Oh, Portgate....nevermind.
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.
Oh, Portgate....nevermind.
Oh, good point Ohio. And also, Reagan Man has posted in the past the addage that Reagan used to say - something about not attacking other Republicans.
Which RM violates at every turn.
Agreed. Ronald Reagan was a gentleman.
True I have been called a agent of the enemy on those Islamic threads
Yeah besides the immigration issue threads , the threads that are getting out of control are those Islamic based ones. I fully expect someone any day now someone to
finally cross over that line that many are standing at and start joking about taking a gun and shooting at a mosque.
But that one wasn't "HIS THREAD".. see the difference..LOL
And I have some news for you, you are wrong. The reason the CFIUS didn't say no was they reviewed the leases and security and found nothing wrong. In fact if you read the act you will find they can't say no unless they find something wrong. 1530 were approved because a carrier does there homework ahead of time and conforms to all regulation before submitting anything to CFIUS. It is a costly process and nothing is submitted until is thourghly examined by experts in the field. It is not rubber stamped. UAE and DP has been examined by federal security for years and much of the information is already known. The US knows full well how trade and security is conducted by DP for their ships. Most of DP shipping will be from and to other port terminals in other country. There is a manifest for anything being loaded on a ship before it is loaded and is sent to the US port authority. It is inspected by a customs official before and after it is sent to the US. We have inspectors in Dubai port terminals. And of the 1530 how many were airport terminals, land port terminals and seaport terminals. Leases for airport terminals change quickly because there's a airline going broke every month. Every time a airline stops or starts a service to a airport a terminal is brought or sold.
ROFLMAO! Too funny!
You can't have your facts straight and idolize one and despise the other.
Anyone on this forum doing so is either ignorant of the facts about Ronald Reagan, or deliberately using Reagan's name to attack President Bush.
There is a serious problem here with this poster.....
On the other hand, If it isn't then the administration may be caught in a giant hornet's nest without a can of raid.
When it's all over I am hoping some sense will be made of this whole thing.
Good post.
Does anyone know if it was it a democrat or Republican congress that gave the Treasury Department the lead in CFIUS decisions?
Indeed we do, and that thread had too many FACTS posted on it... and I was only too happy to cut and paste the best factual posting...lol.
Definitely.
Indeed. A very serious problem.
From President Bush's remarks today:
Let me just make something clear to the American people. If there was any doubt in my mind, or people in my administration's mind that our ports would be less secure and the American people endangered, this deal wouldn't go forward.... Our duty is to protect America, and we will protect America.
In other words, trust me. Can you explain why I should trust President Bush one part of our Nation's security, our ports, when he is a complete sellout to business interests on the border issue?
I wonder if the anti-Dubai folks want China operating ports on both our shores. They are already operating the Panama Canal too.
A. Start talking about illegal immigration
B. Call everyone who disagrees with you a Bushbot or Bush Sycophant
C. Start over with Your VERY OWN THREAD
You mean, "strategery"? I don't think so. Bush&Company just screwed up royal on this one. The Bush Treasury Dept`s inner agency, the CFIUS agency, didn't handle this properly from the get-go. And Dubya's defiant outrage in that press conference last week started all the BIGTIME criticism of his leadership on this issue. From there on out, it was all down hill for Bush. Its clear the rules need to be changed, ASAP. No foeign entity deserves to have any managemnt control over commercial port of entry operations. None at all. Whether it be the British, the Red Chinese, the Saudi's or the UAE. Commercial operations of American ports of entry should be controlled by Aemricans. Period.
I have to argue with these Bush bashers that this was not a deal done in a back room at the White House.
The UAE fairly took over these contracts. It is now up to us to make the decision.
Good question. I don't know the answer to that.
It all means what you mean a sell out. I understand the business concerns. I also understand we need these Mexicans working here. I cant imagine what would happen in Texas if all the illegals would disappear. On the other hand I dont want terrorist comming over the border and I dont want people living here forever without becoming citizens and becoming inculturated into America. The border issue is a tough one because no can talk about it rationally and compromise on it. However as to Middle Eastern terrorism and other aspects of National Security I think he has been quite good. The problem is Al Quadia cannot controll how business is run and our relations with other countries financial or otherwize. To do so would be a victory for them in itself. Again I am not sure why Bush is suddenally getting hammered on a problem no President has been able to get a hold on either
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.