Posted on 02/24/2006 10:03:45 AM PST by SirLinksalot
'Right-wing' radio, TV guys split on control of U.S. ports Limbaugh, O'Reilly favor deal, while Savage, Hannity oppose
-------------------------------------------------------
Posted: February 24, 2006 4:00 a.m. Eastern
© 2006 WorldNetDaily.com
Rush Limbaugh
The heated issue of turning operating control of six major U.S. ports over to a state-sponsored company based in the United Arab Emirates is splitting some of the biggest names in American broadcasting, including Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly who favor the transfer, and Sean Hannity and Michael Savage who oppose it.
"I have been a profile in courage on this story," declared Limbaugh on his national radio show yesterday. "When it comes to the UAE or the Middle East: I do not believe that every Arab nation, government, sponsors terrorism. I don't believe they all are for it. I don't believe they secretly fund it. I think this story about the two or three of the 9-11 hijackers came out of the UAE, they may have.
"The London bomber was a British citizen. We have had homegrown criminals in this country try to blow up buildings and commit crime in this country. The idea that the United Arab Emirates government recruited those three hijackers, trained them and paid for them is not true. Just because they came out of there, I'm not willing to cast negative aspersions on a whole country."
Limbaugh said he was hearing a lot of fear about control of the ports, but said "fear causes all kinds of distortions when it comes to reason."
He also said economics is the driving force behind the deal, and the port operators, Dubai Ports World, would be the last ones seeking a terrorist-related incident at one of its locations.
"As far as the UAE is concerned, if this is really about compromising our security or really about finding a way to do another 9-11, there's simpler ways of doing it and cheaper and then there are also ways of doing it to where the light of attention doesn't shine back on them after the futuristic event. Why in the world would they want to do this as a way of perpetrating another act of mass terrorism, knowing full well that the world is going to blame them and we are going to blame them?"
Bill O'Reilly
While Fox News host and syndicated radio talker Bill O'Reilly calls himself independent and not conservative, he agrees with Limbaugh on this issue, noting this week on "The O'Reilly Factor" program:
"The bottom line is this. If America spits in the eye of the UAE, which is a huge help in the war on terror right now, if we tell these people to take a hike just because they're Arabs, we'll lose the help of all the rest of the Arab world.
"Now remember, countries like Jordan, Kuwait, and the UAE help us in Iraq, Afghanistan, and fighting al-Qaida. The Emirates, for example, captured al-Qaida big shot Al Nafiri, the guy who masterminded the USS Cole attack. They captured him and handed him over the CIA.
"Anyway, savvy Americans will get the picture here. If it's OK for a British company to work in America's ports, and then the British company is bought by an Arab company, and we throw the Arabs out without cause, that's flat out racism. What say you, Hillary Clinton?"
Michael Savage
Before the story of the deal hit the radar screens of most of the national news media, radio talk-show host Michael Savage, well-known for his theme of "borders, language, culture," began educating his audience about the potential dangers of the plan for Arab control of port operations.
New York Times columnist David Brooks got into a discussion with Jim Lehrer of the PBS News Hour regarding Savage's impact.
Brooks: ... [T]his really started and really got the biggest push from Michael Savage, who is a genius for understanding what's going to – Jim Lehrer: He's a very conservative radio host.
Brooks: Beyond conservative, reactionary.
Lehrer: Whatever. You use the word, I won't use the word.
Brooks: And so he had a sense this is going to seem weird to people who don't know about it. And it does, UAE, Arabs, ports, ports are insecure, people have a sense that's true. And it's exploded on left and right.
Sean Hannity
Sean Hannity, who hosts both a national radio and television show, has been in President Bush's corner on most issues, but he's breaking with him over Bush's staunch support for the ports deal.
"I think this president's been tough on the war on terror. I want to believe him," Hannity said. "I don't like the track record and the involvement of the UAE as it relates to money issues involving 9-11, transportation issues. They have a history of supporting terror that, frankly, is sketchy at best. ...
"Their support of the Taliban concerns me. Their non-recognition of Israel concerns me. The UAE's banking system filtered a lot of the money that was used operationally prior to 9-11. Their use of transportational assistance.
"Those specific things, they're going to have access to one of the most sensitive, secure areas in this country. That history bothers me. The administration is saying they're changing. What am I missing here?"
No comment on this divisive issue?
Perfectly predictable that Bush-bot Limbaugh pounds the table for the Administration.
(It's laughable that we should believe that any terrorist attack would necessarily and easily point directly to shenanigans at one of the ports of entry.)
I have one. Sean is a conservative gasbag. The value of Rush's opinion is head-and-shoulders above Sean's.
And Mark Steyn was one voice not bashing Bush on this one.
HH: Now Mark, I know you're a supporter of the ports deal, right?
MS: Well, I wouldn't say I was a supporter. I do think the opposition to it has, with respect to you, Hugh, has slightly gone off the rail. You know, one thing is clear. The United Arab Emirates...for example, if Emirates Airways decided to buy United and Northwest and Delta and TWA, and every other U.S. airline, I would rejoice, because they run a much better airline that any of the U.S. airlines. If the issue is they're an Arab company, well, PNO, who they're buying out, which presently has the rights to this deal, PNO, a British company, actually, more British jihadis have been involved on the wrong side of the War On Terror, in the London Tube bombing, the shoe bombing on a U.S. airplane, Zaq Moussaoui, the 20th hijacker, lived on welfare in Britain. There have been British jihadis...there's actually more British involved on the wrong side of the War On Terror, more British subjects, than there are citizens of the United Arab Emirates.
One of the few times I disagree with Rush. Like a caller from yesterday, I can't quite explain it but I don't have a good feeling on this deal. My other big disagreement was when he was all for NAFTA, I still don't see how it's made my life any better. My 2 cents.
If anything, this issue has made me ask about who is in charge of security of the ports and shouldn't we be maintaining that regardless of who owns the company running the port?
There are certain Americans (think of the leadership of the Demonrat party, for example) who I wouldn't want running our ports. The fact that they aren't Arabs doesn't make me want to drop my guard one bit.
My sentiments exactly. And his "profile in courage" boast was just plain irritating.
The funny thing is - the sale is not even by the U.S. - the sale is being made by the British firm to the UAE firm.
The USA is not even a party in the sale.
Most people are so reactive - they fail to listen, they fail to read - they just react.
"Their support of the Taliban concerns me. Their non-recognition of Israel concerns me. The UAE's banking system filtered a lot of the money that was used operationally prior to 9-11. Their use of transportational assistance. "
Uuuh Hannity, they cut ties to the Taliban after 9/11.
See Below:
Press Statement
Richard Boucher, Spokesman
Washington, DC
September 22, 2001
The U.S. welcomes the decision of the United Arab Emirates to sever relations with the Taliban because of its continued refusal to turn over Usama bin Laden. The UAE’s action today is fully consistent with United Nations Security Council Resolutions 1267 and 1333, and constitutes further evidence that the international community of nations speaks with one voice on this issue. Usama bin Laden and his terrorist associates threaten not just one state or several states, but rather civilization itself. We hope today’s move by the UAE will lead the Taliban to recognize that it must immediately remand Usama bin Laden to the appropriate authorities so that he may be arrested and effectively brought to justice.
Released on September 22, 2001
Furthermore Hannity, Al Qaeda used the banks worldwide to include US banks to move money for their operatives. As I recall, UAE has froze/closed AL Quaeda's accounts in their country. Hannity your points are moot.
Nafta helps some not all. Maybe you are one of the folks not helped. I know for a fact that it helped my brother-in-law get his company started and going.
But I believe that Rush has done a fairly good job thinking this out. This is a business transaction. If the UAE wanted to sponser a terrorist attack on the US they wouldn't spend $6B to do it. The folks reacting to this are having a knee jerk reaction without really thinking this through.
I can "blah-blah" about the facts on how the security and the folks that are actually running the facilities won't change. But in the end, the security of the ports are not changing and the only way to improve the security is something that we control regardless of which company is managing the facilities.
I find it funny that the reasons given in opposition are 1) they are an arab country and 2) a couple of the 9/11 folks came from UAE. Well the British terrists where from Briton. Timothy M. was a US citizen when he blew up the federal building. I think every country in the world has there wack jobs so painting the country with such a wide brush is a stupid thing to do.
I like that conservatives can disagree with one another and still be conservative. You can't say that about Democrats. When's the last time they've debated anything among themselves like this? It's either yes or no and they fall into line.
I agree with Rush. We have a process, set in place by Congress, followed to the letter.
One thing that amuses me in this sort of situation is the glee with which the lefties see conservatives disagreeing, as if this were somehow a sign of a breakup. It isn't - it's a sign of health that persons within the same party can disagree, and party solidarity is simply not as crucial to the right's self-image as it has become to the left, very much to their detriment, IMHO. We will see a resurgence of a healthy Democratic party when cooler heads tell Dean and his ilk that they're nucking futs in a public forum.
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.