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.
No he's wrong. Going by the Freedom House rankings, Yemen, Egypt, Lebanon, Oman and Kuwait all have better political and civil rights records. Judging the UAE on a worldwide basis, its ranks ahead of North Korea and behind Venezuela. Talk about a record to be proud of.
I don't necessarily want a review. My point is that it should have been vetted in advance so that this did not happen, as anyone with a brain would have realized it would. What's particularly shocking to me is that the people involved were surprised at the reaction. They ought to consider some other line of work in my opinion. Any fool could have predicted this.
I don't think the purpose of the procedure was to keep the politics out. I think the purpose of the procedure was to keep confidential corporate information out of the public domain. It boggles the mind, though, that this could happen, and no one from the White House knew about it until it was too late.
What? have you seen the polls in Europe toward us lartey. Hey I am going also by the what I have read from Americans there. TO be honest these polls are stupid. If you ran a pol toward Americans view toward the UAE 2 weeks ago prob similar results. Based on Ignorance. I am listening to Hannity where he keeps saying the lie they were not our friends till 4 years ago. BUt for such an unfriendly place they have certaintly done a lot for us. I am sure the UAE perception of us is lower this week since they cant believe the ignorance of people here. We are not at war with UAE. Gosh we have a command structure for military there for the whole region
I take the conservative approach on this issue. Lets return management of all commercial operations of terminals in US ports of entry to American companies. Who knows, Halliburton may even be interested. Right now, there is an 80-20 percent split in commercial operations control, with foreign entities holding the 80%. When you take everything into consideration --- 9-11 being so recent, the ongoing WOT, with Islam wanting Israel destroyed --- the entire set of circumstances involving this issue is totally unacceptable. Serious changes are in order.
Any study that puts the UAE behind LEbanon and Egypt is very suspect. Gosh the Syrians just left LEbanon.
Freedom HOuse is wrong if it equates the UAE with IRan that is is insane and you know it. You dont have to have a study to know that just use your eyes. The State department document I viewed yeaterday goes quite opposite of that.
The people of UAE aren't the Kingdom. The Emirs have certainly been good to us, because at this point, they need are protection. So when someone says UAE is an ally, they are technically correct. But it is a Kingdom. We are not dealing with "the people" who detest us. And say what you want about European dislike for the US, they don't fly planes at us when they are pissed. Two "royal subjects" of the UAE did that.
The people of the UAE dont detest us That is to strong. @ out of millions. Sorry that fact doesnt sink the deal for me.
It should have been vetted with the Congressional GOP. If it doesn't have support there, then it's doomed.
I asked you politely. You can do what you want. I'd like for you to engage in civil and intelligent debate. But in all honesty, that is something you rarely have a mind to do and isn't what you are known for around FreeRepublic. I would be shocked to see you discuss issues related to conservatism, at any time. You know, the reason we all come to FR, to discuss conservatism. I don't have any hope you might get off your high horse and join the human race. Not that you'll become a mensch anytime soon.
agreed.
It would appear that the UAE is our erstwhile ally in the WOT, while it is convenient, and financially expedient (for them)
Next time you post a thread, be sure to put up a disclaimer that unless you personally approve of the discussion, you're gonna whine and moan.
Be sure to add you're in favor of censoring people's posts; that ought to be a big hit on here.
I trust Freedom House's opinion on the relative level of freedom in the UAE more than I trust your opinion particularly since you are apparently under the misguided impression that a dictatorship that is friendly to us becomes less of a dictatorship as a result.
Actually, that's not true. Congress doesn't have a thing to do with deals like this until the deal is determined to need review for whatever reason.
The deal is fine. There's a reason why most of the people who spoke out against it for a day or two have suddenly shut up.
MY reaction to Israel is this. The UAE is taking the standard arab league line there. I am not expecting them to be all Pro ISrael. So they are for the Palestians having Jersualuam as their capitol. Which means in reality part of. Same posisition taken by many non arabs in fact. Its not a deal breaker. The whole Israel thing is a red herring. I havent heard one major party in Israel even say boo on this issue. In fact most big JEwish supporters of Israel(neocons mostly) have been pro this. That speaks alot to me. Senator Liberiman in fact said last week that the fact its a UAE company by itself should not be a deal breaker and he is the most consistent supporter of Israel in the Dem party. So to me Israel doesnt come into it
The state, county or city port authority handles and determines leased terminals. Not the president or his administration. Ports are a states right. The federal govt has nothing to do with terminal leasing. The federal govt is responsible for security of ports.
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.