Posted on 07/20/2007 7:33:05 PM PDT by RTO
Former Inside the Ring co-author Rowan Scarborough has written a new book revealing a key reason the Bush administration pressed hard for the 2006 deal for the United Arab Emirates-based Dubai Ports World to take over management of several U.S. ports. According to Mr. Scarborough, the administration wanted the deal to go through because the UAE government had agreed to let the United States post agents inside its global port network who could report on world shipping...
... "Dubai Ports, in essence, was going to become an agent of CIA," Mr. Scarborough said in an interview. "The arrangement is helping us detect whether any kind of terror contraband was being moved around."
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
I hope all of the conservative talk radio people who were against this are now happy. It was clear to me at the time that’s why the deal was getting pushed. But no, thanks to Chuckie Cheese Schumer and his new radio pal.
I went to a republican meeting with my congressman speaking, prior to the election. He said we have no idea how that tantrum against the UAE hurt us. They were actually helping in the WOT and they were so offended at the outrage that they cut us off.
Thanks, folks, thanks alot.
Though something like this was up. Hand to Bush he’s the best President we have had in a while.
EXACTLY=
I hope someone passes this on to hannity, rush and ingraham. I heard their big mouths persecuting Bush over this as they do when they think he’s too dumb to know what’s he’s doing.
You got that right. It was so obvious that Dubai was playing ball with us in the war on terror. Can you imagine having intelligence access to so many major shipping centers of the world? It would have been an intelligence bonanza!
Too bad the knee-jerks hamstrung us in the War on Terror. Think before you protest, people. Please.
And we’d believe the CIA why?
Rush supported the deal. Hannity and Savage opposed it .
Yeah, fine. Under the deal, they’re our ally until they’re not our ally. Some ally. Except by then, they would have owned the ports and would have had permanent physical presence. IOW, they would have been able to express their non-alliedness any which way they might have wanted to.
I’m not convinced by a single data point.
There were many Republicans opposed to the deal as well.
Next they’ll be telling us that they wanted the Amnesty bill so they could track terrorists and gain intel ....
It is called unintended consequences.
Sort of like trying to save the forests by not cutting back old growth then the neighborhood burns to the ground.
I don’t see this story at the link. Did they move it?
Rush spoke in favor of the deal.
Rush wasn’t one of them. It Ingraham, Savage, Levin, and Hannity. Savage even had Schumer on his show a couple of times.
I think he came around but was critical in the beginning. I remember quite clearly. But you are right, hannity and ingraham were awful. I never listen to savage but can just imagine!!!
Don’t shoot the messenger... I had mixed thoughts about the deal, ranging in degree from your stated concern, to those of the other insights posted here.
RTO
I don’t know... I found the link on Drudge... lower right side of page
The UAE’s assistance could have been bought differently. I believe that is where the mistake was made. The second mistake was Bush not telling those that influence this country that something was afoot. Finally, saying that the UAE ain’t helping us now MAY BE a cover. I understand there was an alternative award / deal / port.
BTW I guess Clinton’s allowing the Red Chinese to run the port of LA was a good thing... NOT!
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.