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.
I was wondering why this thread had so many mpore posts than the earlier post of the same article.
Now I know why.
You're blaming President Bush for: 1) not meddling in what a British Company did with THEIR OWN PROPERTY 2) not overseeing a decision that the CFIUS made, which was in THEIR purview and NOT his 3) blaming his administration for something that they did not originate.
And if all of THAT wasn't enough, you are blaming people who have looked at the facts, squarely in the face, but which YOU have rejected completely, for "not seeing the truth". What "TRUTH" would that be....THE TRUTH ACCORDING TO YOU, BUT DELUSION ACCORDING TO ACTUAL "TRUTH"?
Yep, the TINFOILERS are out en mass, on this thread.
It is a scandal of either incompetence or corruption or both. Only complete sell-outs like Rush Limp-paw and the most extreme bushbots are rationalizing this. Even resorting to the PC method of calling opponents racists.
There is no scandel here. Bush is doing what he is suppose to be doing and that is leading. This blowup over Dubai is nonsense. All its done is now stupidly making the stakes higher that this has to get through. Now the whole Arab world is watching. As another thread said this wot is Stragetic. Commercial inducemnet foor countries that play right are a big part of it.
If anything does come out of this, lets hope and pray it has nothing to do with corruption. Incompetence would be bad enough. Even if it was corruption at the CFIUS decision making level, that would be disasterous. If it was shown to be a quid pro quo arrangemnt, that maybe the final nail in the coffin.
The "scandal" is that so many people became hysterical, for no reason; some of whom are still refusing to even bother to look at the FACTS.
Still no response to my civil question in #172. Perhaps he CAN'T.
Those that can't, preach. LOL
Sounds like you're calling this deal with DPW/UAE, a quid pro quo. If that is the case, someone in the Bush administration is gonna pay for it dearly. Corruption on the left or the right is unacceptable.
An unfounded assertion ain't worth warm spit....or so my dad told me.
I think we are rewarding an ally and this is like a benefit for allowing USA bases on Saudi soil as a place to launch from.
Saves lots of our military men's lives.
It isn't corruption.
We've always paid to have bases on foreign soil, like in Germany and France for years we were paying millions.
In this case we are allowed to land and take off in Saudi Arabia for Iraq and all other military actions.
Problem with the Saudi is part of that family is crooked and they are with al Qaeda and Bin Laden trying to take over the current King and thrown.
The King doesn't want to benefit or finance the bad guys, because their main objective has always been to take over Saudi Arabia.
It is tough, because part of the country has nut cases and the other part is as close as you will ever get to Muslim Moderates in the Middle East.
I'm sure there is a lot happening that is secret that we don't know and shouldn't know.
What happens in the ME should stay in the ME. If the Feds want to pay ME govts so we can keep US military bases open on their homeland, fine. Just no DPW/UAE sweetheart/quid pro quo deal to manage US commercial ports of entry on the US homeland. These Muslim nationstates are compromised of "jihadists" and "Islamofascists". Long before 9-11 they were America's sworn enemy. No good reason for them to be over here. None whatsoever. They hate the US, they want to see us destroyed.
Thats a opinion and in fact many have had to backtrack because they first said DP was taking over port security. It was a lie first told by a democrat (O'MALLY) who wants to be the Mayor of Baltimore or Governor of MD.
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.
2004 World Press Freedom Review
Unlike some of the other countries in the region, there are few serious press freedom violations in the UAE. Indeed, the country has much in common with other liberal countries in the region such as Qatar. However, press freedom in the Middle East is, in many ways, similar to a magician's conjuring trick: what you see is not necessarily what is actually happening.
News is not restricted by the UAE but by the newspapers themselves according to customs. Much like our newspapers, they have different agendas. Just like this port hoax.
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."
Religion: Islam is the official religion of the country and all Emiris and a majority of the expatriates are Muslims. 96% Sunni Muslim. The constitution guarantees religious freedom and there are some large Christian churches in the United Arab Emirates.
UAE is fast becoming a international culture of many groups. You might want to goggle up UAE religious freedoms. A short time ago 2005 a Jewish Rabi of Jerusalem praised the UAE for their religious freedom. But just like the US they have many that are intolerant of other religions and incidents occur. In many areas selling bibles is discouraged by the locals. Sounds like San Francisco.
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.
Thats a opinion based on the fact it was written in Arabic. What does the contract state.
… [The Council on American-Islamic Relations] has desperately tried to project a moderate and patriotic image in the face of growing skepticism. "We are Americans and we are Muslims," is the motto that it runs in the nation’s newspapers. Part of that image campaign involves dispelling notions that it is controlled by foreign interests in the Middle East. CAIR emphatically denies receiving any foreign support, including for its new headquarters. It argues that it is a "grassroots organization" largely supported by members who pay dues.
For the record, here is what Hooper insisted in a November 8, 2001, press release: "We do not support directly or indirectly or receive support from any overseas group or government."
Contrary to opinion no one has proved otherwise
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.
That is blately false. The law does not require any legal 45 days for investigation that was sidestepped. If a request is submitted it must be taken up by 30 days and finished within 45 days. Most of the work is already done before the request is submitted. The US did not start investigating DP and the UAW in November. They have been investigating them for years. DP requested the 45 days but not because Dubai Ports World only recognized what the law required. It wanted the committee to review the security so congress can see it. By law congress cannot see the deal until it comes out of committee. Its their own law to stop bias in congress. There are hundred's of foreign leased US port terminals. Non have been required to go through another 45 days by law.
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."
Skirting of the law, what does that mean. That would imply somebody broke the law. Who and how? Show me the law and how it was broken. Alleged, skirt, reportedly, could and if are the tools of opinion. Its name calling, slander, accusation for agenda. No facts, just agenda by a opinionest.
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.
That curious fact is a lie. The P&Q and DP deal was reported in the wall street journel in November well before David Sanborn's appointment in January. It has long been on both P&Q and DP websites. In fact there was a bidding war between DP and another shipping company from Indonesia (Muslim country). It was well known in the shipping business, other businesses and the UK. Many thought DP paid too much. They are the most modern shipping company and this would make the the third largest in the world.
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.
The UAE government is now funding the insurgents in Iraq with 56 US navel ships sitting in their port. Give me a break. UAE transferred money from the US and other countries to Arab terrorists because it is one of the few banks in the gulf that accept US transfers. As soon as the terrorists were known the banks of UAE and the US stopped tranfers that might go to terrorists. The terrorists flew to the US from the UAE. Was that flight on a US or UAE plane. It was one of the few airlines that fly from the gulf to the US. Equally ominous is that they also infiltrated US security and blew up the trade towers. Claims, they either are or are not Allies. You got any facts to backup the opined and allegations above. I think not.
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.
The Arab satellite channel al-Arabiya of Dubai. Did they shoot the satellite down or just ask it to disappear over Iraq. Every day I hear some newscasters saying go maim and kill some innocent citizens. You think these are facts or political agenda and propaganda?
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."
Glen Reynolds changed his position when he found out what was being reported was not true. No one was hired to take over port security. No ports were sold and DP owns nothing in US ports. They lease a terminal to load and unload cargo. That our port are insecure is a opinion not supported by fact. The states port authority, federal security, and US customs would disagree and as a importer for many years I would too.
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.
Again a opinion. I don't see one blogger out of ten here who knows what a port is and how they work and neither does congress or MSM. Otherwise they would not be calling port terminals, ports and saying foreign countries are running and buying the ports. It's a hoax!!!
I would rather not have read this article. Few fact lots of opinion.
Ironically, an earlier spasm of public outcry over Arab economic power gave birth to CFIUS. President Gerald Ford created it via executive order in 1975 after the OPEC oil boycott sent gasoline prices soaring in the United States.
oh yes. Its incredible. If you even mention the fact that in a hypothetical race of say John Mcain versus Barbara Boxer any hint of votong for JOhn McCain will bring the mountain falling down on you. In my view if the only "pure" conservatives acoording to their criteria were left in the Republican party it would have the relevance of the green party
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.