Posted on 02/28/2006 1:11:19 PM PST by Reagan Man
The initial outcry from the conservative blogs and talk radio over an Arab state-owned company taking over terminals at some U.S. ports seems to have subsided, as the Bush Administration, the Arab/Muslim lobby and their representatives and lobbyists have moved quickly to dominate the media debate.
The firm, Dubai Ports World, is owned by the United Arab Emirates, an Islamic regime that is now being regularly described in the media as a U.S. ally. But the democracy we're fighting for in Iraq does not exist in the UAE. Inside the UAE, according to the State Department, there is no freedom of the press and Internet access is restricted.
Sunni Islam is the official religion and the International Religious Freedom Report of 2004 says that while non-Muslims in the country are free to practice their religion, "they are subject to criminal prosecution, imprisonment, and deportation if found proselytizing or distributing religious literature to Muslims."
In addition to the expensive lobbyists who have been deployed on Capitol Hill in support of the deal, Ibrahim Hooper of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) has been appearing on cable television to insist that opposition is based on anti-Arab racism. But the media have failed to note that CAIR has strong financial ties to the UAE.
Paul Sperry, author of the blockbuster book Infiltration, points out that CAIR entered into a "Deed of Trust" contract with the Al-Maktoum Foundation of the UAE, which put up the nearly $1 million for its property in Washington, D.C. Sperry called the UAE government CAIR's "benefactor." CAIR specializes in driving critics of Islam off talk radio. Michael Graham was fired from WMAL- radio in Washington, D.C. for offending CAIR.
Some of the negative reaction to the deal stems not from racism or Arab-bashing but the fact that initial federal approval of the deal sidestepped a legally authorized 45-day investigation. The law requires such a probe when "the acquirer is controlled by or acting on behalf of a foreign government" and when the acquisition "could result in control of a person engaged in interstate commerce in the U.S. that could affect the national security of the U.S." By reluctantly agreeing to have a 45-day investigation, Dubai Ports World only recognized what the law required.
The skirting of the law has enabled critics of the deal, such as Lou Dobbs of CNN, to suggest that Bush family ties to the UAE are involved. CNN reporter Christine Romans did a report on Dobbs' show alleging that the President's brother, Neil Bush, has reportedly received funding for his educational software company from UAE investors. Neil Bush, however, is a loose cannon in the Bush family, and recently showed up on a tour with controversial Korean cult leader Sun Myung Moon after going through a messy divorce. It's hard to believe that this black sheep of the Bush family would have that much influence. If there is a connection between Neil Bush and the deal, the controversy could quickly turn into "Portgate."
One curious fact that emerges in the controversy is that a Dubai Ports World executive, David Sanborn, was nominated by President Bush to serve as U.S. Maritime Administrator in late January - before the ports deal was revealed. It seems like strange timing, to say the least.
Despite claims that the UAE is a U.S. ally in the war on terrorism, the director of the Institute for Gulf Affairs, Ali Al-Ahmed, told the New York Sun that in addition to being a staging point for the 9/11 terrorists and a country where Al Qaeda laundered money, the UAE "has been fueling the insurgency in Iraq. They have hosted a lot of the Sunni insurgent supporters and Sunni insurgents." Equally ominous, a captured al-Qaeda document released by the Center for Combating Terrorism at West Point shows that the terrorist organization has boasted that it has "infiltrated" the security apparatus and other agencies of the UAE regime.
Dubai is also home to the Arab satellite channel al-Arabiya, which is not as well known as Al-Jazeera but was temporarily ordered out of Baghdad in 2003 by the post-Saddam government after it was accused of inciting violence against innocent citizens and American military personnel.
In terms of the media war being waged here at home, one blogger, Glenn Reynolds of Instapundit.com, said on CNN's Reliable Sources show that while he was initially critical of the deal, "...I am now reasonably comfortable with it." He said he reacted negatively after reading one article about the deal in the New York Post but then talked to some other people who allayed his concern. "At least having looked into port security in general," he continued, "I would say that our ports are so insecure everywhere that this isn't likely to make much of a difference."
This does not seem like much of an endorsement of the deal but it does serve as an indictment of the unreliability of quick-witted bloggers. Reynolds should not have thrown in the towel so quickly. He may find he has to reverse himself once again.
Stop acting so high and mighty, as if butter wouldn't melt in your mouth. "VICTIMHOOD" will get you nowhere.
I don't hit the abuse button on someone, just because they express sentiments different from my own; UNLIKE YOU AND YOUR BUDDIES>.
Then stop telling people when they can or cannot post on YOUR threads:
And just to keep the record straight, since it's obvious from your post, you still cannot tell the truth:
Actually, what that needs is a clarification.
You evidently copied from Reagan Man's #295:
Why?
Question:“Why did you vote against the recent border security bill, H.R. 4437? Do you support amnesty for illegal immigrants?”
Boehner: H.R. 4437 has a number of strong provisions aimed at stemming the tide of illegal immigration, all of which I support.
I opposed one section of the bill that places a massive unfunded mandate on small businesses. I for one don’t think we stop illegal immigration by strangling the small businesses that are the backbone of our economy. Nor do I believe it is right to turn small business owners into felons for failing to do the federal government’s job of protecting the borders. Had it not been for this one section, I would have supported the bill.
I worked with colleagues of mine to address these concerns, but we were not allowed to offer an amendment. And my committee, which has jurisdiction over these employer issues, was only given twenty-four hours to review the bill. That’s not enough time to fully review a massive piece of legislation and offer substantive changes.
The only way to make my voice heard was to cast a risky vote. I did so, and I have no regrets.
As for the second question: no. I do not support giving amnesty to illegal immigrants. I never have and I never will. Illegal immigrants are just that -- illegal. Their first act upon entering our country was to break our laws and they need to be held accountable.
Now, Reagan Man, can you stop salivating long enough to explain to the class when YOUR post #295 why
You made a post on a public forum using words that weren't yours and containing no link to give credit to the actual writer. That is plagiarism. Those are the facts. You don't want to be held to the same standards as everyone else. You screwed up and you don't have the decency to apologize to the forum.
or why
(You are not) a plagiarist. Just like liberals Jason Blair, Doris Kearns Goodwin, Steven Ambrose, Ward Churchill, Al Gore, Kitty Kelly and good old Joe Biden.????
Can you explain that, huh, can you?
Because you did the SAME DAMN THING I DID on this very thread, only you did it FIRST!!!!!!
But these same folks carry their anger over into other threads, which is against FR rules.
I think your observations are right on target here.
Instead of telling others to "grow up" or "act their aged", how about YOU stop being so childish? :^)
NOT TRUE. RM was told in post #2 that this column had already been posted!
To: Reagan Man
Same article, already posted
2 posted on 02/28/2006 3:12:43 PM CST by TChris ("Unless you act, you're going to lose your world." - Mark Steyn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
What's happened to you? Or is someone else posting under your name, and the real Reagan Man is gone?
What's going on here??
So in your opinion other freepers wouldn't have been capable of finding and posting this article from GOPUSA.com?
ROFL. I think you need a little help with that monumental ego of yours. You don't own ANY thread, regardless of WHO posts it. It's an open forum and if you don't like that, go start your own web site and invite your little buddies to join over there.
Portgate, Like Most Liberal Orgasmic hysterical Spasms, has already come and gone...
As people learn THE FACTS, it's becoming a NON-ISSUE...
What we NOW have (Or Should be Loudly Promoting) is FAKE-BUT-ACCURATE-POLL GATE!!!
How much longer do we let CBS and others(Like the DNC, World Workers Party, AfterDowningStreet.Org) get by with the OUTRIGHT LIES???
Oh, he pulls that plagarism crap everywhere he goes. He has his little rules and wants to run the kingdom.
And he did it first; amazing, isn't it?
hehehehehe.
Facts, schmacts. I can see they do NOT matter to some posters.
The article was ALREADY posted to FR.
Ergo, without YOU, it not only would exist on FR, but it DID already!
He was told (and LINKED) in post #2, to the earlier posting of same column today.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1587254/posts?page=2#2
Amazing is right. And entertaining, I might add.
You're kidding, right? Last night you were all over the place calling freepers jihadist sympathizers.
Anyone who truly admired Ronald Reagan does NOT have this deep a hatred for George W. Bush.
I think Reagan Man may well be a complete phony, and it's just taken a while for it to surface.
But it's boiling at the top now, isn't it?
He's ole Mister KettlePot.
Thats so true. I usually go over at DU for fun to see their rants. I didnt have the heart to do so today. They must love seeing ourselves eat each other. I wish Republicans would understand this. The President of the US is the head of the Republican party. We have 2 and half years till the new President comes in. I am not saying you must agree 100 percent with him but this attacking Bush all the time is going to Destroy us and take all the Prez, the HOuse, and the Senate away from us before its all over. If the Prez goes down we will have no leader to take over for speaking for us till the Republican convention of 2008.
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.