
March 7th, 2006 at 10:23 amPersonally, I think that this deal shouldn’t go through. After what has happened in the past I dont really trust those ragheads. Most of the time I agree with Bush, but on this one no. He has a point behind his thoughts, but i dont like it.
March 7th, 2006 at 10:23 amI agree with Luisa, they should be involved in our ports because they are a good ally, but they could also be involved with the terrorists.
March 7th, 2006 at 10:24 amI disagree with this whole thing. Considering our past with the Arabs and Muslims, I just think it’s not a safe thing to do.
March 7th, 2006 at 10:24 am(sing) y cant we be friends, why cant we be friends
March 7th, 2006 at 10:25 amI believe this deal shouldnt go through, those oil nazis dont know how to deal with the US, I say NUKE them all, then NUKE them again
March 7th, 2006 at 10:25 amNo me gusta raghead. Me gusta Bush. Bush muy bueno. Raghead muy idiota!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
viva mexicans
March 7th, 2006 at 10:26 amokay, i know it seems racist that we don’t want to let muslims come in on our ports just cause there muslims. they can come over to our ports as long as they get strip searched. they can go to allah if they want, but don’t take us with em.
March 7th, 2006 at 10:26 amI agree with Luisa!
March 7th, 2006 at 10:28 amhi luisa……….we should LD each other over this
March 7th, 2006 at 10:28 ami think that they should come over and we should sit down and talk about this matter over tea
March 7th, 2006 at 10:30 ami disagree with this whole idea. It’s not that their muslims its the fact that they could be tied with terrorists and bush may have some reasons for considering this but overall its a big mistake.
March 7th, 2006 at 10:31 amWhoever is leaving those nasty comments stop it b/c we know who you are.
March 7th, 2006 at 10:32 amIf Bush makes this deal, then Brokeback Mountain should have won an oscar
March 7th, 2006 at 10:32 amКуÑтик будет buttmuncher не имеет никакой clue он ни его Ñтрана думает о ем.
March 7th, 2006 at 10:32 amnuke the ragheads,nuke the ragheads. i say put them all in a plane and run them in to a mountain.
March 7th, 2006 at 10:32 amI definately don’t believe that Arabs should have complete control over the ports. I love Bush and all, but I don’t think his decision was very wise. I realize that he was put in a tight spot but that is his duty as a president. I understand that he didn’t want to offend the Arabs and try to tighten our relationship with the country but isn’t our safety more important than diplomacy? Call it racism if you want but the correct term is racial profiling. We want to keep another 9/11 from happening again and if that means turning down a few offers- so what! By allowing them control, we(the US) have made ourselves vulnerable for another terrorist attack. I know that all Arabs aren’t bad and that most of them are probably very good, honest people, but there are also the ones that want to shoot the US down. Why would we ever want to give those people control.
March 7th, 2006 at 10:33 amWhen Bush decided to allow this, he probasbly had something in mind not just to allow emirates into the country, after all he is the president and that being you would think that he would want to prtect the country from whatever harm that may come this way. He atempted to prtect in the past why would he jeprodize what he has already started by bringing harm into the coutry. But you can’t always be sure of what people may do all you can do is trust that they won’t bring an attack on the coutry after we let them in and allowed them this privilage. Anything is possible in America right? What happen to forgivness and being open to new ideas even if you don’t agree to them? I’m not saying I agree or disagree just that we should give them a chance and actually trust the man that we intrusted our country and well being to .
March 7th, 2006 at 10:34 amwhos kitty?????????????
March 7th, 2006 at 10:34 amI say we turn the whole area into glass. We got the power, so lets show em who’s boss and nuke them all. hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahaahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah
March 7th, 2006 at 10:34 amO.K. I certainly don’t agree with President Bush, but we should not go around discracing the muslim people and their religion by calling them ragheads. Come on guys have a little respect. There are other religions and cultures in the world other than yours. Do you want to start another Dutch catoon incident.
March 7th, 2006 at 10:35 ambush good. muslim terrerist bad.
March 7th, 2006 at 10:35 amthere are some okay alot of errors . . .
March 7th, 2006 at 10:35 amWE, bonnie and clyde agree with Larizza very much!
March 7th, 2006 at 10:36 ami agree w/ BEN DOVER…finally
March 7th, 2006 at 10:36 amamericans are purple
March 7th, 2006 at 10:36 amI can’t wait until this whole world just decides to get along and stop being so frustrating!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!It will never happen but we all can hope! *tears* Long Live Freedom of ………………….Speech, liberty, pride, love, justice, and all that other good junk!
March 7th, 2006 at 10:37 amhey guys wats up.
March 7th, 2006 at 10:37 am’sup the only people you can trust to give you the whole truth about this topic, that everyone is making such a big deal out of, is the radio and people like Rush and other republicans. yeh the tv leaves out every little detail that’s good about any decision Bush makes. You can’t trust anything that it shows anymore. But thank God for people like Rush. Amen
That’s all i got to say
March 7th, 2006 at 10:38 amThe End!
March 7th, 2006 at 10:38 amIt is very scary to me when people are willing to put all their faith in one person simply because he is president. If we don’t stand up to him when we believe he is wrong we are allowing him to be a dictator, not a democraticaly elected official.
March 7th, 2006 at 10:38 amIk ga met Larizza akkoord. Ik denk dat wij de V.A.E zouden moeten toestaan om naar onze havens te gaan maar I dont denkt dat zij hen zouden moeten controleren dat ons voor iets als 9/11 om open zou verlaten opnieuw te gebeuren.
March 7th, 2006 at 10:39 amwhy can’t we all just get along…….
March 7th, 2006 at 10:39 amI SUPPORT BUSH AND THE ARABS!!
March 7th, 2006 at 10:39 amif we allow Bush to make such horrible and disgraceful discisions, then can we really call ourselves Proud Americans? I mean, come on!!! Bush is just trying to live up to his father’s term in office and he is no more than just a fake with a bad hair cut!
March 7th, 2006 at 10:40 amwe speak english. not freaky deaky dutch. they are ragheads. they wear rags on their heads. RAG-HEADS. RAGHEADS.
March 7th, 2006 at 10:41 amanyone catch Jay Leno last nite? the part where bush is having a clearance on everything from ports to security info. that was pretty funny.
March 7th, 2006 at 10:41 ami think that bush i an ideot and needs to leave he has only put this country in more debt and now war. by the way he acks it seems like he wants to die and he wants the world to die with him.
March 7th, 2006 at 3:15 pmUAE, Port Security & the Hariri Hit
Submitted by davidswanson on Wed, 2006-02-22 21:27. UAE
By Robert Parry, http://www.consortiumnews.com
The Bush administration is letting the United Arab Emirates take control of six key U.S. ports despite its own port’s reputation as a smuggling center used by arms traffickers, drug dealers and terrorists, apparently including the assassins of Lebanon’s ex-Prime Minister Rafik Hariri.
Press accounts have noted that the UAE’s port of Dubai served as the main transshipment point for Pakistani nuclear engineer Abdul Q. Khan’s illicit transfers of materiel for building atomic bombs as well as the location of the money-laundering operations used by the Sept. 11 hijackers, two of whom came from the UAE.
But the year-old mystery of the truck-bomb assassination of Hariri also has wound its way through the UAE’s port facilities. United Nations investigators tracked the assassins’ white Mitsubishi Canter Van from Japan, where it had been stolen, to the UAE, according to a Dec. 10, 2005, U.N. report.
At that time, UAE officials had been unable to track what happened to the van after its arrival in Dubai. Presumably the van was loaded onto another freighter and shipped by sea through the Suez Canal to Lebanon, but the trail had gone cold in the UAE.
Security Skills
While not spelling out the precise status of the investigation in the UAE, the Dec. 10 report said U.N. investigators had sought help from “UAE authorities to trace the movements of this vehicle, including reviewing shipping documents from the UAE and, with the assistance of the UAE authorities, attempting to locate and interview the consignees of the container in which the vehicle or its parts is believed to have been shipped.‿
The UAE’s competence – or lack of it – in identifying the “consignees‿ or the freighter used to transport the van to Lebanon could be the key to solving the Hariri murder. This tracking ability also might demonstrate whether UAE port supervisors have the requisite skills for protecting U.S. ports from terrorist penetration.
The evidence about the van also could either buttress or repudiate the tentative U.N. investigative conclusions implicating Syrian intelligence and pro-Syrian Lebanese officials in Hariri’s murder.
Though Syria’s supposed complicity has already hardened into conventional wisdom, those tentative U.N. conclusions were undercut by disclosures that chief U.N. investigator Detlev Mehlis relied on two witnesses whose credibility later crumbled.
One of those witnesses – Zuhair Zuhair Ibn Muhammad Said Saddik – was later identified by the German newsmagazine Der Spiegel as a swindler who boasted about becoming “a millionaire‿ from his Hariri testimony.
The other witness, Hussam Taher Hussam, recanted his testimony about Syrian involvement, saying he lied to the Mehlis investigation after being kidnapped, tortured and offered $1.3 million by Lebanese officials.
In the Dec. 10 report, Mehlis countered by asserting that Hussam’s recantation was coerced by Syrian authorities. But the conflicting accusations had given the investigation the feel of “a fictional spy thriller,‿ the New York Times noted. [NYT, Dec. 7, 2005]
Mehlis subsequently resigned as chief investigator and was replaced in mid-January by Belgian Serge Brammertz, a prosecutor for the International Criminal Court. Brammertz has not issued any public updates on the investigation since then, so it is not clear whether UAE officials were able to track down data about the Mitsubishi van.
Congressional Uproar
This week, U.S. congressional leaders of both parties, plus local and state officials, protested Bush’s approval of the $6.8 billion deal letting a state-owned UAE company manage U.S. ports in New York, Miami, Baltimore, Newark, Philadelphia and New Orleans.
Bush staunchly defended the decision and threatened to cast his first veto if Congress tries to block the UAE takeover. Bush said he saw no risk to national security.
“If there was any chance that this transaction would jeopardize the security of the United States, it would not go forward,‿ Bush said on Feb. 21.
One international businessman who frequently uses the port of Dubai told me that the UAE runs a competent operation which offers a relatively freewheeling approach to commerce that is popular with shipping companies.
“You’re going to bring the security percentage down‿ by turning the U.S. port operations over to the UAE, said the businessman who asked not be identified. “But there’s never 100 percent security and the ports have to be run by somebody.‿
This businessman said bigger factors in the decision to turn the U.S. ports over to the UAE were financial – post-9/11 security precautions had eroded the profitability of the port operations and the UAE was one of the few countries with sufficient resources to invest almost $7 billion to take over the U.S. ports.
While agreeing that the UAE management could increase risks for U.S. security, the businessman said those dangers pale against the security problems created by Bush’s occupation of Iraq and other actions that have riled up the Muslim world.
Tracking the Van
As for Hariri’s assassination of Feb. 14, 2005, the white Mitsubishi Canter Van was seen on a security camera rolling toward Hariri’s motorcade immediately before the explosion. The vehicle was described by U.N. investigators as the vehicle that delivered the bomb.
Forensic specialists later identified the precise vehicle from numbers found in the debris, including a piece of the engine block. Japanese police reported that a van with those identifying numbers had been stolen in Japan four months before the bombing.
After the first interim U.N. report was issued in October 2005, I wrote an article suggesting that possibly the most promising hope for cracking the case was to pursue more aggressively the forensic leads, particularly who last possessed the van. [See Consortiumnews.com’s “The Dangerously Incomplete Hariri Report.‿]
The second U.N. report in December revealed some progress on that front. Japanese police concluded that the van likely was shipped, either in whole or in parts, to the UAE before reaching its final destination in Lebanon.
But Lebanese security officials said they had no record of the identification numbers from the van’s engine or chassis on any vehicle registered in Lebanon. [See Consortiumnews.com’s “Elusive Truth About the Hariri Hit.‿]
With the Lebanese unable to track the vehicle in its last days, the investigative pressure fell back on the UAE port authorities to show how effective they can be in helping break a terrorist ring.
Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories in the 1980s for the Associated Press and Newsweek. His latest book, Secrecy & Privilege: Rise of the Bush Dynasty from Watergate to Iraq, can be ordered at secrecyandprivilege.com. It’s also available at Amazon.com, as is his 1999 book, Lost History: Contras, Cocaine, the Press & ‘Project Truth.’
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/8118
March 7th, 2006 at 6:37 pmWhat about Iranian investments in Dubai?
Posted: February 23, 2006
1:00 a.m. Eastern
By Jerome R. Corsi
© 2006 WorldNetDaily.com
With Secretary Rice pushing to bring Iran before the Security Council, is the United States also willing to impose sanctions on Dubai? The sanctions against South Africa to end apartheid were effective because the financial interests of white South Africa were brought to their knees.
Before the Bush administration hands over key port operations to Dubai Ports World, someone in the White House ought to vet the considerable ties between Dubai and Iran. If we “follow the money” to punish Iran for non-compliance with IAEA requirements, then the money trail is going to lead straight to Dubai.
The Energy Information Administration of the U.S. Department of Energy reports that “Iran is one of Dubai’s major trading partners, accounting for 20 to 30 percent of Dubai’s business.” The daily newspapers of the United Arab Emirates regularly encourage Iranians to travel and invest in Dubai. The UAE daily Al-Bayan writes:
Iranians can easily travel to Dubai. They can embark on a ship in one of the Iranian port cities and come to Dubai. They will arrive in Dubai within 45 minutes. The Iranian association in Dubai is larger than the associations of other countries. The Iranian association has a football field and traditional restaurants.
There are both public and private Iranian schools in Dubai where Iranian students can continue their studies at different levels. Iranian universities also have branches in Dubai. The Islamic Azad University’s Dubai branch accepts students in various fields of study.
An Iranian Business Directory published in Dubai lists 7,073 Iranian companies operating in Dubai, in 31 different business categories ranging from banking and finance to oil and real estate. There is an Iranian Trade Center in Dubai that regularly holds international business shows and an Iranian Business Council operating in Dubai to promote Iranian investment in Dubai.
By the end of 2006, Dubai calculates that some $300 billion will have been moved from Iran to Dubai by over 400,000 Iranians. Hashami Rafsanjani – the former prime minister of Iran who began his career as a pistachio farmer and itinerant preacher in the rural mosques – is now a billionaire. In addition to stashing millions in bank accounts in Switzerland and Luxembourg, Rafsanjani reportedly owns whole vacation resorts on Dubai’s world-class beaches.
Iran’s ambassador to Dubai and the Sheikh Sultans who rule Dubai hold regular meetings discussing how Iran and Dubai can expand their trade relations, with Dubai holding an open door to the capital flight that has swept Iran since the ultra-conservative administration of President Ahmadinejad has taken over.
If the United States or Israel should get close to a military strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities, we should not be surprised to see the wealthy mullahs and their cronies make their escape to their Dubai vacation homes. How possibly can we invite DPW to learn every intimate detail of U.S. port security when Dubai has such close economic ties to the top hierarchy in Iran?
In “Atomic Iran,” I specifically chose the scenario that terror sleeper cells in America would seek to obtain an improvised nuclear device manufactured in Iran and shipped into the United States in a container delivered to a New York area port. This is a prediction I pray will never happen, but can the Bush administration assure America that terrorists supported by Iran will not penetrate DPW just to educate themselves on how porous our ports yet remain?
Let’s return to the UAE daily Al-Bayan for more documentation of the Iran-Dubai nexus:
Since three years ago, when the purchase of houses was legalized for foreign nationals, Iranian investors have rushed to invest in housing construction. They even rushed to the stock exchange markets and bought major Emirati companies.
According to statistics, some 10 to 30 percent of real estate transactions are conducted by Iranians and even the tallest skyscrapers in the UAE belong to Iranians. Total real estate transactions with Iranians have increased 10 percent in comparison with last year.
So, the question to Secretary Rice is this: Are you going to sanction Iranian investments in Dubai, or not? Iran has nearly $200 million a day in windfall oil profits – a number that will only escalate if the Iranian nuclear crisis causes oil prices to spike even more.
With the average Iranian still living on under $2,000 in annual income, President Ahmadinejad has failed to keep his campaign promise to redistribute Iran’s oil wealth to Iran’s struggling population. No wonder Iran feels no pain at the prospect of Security Council sanctions. Not only is Iran in the final stages of concluding a $100 billion oil deal with China, there is always Dubai, where the investment climate is favorable and the sun always shines.
——————————————————————————–
Purchase Jerome Corsi’s “Atomic Iran,” the definitive shocking expose of nuclear terror
——————————————————————————–
Jerome R. Corsi received a Ph.D. from Harvard University in political science in 1972 and has written many books and articles, including co-authoring with John O’Neill the No. 1 New York Times best-seller, “Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry.” Dr. Corsi’s most recent books include “Black Gold Stranglehold: The Myth of Scarcity and the Politics of Oil,” which he co-authored with WND columnist Craig. R. Smith, and “Atomic Iran: How the Terrorist Regime Bought the Bomb and American Politicians.”
March 8th, 2006 at 11:12 amhttp://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=48964
Dubai ports takeover linked to Iran attack?
Posted: February 25, 2006
1:00 a.m. Eastern
© 2006 WorldNetDaily.com
Is the Bush administration’s recent deal to allow the Dubai government effectively to take over control of container and stevedore operations in 22 U.S. ports part of a secret plan to launch a military strike on Iran?
Maybe the Dubai Ports World, or DPW, deal is the quid pro quo, the pay-off, for Dubai allowing us to use military facilities in the United Arab Emirates as staging points for a planned Iran attack?
Maybe the Bush administration is turning a blind eye to the extensive flight of capital and people from Iran to Iraq because the U.S. wants to protect those Iranians who can flee to Dubai (as well as the capital they bring with them) before a “shock and awe” military attack on Iran takes out the Ahmadinejad regime and all the mullahs who stay home with him? Strangely, the pieces begin to add up to these conclusions.
We have amply document that Dubai has been a welcome home for the capital flight from Iran as the mullahs and their cronies seek to find a safe haven for the billions they have stolen from the Iranian people. Dubai calculates that by the end of 2006, some $300 billion will have been moved from Iran to Dubai by over 400,000 Iranians. Over 7,000 Iranian companies operate in Dubai, and some 300,000 to 400,000 wealthy Iranians make Dubai their home some or all of the year. Billionaire former President Akbar Hashami Rafsanjani owns vacation resorts on Dubai’s world-class beaches.
Meanwhile, Iran announced last week that 10 centrifuges have now gone operational at their uranium enrichment plant at Natanz. In meetings with leaders of Hamas, Iran agreed to fund the terrorist organization, making up the shortfall caused by the decision of the United States and Israel to withhold funds. Yet, in meetings with officials of the United Arab Emirates this week, there is no suggestion that Secretary Rice insisted that the UAE could face sanctions for continuing to support Iran.
Under pressure over the DPW deal, President Bush decided to emphasize how important the UAE was to the United States military, allowing us to us UAE military bases and ports for our troops, Air Force, and Navy warships, as well as for American military personnel on R&R from Iraq or Afghanistan. Suddenly we’re told that Dubai has “turned around,” reversing the previous open door policy to al-Qaida operatives and their money.
Maybe the secret agenda is that the United States needs the UAE bases to attack Iran successfully.
Maybe the Bush administration is turning a blind eye to the extensive flight of capital and people from Iran to Iraq because the U.S. wants to protect those Iranians who can flee to Dubai (as well as the capital they bring with them) before a “shock and awe” military attack on Iran takes out the Ahmadinejad regime and all the mullahs who stay home with him? Strangely, the pieces begin to add up to these conclusions.
We have amply document that Dubai has been a welcome home for the capital flight from Iran as the mullahs and their cronies seek to find a safe haven for the billions they have stolen from the Iranian people. Dubai calculates that by the end of 2006, some $300 billion will have been moved from Iran to Dubai by over 400,000 Iranians. Over 7,000 Iranian companies operate in Dubai, and some 300,000 to 400,000 wealthy Iranians make Dubai their home some or all of the year. Billionaire former President Akbar Hashami Rafsanjani owns vacation resorts on Dubai’s world-class beaches.
Meanwhile, Iran announced last week that 10 centrifuges have now gone operational at their uranium enrichment plant at Natanz. In meetings with leaders of Hamas, Iran agreed to fund the terrorist organization, making up the shortfall caused by the decision of the United States and Israel to withhold funds. Yet, in meetings with officials of the United Arab Emirates this week, there is no suggestion that Secretary Rice insisted that the UAE could face sanctions for continuing to support Iran.
Under pressure over the DPW deal, President Bush decided to emphasize how important the UAE was to the United States military, allowing us to us UAE military bases and ports for our troops, Air Force, and Navy warships, as well as for American military personnel on R&R from Iraq or Afghanistan. Suddenly we’re told that Dubai has “turned around,” reversing the previous open door policy to al-Qaida operatives and their money.
Maybe the secret agenda is that the United States needs the UAE bases to attack Iran successfully.
As a payoff for allowing the U.S. to use the UAE as a staging point in the Iran attack, the Bush administration agrees to push the DPW deal through in a “hush-hush” manner. Next, the government of Dubai raises $7 billion in government-guaranteed international debt so DPW, the government of Dubai’s front company, does not have to use any equity capital to make the purchase. Then Dubai makes decades of huge profits by operating the container and stevedore activities in 22 East Coast and Gulf ports.
To allow Dubai to make money from all sides, the U.S. will allow UAE to function as an escape hatch for as many of the mullahs and their cronies that can get out of Iran before the war starts. Maybe it is all a “wink-wink” game where Dubai is involved, as long as we get to use Dubai bases in the planned attack on Iran.
No wonder Dubai is one of the wealthiest Arab states in the Middle East. As we “follow the money” on the DPW deal, how much more of America does the Bush administration plan to sell to our friends in Dubai?
——————————————————————————–
Jerome R. Corsi received a Ph.D. from Harvard University in political science in 1972 and has written many books and articles, including co-authoring with John O’Neill the No. 1 New York Times best-seller, “Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry.” Dr. Corsi’s most recent books include “Black Gold Stranglehold: The Myth of Scarcity and the Politics of Oil,” which he co-authored with WND columnist Craig. R. Smith, and “Atomic Iran: How the Terrorist Regime Bought the Bomb and American Politicians.”
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=48998
March 8th, 2006 at 11:15 ami dont know about this hole thang about the people incharge of the ports it not a good idea
March 8th, 2006 at 11:38 ami disagree with the whole thing i know all poeple aren’t bad but it just doesn’t make any sence how we are at war with these people and now we are trying to give them something of ours i think its kind of like we are trying to say sorry but i dont think that we should.
March 8th, 2006 at 11:40 ami like food and dogs but in arab they dont have much food and they have camales also have hott places all the time also hey guys in mrs sumners class im shorty
March 8th, 2006 at 11:41 amI think that the US should let them guard our ports.
March 8th, 2006 at 11:41 amI think this is kinda funny but my English Teacher is making us do it ……..i dont even know what ya’ll are talking about
March 8th, 2006 at 11:42 amits me roxy
March 8th, 2006 at 11:42 amI dont agree with what is going on but some people have there reasons for there actions and i guess thats good enough
March 8th, 2006 at 11:43 ami don’t think that the arabs should take over the port because than they would want to change everything it would also change the U.S. and how they think of the arabs.
March 8th, 2006 at 11:44 amhey its SaManTha! :)
March 8th, 2006 at 11:44 ami dont think that the arabs should take over the port becausse than they would want to change everithing it would also change the U.S. and how they think of the arabs.
March 8th, 2006 at 11:45 ami dont know about this stuff im just a disty girl who likes boys
March 8th, 2006 at 11:45 amI think this is totally insane that people in the U.S. are willing to let some arabs take control of our ports. They are crazy to put trust in people like them. I mean the U.S. is the United States not some little arab house. They don’t belong here and they don’t have any rite to own our ports. Let them stay in Arabia and tell yalls little UAE to go shove it in the stand.
March 8th, 2006 at 11:46 ami dont know whats goin on ..but whatever
March 8th, 2006 at 11:46 ami don’t think so DeLiLa. i think if we don’t let the arabs help with the ports we will get a bad rep.
March 8th, 2006 at 11:46 amits me alyssa
March 8th, 2006 at 11:46 amThis is is so dumb I’m just having fun with our cool names!!
March 8th, 2006 at 11:47 ami think we should let them have the ports…
March 8th, 2006 at 11:47 ami dont think the u.a.e. should be passed!!!
March 8th, 2006 at 11:47 amthis is pretty funny how i have no idea wut were doing b/c i a good feeling this is proble for a grade or something but im tall and love sports and o wait this is not a hook up web site o my bad never mind wrong web site
March 8th, 2006 at 11:48 amall this is just bull butter. wat the heck is the uae trin to do. **** with us. people are just ****** up in the head and are really tryin hard to get ****** any ways its really stupid cause its the national gaurd job to control the ports not the uae dipsticks. this really is a big **** waste of time.
March 8th, 2006 at 11:48 amDon’t do it you freaking retards!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
March 8th, 2006 at 11:48 amhaha boys boys boys
March 8th, 2006 at 11:48 amI know what you are doing im watching you 24/7 your on my bad list WATCH YOUR BACKSIDE!!!
March 8th, 2006 at 11:49 ami don’t think that the arabs should be in complete control of the ports. our security is in jeopardy you never no if a terrorists is in the uae. he could be the one controling a port and letting other terrorists in.
March 8th, 2006 at 11:49 amWHO NOS AND WHO CARES???? I WANT A BOYFRIEND IF U R HOT BLOG ME BACK AND GET MY NUMBER!!!!!
March 8th, 2006 at 11:49 amsugar daddy isnt jon
March 8th, 2006 at 11:50 amHow about this if you want to let arabs to gaurd our ports then your just plain stupid and dont need to live in the U.S.
March 8th, 2006 at 11:50 ami think people should do whatever they want!!! its a free country
March 8th, 2006 at 11:50 amWe should not turn our ports over to the oil whores in the uae because these or some of the same people who attacked our country on 9/11 killing many of our own that leaves us open for another attack and leads the uae to more power they dont need
March 8th, 2006 at 11:51 amI kinda agree with A-rab4Life it can give us a bad rep but i dont really care what it does i dont give a beep about this F-Nbeep arabs RULE!!Viva Los Arabs
March 8th, 2006 at 11:51 amwhos sugar daddy
March 8th, 2006 at 11:51 amSomebody finally got it right!!!
March 8th, 2006 at 11:52 amim watch all of yall
March 8th, 2006 at 11:52 amall of everybody in this class room
EVERYONE hahahahahahaah
I think sugar daddy is a complete and total idiot. anyone else agree?
March 8th, 2006 at 11:52 amkjsdfgi dasjhjkhsdf sdfhdsfjk skdfhhfkjshfk jkjhdsfjhdufhjkhk thats me cursing you out in arabic
March 8th, 2006 at 11:53 ambarbie you are an idiot do you want to freakin die
March 8th, 2006 at 11:53 amYO ARAB 4 LIFE UR AWESOME YO!!! UR ONE COOL WHEAT CRACKER AND UR TOTALLY HOT!!!! I LOVE ARABS!!!! O AND SLOW DOWN COWBOY!!!!!!!!!
March 8th, 2006 at 11:53 amAND THE ARABIANS SHOULD NOT CONTROL OUR PORTS THAT IS A STUPID IDEA.
a-rabies r not gay people they just have feelings for the same sex
March 8th, 2006 at 11:54 ami hope this page will work now because i refreshed it. i think that Bush is smart for letting them guard our ports because it will help us getting our allies to like us more.
March 8th, 2006 at 11:54 amis anybody doing what there suppost to…is there any one else besides LaVernia people in here
March 8th, 2006 at 11:54 ambarbie a freaking retard!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
March 8th, 2006 at 11:55 amyea right your moms an arab. my mother is sooo not an arab. but i think that we should let them guard our ports because its cool.
March 8th, 2006 at 11:55 amgirls girls hahahah
im sugar daddy yes
im not stupid stupid people ha
March 8th, 2006 at 11:56 amno im tall stupid
My page is so gay its so slow it just keeps telling me to slow down cowboy!!Yo mommylover you sick who loves their mommy? I dont i hate my mom shez totally not arab enough for me
March 8th, 2006 at 11:56 amI think the people in this room need to get on subject.
March 8th, 2006 at 11:56 amDO you think this is gay cuz i do
March 8th, 2006 at 11:56 amPeople stop jabbering get on subject!!
March 8th, 2006 at 11:57 amHugs and kisses where are you from
March 8th, 2006 at 11:57 amI wonder if the a-rab girls are cameltoed
March 8th, 2006 at 11:58 amYO MOMMY LOVER MAYB U SHOULD LOVE DADDIES!!! DO U LIKE ARABS???? I LIKE CHINESE FOOD DOES THAT COUNT???? MY PAGE KEEPS TELLIN ME 2 SLOW DOWN NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO Y CANT THIS STUPID SITE JUST GO FASTER??????????
March 8th, 2006 at 11:58 amhey OGarab! you are a smart man. are you an original gangsta arabian?? if you are call me;)
March 8th, 2006 at 11:58 amok all of you are stupid and jerks. How can you critize a race of people you know nothing about?
March 8th, 2006 at 11:58 amIM just a girl looking for a good time because right now the guy im with isnt doing a very good job so any takers on this FREE opportunity? write back
March 8th, 2006 at 11:59 amhey your mom whats going on? yo barbra l we r doing this dumb thing for english. what does this have to do with english?
March 8th, 2006 at 11:59 amIs this you ms.sumner are you sending subliminal messages through barbra_L
March 8th, 2006 at 11:59 amthe slave kids look like their having fun i rember when i was slave i never got to ride around on cammels
March 8th, 2006 at 12:00 pmi’m hungry
March 8th, 2006 at 12:00 pmbarbra_L?? is this mrs. sumner. i think it is. i think they should let the UAE guard the ports.
March 8th, 2006 at 12:00 pmI wonder what gave everyone the idea that the Bush administration is business pals with all the Muslims? Was it the pics of GW and Bandar Bush holding hands? Or the Billions of arab money dumped into our defense contractors? Maybe it was just us attacking and removing everyones enemy in the Middle East? Do we still have Americans dying over there each day? I dont hear an uproar about it from our public. I wonder how many of our troops will have to die before people are pissed off and fired up? 4000? 6000? 10,000? Iraqs about to fall into civil war so dont count on us pulling out anytime soon. And how will we deal with IRAN, the real threat. Too bad their enemy next door isn’t around to keep them in check. Oh well, by the time ppl get pissed off about all our dead boys Bush’s term will be over.
March 8th, 2006 at 12:00 pmOn that note, heres a nice video to uplift everyones spirits.
Barbra we are on a subject B****
March 8th, 2006 at 12:01 pmshe was good last nite
March 8th, 2006 at 12:01 pmi like mexican food
March 8th, 2006 at 12:02 pmlea u funny im barbie L hi well i love women and women love me i hope lol im watching u clay crain and at ur house tho ur window in ur bed watchin a very bad movie lol To rox im watching you too so how i know all about you
March 8th, 2006 at 12:02 pmHello this is pedro sanches from napolean dynamite i was just asking you if you could please vote for pedro thank you very much
March 8th, 2006 at 12:03 pmHow many Arabs does it take to screw in a light bulb?
March 8th, 2006 at 12:03 pmWe’ll never know because they dont have electricity.
guys we really need to get on subject this is important. i think that we should really consider whats going on here
March 8th, 2006 at 12:03 pmthis whole thing is stupid yall need to calm down bush haters.
March 8th, 2006 at 12:03 pmDUDE BARBARA L SHUTUP!!!!!!!!!!! I DONT THINK NEONE CARES WUT U THINK!!!!!!!!!! U WANNA GET ON SUBJECT GO GET ON SUBJECT W/ UR MOM!!! U SOUND LIKE A TOTAL DOWNER AND A LOSER!!!! MUCH LOVE MUAH!
March 8th, 2006 at 12:04 pmi wish we could of talked about the ports
March 8th, 2006 at 12:05 pmhey sugardaddy i’ve been wathcing you to you sexy beast!!
March 8th, 2006 at 12:05 pmwhats up my peeps! what about them arabs!
March 8th, 2006 at 12:51 pmwhats up my peeps! what about them arabs!
March 8th, 2006 at 12:52 pmi personally don’t like things to be demanding like enclosed so i don’t think they should guard the ports b/c it is like ur in jail and don’t have ne thing to say or do that is ur own u should have ur own freedom
March 8th, 2006 at 12:52 pmhey whats going on guys? you know!!!
March 8th, 2006 at 12:53 pmlets open the ports now, we will get rich trust me.
March 8th, 2006 at 12:54 pmwe are doing this for english class im only posting this because i have to i don’t feel like im informed enough on this subject but as of right now they should investigate further before making any decisions we don’t want any more trouble then the trouble we already have!
March 8th, 2006 at 12:55 pmthe way things are is the way to be gb all the way
March 8th, 2006 at 12:55 pmGive the UAE some control over over the ports,but not total.let bush go through with his little project,if he has so much trust in his allies,but when we get our @sses blown up,its time for someone to be impeached.
March 8th, 2006 at 12:56 pmi dont know if i like the idea of letting some arabs guard our ports… i mean they did run into our buildings!! lets not forget that little detail
March 8th, 2006 at 12:56 pmwe can get um back for 911 lets knock over there sand dunes that will teach um.
March 8th, 2006 at 12:57 pmhow many terrorists does it take to screw in a lightbulb?
March 8th, 2006 at 12:57 pmthe world may never know… :)
cant we all just get along
March 8th, 2006 at 12:58 pmLV Students stop putting stupid comments on the site
March 8th, 2006 at 12:58 pmI think it is to risky to have the afganis take control over the ports.
March 8th, 2006 at 12:58 pmYou know what, i dont care. let them have our ports.
March 8th, 2006 at 12:58 pmthey arent the enemy. they are just a company.
there are tons of companies with arabs in them here in the usa.
ok but really the UAE is a nice place and there not going to do anything to us. We just have to take this chance i think we really have nothing to worry about as long as we take the precautions that we need to protect our country.
March 8th, 2006 at 12:59 pmGo almost@skater!!!
March 8th, 2006 at 12:59 pmI believe he should let them in the us
March 8th, 2006 at 12:59 pmThis is an english assignment that we are required to do and unlike some of the other people in the other classes i’m deciding to actually take it seriously. I like president Bush as a person and from what we see he looks like a cool guy…but some people are out there gettin drunk off of hater-ade and pickin him apart. No one is perfect enough to be criticizing someone else. I personally dont think that Bush would be making the right decision by allowing the UAE to have control over the ports because like many highschool girls, they’re nice to your face but as soon as you turn your back everything goes down hill from there. Thats what i think about this whole controversy.
March 8th, 2006 at 12:59 pmi agree with yay for lavernia so many men have already been killed what a few more!
March 8th, 2006 at 1:00 pmclick on the 42
March 8th, 2006 at 1:00 pmheh….
i really am informed so i don’t care
March 8th, 2006 at 1:01 pmlet them in let them in let them in!
March 8th, 2006 at 1:01 pmok guys im sorry i know you love me but i have to go to theater arts… sorry i WILL miss you!!!
love steph
barbra… stop bn so mean!!!
March 8th, 2006 at 1:01 pmhey, chicken, your a stupid comment
March 8th, 2006 at 1:01 pmThere is a huge difference betwwen the UAE and afaganistan. The UAE is the most urbanized country in the middle east. The sultan there is willing to give up all his power and wealth to make his country a democracy so this guy knows what he is doing so quit hatin.
March 8th, 2006 at 1:02 pmPort-Scan: Hacking the Bush-Dubai Connection (Politics)
By daqron
Fri Mar 3rd, 2006 at 07:44:17 AM EST
A pending $5.8 billion port operation deal with Dubai Ports World has sparked acrimonious response from both sides of the aisle. Politicians are seizing on an opportunity to be tougher than the president on national security without much trepidation about ostricizing Arabs. Rhetoric abounds about the dangers to our borders, the security of our ports, the collapse of America as we outsource our labor to the UAE (and who the hell are they anyway?).
But it isn’t the Arabs you should fear. There is only one thing that politicians like more than scaring you and that’s money. The deep and sinister links between the Bush family, Carlyle Group and Dubai Ports World aren’t making the ten o’clock news, but don’t be fooled – this is just the latest way for Bush & Company to profit off of the “War on Terror”. Congress’ maligning of Arabs might suffice to derail the deal, but we still deserve to know what’s really going on.
——————————————————————————–
A Partner in Peace
Bush has called the United Arab Emirates a partner in the so-called “War on Terror”. But Democrats point out that Dubai’s history with terrorism is far from spotless: two of the 9/11 hijackers were from the UAE; Osama bin Laden has a history of friendship with members of the UAE royal family; and that country recognized and supported the Taliban regime. The latter two do not warrant out-of-hand dismissal as either anti-Arab rhetoric or flawed logic, yet some argue that UAE has changed since 9/11 and so is somehow beyond questioning. It appears that the administration is on board with that assertion. In light of the United States’ history in Afghanistan, Iraq and Iran, it is perhaps unfair to characterize Dubai in the light of its historical indiscretions, particularly when one accounts for the delicate geopolitical balance that country has to maintain as an ostensibly pro-Western Islamic non-democracy. So the past notwithstanding, why shouldn’t we trust this country enough to let them run port operations? To find the answer to that question, you have to look closer to home.
Follow the Money
Controversy surrounding the DP World deal has been framed as us versus them but the money trail tells a different story and leads to the one person not concerned about national security: George W. Bush. Despite claiming to have no prior knowledge of the deal, it stands to reason that as major shareholders in the Carlyle Group, the Bush family must have been aware of the impact this deal would have on one of its major investments – a company called CSX Transportation. DP World owns the $1.5 billion freight terminal division of CSX Transportation, operator of the largest rail system in the Eastern USA, and there are at least two important connections between CSX and the Bush family:
The former chairman and CEO of CSX Transportation is John W. Snow. Snow was appointed in 2003 to be Secretary of the United States Treasury by George W. Bush. In his role, Snow is also the chair of CFIUS, the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, the body that oversees large transactions in the USA involving foreign companies to ensure they are not national security threats. This would appear to be a major conflict of interest since Snow no doubt stands to reap significant stock gains as a result of the deal. Yet Snow did not recuse himself from the review process and his committee approved the DP World deal on January 17, after conducting an abbreviated 30-day review instead of the 45-day investigation required by law. Little difference, it seems, the additional 15 days would likely have made.
The global investment firm Carlyle Group owns a majority interest in CSX Lines domestic container shipping. Carlyle Group made a name for itself by working behind the scenes, influencing global events to serve the needs of their elite investors. Their reach extends into aerospace, telecommunications, defense contracting, Iraq rebuilding and foreign policy. Executives and shareholders in Carlyle, a $13.5 billion company with offices just spitting distance from the White House, include former president George H. W. Bush, former British Prime Minister John Major, Colin Powell and former State and Treasury Secretary James Baker. Carlyle also boasts ties to another important family: the bin Ladens. According to a Wall Street Journal article from 2001:
“A Carlyle executive said the bin Laden family committed $2 million through a London investment arm in Carlyle Partners II Fund, which raised $ 1.3 billion overall. … So far, the family received $1.3 million back in completed investments and should ultimately realize a 40% annualized rate of return, the Carlyle executive said. … But a foreign financier with ties to the bin Laden family says the family’s overall investment with Carlyle is considerably larger. He called the $2 million merely an initial contribution. “It’s like plowing a field,” this person said. “You seed it once. You plow it, and then you reseed it again.”"
Reseed it indeed. With the power to make or break a global corporation, The Carlyle Group is in the unique position of being able to guarantee return on investment for its elite shareholders. In another context that might be called insider trading; Bush calls it a good deal.
Full discussion: http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2006/2/28/193656/344
March 8th, 2006 at 1:45 pmRacist? Yeah, right.
I’ve been thinking a bit about the Administration’s accusation that people who want the U.A.E. port deal stopped are motivated by fear and racism. As regards “fear,” well, you got me on that one. I have to confess, the notion of the container facilities in the Port of New York being run by a company owned and operated by a government instrumental in the attempted smuggling of nuclear technology to Iran does scare me just a little.
The racism charge is is more complex, because the United Arab Emirates are, well, Arab, and the United States is not. The United States has a multiethnic, multicultural, multireligious population whose white plurality makes an easy target for a charge of racism, not least because of its profoundly racist history. Still, we *are* in a some sort of armed conflict with violent Islamist groups, and they *have* attacked this country already, and the U.A.E. *has* given them assistance in the past. So how do we parse out the issue of racism here?
Well, the charge of racism is based in part on the fact that no one squawked over the fact that an English company has been running the port facilities for years. This is a profoundly silly argument: so far as I know, there has been no overt act of terror by Great Britain against the United States since Royal Marines burned the White House during the War of 1812. I personally have major problems with an English company running American ports, but concern about complicity with terrorists is not one of them.
To salvage this argument, the Administration (whose “leader” threatened to veto any effort to stop the deal before, as they now admit, he knew what the deal was …) assures us that the United Arab Emirates are an “ally in the war on terror.” These assurances are not particularly reassuring to me. After all, even if the United Arab Emirates are an “ally in the war on terror” today, their track record on the issue is, let us say, checkered. As I understand it, the evidence shows that as recently as August 2001 people connected to the government of the United Arab Emirates were helping to fund a terrorist group that killed nearly 3,000 Americans.
This made me think about one of the differences between the United States and most other countries on Earth, specifically our feeble sense of history and how it informs (HAH!) our thinking about this sort of thing. Since 9/11, the U.A.E. has purportedly given some cooperation to U.S. authorities in tracking terrorists. So, basically, the Administration’s argument is that we are supposed to trust and reward Dubai for five whole years during which they behaved like a reasonable member of the community of nations.
Five years. And people are arguing with a straight face that it will send a “bad signal” to them and their neighbors if we decline to give them control of these ports. Five years. This is a collection of societies where the citizens, inflamed by their religious leaders, fight blood feuds over sectarian events that happened 1,200 years ago.
Five years. The City of New York hasn’t even decided what to do with the gaping scar in Lower Manhattan yet.
And if declining to permit the government of the U.A.E. to control operations in the container facilities in six major ports would send a “bad signal,” what would the “good signal” be? Are we telling Dubai and its neighbors that five years of reasonable conduct is all that is required to give them a physical presence in six major U.S. cities?
Consider **that** in the context of the years of planning and preparation that went into the 9/11 attacks.
Myself, I think we’ve already sent the “good signal” to Dubai and its neighbors, although it’s not getting a lot of press attention yet. According to MSNBC, two years before 9/11 (but after the first World Trade Center attack and the attacks on our embassies in Africa) the U.S. had an opportunity to kill Osama bin Ladin at a hunting camp in Afghanistan but held back because it would probably have killed most of the U.A.E. royal family as well. Maybe Dubai should consider that an advance offering of good will.
Racism my plush leather sofa.
Terry Anastassiou
San Francisco
http://letters.salon.com/politics/war_room/2006/02/23/ports/permalink/9b321b3283b6440fef69c0f35585ccfb.html
March 8th, 2006 at 1:48 pmDebbie Schlussel: Something’s Rotten in Dubai: The Ports Deal, The President’s Bro, Homeland Non-Security & ICE
By Debbie Schlussel
Something’s rotten in Dubai. And it’s not just the deal to control six of America’s ports.
The approval of Dubai-owned DP World to run the ports has brought out a lot of security issues that should have been raised at least 4.5 years ago, after 9/11. But there are a lot of issues associated with this that HAVEN’T come to light.
First, there’s the President’s refusal to re-examine the deal, despite the fact that he admittedly didn’t know about it until the public furor. What you don’t know is about the President’s brother, Neil Bush, and his ties to Dubai.
I’m not saying the President’s brother had anything to do with this absurd deal. He probably did not. But we don’t know for sure, and even the appearance of impropriety is unacceptable in the War on Terror. Certainly, this is a huge conflict of interest. Does President Bush really want to give Michael Moore the grounds to make “Fahrenheit Ports 911″?
Neil Bush Speaks in Dubai to This Audience
Neil Bush with Datamatrix of Dubai’s CEO Ali Al-Kamali
Remember Billy Carter, Jimmy Carter’s brother, and his couple hundred-thousand dollars “loan” from Libya’s Muammar Ghaddafi?
If you liked Billy Carter, you’ll love Neil Bush. No beer products and advertising or redneck wit and wisdom. But the situation’s the same. Neil Bush is in bed with Dubai and its confederation, the United Arab Emirates (UAE). He’s getting money for it solely because he’s the President’s brother. And it’s disturbing.
Neil Bush is a frequent visitor to and paid speaker in Dubai, showing up there right after 9/11 trying to get investors for his failed Ignite! educational software company. While there, “[Neil] Bush held talks with Dubai’s Crown Prince Sheikh Mohammad bin Rashid al-Maktoum [DS: who now rules Dubai] and Information Minister Sheikh Abdullah bin Zayed al-Nahyan on the ‘world economy in light of recent events, as well as higher education in universities,” Arab American Business reported. Bush was in Dubai so much that he e-mailed his wife of his desire for a divorce from his Dubai hotel room.
(Bush’s relationship with the Dubaian and UAE royals has a lot to do with his Syrian-American Ba’athist boss, Jamal Daniel, who paid him $60,000 a year for only a few hours work. Bush’s marriage to his second wife was held at Daniel’s palatial Houston mansion.)
At a Saudi speech, he encouraged conferees to expand lobbying and PR efforts to change “perceptions” about the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. One wonders if the content is similar at his meetings and speeches in the Emirates. At least Billy Carter was a lot more aw-shucks honest. (”The only thing I can say is there is a hell of a lot more Arabians than there is Jews.”)
It’s not just Bush’s paid speaking engagements courtesy of Dubai’s Datamatrix. While Neil Bush is prominently displayed on the company’s website (and listed as “Brother of US President George Bush”), so are Clintonistas Al Gore and Sandy Berger (he of document pants-stuffing fame).
It’s also Neil Bush’s paid speeches to the Zayed Center, which was funded by UAE’s President, Sheik Zayed bin Sultan al-Nahyan, who recently died. As my friend, Rachel Lea Fish of The David Project, wrote in the Wall Street Journal:
Sheik Zayed also funds the Abu Dhabi-based Zayed Center for Coordination and Follow-Up, a prominent think tank of the Arab League, founded in 1999. The Zayed Center, described on its Web site “as the fulfillment of the vision of Sheikh Zayed,” promotes Holocaust denial, anti-American conspiracy theories and hate speech in its lectures, symposiums and publications. In August 2002, the Los Angeles Times quoted Mohammed Murar, the executive director of the Zayed Center, saying about Jews that “the truth is they are the enemies of all nations.” His comment came on the heels of a Zayed Center report stating that “the Zionists are the people who killed the Jews in Europe.”
The Zayed Center has a history of giving Holocaust deniers like David Irving a forum to promulgate their ideas. In 1998, Sheik Zayed’s wife donated $50,000 to finance the defense of infamous Holocaust denier Roger Garaudy in a French court.
In April 2002, the Zayed Center hosted Thierry Meyssan, the French author of “The Appalling Fraud,” which claims that the U.S. military staged the 9/11 attacks. The center translated Mr. Meyssan’s book into Arabic, hailed its publication and widely advertised the work. A month later, Lyndon LaRouche, the fringe political figure who has made disparaging remarks about Judaism, was an honored guest. Just last month, the center hosted Umayma Jalahma, a professor of Islamic Studies at King Faisal University, who declared: “The Jewish people must obtain human blood so that their clerics can prepare for holiday pastries.”
It’s bad enough the President’s brother took money from this organization. It’s much worse that the confederation, whose leader funded, this despicable group will be rewarded with controlling OUR ports. This is what they think, and we are going to trust them with our valuable points of entry for goods?
Then, there is the Homeland Security hype in support of this deal. Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff made the rounds of the Sunday political shows praising the deal and defending it. His predecessor, Tom Ridge, also touted the deal on FOX News. Ridge is the same man who signed a Memorandum of Understanding with John Ashcroft, taking away ALL terrorism investigations away from Homeland Security and giving them to the bureaucracy that bungled 9/11, the FBI.
Finally, there is the other problem with port ship and shipment investigations associated with the creation of Homeland Security and the reorganization of the former INS and U.S. Customs Service into ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement). When two huge tasks that don’t jibe are foisted on one agency in a merger, as happened with ICE, one falls by the wayside. Since Immigration is now the primary–but far from diligently enforced–focus of ICE, former Customs investigations into smuggling from foreign countries has fallen by the way-side.
As ICE agents have pointed out, who will be investigating the ports controlled by Dubai? While Customs and Border Protection does inspections, the investigations are still supposed to be conducted by ICE. Don’t hold your breath for any degree of thoroughness for an agency already stretched to the limits and its budget for this year already spent. It doesn’t help that the unqualified Julie L. Myers, with no law enforcement experience–let alone Customs experience, is “running” ICE.
As one career ICE agent wrote,
I am at a loss to explain this administration’s blind allegiance to the Port takeover deal with a company owned by the Arab terrorist-supporting country of the United Arab Emirates. . . . I am amazed that Sec. Chertoff is blindly supporting this as well.
Doesn’t our military ships use these Ports??? For that reason alone this deal should be scrapped! Let alone the vulnerability to smuggle in weapons and contraband that will harm this country. What are they thinking????
Allowing the UAE to take over these important Ports is akin to allowing Michael Jackson to baby-sit your children, or allowing Bill Clinton to take your wife along on a business trip!!!!
Amen.
Posted by Debbie on February 23, 2006 10:07 AM to Debbie Schlussel
http://www.debbieschlussel.com/archives/2006/02/somethings_rott.html
March 8th, 2006 at 2:07 pmI dont think that we should give the arabians our ports.
March 8th, 2006 at 2:19 pmI dont like the idea of giving the arabians control of surtain ports
March 8th, 2006 at 2:20 pmi think politics are stupid and a waste of time we are so retarded for caring!!… we would rather have racisum than have ppl blow up our ports!!!… YALL ARE ALL GAY!!
March 8th, 2006 at 2:20 pmso i think politics is so stupid and dumb and a waste of our time…. yall r retarted
March 8th, 2006 at 2:20 pmthe last thing they did to us was bomb 9/11 now you want them to rin our ports.
March 8th, 2006 at 2:20 pmyo wut up gangstas.
March 8th, 2006 at 2:21 pmscrew the arabs. i ain’t bout to get blown up again.
let’s just keep the ports to ourselves for now eh?
i dont think we should give them our ports but there are many controversys going on and i don’t really think anyone knows exactly what is going on we just have our opinion and are staying w/ it
March 8th, 2006 at 2:22 pmI think that they should not let the U.S. do that.
March 8th, 2006 at 2:22 pmwhat is your problem they are good people not i agree with you and you mean run
March 8th, 2006 at 2:22 pmcause if we do let them they could turn on us at any time if we do something that they dont like
March 8th, 2006 at 2:23 pmI honestly think this is totally gay about how people are dissing bush when he’s been a very good president since he’s been dealing with the fact of all the terroists bombing, & all the issues he’s had to put up with.
March 8th, 2006 at 2:23 pmi don’t realy think it is a great idea we might as well leave things how the are and not have any more problems. we have enough with the war going on we don’t need more conflict in our country!
March 8th, 2006 at 2:23 pmwell..considering if we let them have our ports then they could turn on us anytime and blow us up people!
March 8th, 2006 at 2:24 pmI don’t think that we should give them control over the ports.i understand to keep your enemies close but not that close it is just giving them a chance to maybe bomb us.
March 8th, 2006 at 2:24 pmwere suppose to put an input on this subject.
March 8th, 2006 at 2:25 pmmy input….do what’s right and leave the rest alone.
“If its not broken don’t fix it”, and do what is good for the country.If its is good for what you are doing then keep doing it, if its done and nothing more can be done to it then leave it alone, other wise than just find an other way.
i know that alot was lost throw the years for all the ppl and govenmet, but the only think i think would be best it to try and move on. yes, there are love one lost and all of that but the past is behind us so make the best of the future.
reach for the stars wuts crunk!!……. politics are not cool!… wow get crunk with mazio wuts up!!… this is retarded!!
March 8th, 2006 at 2:25 pmOSAMA’S NEXT ATTACK IS COMING IDIOT!!!!!! if bush is such a caring president when it comes to his citizens then why is he putting us in danger. i truly beleive he knows what kind of danger this could become but he is ignoring this fact due to the billions of dollars floating in his account. i know he’s not gonna receive the full profit, if any at all, but he doesnt always have to be the hero.
March 8th, 2006 at 2:25 pmpersonally i have nothing against the arab people but once you blow up a few of my country’s buildings basically you’re on my shitlist. and i know it’s not all of the arab people but still ther’s no use taking any chances. and i know that bush aint afraid of being racist or else he wouldnt have checked every foreigner in every airport. so i think that if he took the precaution of checking each arab, iraqian, or whatever other countries they are from then he should take the same initiative to think twice about this decision. especially if you’ve already found one stow away dumbass!
THIS IS RIDICULOUS I CANT BELIEVE OUR PRESIDENT COULD HONESTLY BELIEVE THAT THIS IS EVEN HALF OF A GOOD IDEA SO I DONT AGREE AT ALL I PERSONALLY CANT WAIT TO BECOME A MARINE SO I CAN SETTLE THE SCORE MYSELF O AND AS 4 THEM BEIN ALLIES YEA AN ALLY DEFINATELY RUNS PLANES INTO TOWERS HAHAHAHA YEA DONT THINK SOO!!! AND ANYWAYS MORE IMPORTANTLY LV GOIN TO STATE IN 08′!!!
March 8th, 2006 at 2:26 pmyeah some of them might be good but if they had a choice to kill us or one of their people, i think they would kill US!
March 8th, 2006 at 2:26 pmokay.. arabians…could hide a gun in their rags…why should we let them cum here…duhh.. arabs are bad… STAY AWAY!!!!!!!!!
March 8th, 2006 at 2:26 pmi think if we dnt give them our ports something bad might happen BUT if we do give them somethin also might happen even worse then 9/11
March 8th, 2006 at 2:27 pmHonestly, i dont really like the fact that if our own president wants the arab “PEOPLE” to get our ports.They were doing jus fine witout our ports.I hope they dont get it and hope they continue taking baths in the Euphrates River.In Conclusion we should all take a good look at all the foreign nations and in some matter “HELP THEM” in some way.
P.S. Michael Jackson is Innocent,Bring the Wayans Bros. Show back,Kick The Barry Bonds guy out of the MLB. AND stop GLOBAL WARMING And start giving TAX Repirations.IM OUT….PEACE
March 8th, 2006 at 2:27 pmThe Us has got to be on crack if they let them have our ports.
March 8th, 2006 at 2:27 pmhaha i copied you ms.parsons soon 2 be you losers
March 8th, 2006 at 2:27 pmI THINK WE SHOULD RECONSIDER AND JUST BE RACIES PEOPLE I AM SO TIRED OF THIS TERROR!!!! O AND I THINK THEY WOULD FREAKIN KILL US BEFORE THEY KILLED ANYBODY ELSE.
March 8th, 2006 at 2:28 pmHonestly I think that we should allow them to have control of our ports. If we were to cut off our ties with the Arabs then we would further perturb them, and they will be even more against us than they are at the present time. We should keep as many of the arabs on our side as possible, if we do this then we will have a lesser chance of more terrorist attacks by the Arabs. Furthermore if we keep them on our side, or as many as possible, then we will let them know that we are trying to have a peace between us all.
March 8th, 2006 at 2:28 pmeveryone in ms. sumner’s 5th period class is a fag except for the teacher. la vernia sucks and every idiot whos proud of this school is a cock sucker!!!
p.s.- sue me asshole
March 8th, 2006 at 2:28 pmwhy are we even saying anything its not like anybody is going to listen to us there is really no point but im against it polotics is so dumb
March 8th, 2006 at 2:29 pmARabs suck
March 8th, 2006 at 2:29 pmIf anyone is even considering giving them any of our ports the r on crack!! I wounldnt trust any1 of them.
March 8th, 2006 at 2:29 pmWe should let the arabs control our ports, the Mexicans control our boarders, and Michael Jackson control our Day Cares.
March 8th, 2006 at 3:06 pmi agree with Luisa , also
March 8th, 2006 at 3:19 pmARabS scare me. why we doin this.:(
March 8th, 2006 at 3:20 pmArabs are vrazy whoever agrees that its ok then they are crazy ,i dont think so buddys!!!!
March 8th, 2006 at 3:21 pmI think Bush is a great president. He has a lot of difficult descision to make but in my opinion the one about allowing the arabs to control the ports is a very easy one to make. Allowing them to control the ports is like giving them a perfect chance to do more unbeleivable things to our country. they may say they are our allies but anyone can say anything and not mean it…Bush needs to look in the past and rethink what hes trying to allow.
March 8th, 2006 at 3:21 pmwmdeenuts i think you need some serious help because i dont want my childern in a daycare with that crazy man
March 8th, 2006 at 3:21 pmthis is crazy whats the point in doin this ,Arabs are killers
March 8th, 2006 at 3:22 pmummm… let me think! i dont kno much about the whole thing. but umm… i would have to say huh.. I think we should run it our ownselfs and not them other people who eva they r i think that we should do something good not bad but o well wut can i say yah ummmm lets c wut else there is to write about i dont really no i think we should keep them ourselfs and not let other people run them cauz we neva know wut can happen u kno
March 8th, 2006 at 3:22 pmwell i’m not to sure about the whole thing….but i don’t think that it is a good idea to have someone else control our ports.
March 8th, 2006 at 3:23 pmum..i dont like arabians!
March 8th, 2006 at 3:23 pmI honestly think this is totally gay about how people are dissing bush when he’s been a very good president since he’s been dealing with the fact of all the terroists bombing, & all the issues he’s had to put up with.
March 8th, 2006 at 3:24 pmi thank sence thay bombed us on 911 we should take one of their plains and crash it in there sand dunes
March 8th, 2006 at 3:24 pmOur country has made a decision that they think will be better for our country and we are yet to see that but until then they are just going to keep getting this criticism.
March 8th, 2006 at 4:02 pmi think youll all need to do youlls on job and leave president bush to do his … !! and im only 15 and i know that come on get with it .. im sure president bush nows what the heck hes doin . . !! i mean come on he is the president . . . !!! duh . . !!! oh my teachers makin me do this . . . i think youll need to get over it and leave president bush to do his job and youll do youlls job . .
March 8th, 2006 at 4:03 pmlove me k !!!
I think we should nuke the sons a b****’s so that we don’t have to worry about them trying to control our ports
March 8th, 2006 at 4:03 pmHell no i dont want to put our ports in the hands of them sheet heads
March 8th, 2006 at 4:03 pmi think that we whould shoot all the people who think that they can rule our ports
March 8th, 2006 at 4:04 pmi dont think that we should open the ports becouse they will bomb us
March 8th, 2006 at 4:04 pmI dont know what I think I like the idea of the economy boost but this probably isn’t a good time to give a forign country control of our ports
March 8th, 2006 at 4:05 pmum…i dont think that this really affects me…the only think i care about is the legalization of marijuana
March 8th, 2006 at 4:05 pmthe gov. should legalize marijana, everyone else in this world does.
March 8th, 2006 at 4:06 pmfirst of all i would like to give a shoutout to all my homies back in sa: andrew, mario, claire, and all my future baby mamas out there..aight back to the subject, im not sure what i think about the subject yet. but im scared of those arabs over there in the middle east. so i say HAIL NO!
March 8th, 2006 at 4:07 pmyall see that movie band camp
March 8th, 2006 at 4:07 pmi think this is ohhh so gay but my teachers makin me do this . . i think youll need a freakin life . . . get off the internet my gosh . . !!!
March 8th, 2006 at 4:08 pmpeace muffin head
Letting the Arabs control our ports is like giving a fat kid the key to the candy shop. Why don’t we just let them into the Pentagon?
March 8th, 2006 at 4:08 pmbush is the best president
March 8th, 2006 at 4:08 pmthis is gay lets go home, screw the arabs
March 8th, 2006 at 4:08 pmthis is gay lets go home, screw the arabs
March 8th, 2006 at 4:08 pmWhat are we talking about?
March 8th, 2006 at 4:09 pmIf you don’t like what bush does then you can go suck it
March 8th, 2006 at 4:09 pmi cud care less wat bush does… he does knw wat hes doing.
March 8th, 2006 at 4:09 pmWow! my class if full of imature, disobediant cheildren!!!! you guys y’all should be a little open minded and realize that if these ports are opened then it brings more money to our country…your parents jobs, and for out economy!!!!
March 8th, 2006 at 4:10 pmskflskjsdklhsaklj is freakin stupid bush sucks!!!!!!!!
March 8th, 2006 at 4:10 pmWhat did yall do today?
March 8th, 2006 at 4:10 pmMatt why did you cut your hair?
March 8th, 2006 at 4:11 pmim w/ u Weedmiester!!!!!
March 8th, 2006 at 4:12 pmSOUTHERN PRIDE
March 8th, 2006 at 4:12 pmyo nigs, spring break is comin up… can i hear a hail yeah!?
March 8th, 2006 at 4:12 pmsammie is a dummie
March 8th, 2006 at 4:13 pmis anyone actually doing this
March 8th, 2006 at 4:13 pmi think that Wille Nelson should be president he would legalize marijuana
March 8th, 2006 at 4:13 pmoh my flippin god i hate english Mrs. sumner makes me dred coming to school everyday…but then again i’m soo stoned everyday that i hardly notice;)
March 8th, 2006 at 4:14 pmim going to canyon lake so i can see some tits
March 8th, 2006 at 4:14 pmwe should get rid of wealfare
March 8th, 2006 at 4:14 pmme to
March 8th, 2006 at 4:14 pmyou people that joke about this stuff are inmature but this chit is funny so screw iraq
March 8th, 2006 at 4:14 pmum…….. about the arabs… there not smart!!!!!!!!!!
HEAVEN07-STATE08
March 8th, 2006 at 4:15 pmEveritt is a gay stoner
March 8th, 2006 at 4:15 pmokay i spelt CHILDREN WRONG!!! wooptie flippin doo!!!! shut up matt….
March 8th, 2006 at 4:15 pmi cut my hair becuase its too hot jill
March 8th, 2006 at 4:15 pmthe rag heads should be more worried about finding a good two humper to ride rather than taking over somebody elses ports
March 8th, 2006 at 4:16 pmhell ya, im going to the beach and getting some as s
March 8th, 2006 at 4:16 pmi just think we need to all get along. enough with all this fighting crap were does it get us? yes it has changed many things for the better but if we all just try to compermise then it could make a big change in the worlds countries. leading to the subject of the uae maybe we should let them control the ports it could have some benifit behind it how would we know unless its done. but then again it is a risky situation it is hard trusting these people after what they did to our country and still what they are doing to our country. so who knows what we should do hopefully the right decison will be made.
March 8th, 2006 at 4:16 pmspring break rocks you get drunk and get laid tell me a better party
March 8th, 2006 at 4:16 pmi just think we need to all get along. enough with all this fighting crap were does it get us? yes it has changed many things for the better but if we all just try to compermise then it could make a big change in the worlds countries. leading to the subject of the uae maybe we should let them control the ports it could have some benifit behind it how would we know unless its done. but then again it is a risky situation it is hard trusting these people after what they did to our country and still what they are doing to our country. so who knows what we should do hopefully the right decison will be made.
March 8th, 2006 at 4:16 pmi just think we need to all get along. enough with all this fighting crap were does it get us? yes it has changed many things for the better but if we all just try to compermise then it could make a big change in the worlds countries. leading to the subject of the uae maybe we should let them control the ports it could have some benifit behind it how would we know unless its done. but then again it is a risky situation it is hard trusting these people after what they did to our country and still what they are doing to our country. so who knows what we should do hopefully the right decison will be made.
March 8th, 2006 at 4:16 pmi just think we need to all get along. enough with all this fighting crap were does it get us? yes it has changed many things for the better but if we all just try to compermise then it could make a big change in the worlds countries. leading to the subject of the uae maybe we should let them control the ports it could have some benifit behind it how would we know unless its done. but then again it is a risky situation it is hard trusting these people after what they did to our country and still what they are doing to our country. so who knows what we should do hopefully the right decison will be made.
March 8th, 2006 at 4:16 pmi just think we need to all get along. enough with all this fighting crap were does it get us? yes it has changed many things for the better but if we all just try to compermise then it could make a big change in the worlds countries. leading to the subject of the uae maybe we should let them control the ports it could have some benifit behind it how would we know unless its done. but then again it is a risky situation it is hard trusting these people after what they did to our country and still what they are doing to our country. so who knows what we should do hopefully the right decison will be made.
March 8th, 2006 at 4:16 pmsomeone smells like ass in this room
March 8th, 2006 at 4:16 pmwe need to stop letting stupid fat people running the country. nice job on breaking the shelf yesterday eric.
March 8th, 2006 at 4:16 pmok Matt.. my goodness lets not be hasty luv
March 8th, 2006 at 4:16 pmspring break rocks you get drunk and get laid tell me a better party
March 8th, 2006 at 4:17 pmi just think we need to all get along. enough with all this fighting crap were does it get us? yes it has changed many things for the better but if we all just try to compermise then it could make a big change in the worlds countries. leading to the subject of the uae maybe we should let them control the ports it could have some benifit behind it how would we know unless its done. but then again it is a risky situation it is hard trusting these people after what they did to our country and still what they are doing to our country. so who knows what we should do hopefully the right decison will be made.
March 8th, 2006 at 4:17 pmrednecks should be president
March 8th, 2006 at 4:17 pmrednecks should be president
March 8th, 2006 at 4:17 pmI LOVE ENGLISH/////not\\\\
March 8th, 2006 at 4:18 pmi just think we need to all get along. enough with all this fighting crap were does it get us? yes it has changed many things for the better but if we all just try to comparmise then it could make a big change in the worlds countries. leading to the subject of the uae maybe we should let them control the ports it could have some benifit behind it how would we know unless its done. but then again it is a risky situation it is hard trusting these people after what they did to our country and still what they are doing to our country. so who knows what we should do hopefully the right decison will be made.
March 8th, 2006 at 4:18 pmi just think we need to all get along. enough with all this fighting crap were does it get us? yes it has changed many things for the better but if we all just try to comparmise then it could make a big change in the worlds countries. leading to the subject of the uae maybe we should let them control the ports it could have some benifit behind it how would we know unless its done. but then again it is a risky situation it is hard trusting these people after what they did to our country and still what they are doing to our country. so who knows what we should do hopefully the right decison will be made.
March 8th, 2006 at 4:18 pmi just think we need to all get along. enough with all this fighting crap were does it get us? yes it has changed many things for the better but if we all just try to comparmise then it could make a big change in the worlds countries. leading to the subject of the uae maybe we should let them control the ports it could have some benifit behind it how would we know unless its done. but then again it is a risky situation it is hard trusting these people after what they did to our country and still what they are doing to our country. so who knows what we should do hopefully the right decison will be made.
March 8th, 2006 at 4:18 pmi just think we need to all get along. enough with all this fighting crap were does it get us? yes it has changed many things for the better but if we all just try to comparmise then it could make a big change in the worlds countries. leading to the subject of the uae maybe we should let them control the ports it could have some benifit behind it how would we know unless its done. but then again it is a risky situation it is hard trusting these people after what they did to our country and still what they are doing to our country. so who knows what we should do hopefully the right decison will be made.
March 8th, 2006 at 4:18 pmi just think we need to all get along. enough with all this fighting crap were does it get us? yes it has changed many things for the better but if we all just try to comparmise then it could make a big change in the worlds countries. leading to the subject of the uae maybe we should let them control the ports it could have some benifit behind it how would we know unless its done. but then again it is a risky situation it is hard trusting these people after what they did to our country and still what they are doing to our country. so who knows what we should do hopefully the right decison will be made.
March 8th, 2006 at 4:18 pmi just think we need to all get along. enough with all this fighting crap were does it get us? yes it has changed many things for the better but if we all just try to comparmise then it could make a big change in the worlds countries. leading to the subject of the uae maybe we should let them control the ports it could have some benifit behind it how would we know unless its done. but then again it is a risky situation it is hard trusting these people after what they did to our country and still what they are doing to our country. so who knows what we should do hopefully the right decison will be made.
March 8th, 2006 at 4:18 pmi just think we need to all get along. enough with all this fighting crap were does it get us? yes it has changed many things for the better but if we all just try to comparmise then it could make a big change in the worlds countries. leading to the subject of the uae maybe we should let them control the ports it could have some benifit behind it how would we know unless its done. but then again it is a risky situation it is hard trusting these people after what they did to our country and still what they are doing to our country. so who knows what we should do hopefully the right decison will be made.
March 8th, 2006 at 4:18 pmHi, this is Mrs. Sumner, and I want to apologize for all the off-topic comments that my 10th grade English students left today. This was the first time I tried this activity with them, and you can rest assured they won’t be doing it again. Sorry to all the serious bloggers out there and PEACE IN THE MIDDLE EAST to the world. :)
As an aside, I believe we should let the UAE have control of some of the ports because they are Arabs, not terrorists. Not all Arabs are terrorist. Let’s not forget the Red Scare with Communist Russia. We don’t want a repeat of that. And, Communist China already has control of some ports, and there was no outcry about that.
March 8th, 2006 at 4:26 pm‘President’s gone insane’ – 9/11 dad
BY JIMMY VIELKIND
DAILY NEWS WRITER
Peter Gadiel (l.), whose son died in 9/11 attacks, joins Sen. Chuck Schumer at yesterday’s press conference.
Peter Gadiel just doesn’t get it.
How, asks Gadiel, whose son James died in the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center, can a company owned by a terror-linked country get control of our nation’s ports?
“I’m a lifelong Republican and I think the President’s gone insane,” said Gadiel, 58, who heads 9/11 Families for a Secure America.
Two of the 19 9/11 hijackers were citizens of Dubai, the Arab emirate whose bid to run ports in New York, New Jersey and four other cities was okayed by the White House even though investigators have found signs that money used to finance terrorism flowed through Dubai banks.
“How the hell could this happen?” fumed Bill Doyle, 58, a retired Staten Island stockbroker whose son Joseph also died when the Trade Center fell.
“We’re not securing our country in any way by selling our ports to foreigners,” he said.
Gadiel and Doyle stood with Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) yesterday at the harbor to express their outrage.
Bruse DeCell, 55, whose son-in-law died in the attacks, said that homeland security should be the highest concern when approving the activities of foreign business interests.
“This administration is putting the selling of our country on a fast track,” he said. “There are a lot of loose ends that caused 9/11 to happen. I’m trying to close them.”
Only 5% of the cargo containers entering U.S. ports are inspected, said Schumer, who has called for upgrades in port security for years
http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/393077p-333284c.html
March 8th, 2006 at 5:38 pmSince Dubai has given up the ports issue I think they now have the RIGHT to ask the American army to leave their bases on their land.
March 9th, 2006 at 3:22 pmFarhan you got that correct – I also hope, Emrirates, the Airline of Dubai withdraws the $9 billion purchase of Boeing airplanes, the largest order Boeing ever had – thus resulting in Job loss of hardworking American families.
Plus they reduce or completely stop shhipment of oil into the USA. Ask American soldiers to leave the UAE ports
Even though, I hope all the above does not happen. I am almost certain, tThe downfall of the US will come from within i.e. from within it’s own stupid citizens, who are totally ignorant about rest of the world and are continously and effortlesly duped by politicians with hidden agendas – one being the jewsih charles schumer, who actually is working for Israel, and hence do not want successful Arab entities entering into business in the US.
Today is a sad day for America, because the politicians with hidden agendas have fooled the ignorant population of this country. This is the beginning, of fall from grace. In a way I feel sorry for you America, but then again shame on you!
March 9th, 2006 at 4:10 pmFarhan,
You have a misunderstanding of this issue right from the start. It is unfortunate that you still do. The issue has never been what you and some bloggers have tried to make it. Clearly, the issue is that Americans have legitimate concerns that stems from their unique experience on 9/11 and all the activities that led to it. Some have called it paranoid, but whether it is or not, is beside the point. The issue called for an objective consideration and recognition of America’s concerns by DPW and UAE, especially since America and the UAE agree on a lot more than the port deal. As I wrote in #511:
“every country has vulnerabilities, in light of their experience, history, and situation, hence it is in the national interest of each country to exercise caution and to make every reasonably effort to protect itself and not expose itself to sources prone to potential danger. The danger America faces may not be the danger any other country may face, and vice versa.†The pertinent situations and the variance thereof are patently incongruent.â€
And as I also wrote in #608:
“No honest person should fault Americans for being concerned for their safety and for seeking measures to ensure their own safety. The fact is that American ports have direct and serious implications for America’s security and should not be treated as just as another “merchandise†in global trade. If DP World is serious about recognizing the concerns Americans have on this issue, it should pullout of the deal altogether, at least out of respect for the people of this country. As for the administration, which is eager to reward the UAE for its corporation in the global war on terror, there are other ways to do so and to show America’s gratitude to the U.A.E, without jeopardizing the safety of Americans.â€
DPW and UAE have recognized both points made above. True friends disagree sometimes, on some things, without end their friendship. Ultimately this level of maturity strengthens friendships, through the forging of mutual respect. DPW and the UAE recognized this and acted in way that shows their respect for the American people and affirmed their friendship with America, and I dare say that this would ultimately endear them to the American people more than they would have been and certainly more than if the deal had gone through in the current political atmosphere and against public outcry of concern for security.
It is quite unfortunate that at this stage in the dialogue, you and others are calling for a retaliatory action (tit-for-tat) against the United States. This is symptomatic of the cultural defects Dubai and the UAE are trying to leave behind. Perhaps, the difficulty you have with the final resolution lies in the fact that there is no word for compromise in Arabic has. And I don’t mean that in a sarcastic way.
March 9th, 2006 at 6:42 pmSlowtrain, as an Emariti, I cannot tell you how much we have looked upto the US positive aspects. The fact of the matter is not that my fellow citizens or I shall retaliate -we don’t believe in blind retaliation.
However, just as you, have the right to pick and choose. My fellow citizens and I have the “choice” to decide with whom we want to trade and those we want to avoid. This truly as been an eye opener for us when it comes to US. Most often, Dubai and the UAE often supported the US policies in the Middle East, but now, perhaps we should do what is in our best interest as well.
Fyi – Compromise is quite often used in Arabic it’s spelt like this تَسْوÙÙŠÙŽØ© – oh let me guess, you are unable to read Arabic. I mean I am an Arab, I can speak/write English, French, Hindi and Arabic. Also FYI:
I am not ignorant to the rest of the world peoples & cultures
I do not label all Americans racist because of the Civil war and how whites in America treated blacks.
I do not label all Americans as Hiroshima bombers.
I do not think all Americans are pedophiles and child pornographers
I do not hold all Americans accountable for the 10’s of thousand innocent Iraqi’s killed in the Iraq war, because of your foolish president and his admin.
However I now strongly believe Americans in general are ignorant and “stupid”. Ignorant because, many of you have no idea about the rest of the world. Stupid – because very few actually checked out the facts, instead played into either your hatred for President Bush or blindly supported politicians with hidden agendas such as Clintos and Schumer.
The lack of respect from my end, and many of my fellow men is not because of this deal. The value of the terminal leases in the 6 ports was less than 1/10th of the global value. However the insult, blind & ingorant labelling is what any self respecting individual cannot accept and understand.
March 9th, 2006 at 8:22 pmI guess that’ll teach the UAE not to do business with the likes of OSAMA BIN LADEN, engage in terrorist money laundering, and support the type of people that orchestrated the MURDER of 3000 AMERICANS on 9/11/01. All the evidence shows the UAE was complicit. In the future if you want to do business with a Democracy, you better choose your bedfellows better. Don’t get in bed with Bush or Bin Laden and we might be willing to do business. Until then, its no big loss for the US or the UAE. The UAE still has Iran, North Korea, and China to do business with. And the US still has the ability to run its own ports as it should have been doing all along. Great job America, its about time!
March 10th, 2006 at 1:20 amDubai Takes Over 22 US PORTS So They Can SMUGGLE OPIUM ?
Is This Ports Deal arranged by the Bush Family really about the Smugglinging of massive amounts of Opium and Heroin grow in Afghanistan to the United States?
DON’T BET AGAINST IT
March 10th, 2006 at 11:10 amWow Hurray4USA & Howard you guys continue to step up the level of American pulic stupidity to rest of the world.
For those of us following the story across the world, cannot believe, the level of ignorance and stupidy amongst the American people – claiming this deal would harm “Security” at the ports.
DP world operates in about 20 plus countries across the world with several large ports – not once has any country ever raised a red flag or an issue on DP world procedures and business. Even Israel, and it’s shipping brains have only had positive words for DP world.
This deal had nothing to do with Security and all those who are aware of ports business and/or the Middle East regions knows it. Sadly most of you folks turly (Again – the first being Iraq War) fell to the paranoia spread by US politicians with hidden agendas.
As a UAE national, I truly do not want my country and the government doing business with folks like you calling themselves Americans – it will be our loss.
March 10th, 2006 at 11:23 amAmar,
You are indeed ignorant, much more than you know it, and as you have shown, the only thing worse than ignorance is ignorance in action. What is there, worth knowing of your culture or your type anyway? Let me guess, women oppression, a warped ideology that inspires unspeakable cruelty to friends and foes alike. A culture where people like you would kill their sisters who have been raped for some deranged idea of “honorâ€.
But for America, you will still be riding on smelly camels instead of cars, unable to travel to the cultures you claim to be acquainted with, communicating by messenger birds instead of the internet, as to spill your bile to the world. Just look around you, you probably have more of America around you than Arab. You are probably in Jeans, gym shoes and talking on a cell phone, yet “stupid†enough to call Americans “stupidâ€.
Just because you can speak English and say a few phrases in other languages does make you smarter than Americans. It is more than likely that you learned English because it is the global language or Arts, Science and Commerce. It is a necessity to you, isn’t it? Obviously, Arabic is not of equal necessity to an American. To an American Arabic is redundant, because it has very little application in his daily life. When I said that “there is no word for compromise in Arabicâ€, I meant that Arabic has no word for “compromise” in the sense of reaching an arrangement via struggle and disagreement. Yes, there is taarradhin, but as the world knows, that is frequently untenable when Arabs like you are dealing with other cultures, as you have shown in this matter. Indeed, your presumptuousness betray your arrogance and ignorance.
Show me anywhere in my comments where I labeled Arabs or Emaritis. As for racists, pedophiles, pornographers, all of which are much older and deeper in your society, you can hardly attribute them to America. Right now Arabs are killing Africans in Sudan and still enslaving Africans in Niger and Sudan, and there is booming sex slavery in your country. Guess who is leading the effort to stop all these? It is no other country but America.
You write:
“I do not hold all Americans accountable for the 10’s of thousand innocent Iraqi’s killed in the Iraq war, because of your foolish president and his admin.â€
It is not Americans blowing up innocent men, women, and children in suicide bombing and car bombs. It is not Americans that are blowing up mosques (your supposed sacred house worship) to kill defenseless worshippers. Arabs are the ones killing Iraqis by the hundreds, day in day out. Yet, nowhere in my comments did I label all Arabs or as suicide bombers and terrorists.
It is very clear from your angry rants, that your failure to see the concerns Americans have for their safety, stems from a preconceived notion and passionate sentiments. They have rendered your argument irrational and overly emotional. As for your lack of respect for Americans, you may have an inflated opinion of yourself, but please don’t delude yourself, your respect amounts to nothing.
March 10th, 2006 at 12:04 pmI dont mind being labeled as “ignorant” by a certain group of people for being against the deal with Dubai. There is far worse than being “ignorant” such as being one of those that supports a government linked to terrorism, human slavery, human rights violations, drug trafficking, money laundering and the list goes on unethical behavior goes on… Yep, I can get up and look myself in the mirror just fine if all I turn out to be in the end of the day is “ignorant.”
March 10th, 2006 at 12:15 pmTo Slowtrain – you just proving over and over just how little you know about countries in the MIddle East. From your own words, you have an understanding every country in the Middle East is involved in Human trafficking, slavery, homicide bombers and all the other great stuff you get to see on televison.
Let me ask you this- have you ever been to the UAE or to Dubai? Have you even seen the ways of life of the people here, how one treats the other, the laws this country is govered by?
I take the answer is NO – so essentially you are panting a whole region with one brush – i.e. suicide bombers in Iraq and 9/11 related Arabs applies to all of Middle East and Arabia and Arabs – HENCE YOU JUST CONTINUE TO PROVE OVER AND OVER AGAIN – YOU ARE IGNORANT, and now steps it up a level more.
FYI – because someone has been educated, and holds a masters degree or higher, has travlled and lived in other countries, thus being exposed to cultures and ways of life in those countires – does make them a little more wiser, aware and less IGNORANT than someone like you – who perhaps have not left the land of the FREE!
PS- I wear all kinds of clothes, Jeans and casual shirts to a suit to a Khandura to Indian clothes. Not because it has to do anything with America’s ways of dressing. Perhaps the picture you potray plays well on someone like you.
To me – the extent of ingorance and hate shown towards the UAE country and fellow citizens because of a stupid deal is the root cause of the issue. I could care less if DP world loses, few lousy terminals in 6 US ports – as you can see the US terminals were valued at less than 1/10th of the global deal. The very fact that most Americans oppossed this deal, citing “Security” as a concern itself shows they know so little on the UAE.
March 10th, 2006 at 2:09 pmOK maybe I over-reacted a bit. This was the first blog where I read comments about the deal. What upset me was not the deal itself, but how Americans (large ones on this site) have a Generic view of all Arabs. It’s to be in a state of disbelief to say the least, when suppossedly “the only super power” have citizens who seem absolutely clueless.
But then I stumbled upon this artcile on CNN
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/03/10/feedback.ports/
Hence perhaps I may be wrong in my assumption, that NOT ALL Americans are Anti-Arab.
Again, just want to emphasise, Anti-Arab comment is not related to this business deal – but based on reading all the comments (not to mention the disturbing pictures) whilst debtaing Dubai and UAE.
As a citizen for the UAE, I want to see my country succeed and be principled, have the correct laws in place, and continue to spread those values shared by the Europe and North American. How can we do this, if Americans continue to be so blinded by fear, phobia and ignorance – and continue to paint the whole Middle East region with the same “terrorists” notion?
March 10th, 2006 at 4:25 pmAmar,
Let me ask you this. If someone, perhaps a friend of yours, whom you may have visited and ate at his house, came to your house and you offered him, for the sake of illustration say peanut butter-and-jelly sandwich, but your guest declined, because he is allergic to peanut butter. Would you grow angry and accuse him of disrespecting you and your household or would you rise above, perhaps some cultural idiosyncrasy that considers it an offense to a host, for a guest to decline food he has been offered by the host? What would it be for you Amar?
You write:
“How can we do this, if Americans continue to be so blinded by fear, phobia and ignorance – and continue to paint the whole Middle East region with the same “terrorists†notion?â€
What is even more ironic is that your statements, even the one that was meant as an apology, are full of generalizations and wild assumptions about Americans, yet you accuse Americans, even those who argue for DPW and UAE, of generalizing fault by perceiving all Arabs as terrorists. If you are as knowledgeable as you claim, why have you failed to look at the issue from both perspectives and the attendant logical dynamics?
March 10th, 2006 at 5:33 pmI read from the U.K. your comments with interest and share some of your fears.
However, one thing most of you forget – it is still your own people that will operate the ports within your country, same people who have the best interest at heart of your homeland and no matter what, i am sure if someone hears or sees something that is untoward they will speak-up job on line or not.
The ports may be owned by people from outside your country, most of whom are very sensible and astute business men and women (not fantical activists of some extreme militant sect)rmember this is what western society has been doing for many decades. We have been travelling the globe buying and setting up business all over the world – so what is different here? So what they come from the Middle East and they might be Muslim, most of which are very relgious and devote who remain faithful to their holy scripture. They too, like us in western society and the Christian faith have many misguided individuals that dishonour both their culture and faith.
Food for thought – have a nice day!
Joe Bennett MIOD
March 10th, 2006 at 6:52 pmLiverpool, U.K.
I read from the U.K. your comments with interest and share some of your fears.
However, one thing most of you forget – it is still your own people that will operate the ports within your country, the same people who have the best interest at heart of your homeland. No matter what, I am sure if someone hears or sees something that is untoward they will speak-up job on line or not.
The ports may be owned by people from outside your country, most of whom are very sensible and astute business men and women (not fanatical activists of some extreme militant sect) remember: this is what western society has been doing for many decades. We have been travelling the globe buying and setting up business all over the world. So what is different here? So what they come from the Middle East and they might be Muslim, most of whom are very relgious and devoted who remain faithful to their holy scripture. They too, like us in western society and the Christian faith have many misguided individuals that dishonour both their culture and faith.
Food for thought – have a nice day!
Joe Bennett MIOD
March 10th, 2006 at 7:12 pmLiverpool, U.K.
Joe I just have one question. Would you be willing to bet your life on it?
March 10th, 2006 at 9:06 pmSlowtrain,
I have said few times, I am not upset on the DP deal – I am upset on reading the majority of the comments on this site on Dubai & the UAE. Pretty scary to be honest, to know that the country which claims to be a “superpower” is sort of filled folks who seem to blindly believe whatever politicians with hidden agendas tells them i.e. Iraq and now the “SECURITY” crap with DP world.
I am upset because, the MYTH of SECURITY was used to clobber this deal, and also the reputation Dubai and the UAE. A reputation, we have been working hard to develop. A reputation of a clean, healthy, moderate, modern Arab city and state. Yes there are flaws and shortcomings in the UAE, as with any other country, however the government is doing all it can to have proper laws and responsibilities in place to hold those accountable.
Many of you on this liberal site, hammered the deal – mainly because President Bush approved it, and hence was perceived as a “SELL OUT” or as “OUTSOURCE” of US ports. When the truth of the matter is that DP world would only be operating selective TERMINALS in the 6 ports.
Moreoever – Charles Schumer(a Jewsish American Citizen, with too close ties to Israel) was ranting and raving about “SECURITY” when the whole time – security was never part of this deal, as DP world would not manage the ports or the security. It was purely under the American governments management.
Anyways – I don’t care about the terminals in the US. However it does matter to me, the perceptions Americans paint across all Arabs. When I attended school at Cornell in NYC – I got to learn so much about the US. I returned home to Dubai, with a very positive aspect on perhaps the American ways of life. I have always (like most of my friends) stood up for the US and it’s laws – however the debate and extremely disturbing pictures on this site have sort of shaken my belief to the core.
People, should know internet sites are globally viewed – hence at the minimum know the truth in the content of details being published.
Lastly – for all those who care to know. Not every country in the Middle east is evil and upto no good, every basket has it’s share of bad apples. There are countries who want to make a future for it’s citizens and a successful roadmap for the country itself.
DP world went thru an intense bidding war with the Singapore government owned Temasek. Now the folks at Singapore could be laughing at the plight of DP world. In the business world, politicians with hidden agendas in other countries will now use the same tactic to tarnish Arab deals – the consequences of which can be far reaching.
March 10th, 2006 at 9:07 pmResponse to ” ReturnofUncleSam” I do not see any difference between the 9/11 hijackers and you. They used evil means to get their evil agendas accomplished.
YOU seem to be doing the same thing – i.e. have you no shame in using the above horrufying picture to block a silly business deal? I understand you want to say all Arabs are capable of doing the above – but you have no shame or conscious that you go to this extent not only to tarnish the innocent in an Arab society but also insult those who lost their lives in 9/11?
March 10th, 2006 at 9:13 pmSlowtrain
The below disturbing, barbaric and senseless actions and intentions is what we want to stop spreading across the Arab world
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060311/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/hostage_killed
If Americans (like ReturnofUncleSam continue to preach and potray such silly generic notions on all Arabs – it does not help us. It makes things only more difficult.
March 10th, 2006 at 9:19 pmAmar doesn’t like those incriminating pictures of the MURDER of 3000 AMERICANS on 9.11.2001. It reminds him and everyone else in the world what the UAE government helped the terrorists accomplish. In fact, the government of the UAE, the ROYAL FAMILY in particular, are complicit by direct association with OSAMA BIN LADEN, directly financing 9/11 terrorists, and deliberately thwarting the investigation which traced the terrorist financing directly to UAE BANKS. These are all facts that cannot be refuted by Amar the angry internet blogger with his temper tantrums(unless Amar is privy to information the rest of the free world is unaware of which is highly doubtful.) In the unlikely even that Amar has such proof, rather than insult the victims of 9/11, Amar would do better to produce evidence exonerating the UAE government. Regardless of the guilt of the UAE government, which appears as self evident, the US would be foolish to relinquish control of US Ports to any foreign power. Amar should spend his energy turning the UAE into a democracy; helping to liberate the slaves in the UAE; and helping to stop the UAE ROYAL FAMILY from financing terrorists and harboring the likes of OSAMA BIN LADEN. Wasting time bullying, badgering and insulting the victims of 9/11 in order to force them to trust the UAE government is just that, a waste of time. Instead, Amar merely proves the US made the right decision by shutting down the deal with Dubai. Americans don’t appreciate being bullied Amar. Those tactics might work with the slaves in the UAE, but not in a democracy.
March 10th, 2006 at 10:34 pmReturnofUncleSam you seem to set a new high for stupidity. That is all I have to tell you. Now you may want to go back to your lame ass patriotism.
March 10th, 2006 at 11:12 pmPlease read this article “Paying for Terror” and its related links in the UsNews Issue of 12/05/05.
March 11th, 2006 at 12:07 amUncle Sam. I see both sides but I am not blinded either, be you from the East or the West there are good and bad in every walk of life – it is not limited to the Middle East, you only have to look at what some of our own people do to our own countries, let alone others, be that the IRA or UDA within the British isles, The internal terrorism that is carried out in Spain by the Basque terror mobs and the one that sticks out clearly in my mind is the monster Mr. Mcvey in your own country.
Yes 9/11 was absolutley appalling and something we hope we will never witness again in any country as no matter who you are or what your background aa single persons life and soul is worth more than any amount of money and let us face it – sadly this is about money.
On the Western aspect it is very much about the oil and the money it generates and the dependency modern society has towards this commodity. Then we have the Mad men from the middle east or wherever, who preach about their God in an effort to Brain wash the more vulnerable of their society in order to make them carry out their dirty work. They talk about what others should do but never have I heard of one brave enough to put their own life on the line for their GOD and kill in his name – this we all know is a smoke screen, for them too it is very much about money and power…
To answer your question my friend. I place my life in other peoples hands everyday of my life. And every day I say to myself…..In GOD we trust…
March 11th, 2006 at 5:21 pmGood to hear Joe. I share your sentiments and thoughts. Headsup, please don’t expect understanding from UncleSam and his kids. They often seem too blinded by Patriotism, they cannot see the innocent and good sould who try to make a positive difference in their regions.
March 11th, 2006 at 6:58 pmJust a heads up Joe, Amar is so blinded by his devotion to the corrupt government of the UAE, he equates the decision of the US to run its own ports with the US somehow being against Arabs in general. Controlling US ports has nothing to do with Arabs or the common people of the world. The ROYAL FAMILY of the UAE wanted control of the US ports. The ROYAL FAMILY of the UAE represent a teeny tiny group of wealthy Arab aristocrats that have absolutely nothing to do with the general welfare of the Arab people. Simply put, the ROYAL FAMILY of the UAE has little concern for the people of the UAE or Arabs for that matter, especially the people imported to the UAE to work as slaves. This is common among dictatorships around the world. But you have pro-dictators like Amar who actually support those corrupt dictatorial regimes in enslaving the people of the world. The US port deal with Dubai did not stand to benefit the common Arab and consequently the breaking of the deal will not impact the common Arab. But Amar along with George Bush, wants to portray the outcome of this port deal as having some negative impact on US/ARAB relations. The Arabs that live in the US will not be affected adversely by DUBAI’s not controlling US PORTS. I should know. And the slaves in the UAE will continue to be slaves either way. No amount of money or contracts with the US will change how the common Arab lives. But Amar is typical in that he somehow believes the lies of FAT WEALTHY ARISTOCRATS, whether they be Americans like George Bush or the ROYAL FAMILY of the UAE. Amar would do well to study history and see how we are all puppets of a feudal system that has existed around the world for thousands of years. As long the wealthy fat aristocratic elites maintain control of the wealth and power, the plight of the common Arab and American and global citizen will continue to be the same. My advice to Amar is that he spend his energy promoting democracy throughout the world. For until democracy exists everywhere, the common Arab, American, Jew, Chinese, etc will be to continue to quible over the scraps that fall from the plate of the aristocratic elite.
March 11th, 2006 at 11:21 pmAny government that supports, protects or harbours terrorists is complicit in the murder of the innocent and equally guilty of terrorist crimes.
George W. Bush
America is a friend to the people of Iraq. Our demands are directed only at the regime that enslaves them and threatens us. When these demands are met, the first and greatest benefit will come to Iraqi men, women and children.
George W. Bush
Saddam Hussein is a homicidal dictator who is addicted to weapons of mass destruction.
George W. Bush
George Bush: “If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier – just so long I’m the dictator.” December 18, 2000
March 12th, 2006 at 12:12 amI find it hard to believe that people are still shouting about the UAE. It is done and over. If you were true zealots and not just bigots you would now be focused on the Chinese owned port terminals in the US. They are responsible for the deaths of many American lives in Korea and Viet Nam. They continue to spy on us and offer support to the enimies of the US…….but I guess all that America should own it’s own ports was just a Bush bashing point and not a real concerne. Sad that you are your politicians puppets.
March 12th, 2006 at 12:26 amRegardless of the outcome, the great benefit of the US port deal with Dubai is that it raised awareness in Americans about the outsourcing of US ports to foreign investors. Many Americans, my self included, were oblivious to this pattern of outsourcing port control. I had no idea that China controlled a US port for example. I am opposed to any outside control of US ports whether it involves China or the UAE. There is nothing wrong with continuing the discussion about the Dubai in the context of continuing to raise awareness. US ports should not be run by foreign investors period, plain and simple. This isn’t a race issue and never was. As for using this forum as a point of attack on Bush, that wasn’t needed, nor was it ever the objective (just look at the republican controlled senate and congress unanimously opposed to the deal). Americans in general are opposed to the outsourcing of US ports regardless of who happens to be in office. And Bush has done plenty to ruin his reputation, Dubai notwithstanding. Endorcing the selling of control of US ports to Dubai is merely icing on the cake for Bush.
March 12th, 2006 at 1:36 amVoiceof reason.
You are of course correct it is very much about control of the mass populas. I may be incredibly naive, but i thought both the US and the UK had ridden of the class system!! (Do you actually have an Aristocracy?).
I agree with your sentiment in so far as it is appears that these developing countries still harbour sinsiter governments and dictatorships but who am I to criticise, the Brits have been as bad over the past centuries.
You are also right about leadership from the top (which is how i read it) these Governments are presently all about “Doing what I say, not as I do”
Amar, I am not clear what sort of “rumbling” go on in your own coutry (ies) by your own peoples – by the same token I am also aware of people going missing never to be seen again. Not an easy system to live within I guess but right is right. You cannot throw stones when you live in a glass house – sorry my friend!
Sadly though and going off the track a litttle we will never end these hypocritcal regimes, even today within companies these bully boy tactics still go on day in day out.
One guy once said to me about putting up an opinion that was contrary to my MD & owner of the company I worked for at the time:- When he is right he is right, and when he is wrong he is even more right!!
The point being that he who holds the purse strings calls the shots and even if you go against this you may well drive your point over and win the argument but you will never win the day.
For me it is about in my opinion, beening able to have my say, especially if I am right, and then if the majority rule against we have to learn how to walk away and lick our wounds. It is here wherin lies the problem. We are simply not taught how to loose and take it on the chin.
I believe we (people) pretend to okay with loosing but deep down a lot of us harbour resentment simply due to our upbringing by society and the “malicious skulldugery” that walks both political and boardroom corridors in all walks of life and in all countries.
We need to learn how to loose and deep down accept that loosing is okay so long as it is:
a. What the majority really want.
b. That no one is harmed.
For me people are people and we should show respect for us all, we should all leanr to disagree but do it with respect and at the same time respect the other person’s argument.
Utopia?
Probably, but we can make a difference by just being ourselves and where we find people who are bigoted then we must teach them our ways by simply stating our case over and over again and showing that bullying simply does not work. For every person that they murder or gag there is another of us as well as they who are prepared to stick our necks out and speak the TRUTH!!
We are here once and once only
March 12th, 2006 at 5:58 am[...] In case you have been living under a rock, the Bush administration approved a deal whereby Dubai Ports World, a company based in the United Arab Emirates (UAE), would be running many of our nation’s ports. Ports, I remind you, were one of the biggies for the 9-11 commission; they felt we weren’t doing enough to protect them from attack. Bush says the UAE is a “staunch ally”in the war against terror(ists), but there are puzzling contradictions. The UAE boycotts Israel, did recognize the Taliban, appear to have been quite chummy with Osama bin Laden, and two of the 9/11 terrorists were their natives sons. [...]
March 12th, 2006 at 10:53 amThis deal was the most ludicrous proposal I have heard. Had the deal gone through, you would have seen a rush of application for US HB-1 Visas from the UAE regarding the performance of specific jobs at the Ports. “Ahmed is the only one that push the button to work that special crane”.
This is now common practice throughout the corporate world in the US; bringing in workers from other countries under the guise of “job specialties”.
We now know that not every trailer that is off loaded is checked. How do we know what the unchecked trailers are carrying as they are dispersed throughout the country? Better safe than sorry!!!!!
March 13th, 2006 at 11:25 am“The War on Terror”. Does anyone really know what thew WAR ON TERROR is? Fact is, if we captured Osama and every last Al Queda we would still have the war in Iraq.
This is old news everyone knows, but the vid is put together nicely so i thought i would share it with you.
March 13th, 2006 at 2:19 pmTHE BIG LIE by Hermann Goebels. Parphrase; Tell a lie loud enough and long enough it will become accepted as the truth.
The UAE leasing terminal operations within the confines of US ports is not a big problem. Between US Customs, Coast Guard, and the ILA the lease holders are pretty hamstrung.
Do any of you realize the US does not participate to any extent in the world of international transport, whether it is vessels, port operation, ship building. Foreign entities do it all, every vessel you see entering US ports is operated by a foreign company. In many cases, foreign governments not real friendly to US interests own and operate the vessels. Example China through COSCO loads, ships, documents shipments to the US West Coast. THEN COSCO owns one of the largest terminal operations in the US where they discharge the cargo they loaded, shipped, and documented. We are talking a million containers per year. The UAE deal was just political hay being made, it was and is peanuts. 340 million containers enter the USA in foreign loaded containers on foreign owned and operated vessels.
And by the way please stop the BIG LIE, the UAE was not BUYING any US ports. The US ports are owned by State governement and some cases US City governments, that never changes.
March 13th, 2006 at 3:07 pmKezik, you’re probably correct in the regards to the “BIG LIE” that politicians spread to promote their agendas. The Bush administration has been beating the “War on Terror” drum for 5 years. The Reagan administration along with Bush sr were beating the “War on drugs” drum before that. Its probably true that the threat of terrorism is not as serious as Bush and his cronies would like Americans to believe. If anything, Bush and his cronies allowed 9/11 to happen. Just read the 9/11 commission reports or the Project for the New American Century which called for a “2nd Pearl Harbor” to get Americans to buy into their master plan. At this point its becoming more difficult for Americans to trust anyone, especially Bush or his pals in the UAE. This deal with Dubai was probably all set up in order to make the Republicans facing an election this year look tough on terror and tough on Bush. But even if thats true, Americans still will not willingly go along with or a support a Port deal with Dubai. There is just too much information out there that links Dubai directly with Bin Laden and the terrorists responsible for 9/11. As for the “Selling” of the ports, no one believes that Dubai was attempting to purchase US land. A good comparison is the buying of a professional athlete’s contract. Obviously anyone doing so isn’t technically buying a human being. But if that professional athlete wants to play ball, he’s gotta deal with the team that owns his contract. And the same would hold true if Dubai purchased the Port contract. We all know what it means technically, and we all know what it means in terms of who would be controlling the ports. If you want to talk about the “BIG LIE” that politicians promote, thats fine. But no one believes Dubai was attempting to purchase US lands. As for China, I’m not in favor of them controlling any US ports either. I’m glad this issue with Dubai came up and that it raised awareness about the swiss cheese holes in port security that existed long before Dubai came along. Its unfortunate that Dubai had to be the poster child on this one. But to be honest, I’m not really heart broken and I wont shed many tears or lose any sleep for the Royal Family of Dubai. The government of Dubai is awfully wealthy. With their “Deep Pockets” I’m sure they’ll bounce back just fine. Why anyone is so concerned about the Royal Family of the UAE, which btw doesn’t have the best reputation in the area of human rights and terrorism, not making a few extra bucks is beyond me.
March 13th, 2006 at 5:02 pmIf Its the \”War on Drugs\” or the \”War on Terror\” its all Bullshit.
March 14th, 2006 at 8:48 amResponse to Amar’s comments (#1146):
“The below disturbing, barbaric and senseless actions and intentions is what we want to stop spreading across the Arab world
http://news.yahoo.com/ s/ ap/ 20060311/ ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/ hostage_killed
If Americans (like ReturnofUncleSam continue to preach and potray such silly generic notions on all Arabs – it does not help us. It makes things only more difficult.”
Amar, you must recognize that it is not as if Americans want these disturbing, barbaric and senseless actions to persist and spread across the Arab world, so that they can portray all Arabs as such, nor can anyone blame the occurrence of the actions you describe on Americans. On the contrary, Americans want them to stop and the inhibitive cultural dispositions that inspire them to be transformed.
I sense that you are a man of reason and you sincerely desire for Arabs to be perceived differently, in better light so to speak. I desire the same thing and so do Americans, who have nothing to gain from desiring otherwise, I can assure you that, as long as the perception you desire rests on substance not symbolism. I am a firm believer that there are good and bad people in every society; be it America or UAE. Nevertheless, there are inhibitive cultural dispositions that tend to silence the voice of reason and becloud the deeds of good people. The stereotype syndrome is a “cultural disease†that afflicts every society—yours and mine included.
However, it is fatalistic to take a position that seems to imply ‘okay, since some Americans associate Arabs with these despicable acts, we might as well be just be that’ or ‘we are going to punish them or show them by being just being that’. That would be a tragic self-fulfilling prophecy. Take the demonstration in Europe, London specifically, over the caricature of Prophet Mohammed in a Danish newspaper. The comments expressed by Muslim protesters, and I am not suggesting that they were all Arabs, speaks so powerfully of Arabs and Muslims, in negative terms to the West.
There was an obvious invocation of what the protesters perceive indigenous Europeans fear most about Arabs and Muslims. While some protesters dressed up in suicide bomber regalia others carried placards that read “Behead the one who insults the prophet,†“Butcher those who mock Islam,†“Be Prepared for the Real Holocaustâ€. Remember, the average European does not perceive these as empty threats; he has a point of reference, because such threats have often come from some highly placed Muslim and Arab leaders, and have indeed been carried out by “the faithfulâ€. Take the murder of Theo van Gogh for an example. While no one is suggesting guilt by association, we cannot deny the power of such actions, especially when they occur not just in distant places where they are perhaps understood, but right in the midst of Europeans and in their own societies.
Americans who are not racists don’t succumb to the fringe notion that associates America with racism, Germans who are not inclined to the Nazi ideology don’t succumb to the notion that associates Germany with Nazism, and so should Arabs who are not terrorists, with regards to terrorism. The good people of America and Germany, in the example above, recognize the conducts to which they are wrongly associated, and they not only condemn those conducts, they work very hard to defeat the respective ideology that inspire those conducts and to win the trust of people who erroneously perceive Americans and Germans in the light of those ideologies. The Arab world cannot legitimately demand that the world expect any less from it. It is not an easy task, but it is one that must be done and God help us all if we fail.
Alexander the great said, “upon the conduct of each depends the faith of all†and James Baldwin said, “the only useful definition of the word ‘majority’ does not refer to numbers, and it does not refer to power. It refers to influence.†Right now, it appears that the terrorists have a great influence in Arab society and culture (regardless of their number), at least as far as the West is concerned, going by its experience. The reality is that it is the responsibility of good people like you to change that. Of course, the same goes for America and the Western society in general. Edmund Burke said, ‘The only thing necessary for the triumph [of evil] is for good men to do nothing.’ If I may add to that great admonition, good people must not only do something, they must do what is justly necessary to overturn the evil being committed in their name.
I recognize the efforts of people like you and I say to you, “more grease to your elbowsâ€. The undesirable perception you speak of did not come to be overnight and it will take more than that to overturn it. And I believe that the type of exchange or dialogue inspired by the ports issue will help in achieving that goal. You may not recognize it, but this is global democracy in action and we cannot afford to pull back. In end, I believe everyone will know more about the other and even more about oneself, by learning more about the other person’s position and perceptions and one’s own position and perceptions. In end we will all have more to work with, in building stronger relationships and making the world and the future better for all of us. The key is for all of us to be more objective and less subjective in our dialogues.
March 14th, 2006 at 10:26 amVoiceofReason. By saying nobody believes Dubai was buying our ports do you mean Howard Dean, Hilary Clinton, Chuck Schumer, Russ Feingold who all to this day are describing the Dubai Ports deal as owning, controlling, or running US ports and/or port security. They would not be telling these tall tales if no one was going to believe them.
There has been much made of all the transgressions of the rulers of Dubai and their wealth, but on a scale of bad players around the world they do not hold a candle to China. We do not hear anyone seemingly too worried about the terminal operations run by China at Long Beach. Could it be because there is no political gain, because that deal was done by the Clinton administration?
March 14th, 2006 at 1:27 pmKezik it seems you’re taking what people are saying out of context. I seriously doubt any of the people you mentioned meant the buying of physical state owned property but rather referred to the process of bidding on and purchasing a contract to operate and run the ports. I don’t know why people continue to take this point out of context. The point is, even if some entity isn’t purchasing the actual land, purchasing the rights to control the land is virtually the same thing and in some cases has much greater ramifications. If Dubai own the port agreement (CONTRACT) it would essentially own the ports because nothing would happen there without Dubai’s involvement. Why is this point so difficult for some people to comprehend? I thought the analogy of a professional athlete being owned by a team was a good comparison. Obviously the team doesn’t own the professional athlete as in he’s not their personal property but if he wants to play ball he is legally and contractually bound to the team that owns his contract. Its EXACTLY the same if DUBAI owns the port contract. In other words, if anyone wants to use the ports, and Dubai owns the port contract, they have to deal with Dubai. This is such a simple point and so easy to comprehend, I’m really surprised anyone is even discussing it. It seems like a total distraction to the important issues to me. We all know what people mean when they say “Own the Ports” they are referring to a legal contract. If you still aren’t clear on this Kezik, let me know and I’ll post some examples of contractual agreements and their binding legal ramifications.
As for the “transgressions” of the rulers of Dubai compared to China and anywhere else is concerned, to say that the Chinese government is worse than the government of Dubai so we should give a contract to to the “lesser of evils” would be morally and ethically negligent. Thats like saying you should allow a sex offender to babysit your children again since you already allowed another one to do it. China shouldn’t own a US port contract and neither should the government of Dubai. Clinton made alot of mistakes, including the allowing of China to control a US port and the support of NAFTA of which most of the politicians were in favor of. I dont see anyone making excuses for Clinton around here or apologizing for his greedy decisions. If anyone does, they are in the wrong. Just like anyone apologizing for Bush and his crooked deals is wrong, just like anyone saying that we should open our ports up to the lesser of evils is wrong. Wrong is wrong and two wrongs don’t make a right.
March 14th, 2006 at 3:04 pmVoiceofReason. Let me explain to you in simple terms point by point
Dubai was not leasing a port. Ports have several areas within them called terminals which are operated by leasholders and worked by the ILA and secured by US Customs and the Coast Guard. A leaseholder makes an arrangement with an ocean carrier to load and discharge cargo at his leased terminal within the port. The leaseholder informs the ILA what vessels are needing to be worked, pays for the ILA labor and bills the ocean ocean carrier. The leaseholder performs an accounting function all the containers, the documents are handled by the ILA labor and ILA clerks. Basically the leasholder has no control over anything. In New Orleans for example an ocean carrier can have the vessel worked at P&O Ports terminal or Ceres Gulf Terminal. In Charleston there are seven separate terminal operations in place all part of the port of Charleston. What I am pointing out is NO ONE IS LEASING, BUYING, RUNNING OR IN ANY OTHER WAY SELLING A US PORT TO ANYONE. I was not taking anyone out of context, everyone of those individuals have been arguing against this deal based on not allowing foreign governments to control our ports and port security. I seriously doubt the public would be so against this deal if they knew the truth.
March 14th, 2006 at 3:32 pmI don’t mind this deal going away I just want people to admit they are against it purely for political reasons.
I would much prefer the American maritime infrastructure to be rebuilt operating terminals, and vessels with American merchant marine sailing the seas again.
Kezik you said “NO ONE IS LEASING, BUYING, RUNNING OR IN ANY OTHER WAY SELLING A US PORT TO ANYONE.” So what exactly would Dubai Ports be doing in our ports, just visiting? There is a contractual agreement involved in this process. Since you apparently know so much about the infrastructure of port operations, why dont you enlighten us on exactly what it is the potential contract with Dubai would entail. Obviously the contract would give Dubai control over “something.” Obviously its that “something” that concerns Americans. So what exactly is that “Something” Dubai would have control over according to the Port contract we’ve been discussing? I would actually like to see the Port contractual agreement. If you have a copy of that, why not post that too. And you were the one that mentioned “China had control” of ports. So are you saying China has control but Dubai wouldn’t? This all seems very vague and confusing. Most people know that a business contract involves certain exclusive rights bestowed to the parties involved in the contractual agreement and that means CONTROL. And I would prefer that the US CONTROL its own ports in every way possible.
March 14th, 2006 at 3:50 pmLeaseholders provide capital, equipment, and systems to coordinate ILA teams and ocean carrier vessel operations. They provide cranes, forklifts, warehouses, and management. The ILA provides labor and clerks. All of this is closely watched by US Customs and the Coast Guard who handle all the security functions. This is basically the same story for every leaseholder within the confines of a port.
China does have much more involvement because they also own and operate their own vessels.
What I want someone to truthfully explain is what the blow up is all about. This deal has been common knowlege since October 2005. Then out of the blue..boom…this becomes a huge deal.
Are we to believe that something has been done to make us safer? Not even close. Dubai or no Dubai we still don’t know what is being loaded into these containers at foreign ports. Interestingly, you will love this, one of the foreign ports that allows US Customs to inspect containers being loaded at their port facilities is Dubai. YES, US Customs agents are inspecting containers destined to the US from Jebel Ali UAE. This is the type of program that needs to be fully supported with the same determination and engergy as was put into knocking off the Dubai Ports deal. But sadly I am afraid there just is not the same political advantage offered by supporting a good idea from the present administration.
March 14th, 2006 at 4:51 pmWhat a joke! If this was a Democrat administration there would not have been the first tear shed. Have any of you chicken littles ever heard of NSCSA ( National Shipping Company of Saudi Arabia) ? This company has been running 9 American ports Baltimore, Newport News, 2 in Houston, New Orleans, Savannah, Wilmington, Port Newark, and BROOKLYN NY for years and I have yet to hear of any terrorist act yet! Gee, and all those terrorists of Sept 11 and Bin Laden were Saudis too. We use the ports in the UAE more than any other nation without fear, we couldn’t conduct the military actions in the Mideast without their help, and we shouldn’t now act like idiots! By the way, the UAE donated 100 million dollars in Katrina aid. What did you hypocrites do? Do you really think the UAE would pay billions of dollars to access our security? Why wouldn’t they just put a weapon on a ship in one of the ports in one of the half-dozen nations they operate in now! Easier yet, I know of a man who just Sailed his vessel from Europe. He pulled into port and not one person has asked his name, nationality, or intentions. Just think what could have happened if he was a enemy. And it wouldn’t cost billions! Catch a clue! By the way, good old Bill doesn’t mind that $600,000 he got from UAE and Hillary didn’t even know about it. Must be like those sneaky billing records.HA!
March 14th, 2006 at 4:54 pmWell I for one know why I’m a “Chickenlittle” when it comes to Dubai or the middle eastin general. Ever since September 11, 2001, whenever I turn on the TV or read the paper, I am told by Bush and his cronies that the US is caught in the middle of a “War on Terror.” I’ve been “Terrorized” by this propaganda for 5 years straight. I was so intimidated by Bush’s threats of terrorism that I even supported a War against Iraq because Iraq supposedly had something to do with 9/11 according to Bush. Then I find out that Bush was wrong about WMD’s in Iraq, I find out that Bush had personal ties with the Saudi’s and Osama Bin Laden himself! Hell, it wasn’t long ago, 20 years back that Bush’s family supported Saddam Hussein! Then Bush says he suports a port deal with Dubai and I’m supposed to just bend over again and support it? The American people have been bent over and rammed with Bush’s Terrorist propagana for 5 years and the impact of all his business deals with his former buddies that all end up turning sour. Why in the hell should we trust anything that Bush and his cronies endorse? If I wasn’t such a chickenlittle thats been terrorized for 5 years, I’d be opposed to anything that Bush endorses on principal alone. Why just yesterday, Senator Feingol called for the Censure of President Bush for illegally wiretapping and spying on Americans! http://political.moveon.org/censure/ Hell yes I’m a chickenlittle and I have every right to be and anyone in their right mind would be too!
“There’s an old saying in Tennessee—I know it’s in Texas, probably in Tennessee—that says, fool me once, shame on—shame on you. Fool me—you can’t get fooled again.”— George W. Bush, Nashville, Tenn., Sept. 17, 2002
March 14th, 2006 at 5:31 pmChickenlittle, haven’t you heard? The Nazi’s used the word “Jew” to rally the German People. For 50 years after that the fear of “Communists” dictated American policy. The new code phrase used by the NeoConservatives is “Terrorist.” As long as the Republican NeoNazi’s have someone for all of us to be afraid of and hate, they can continue to manipulate and control us. Those opposed to what Bush and his cronies are doing illegally, like Senator Russ Feingold are themselves labeled as “Terrorists.”
March 14th, 2006 at 6:05 pmFOOL ME FOOL ME!!!!!
March 14th, 2006 at 6:26 pmBest Bush Quote ever?
March 14th, 2006 at 6:32 pmNice video about the war in Iraq, please take the time to watch it.
March 14th, 2006 at 6:35 pmWow Chickenlittle I guess I hit a nerve with the truth. Reading your post was like scratching fingernails on a chalkboard. You have been hearing of a “War on Terror” for 5 years because we are up against some people who want to destroy our way of life, even your right to voice your opinion as you are now doing. Unfortunately, we have been in this war much longer than that except Clinton and his “cronies” didn’t seem too concerned about embassies crumbling, the USS Cole attack or the first Trade Center attack. By the way Clinton and Gore have been making a good living going to the Mideast and being paid by the Bin Laden Group to give speeches denouncing the United States. As for the WMDs, here we go again. Maybe you should tell the Iranians and the Iraqi villagers and Kurds, that they weren’t victims of WMDs, it must have been bird flu. Why did Iraq have mass quantities of atropine and autoinjectors? Thanks to the delaying tactics of “easy money Kofi Annan” and the UN the WMDs were moved. Easily done as stated by high Iraqi officials. But don’t believe me listen to your cronies:
Bill Clinton: “If Saddam rejects peace, and we have to use force, our purpose is clear: We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program.”
Madeleine Albright, Clinton Secretary of State: “We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and the security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction.”
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Advisor and Classified Document Thief: “[Saddam will] use those weapons of mass destruction again as he has ten times since 1983.”
Harry Reid: “The problem is not nuclear testing; it is nuclear weapons. … The number of Third World countries with nuclear capabilities seems to grow daily. Saddam Hussein’s near success with developing a nuclear weapon should be an eye-opener for us all.”
Dick Durbin: “One of the most compelling threats we in this country face today is the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Threat assessments regularly warn us of the possibility that…Iraq…may acquire or develop nuclear weapons.”
John Kerry: “If you don’t believe…Saddam Hussein is a threat with nuclear weapons, then you shouldn’t vote for me.”
John Edwards: “Serving on the Intelligence Committee and seeing day after day, week after week, briefings on Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction and his plans on using those weapons, he cannot be allowed to have nuclear weapons, it’s just that simple. The whole world changes if Saddam ever has nuclear weapons.”
Nancy Pelosi: “Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology, which is a threat to countries in the region, and he has made a mockery of the weapons-inspection process.”
Sens. Levin, Lieberman, Lautenberg, Dodd, Kerrey, Feinstein, Mikulski, Daschle, Breaux, Johnson, Inouye, Landrieu, Ford and Kerry in a letter to Bill Clinton: “We urge you, after consulting with Congress and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions, including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.”In the weeks prior to the invasion of Iraq, Democrats, who had access to the same intelligence used by the Bush administration (much of which was compiled under the Clinton administration), were clear about the threat of Iraq’s WMD capability.
Ted Kennedy: “We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.”
John Kerry: “I will be voting to give the president of the U.S. the authority to use force if necessary to disarm Saddam because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security. … Without question we need to disarm Saddam Hussein.”
Hillary Clinton: “In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock. His missile-delivery capability, his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists including al-Qa’ida members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.”
Carl Levin: “We begin with a common belief that Saddam Hussein…is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them.”
Al Gore: “We know that he has stored nuclear supplies, secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.”
Bob Graham: “We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has and has had for a number of years a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction.”
For the record: Here’s a partial list of what didn’t make it out of Iraq before the OIF invasion: 1.77 metric tons of enriched uranium, 1,700 gallons of chemical-weapon agents, chemical warheads containing the nerve agent cyclosarin, radioactive materials in powdered form designed for dispersal over population centers, artillery projectiles loaded with binary chemical agents, etc. Assuming Irag had no WMD because only small caches were recovered after Operation Iraqi Freedom began is perilously flawed logic. That, in no way, affirms what he spirited out through Iran and Syria before OIF.
As for exposinglies, I don’t believe “Jews” brought down buildings killing 3000 of Hitlers peace loving Nazis. And explain to me why Demo Gods JFK and LBJ sacrificed all our boys fighting Commies in Vitenam if communism was just a label.
March 14th, 2006 at 7:53 pmAs for the wiretapping, I fail to see the Demos wanting to stop it. And Fiengold didn’t have the nerve to stay and debate his censure motion, Frist tried to bring it to a vote but the great leader Reid wouldn’t have anything to do with it. Pure political crap! Hell yes you are a Chickenlittle and HELL yes I am proud of my country and HELL yes I am tired of my country being dumped on by so called Americans!
ChickenLittile, dont get riled up. Reuben is a piece of shit cowardly boot licking apologetic for Bush and the most criminal administration in the history of the United States. If there were ever any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, Bush and his family sold them to Saddam. And how dare Reuben speak of WMD’s when the Bush administration engages in torture and the use of white phosphorus and depleted uranium on innocent civilians. Bush and his cronies no doubt orchestrated 9/11 as a second pearl harbor as outlined in the Project for the New American Century as an excuse to invade Iraq. The only people in the US that support this criminal regime are sociopaths like Reuben that masturbate while watching bombs kill people. And the only reason Feingold is not being supported is because he’s facing a gang of thugs and thieves in the white house that have everyone in this country scared for their lives. Feingold is the only one with enough balls to stand up to these scum bag criminals working with Bush that somehow continue to be indicted one by one. Don’t worry chickenlittle, there will come a day when these lying criminals in the whitehouse responsible for the deaths of several thousands of Americans will be brought to justice and the likes of Reuben will have to go back to beating his wife, kids, and the family dog to get their war mongering jollies.
March 14th, 2006 at 10:22 pmChickenlittle, if I offended you personally, I apologize. I thought we were engaging in spirited debate. I do not have a problem with those who disagree with me. I do not claim to be right about all things but I am allowed an opinion also.
March 15th, 2006 at 2:09 pmImpeachBushNow, I bet you were the star of the debate team. Your mom must be so proud! Your vulgar, tasteless, immoral rant is usually a sign of a lack of knowledge. Your obscene behavior doesn’t convince people that you are right. I don’t like war but as our fine servicemen and servicewomen will tell you, unfortunately, it is all too often necessary. But maybe you prefer to look the other way when men like Saddam butcher his people. As for your other fantasies about conspiracies, I must say that my coworkers and I haven’t had such a good laugh in many years. My wife , kids, and the family dog are hoping you do not have a wife, kids, or a family dog! Please up your medication. Soon! By the way, have you talked to Elvis lately?
Reuben, or whatever your real name is, only a sociopath like you would make light of the death and destruction the Bush administration is responsible for. It is a fact that Prescott Bush assisted the Nazis. It is a fact that George Bush Sr. sold weapons to Iraq in the 80’s. It is a fact that George Bush jr. had business dealings with half the terrorists in the middle east. For you to attempt to sweep this information under the rug makes you pure scum in my book. People like you are as vile as the Brown Shirts that ran around attempting to silence the people speaking out against Hitler in the 1930’s. You don’t believe in Democracy and if you had it your way, anyone that opposed the corrupt Bush regime and its cronies would be executed. You laugh and joke and mock me when I take the deaths of Americans and innocent people abroad very seriously. You are sick demented person Reuben and quite indicative of the Bush constituency. The servicemen and women have been misused by Bush and sent to a war based on lies. A war that could have been prevented had Bush acted on the 50 reports outlining specifically how the terrorists planned on attacking the US. Read the 9/11 commissioned reports. Read the Project for the New American Century which is the NeoConservative playbook, calling for a second Pearl Harbor. Go do your homework. But I’m sure that you won’t. Because deep down inside your sick demented little skull you know that the people you support are murderous lying thieves that have a total disregard for human life. You find that funny too I bet. There is nothing funny about the people you support or their regime. Bush and his cronies are busy dismantling the constitution as we speak and you sir, sit back and laugh. And speaking of medication, its your Republican Poster child, Rush Limbaugh, that has a medication issue, possessing illegal drugs. Its your Republican Poster Child Tom Delay that will be prosecuted for money laundering. Its your Republican Poster child Ken Lay that used Enron to rip off people and line the pockets of Republicans. Every single organization that Bush and his cronies are affiliated is utterly corrupt. There is nothing, absolutely nothing redeeming about Republican. Bush Republicans make Nazi’s look like saints. Its no wonder they spend so much time finger pointing at everyone else, its the only way to keep the spotlight off themselves. And racists and house negroes like you are so desperate to get a piece of the pie, you would sell your mother to get some of that Republican Pie. You use the word “liberal” like its a dirty word. Jesus Christ was a liberal. Jesus Christ was against war. You Republicans are exactly what the bible warned us about: People pretending to be holy. And come judgement day Reuben, you’ll see the faces of all the people you allowed Bush to destroy. I hope you bring alot of ice with you Reuben. We’ll see how much you’ll be laughing then.
March 15th, 2006 at 4:43 pmMy name is Reuben. I guess yours is really ImpeachBushNow. I notice you use the word sociopath alot. Go figure. I can’t imagine you have ever seen a bible. It is not about pretending to be holy just try to be a Christian. Sorry you have so much hate. I still don’t hate you, which Jesus also preached.Don’t bother replying, I am tired of this nonsense. So long. God bless you.
March 15th, 2006 at 5:41 pmYour stage name may be Reuben, but your real name is hypocrit. Sociopath (Antisocial Personality Disorder is also known as psychopathy or sociopathy. Individuals with this disorder have little regard for the
March 15th, 2006 at 8:04 pmfeeling and welfare of others) is the clinical term use to describe what Bush and his followers with their destructive agenda and total disregard for human life represent. Only a Republican sociopathic lap dog would slip a knife in your back, murder innocent people, while in the same breath utter the phrase “God bless you.” You insult God when you utter that phrase. You insult Americans and those that fought and died to ensure your freedom when you support a corrupt regime bent on dismantling the consititution of the United States of America. You insult Jesus Christ, the original “bleeding heart liberal” who bled on the cross for mankind. I’m sure you would prefer that I not continue to respond and quietly run along. Instead, I prefer to question your integrity and the integrity of those you support. You call me a traitor? I call you a traitor sir. I believe you and Bush and all those that support Bush are all traitors to the United States of America and everything our founding fathers established. And one by one, Bush and all of his treasonous traitorous cronies will be held accountable and prosecuted like common criminals. Conspiracy theory? Bush and his cronies certainly appear to be conspiring to steal whatever they can and kill anyone they need to. Is the prosecuting attorney that convicts Tom Delay, Ken Lay, or Rush Limbaugh a “Conspiracy theorist?” So feel free to call me a “bleeding heart liberal” like Jesus, or a “conspiracy theorist” like the prosecuting attorney, or whatever degrading remark you can think of to disqualify me or prevent me from seeing the truth. I don’t buy into your Republican criminal tactics. Its the same old tired con game the Republicans always play. You Republican Bush apologetics sold your souls to the devil and the devil will eventually come to collect his debt. You’re welcome to try to “God Bless” your way out of that one but I doubt God will be so easily fooled by your disingenuous remarks. Hate? I despise the actions of Bush and his cronies but I no more hate you or Bush than I hate a rabid dog in the street. But I know whats right in my heart and I know whats wrong. I know with every fiber of my being that what Bush, his cronies, and those that support them are wrong. And in the end, no amount of insults or mocking me or calling me traitor or using the phrase “God Bless you” will prevent God from knowing the truth.
I’m really confused about the uproar over the DP World Deal. A couple of questions;
1) I find it extremely hard to believe that both republicans and democrats in Congress and the Senate were not aware of the deal before the uproar started…meaning that they started playing this for political reasons, given upcoming mid-term elections. If that’s the case, then do you really think people like that are genuinely concerned about issues of national security?
2) DP World already owns CSX a US Rail Company, there was no uproar about that purchase and them owning CSX hasn’t compromised security.
3) The US and UAE are currently negotiating stronger trade links. Isn’t it hypocritical to block a legitimate sale, for political reasons, when we are desperately trying to have them purchase more of our products & services? Dubai should just buy Airbus aircraft now, and not go ahead with the multi-billion proposal from Boeing. A deal that’s worth more than the port sale by the way…then we lose more jobs and hurt the economy, then we turn around and blame the President for our woes…just perfect!
4) The President as everyone knows has had the strongest record on Homeland Security. While we can speculate he could have done more to help stop 9/11, the 9/11 issue was being planned long before he took office…its myopical, because Clinton, Bush Snr, and Reagan, bear more of the responsibility for ‘allowing’ 9/11 to happen, than Bush…he inherited a situation, and has since done a comendable job in attacking the problem.
5) The Ports deal doesn’t mean that the US will be any less safe…day to day security would still be scrutinzed by all the relevant US-Govt. agencies, regarless of which company runs the ports.
6) Why shouldn’t we then ban all middle eastern airlines from flying into the US…they pose a national secuirty risk…funny, it was American owned airlines that were hijacked. I mean, look at it, wouldn’t it have been much easier for the hijackers to use Arab-owned airliners? And they certainly knew they couldn’t hijack an israeli airliner…we need to look at our own security measures and stop pointing fingers at everyone else.
7) Republican senators and congressmen who think they are helping their re-election campaign by publicly fighting against the white-house, should realise they are only hurting their case…a house divided cannot stand, and the majority of american voters will remember this washing of linen in public and it doesn’t inspire confidence at all. I mean, I’m not saying people should just go blindly with what the White House says, but come on, they are hurting their party and hurting themselves and creating more public paranoia at the same time. That’s not a good message to send.
8) If the deal is modified as it looks it will, and the port operations will be spun off to a US company and something happens, god forbid, y’all realise Bush would be vindicated, and all republicans who opposed the White House immediately become the losers…we need to look at really addressing the security issues, and stop focusing on where the company comes from. The other bidder for P&O was a Singapore-based company, if they won the bid, it would have been interesting to see if there would be much opposition too. Bottom line that’s not what matters…the ports need a security overhaul regardless of who owns/runs them.
9) We consider the UK and Europe our allies…and they share our same national security interests and issues…dont for one minute think that the UK thinks that they are in any different a position from the US as far as terrorists and militants wanting to do them harm, but they realised that the DP World deal wasn’t the issue. PO a british company was sold to DP World and by the way the DP World US side of the deal is so much smaller than it is in countries we consider our allies.
March 15th, 2006 at 11:13 pmBy the way, money to finance terrorists also flowed through US banks unchecked….does that mean we’re all terrorists as well? Come on, we cannot live like this, it just serves to reinforce the notion that our enemies have of us, that we are closed-minded and deserve to be harmed…China runs ports here as well, anyone taking up that issue? Politically no senator or congressman would touch that, because its bread-and-butter income and jobs that would be lost…the same is true for DP World, but they are riding the other issue, to try to show that they are serious abotu national security….its worked for the President and these under-performing politicians are now trying to imitate his strong stance, because they are so afraid of losing in the upcoming elections.
March 15th, 2006 at 11:19 pmI find it absolutely appalling how these people calling themselves “Right Wing Christian Conservatives” run around using punchlines like “God Bless You” to serve their perverted agendas. Jesus would never support war under any circumstances, much less the killing of innocent civilians for profit. It saddens me to see the sanctity of the church violated this way. The same thing happened in the 1930’s. Hitler manipulated the church and their followers to serve his agenda to exterminate 6 million Jews. Time and time again evil people claiming to be Christian violate everything Jesus taught us. Hopefully Reuben will some day see the light and turn to Jesus. God will forgive him for pretending to be a Christian once he truly accepts Jesus into his heart and is filled with unconditional love for those he means to destroy.
March 15th, 2006 at 11:33 pmWhoa. I started reading your post and was mildly interested until you got to this statement.
“The President as everyone knows has had the strongest record on Homeland Security. While we can speculate he could have done more to help stop 9/11, the 9/11 issue was being planned long before he took office…its myopical, because Clinton, Bush Snr, and Reagan, bear more of the responsibility for ‘allowing’ 9/11 to happen, than Bush…he inherited a situation, and has since done a comendable job in attacking the problem.”
Not everyone knows that President Bush has the strongest record on Homeland Security. MANY people would disagree with that claim. Talking big and throwing money at your favorite lobbyists doesn’t mean anything. What proof do you have other than a 3 trillion dollar defecit accrued under Bush indicates he’s done anything to improve Homeland Security? There is a preponderance of information that suggests Homeland Security is worse under the Bush Administration. 3000 Americans dying on September 11, 2001, under Bush, should be your first clue.
Speculate Bush could have done more to prevent 9/11? Excuse me? Who’s speculating? Have you heard of a document called the 9 11 Commission? Take a look: http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/05aug20041050/www.gpoaccess.gov/911/pdf/fullreport.pdf
Myopical? The terrorist attacks of 9/11 didn’t happen under ANYONE elses watch. Despite your attempts to blame former administrations, there was only 1 president in office on Sept 11, 2001. Why didn’t the terrorist attacks upon the World Trade Center successfully occur under former administrations? And I dont see any proof of Bush doing anything commendable in the way of “attacking the problem.”
“I don’t know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don’t care. It’s not that important. It’s not our priority.”
- G.W. Bush, 3/13/02
“I am truly not that concerned about him.”
March 16th, 2006 at 2:17 am- G.W. Bush, repsonding to a question about bin Laden’s whereabouts,
3/13/02 (The New American, 4/8/02)
The terrorist attack did not happen under anyone but Bush? That was the second attack on the WTC by terrorists, along with various US embassies. The previous adminstration did absolutely nothing about the terrorists’ designs on the US and that lack of action directly caused the WTC attack.
What do you think we should be doing? Just once I would like to see someone on the left put out a proposal defining just exactly what they would do. All we ever hear what a horrible job Bush is doing, lies, half truths, comments out of context. But not one single idea, plan, proposal, or anything. What do you stand for besides hating Bush? What has your side ever accomplished?
March 16th, 2006 at 9:35 amThats a goddamned lie Kezik. No one says shit about Bush because they’re too afraid of being labeled a traitor. Bush and his cronies are the real traitors. And we all have good reason to say a hell of alot about Bush and should be saying a hell of alot more. I don’t remember 3000 Americans dying in the first attack on the WTC so by comparison to 9/11, thats a failed attack in my book. Bush ignored all of the intelligence provided to him about the terrorists. Read the 9/11 Commission Report. He’s negligent, incompetent and the worst president in the history of the United States. Why don’t you get off your knees Kezik and stop swallowing Bush propaganda. He’s a dirt bag criminal in bed with all the dictators of the world. You sound like one of their whores. Apparently there are some vacancies since all of his other whores like Delay, Lay, and Duke continue to be indicted and prosecuted like common criminals. Maybe if you’re a good little Bush whore he’ll give you a job badmouthing Americans that give a shit about this country. or a job as one of Bush’s professional, lying apologetics. You’re doing a great job so far. The words of a liar like you mean nothing. But keep spreading your goddamned lies and the rest of America will continue to rise up and call bullshit on your crap.
March 16th, 2006 at 11:59 am“You don’t get everything you want. A dictatorship would be a lot easier.” Describing what it’s like to be governor of Texas.” George Bush
“If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I’m the dictator,” George Bush — CNN.com, December 18, 2000
“A dictatorship would be a heck of a lot easier, there’s no question about it, ” George Bush — Business Week, July 30, 2001
March 16th, 2006 at 12:24 pmHow pathetic and unremarkable you must be. Ask a liberal demgogue to come up with an idea or plan and you get an instant vile hate-filled personal attack. These guys just can’t stand up to any scrutiny at all. It is like dealing with three year old who is not getting his way. Keep boo-hooing and whining, the rest of us will take care of defending this country and its way of life. You sit on the side lines and whine.
March 16th, 2006 at 5:01 pmAwwwwww, Kezik you poor pathetic baby. THOUSANDS upon THOUSANDS of people are MURDERED by your boy Bush and his cronies and all you can do is whine when someone brings the truth to light. The only hate filled people on this planet are Republicans like you that enjoy the senseless death and destruction of mankind for profit. Bush and his cronies make big money on war between ENORMOUS weapons contracts and the STEALING of all the natural resources in any country they invade. It is you sir and your bloodthirsty unethical ilk that cannot stand up to scruitiny. Thats why Bush and his cronies will all be indicted one by one and locked up in jail like common criminals. It is your brotherhood that is evil and vile and full of hate. It is you sir that sits on the side line like a whore cheerleading for the destruction of all mankind.
March 17th, 2006 at 12:31 am
March 17th, 2006 at 12:38 amI wonder if anyone has entertained the possibility of a rather heafty monetary incentive (hundreds of millions) to someone or some in the Bush Administration, for the Dubai deal? Could such an investigation ever be undertaken?
March 17th, 2006 at 12:46 amWho Profits from Dubai Deals? Bush – Carlyle Group
by AL MARTIN
There are two Dubai deals under scrutiny. The first was the Dubai Ports World buyout of P&O, a UK based company that manages ports around the world.
The second is the buyout of the British defense contractor called Doncasters by the Dubai Investment Capital Group, which is a private company not a Dubai state controlled company.
The Dubai Investment Capital Group has investors, which include the ruling family of Kuwait and Dubai, the Bush-family-controlled Pilgrim Investment Trust, the Dick and Lynne Cheney Trust as well as the usual Bushonian Cabal like Henry Kissinger, Paul Bremer, James Baker, George Schultz et al.
By the way, the group was put together by the lead securities consultant, which is, of course, the Carlyle Group. It is essentially a large investment capital group that has been formed which is very similar to a limited partnership. And this is what it all means…
This group has purchased a large British defense contractor, Doncasters, which was formerly called Doncaster Aviation, now Doncaster Group.
http://www.conspiracyplanet.com/channel.cfm?channelid=49&contentid=3304
Dubai Deals: Bush-Fraud Refinancing
by CONSPIRACY PLANET
In an exclusive behind the scenes analysis of the Dubai deals, political-economic analyst Al Martin writes that these deals may be as simple as Bush-Fraud refinancing. In other words, structuring business deals so that old frauds can be taken care of and/or bought out by new frauds.
“The Dubai Ports World deal is just another example of the Regime attempting to consolidate as much wealth as possible within the hands of the members of the Cabal,” writes Martin in his column “Who Profits from the Dubai Deals? It’s a Bush-Fraud Refi.”
“Once again, look at who profits in the transaction,” Martin continues. “The Dubai state company that is purchasing P&O is paying a significant premium for its shares. In fact analysts claim they’re getting soaked…The transaction makes no sense since the company has been in financial trouble for years. It’s actually a buyout of various frauds and so on.”
“There are two Dubai deals under scrutiny,” writes Martin. “The first was the Dubai Ports World buyout of P&O, a UK based company that manages ports around the world.
http://www.conspiracyplanet.com/channel.cfm?channelid=49&contentid=3296
March 17th, 2006 at 2:08 amPort-Scan: Hacking the Bush-Dubai Connection (Politics)
By daqron
Fri Mar 3rd, 2006 at 07:44:17 AM EST
A pending $5.8 billion port operation deal with Dubai Ports World has sparked acrimonious response from both sides of the aisle. Politicians are seizing on an opportunity to be tougher than the president on national security without much trepidation about ostricizing Arabs. Rhetoric abounds about the dangers to our borders, the security of our ports, the collapse of America as we outsource our labor to the UAE (and who the hell are they anyway?).
But it isn’t the Arabs you should fear. There is only one thing that politicians like more than scaring you and that’s money. The deep and sinister links between the Bush family, Carlyle Group and Dubai Ports World aren’t making the ten o’clock news, but don’t be fooled – this is just the latest way for Bush & Company to profit off of the “War on Terror”. Congress’ maligning of Arabs might suffice to derail the deal, but we still deserve to know what’s really going on.
A Partner in Peace
Bush has called the United Arab Emirates a partner in the so-called “War on Terror”. But Democrats point out that Dubai’s history with terrorism is far from spotless: two of the 9/11 hijackers were from the UAE; Osama bin Laden has a history of friendship with members of the UAE royal family; and that country recognized and supported the Taliban regime. The latter two do not warrant out-of-hand dismissal as either anti-Arab rhetoric or flawed logic, yet some argue that UAE has changed since 9/11 and so is somehow beyond questioning. It appears that the administration is on board with that assertion. In light of the United States’ history in Afghanistan, Iraq and Iran, it is perhaps unfair to characterize Dubai in the light of its historical indiscretions, particularly when one accounts for the delicate geopolitical balance that country has to maintain as an ostensibly pro-Western Islamic non-democracy. So the past notwithstanding, why shouldn’t we trust this country enough to let them run port operations? To find the answer to that question, you have to look closer to home.
Follow the Money
Controversy surrounding the DP World deal has been framed as us versus them but the money trail tells a different story and leads to the one person not concerned about national security: George W. Bush. Despite claiming to have no prior knowledge of the deal, it stands to reason that as major shareholders in the Carlyle Group, the Bush family must have been aware of the impact this deal would have on one of its major investments – a company called CSX Transportation. DP World owns the $1.5 billion freight terminal division of CSX Transportation, operator of the largest rail system in the Eastern USA, and there are at least two important connections between CSX and the Bush family:
The former chairman and CEO of CSX Transportation is John W. Snow. Snow was appointed in 2003 to be Secretary of the United States Treasury by George W. Bush. In his role, Snow is also the chair of CFIUS, the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, the body that oversees large transactions in the USA involving foreign companies to ensure they are not national security threats. This would appear to be a major conflict of interest since Snow no doubt stands to reap significant stock gains as a result of the deal. Yet Snow did not recuse himself from the review process and his committee approved the DP World deal on January 17, after conducting an abbreviated 30-day review instead of the 45-day investigation required by law. Little difference, it seems, the additional 15 days would likely have made.
The global investment firm Carlyle Group owns a majority interest in CSX Lines domestic container shipping. Carlyle Group made a name for itself by working behind the scenes, influencing global events to serve the needs of their elite investors. Their reach extends into aerospace, telecommunications, defense contracting, Iraq rebuilding and foreign policy. Executives and shareholders in Carlyle, a $13.5 billion company with offices just spitting distance from the White House, include former president George H. W. Bush, former British Prime Minister John Major, Colin Powell and former State and Treasury Secretary James Baker. Carlyle also boasts ties to another important family: the bin Ladens. According to a Wall Street Journal article from 2001:
“A Carlyle executive said the bin Laden family committed $2 million through a London investment arm in Carlyle Partners II Fund, which raised $ 1.3 billion overall. … So far, the family received $1.3 million back in completed investments and should ultimately realize a 40% annualized rate of return, the Carlyle executive said. … But a foreign financier with ties to the bin Laden family says the family’s overall investment with Carlyle is considerably larger. He called the $2 million merely an initial contribution. “It’s like plowing a field,” this person said. “You seed it once. You plow it, and then you reseed it again.”"
Reseed it indeed. With the power to make or break a global corporation, The Carlyle Group is in the unique position of being able to guarantee return on investment for its elite shareholders. In another context that might be called insider trading; Bush calls it a good deal.
http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2006/2/28/193656/344
March 17th, 2006 at 4:00 amDear ImpeachBushNow
Again with the personal attacks and sexual inuendo. I think I will move on to another blog, where perhaps I can find a mature individual from the liberal persuation who can provide some thoughtful insight and factual data to support their postiion.
Good luck in the sixth grade next year.
March 17th, 2006 at 9:30 amKezik, yes, move onto another blog where you can spew your REICHWING rhetoric unchallenged. Everyone on this blog is onto you and your filthy murderous agenda. Your beloved Bush and his gang are a bunch of thieving murderous criminals who resort to far worse than you accuse me of. Whats wrong Kezik, you can’t handle the same tactics you and your scum bag low life NAZI BUSH Gang use? Do you cowards think you an kick Americans around and we’ll take it? You’re sadly mistaken. Your gang of Bush thugs ran around murdering people in foreign countries so long that they thought they could come back to the USA and pull the same crap. Think again dirt bag. Americans will never tolerate your brand of mind control, thought control, censorship, violation of our 1st amendment rights, lying propaganda. After 9/11 Bush and his cronies had an opportunity to unite the people in America and they wasted it in search for profit. Its disgusting, vile, and shames everyone in this nation that believed the pack of lies Bush and his cronies spew. Run along Kezik, like a good little House Negro following your master of evil and destruction. Follow him right down into the fires of hell. Run like the cowardly dog you are Kezik.
March 17th, 2006 at 1:48 pmBush sits in for Stalin
The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything.– Josef Stalin.
March 17th, 2006 at 2:19 pm
March 17th, 2006 at 2:25 pm[...] –The UAE royal family has ties to Osama bin Laden and 9/11. According a 9/11 commission report, a 1999 attempt to assassinate Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan was foiled by presence of a large number of UAE royal family members. The UAE was only one of three countries that recognized the Taliban as the offical government of Afghanistan. Funds for the hijackers were transferred through the UAE banking system and the US Treasury Department reported that the UAE was not cooperating “in efforts to track down Osama Bin Laden’s bank accounts.” [...]
March 30th, 2006 at 3:21 pmytgj
fj
rftj
fjyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy
April 23rd, 2006 at 2:10 amBush is a stupid idiot. how in the hell did he get elected twwice? china is going to take over the world. without them, we would be screwed. damn. what was he thinking when he signed the deal with Dubai Ports World?wow. wat an idiot.
u guys are lame
May 18th, 2006 at 3:14 pmha
I know this might be out of the subject but I really wish that the US government takes lessons from the UAE’s foreign policy.
The foreign policy of the United Arab Emirates is based upon a set of guiding principles, laid down by the country’s first President, the late Sheikh Zayed bin Sultan Al Nahyan. He derived these from his deep belief in the need for justice in international dealings between states, including the necessity of adhering to the principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of others and the pursuit, wherever possible, of peaceful resolutions of disputes, together with a support for international institutions, such as the United Nations. Only thus, he believed, could the rights of the weak and powerless be defended. In developing this approach, he brought into play his own experiences on the need for collaboration and consultation, gained during his involvement in the governance of the Emirate of Abu Dhabi and in the bringing together of the seven emirates into the Federation of the UAE.
July 9th, 2006 at 7:18 pm[...] Think Progress Administration Outsources Operations Of Six US … Dubai Ports World, like all port owners, must abide by the Maritime Transportation Security Act passed by Congress in 2002 and International Ship and Port … [...]
August 17th, 2006 at 4:05 pm[...] Think Progress Administration Outsources Operations Of Six US … Dubai Ports World, like all port owners, must abide by the Maritime Transportation Security Act passed by Congress in 2002 and International Ship and Port … [...]
August 17th, 2006 at 4:20 pm[...] Think Progress Administration Outsources Operations Of Six US … Dubai Ports World, like all port owners, must abide by the Maritime Transportation Security Act passed by Congress in 2002 and International Ship and Port … [...]
August 25th, 2006 at 3:51 pm[...] http://thinkprogress.org/2006/02/17/ports-uae/feed/ … by: Blog on Vallarpadam Port ” Blog Archive ” News – DUBAI PORTS INTERNATIONAL … Comments on: Administration Outsources Operations Of Six U.S. Ports To … [...]
September 1st, 2006 at 11:37 am[...] Think Progress Administration Outsources Operations Of Six US … Dubai Ports World, like all port owners, must abide by the Maritime Transportation Security Act passed by Congress in 2002 and International Ship and Port … [...]
September 3rd, 2006 at 9:07 am[...] Think Progress Administration Outsources Operations Of Six US … Dubai Ports World, like all port owners, must abide by the Maritime Transportation Security Act passed by Congress in 2002 and International Ship and Port … [...]
September 3rd, 2006 at 9:08 am[...] Think Progress Administration Outsources Operations Of Six US … Dubai Ports World, like all port owners, must abide by the Maritime Transportation Security Act passed by Congress in 2002 and International Ship and Port … [...]
September 14th, 2006 at 9:00 pm[...] Think Progress Administration Outsources Operations Of Six US … Dubai Ports World, like all port owners, must abide by the Maritime Transportation Security Act passed by Congress in 2002 and International Ship and Port … [...]
September 14th, 2006 at 9:01 pm[...] Think Progress Administration Outsources Operations Of Six US … Dubai Ports World, like all port owners, must abide by the Maritime Transportation Security Act passed by Congress in 2002 and International Ship and Port … [...]
September 14th, 2006 at 9:35 pm[...] http://thinkprogress.org/2006/02/17/ports-uae/feed/ by: Blog on Vallarpadam Port ” Blog Archive ” Dubai Ports International … by: Blog on Vallarpadam Port ” Blog Archive ” News – DUBAI PORTS INTERNATIONAL … [...]
September 14th, 2006 at 9:57 pmbuy ciagra .
November 24th, 2006 at 9:26 am[...] Earlier this week, a deal was announced that angered people on both sides of the aisle, from Think Progress: The Bush administration has outsourced the operation of six of the nation’s largest ports to a company owned by the United Arab Emirates (UAE), a country with troubling ties to international terrorism. The $6.8 billion sale would mean that the state-controlled Dubai Ports World would control “the ports of New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia.” [...]
November 29th, 2006 at 2:48 amThe UAE i a country that doesn’t interfere. It tries to maintain peace with every one.
December 23rd, 2006 at 8:21 amHow the hell could it be involved with September 11th ??!
i want from you to help me plese in money
January 4th, 2007 at 7:05 ami am astudent studing now
Personal Information :
Name : Wael Ali Abd El Hasseb Tolba
January 12th, 2007 at 6:08 amEducation : 1- Bachelor of Engineering 1991
2- Bachelor of Military Science Grade : Good
Birth Date : 8 / 5 / 1969
Marital Status : Exempted
Passport : Sea passport to work as ships Maritime Engineer
Address : A.R.E – Cairo – New Cairo , El Rehab , group ( 7 ) Belding ( 1 )
Telephone : 002 0162625611 – 0097153645790
E-mail : captain_dodisea@yahoo.com
captain_dodisea@hotmail.com
Courses :
1- Basic security course , grade : Very good from ware intelligence school in the period from 4 / 6 / 1994 to 30 / 6 / 1994
2- Advanced security course from war intelligence school in the period from 3 / 5 / 2003 to 5 / 6 / 2003
3- Course of maintaining ground equipments of aero planes degree : very good , from the American Air Forces for 6 months
4- Course of maintaining wagons and cars from the American Air Forces for 6 months .
5- Course of technical needs and preparation from the Egyptian Air Force for 4 months .
6- All necessary Courses from maritime transport academy for maritime engineer qualification
Languages :
1- Arabic : Mother language
2- Good command of written and spoken English
Computer :
Good
Experiences :
Experience acquired in Egyptian Air Force in period from 1 / 7 / 1991 to 1 / 2 / 2005
1- Maintenance works ; using wagons , cars technical equipments and ground aviation equipments .
2-General industries works and equipments for wagons , cars and aviation appliances
3- Relief and evacuation work , examining accidents and appreciating defects .
4- Technical supervision of wagons and cars
5- Technical supply of needs and spare parts
Job graduation :
·1 Leader of the automatic Transmutation gear box of wagons and cars section in the central work shop of wagons
·2 Leader of Air ground equipment workshop at east Cairo Air port ( c – 130 )
·3 Leader of Airport workshop
·4 Leader of airbase workshop
·5 Head of airport technical affairs
·6 Head of general industries in the central workshops of wagons and availing needs for the central workshops of wagons and air ground equipments .
·7 Leader of technical apply and availing needs for the central store section
·8 Head of maintenance and air zone relief section
dallas auto auction
[17] Increasing costs of oil-based fuels and tightening environmental law and restrictions on greenhouse gas emissions are propelling work
March 31st, 2008 at 9:31 pm