Posted on 02/23/2006 7:10:10 PM PST by Aussie Dasher
The assistant to President Bush for homeland security and counterterrorism today said the United Arab Emirates "has changed" and is no longer the same nation that once gave aide to the Taliban.
Instead of presidential press secretary Scott McClellan, Frances Fragos Townsend took questions from reporters today, addressing the controversy surrounding an administration-approved deal that would put the operations of six major U.S. ports in the hands of a state-sponsored company from the United Arab Emirates.
WND asked Townsend about the UAE:
"On page 11 of the 9-11 commission's report that you're undoubtedly familiar with, it says, '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. These efforts achieved little before 9-11.' And my question: Why should we now give this nation any control of our ports, which so refused to help in stopping a worse killing of Americans than at Pearl Harbor?"
Responded Townsend: "There is no question that their performance has changed since 2001 in the war on terror. They have been critical allies in Afghanistan. They have been critical allies in fighting the financial war against terror. They've been critical allies in terms of our military-to-military relationship, as General Pace has talked about.
"I don't take issue with the 9-11 commission's characterization prior to September 11, but I will tell you, prior to September 11, Pakistan also recognized the Taliban. They, too, are now a critical ally in the war on terror, without whose support we would not have enjoyed some of the successes we've enjoyed, in terms of capturing or killing some of al-Qaida's leaders. So I would caution you against judging forever one's performance prior to 9-11."
WND also asked if heads will roll in the administration due to the lack of knowledge about the deal among higher-ups, saying, "What will be done, if anything, to those responsible for this being done without the knowledge of the president or the secretaries of defense and treasury?"
Townsend talked about the transaction-approval process for such deals:
"I can't speak to what will be done to them. I will tell you that there are tens of these every year. They are handled and they only come up to the president and to the senior – to the members of the Cabinet if there's an objection, if the concerns can't be addressed in some way and can't be resolved. This is how the process has worked, and so I can't speak to, having – I wasn't personally involved in it, so I can't speak to what the process – how it performed."
Moozies is moozies!
This is the same firm that has major operations in an Australian port. The same firm that England is preparing to sell some of their own leases to. The same firm that is the major port provider for the U.S. Navy outside of the United States.
When Bush visits Pakistan all hell is going to break loose. Three quarters of that country would give its life to kill George Bush. As perhaps would most Dubaians.
This is the same nation that our State Department issues travel advisories for. Beware of terrorism in the UAE, but darn it, they sure are great port operators.
I don't think the UAE leadership is bad, but it's possible. I do know that some of the UAE populace is very bad. That's the rub. We let our guard down for five years and just when we don't care if folks are leaning to take off but not land 'figurateively', kaboom!
Speaking of child molesters, do you think perhaps this deal is a quid pro quo to the UAE in exchange for them taking Michael Jackson off of our hands? Either that or it's a brilliant Rovian strategy....the President will make the claim that the reason he needs to exercise his executive authority to conduct warrantless wiretaps is to ensure security at these six ports and the Democrats and Arlen Specter will be forced to concede his Article 2 powers.
Missing that fact is deadly. When the leader of a nation misses it...it might be deadly for a nation...in this case, it might be deadly for the world!
There is a vacuum of leadership...its scream is deafening.
LOok, iF yoU're nOt goINg to poSt factS, thEn doN't pOst On thIs topIc...
LOL
You know what, simple reasoning tells anyone but those with simpler minds all they need to know about this.
We used to limit access to citizens of nations like the USSR, because we were adversaries. Now we just kiss up to them and help finance their military buildup. Now that's progress...
Thanks for the post.
UAE is changed all right. They are twice as rich as last year.
Are you really this simple minded? First of all, if you will recall the USSR didn't exactly allow its citizens to freely leave the Soviet Union whether we wanted them here or not. Second, the Soviet Union and its government had thousands of nuclear warheads aimed at our cities, its military was designed for our destruction, and it lead a pact of nations whose stated purpose was to crush our NATO alliance. Sounds a lot like the UAE...or maybe not. Get a grip.
Was about to give this a serious read when I saw the source. Farah has always been out to lunch. Idiots.
Yes it would be, if only it were addressing the ports excluslively. Saudi Arabia has announced they are upping their student contingent to the U.S. to 20,000. I disagree with the port plan, but this comment wasn't intended to address that alone.
The Saudis? You do know they already own a commercial port venture in the U.S. don't you?
There is a vacuum of leadership...its scream is deafening.
Oh don't be ridiculous !
The Arabs are sitting on top of the richest cash cow on this planet so we can hardly 'thwart them from taking part in the world economy'. If money would solve their problems they would have no problems.
You foolishly assume economic rationality as a motive of theirs. Religious fanatics don't give a damn about money. You can't buy them off.
No I didn't. Wonderful.
They been at it several years now.
Fair comment. But money was made to go around. What ARE they expected to invest in? In Australia the UAE own bloodstock and equestrian properties.
This argument is going to go around in circles. One side based on emotion (not surprisingly) the other more pragmatic. Let's not come top blows over it!
IMMIGRATION IS A FAR GREATER PROBLEM! (imo)
It will join us only so it can kill us.
We must get rid of islam before muslims (former muslims actually) can make sense of the modern world. Muslims are members of a cult...they must be deprogrammed first.
IMO, it will be seven ports under Saudi and UAE management within a few months. I have no doubt you folks will get your way.
They also own a company that maintains operations in a major Australian port.
They can burn their money for all I care.
You are willing to take substantial security risks for money ?
Not only am I old enough, but I spent considerable time in the Soviet Union while my parents were assigned to the embassy in Moscow. I've got all kinds of insight into who tracked who and why. But I appreciate you destroying your own point for me by pointing out that the reason we tracked Soviet citizens in this country was because the tended to be agents of the Soviet Union.
Now let me turn the tables on you...perhaps you're too old to realize this, or you are simply too ignorant to care, but the UAE is not run by a closed, hostile government who dedicates a huge portion of its GDP to fund a military large enough to crush our own.
"With 60% of the Saudi populace members of the Wahabi sect, many of them are a direct threats also. "
Apparently you have already ceded the argument as now you are talking about Saudi Arabia. What happened to the UAE?
"IMO, we are extremely ill advised to allow as much immigration as we do from these nations."
And now you are on to immigration?!?!? Thank you for answering my initial question to you.
"...they must be deprogrammed first."
To act as 'travel agents' for a load of containers?
Now let me ask you, what is the legal aspect? In a free market economy, dealing with a nation that's been as helpful to the US as the UAE has been, if the 'deal' was to be squashed, would there not be a requirement to back this up with some kind of a law?
We have not declared islam persona non-grata, that I know of. Wouldn't P & O have cause to sue if the deal was thwarted for (political) reasons of security? Would we not have to PROVE that was the case?
Perhaps you could explain why governments including our own given travel advisories conserning terrorist threats in the UAE. If UAE citizens aren't a threat, why would they do that?
Thanks in advance.
You are willing to take substantial security risks for money ?
Posted by Fred Nerks to indcons
On News/Activism 02/23/2006 5:19:56 PM PST · 3 of 20
ACCC not to oppose the proposed acquisition of P&O Ports by DP World
The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission will not oppose the proposed acquisition of P&O Ports by DP World, ACCC Chairman, Mr Graeme Samuel, said today.
P&O Ports is a global container terminal and stevedore services provider with a presence in 19 countries, operating 29 container terminals and logistics operations at more than 100 ports worldwide. P&O Ports' Australian subsidiaries lease, operate and manage terminals in Brisbane, Sydney, Melbourne and Fremantle. DP World owns, operates and manages container terminals and other port infrastructure around the world.
"The ACCC believes the proposed acquisition is not likely to result in a substantial lessening of competition in the relevant markets given the limited overlap of DP World and P&O's operations in Australia. DP World's presence in Australia is limited to Adelaide Port where P&O Ports does not currently operate", Mr Samuel said.
DP World also submitted requests for clearance of the proposed acquisition from competition regulators in Germany, Spain, USA, UK and Italy.
http://www.accc.gov.au/content/index.phtml/itemId/722248/fromItemId/2332
I hope you won't mind if I point out to you that Australia does a great deal of business with Indonesia and also has travel advisories about that country...we know there are fanatics in Indonesia, we have the Bali and embassy bombings to remind us of that.
But we still do business with Indonesia and have good relations with their government.
You need to do a little more research. There are currently no State Department travel advisories regarding the UAE. But if that is a leading indicator of countries we should refuse to do business with, than I guess you better say good bye to Israel. All kinds of warnings about traveling there. And of course...if Israeli citizens aren't a threat, why would the State Department do that?
I was going to actually post the UAE information directly from the State Department's website but figured why? I'd lot rather visit Dubai then many U.S. cities.
It's funny you say that. Last time I was there we walked through some really dark backstreets to find a restaurant a buddy recommended. Then we walked through even darker streets during a 3 mile walk back to our hotel. I never even felt nervous. But there is absolutely no way I would walk through random neighborhoods of cities like Washington D.C., Memphis, Detroit or Milwaukee. That would be suicide.
"United Arab Emirates has changed"
Did they convert from islamania to a civilized religion?
You are correct, this is from wing nut daily and by default goes in the same file as debka, NewschMuck and al jezzera. If I remember and have the author correctly pictured in my memory, he is a real moonbat who can't keep a fact strait and drifts on endlessly on tangets that can best be described as about as relevant as his miss-matched socks. He is just as offensive as the old sea hag, the naked gay guy and David Gregory - all members of the WH press room. While we should be considered about port saftey we certainly don't seem to worry about WH press room passes.
And if Australia wants to move the UAE into their port areas (and I blieve I read earlier that they have), that's fine by me. I don't want to see something happent to them, but that's their decision.
I think you're the one that needs to do a little more research. There is an acknowledge presence of Al Qaeda in the UAE. If the U.S. doesn't see any need, I'm still not buying into the no threat theory.
Rokke stated that as well.
Why? You haven't given any evidence to refute anything I've said. It is hard to refute fact.
"There is an acknowledge presence of Al Qaeda in the UAE."
I've got some bad news for you. There is an acknowledged presence of Al Qaeda in the USA too. Guess we better ban trade with ourselves.
60% of our populace? LOL, you're a real hoot.
Well, with you and others of your ilk, I'm sure you'll do your best to get us there.
Are you kidding me? 60% of UAE's population is Al Qaeda!? 50% of UAE's population comes from Southern Asia and isn't even Arab. Take some time and think about what you're doing. You don't really know anything about what you are talking about. You've even started to just make things up. Do yourself a favor and educate yourself on this issue. Don't just listen to what other people are saying. Do your own research. Forget about the ports. Just do some reading about the UAE. I think you will find it interesting.
Rokke, what is the break-down of Wahabis in Saudi Arabia? It's 60% fella. There is also a significance presence of Al Qaeda in the UAE. If you want to ignore that, fine. If you want to play pretend go ahead. If you want to pass this off as me being the person ignoring the facts or making them up, go ahead. The UAE is a travel risk.
You know damned well that the US does issue travel advisories to the UAE from time to time. Australia has issued one recently, which may be active now.
Your subtrifuge on this subject isn't selling. You're just another disinformation player making up a portion of the dismal 32 percent on this forum trying to play this issue off as a non-issue.
No sale.
Now we're back to talking about Saudi Arabia?!?! Forgive me for not being about to keep track of your random point making. I could have sworn this was an article about the UAE.
I think you've been drinking. You are normally far more coherent. I'll let the facts speak for themselves on this thread and leave you to your buzz.
I don't always file away the information that I read. I think this should answer some of the questions you haven't been able to answer.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/011/900risbm.asp
"To begin with, it is important to recognize that the UAE is not Iran and has entirely justifiable reasons for claiming that it is both one of the most moderate countries in the Arab world as well as a valuable partner in the U.S.-led war on terrorism."
"Ironically, during his defense of the UAE's record on cooperation, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld failed to mention one of their most significant achievements to date: the November 2002 capture of Abd Rahim al-Nashiri, a senior al Qaeda leader generally regarded as the mastermind of the USS Cole bombing and the head of the terror network's maritime operations. While this would indeed be a significant achievement in its own right, it is made all the more remarkable by the fact that the UAE had been directly threatened by the al Qaeda leadership several months prior to al-Nashiri's capture."
"al Qaeda explicitly threatened UAE officials with attacks if they refused to cease cooperation with the United States. Written between May and June 2002 and addressed in particular to officials in the emirates of Abu-Dhabi and Dubai (the UAE is a federation of seven emirates), the document claims that the UAE has engaged in "spying, persecution, [sic] detainments" against al Qaeda members operating on its soil at the behest of the United States, noting that, "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" and that "these practices bring the country into a fighting ring in which it cannot endure or escape from its consequences." These threats appear to suggest that whatever else al Qaeda thinks of the UAE, it does not regard the nation as being among its friends."
And that is all just on the first page. Yeah. Sounds like the UAE is really in bed with Al Qaeda. Thanks again for the link.
Sure, if you'll acknowledge that the US and other nations do issue terrorist threat warnings for the UAE from time to time. Big deal. Duh!
I've never claimed that the UAE leadership was the problem. The problem as I saw it was that Al-Qaeda does operate in their nation. You ran from this fact like a scalded dog.
Nice try.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.