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 suspect that if the Democrats win it will be many, many years before we republicans get back in. They will pass a lot of laws quickly. They will use the nuclear option. There will be little mercy. They will give away anything for the vote. I suspect the county would be in civil disarray before there would be any change in government.
If this deal falls through for the Crown Prince of Dubai (Sheikh Maktoum) don't worry about him. He will still be able to buy all of the hundreds of the Royal Maktoum family members Mercedes Benzes, and million dollar race horses.
you are insinuating something that does not exist. The state, county or city port authority controls ports located in their area. Don't believe it call a port. States are not going to give their ports or management to the federal government or anybody else. That you would portray them as operated by other interests is dishonest. the states, counties, and cities receive the revenue from the ports not the federal government. Don't take my word for it nor your own opinion, look it up or pick up the phone. I have been a importer for a long time and your view as to how ports work is far from reality.
The opposite of a Bush basher is a Dem enabler.
I thought you might have misspoke before but that you would continue to repeat the lie suggests you have another agenda.
Without the CFIUS approval no deal with DPWorld could have went into effect. Period. After pressure from the GOP Congress and American public opinion, the Bush administration reversed itself and has now decided to have a second evaluation. A full 45-day investigation into the DPWorld deal. This was a sweetheart deal. Whether it turns out to be a quid pro quo or bureaucratic corruption, has yet to be proven. We shall see.
Freeper Jane Austin (who is an outstanding researcher) just freepmailed me that information as well.
OK, I get it now. You believe CAIR's Hooper over Paul Sperry. And you think UAE has freedom of religion and freedom of the press. Inconvenient facts be damned.
This post of yours proves your first post was incorrect. You may try to gloss over the facts presented, even try to rebut them with pro-Muslim "facts". But the facts remain.
I'm through with you. Buh bye.
You have that backwards.
You are correct!! Imust have been asleep. How about a dem enabler is a Bush basher.
That has not occurred not has it been suggested or proposed. The ports are managed by the port authority and none are of a foreign nature. The issue is a falsehood, not a fact. The agenda is to provoke a furor or argument concerning a falsehood, to support ones opinion.
Obviously, you don't live in the real world with the rest us conservatives. Sounds like you dwell in the outer limits of the twilight zone. So be it. When you return to reality, I'll be around.
No, I would not accept Hooper's or Sperry's opinion. They both have a agenda. Sperry has a opinion but has not supported it with facts. Hooper denied a accusation by Sperry. Sperry has not provided any facts to support any accusation.
Posted below is a Sperry article and a example of his opinion. Facts need not get in the way.
"We are in a world of official lies as a method of government."
"Or, you can continue to be a proud member of the Coalition of the Willing to Believe White House Propaganda about Iraq. And you can go right on standing fast with Bush and his talk radio lapdogs.
But know that you are standing on the wrong side of truth and history – a place where the entire GOP may find itself stuck for many years if it doesn’t soon divest itself from Bush and his Iraq debacle."
I don't think nor would most think that our method of government is nothing but all official lies, but Sperry does and he purports the opinion without a proof or fact of one official lie. Our method of government is by the constitution. Is it all a lie?
This post of yours proves your first post was incorrect. You may try to gloss over the facts presented, even try to rebut them with pro-Muslim "facts". But the facts remain.
Your posted opinion that opinions are facts is noted. How ever it is but your own opinion.
I don't think that all the rest of us Conservatives on this thread would agree with your opinions so they don't live in reality. It appears that in your own mind you have redefined and restricted Conservatives to only those who would agree with your opinions. My reality is that I live in a world where facts are observed. That you would live in a world of opinion is your own making and agenda. Opinion is considered the root of insanity. When you propose some supported facts I will be around.
The UAE has a population of a little more than 4 million. Most reside in large cities of less than 800 thousand people either by the sea or a oasis. The rest of UAE is sand and rock and is not habitable. The population growth since 1900 is mostly by immigration and is composed of many ethnic groups. A large part are Pakistanis and Indians and many are American. Before the discovery of oil in 1960 they were already prosperous by trade and enterprise.
They have a Army of 65,000 and most are stationed in Dubai. Most of the troops are borrowed or rented from other nations like Pakistan, Jordan or Egypt. All officers of the core guard must be UAE citizens. The Army's sole objective is to protect the Emirates and government. The air force is 3500 and has purchase F-16's and mirage jets from the US and France to patrol the coast line. The navy has 12 patrol boats that protect the Dubai port by sea. They possess no nuclear capability nor do they appear to be seeking one. They have not fought a war although their government has supported others politically and by funding.
The Dubai port is one of the largest, most modern and secure ports in the world. It has always been the base of their economy since 1900.
Recently there has been a startling revelation. The UAE, ~4 million terrorists of mostly Muslim faith are going to attack the ports of the largest superpower in the world. They will then defend themselves with a rented army.
Its a most sinister plot. They are going to have DP (a shipping company owned by Dubai) buy up the ports and security and install their own terrorists (our president agrees with this. and it is proved by FR threads). Then they are going to smuggle all types of nuclear weapons (they do not possess) and other devious weapons they must possess into the ports by containers. Its a complicated plan because all containers from Dubai are inspected and the manifests noted by another incompetent US security force (they have both radiation and X-ray detection) before the containers leave Dubai.
You might ask then how can the attack occur. It's simple, once the ships leave the Dubai ports the terrorists will immediately kill all merchant seamen who are not terrorists. Although there are back ground checks on all merchant seamen by US security the terrorist merchant seamen will not be detected because American security is incompetent. Then the terrorists will unload the containers and throw the goods in the sea to make room. Allah will then provide, He will moon-drop all types of nuclear weapons (that don't yet exist) and unheard of weapons in the containers. Allah will then provide a cloaking device to shield the weapons. This is necessary because useless American security starts tracking ships as far as 30 hrs. out of port. Since all containers from the ME ports are checked by radiation and x-rays terrorists have to be careful. Useless American security often stops these ships 9 miles out of port with hand-held radiation detectors. and all the containers must go throught security at the port. The cloaking device will make the weapons go away and then they will reappear when the inspections are done. When the containers are far in the ports the cloaking device will be removed and America will be blown up. Simple. The US will then attack the UAE and be defeated by the 64,000 rented army of the UAE.
This is a good plan, Bush should have seen it but he is in the pockets of UAE. My granddad told me he had seen similar plans and they would have worked if implemented. I am not the only one that thinks this. I have two sources at Shady Pines (rest home for insane former Government employees) that agree with my facts. We must kill them first or we are doomed. Bush's attacks on terrorists is only a ploy to deceive us, he is in their pocket and will stand with them. Stop him before he kills us all.
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.