Perhaps it might be best if you re-read my post. The part you highlight refers to the behavior of people that have objected to this sale. It makes no reference as to whether this is a good policy move or bad policy move. Only that the behavior of some folks could have been different, in return allowing a differnet less hardened stance by the administration to see this through.
You've been your own worst enemies on this, given the manner carried forth by so many.
You state Arab countriies will forever direct wrath at the U.S. You state this as though it is fact. It is not. Countries like Iran and syria will do this. Countries like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, that are "allies" though not friends, have suffered from the terrorists THEY created. I am of the opinion these countries are similiar to our alliance with Russia/S.U. during the days of Hitler. The natural order is dispursed because we have a mutual enemy of greater threat. That enemy being one that doesn't respect any Government, including that of the Saudi royal family. This is why we have become allies. Will the natural order return once the terrorists are removed as an obstacle? probable, but until that day a new relationship has emerged.
As to the nuts and bolts issue of whether it's a good idea... even if we supply security, to allow them to make money off the ports? It doesn't sit well with me. But at the same time I am not in the grouping overtly concerned they'll spend millions to blow us up when they toppled two buildings, crashed half the Pentagon, and "retired" several of our planes for significantly less. It defies common sense.
I don't think this is a great deal, I don't think it is either worth the amount of hysteria it has engendered. It is a big deal that's worth national debate. More or less than that i reject.
No, I don't think I misread it. You referred to "Arabs that don't favor terrorism," which in the context of the thread, would naturally refer to the UAE, being further alienated by the reaction of US citizens ("hysteria") to this sale.
My point is that while there may be individual Arabs who don't favor terrorism, there are few to no Arab governments that don't overtly or covertly support it -- for the sake of saving their own, mainly corrupt, skins.
From Victor David Hanson:
The multi-billionaire Sheikh Zayed, was an early patron of the PLO, and from the 1970’s until his death in 2004, contributed millions of dollars to the terror agenda of the PLO, HAMAS and Islamic Jihad.
Human Appeal International, a UAE government-operated “charitable” organization, whose board includes the UAE president, funds HAMAS as well as other Palestinian organizations, “martyrs,” Palestinian terrorists in Israeli prisons and their families. The HAI’s modus operandi is to transfer money to the Palestinian Red Crescent Organization whose West Bank and Gaza branches are operated by HAMAS. They, in turn, distribute the money to HAMAS “charities.”
For example, according to the Orient Research Center in Toronto, Canada, the UAE “compensation” plan for the Palestinian intifada in 2001 included $3,000 for every Palestinian shaheed, $2,000 for his family, $1,500 for those detained by Israel, $1,200 for each orphan. In addition, families of those terrorists whose homes Israel demolished each received $10,000.
Also in 2001, in support of the martyr’s families in the Palestinian intifada, two telethons were organized in the UAE. “We Are All Palestinians” raised 135 million dirham, or $36.8 million, and “For Your Sake Palestine” raised 350 million dirham, or $95.3 million.
According to a detailed report on March 25, 2005, in the Palestinian daily Al Hayat al-Jadeeda, the UAE Friends Society transferred $475,000, through the UAE Red Crescent, to West Bank “charitable” organizations in Hebron, Jenin, Nablus and Tulkarem to distribute to the families of “martyrs,” orphans, imprisoned Palestinians and others.
The Palestinian newspaper Al-Ayyam reported on March 22, 2005, that in 2004 the UAE Red Crescent donated $2 million to HAMAS “charities” to be distributed to 3,158 terrorists’ orphans.
There's more, but I think that makes the point.
How, exactly, is this much different from SA's support of suicide bombers? Because the UAE has not suffered from "the terrorists THEY created?" My guess is that since the port of Dubai is so critical to the transport of military supplies, there is enough US presence there to keep the UAE from that sort of "suffering."
You seem to want to elevate this matter to some sort of abstract "policy" decision, based on the assumption that the UAE's investment will prevent them from "blowing up ports" that are a source of income. That's reducing the argument to a bit of absurdity. The fear of those who oppose this (except of course for Dems, whose concern are the unions), is not that Dubai will sabotage the ports, but that their kowtowing and support of terrorism will allow an "embarassing" accident to occur at one of those ports, not through governmental action, necessarily (and this is a government-owned company), but through the same sort of inaction -- "looking the other way" when it comes to the actions of terrorists -- that we see in every Arab government.
Let this government continue to "support" the WOT in their own country to the best of their two-faced ability, but keep them out of our strategically critical US ports.
Correction to my last post: the info on the UAE isn't from VDH, it's from Rachel Ehrenfeld and Paul E. Vallely in Frontpagemag.com.
WASHINGTON - The Bush administration secretly required a company in the United Arab Emirates to cooperate with future U.S. investigations before approving its takeover of operations at six American ports, according to documents obtained by The Associated Press. It chose not to impose other, routine restrictions.As part of the $6.8 billion purchase, state-owned Dubai Ports World agreed to reveal records on demand about "foreign operational direction" of its business at U.S. ports, the documents said. Those records broadly include details about the design, maintenance or operation of ports and equipment.
The administration did not require Dubai Ports to keep copies of business records on U.S. soil, where they would be subject to court orders. It also did not require the company to designate an American citizen to accommodate U.S. government requests. Outside legal experts said such obligations are routinely attached to U.S. approvals of foreign sales in other industries.
The concessions — described previously by the Homeland Security Department as unprecedented among maritime companies — reflect the close relationship between the United States and the United Arab Emirates....
Under the deal, the government asked Dubai Ports to operate American seaports with existing U.S. managers "to the extent possible." It promised to take "all reasonable steps" to assist the Homeland Security Department, and it pledged to continue participating in security programs to stop smuggling and detect illegal shipments of nuclear materials....
Bush's words on the subject:
“I want those who are questioning it to step up and explain why all of a sudden a Middle Eastern company is held to a different standard than a Great British company. I am trying to conduct foreign policy now by saying to the people of the world, ‘We’ll treat you fairly."
I think it's the administration that should explain why a Middle Eastern company/government is being held to a different, reduced, standard. Furthermore, if the UAE is such an ally, why stipulate that they "cooperate with future U.S. investigations" as a condition of the deal? Wouldn't it be assumed that an "ally" has and will be cooperating? Apparently not.