Posted on 03/04/2006 5:59:46 PM PST by rambo316
In Dubai, everyone refers to their ruler, Emir Mohammed Bin Rashid al-Maktoum, as "MBR." Just to give you an idea of how he is into tourism not terrorism, here's a quick story.
He has closed circuit television in his private office. And what are the cameras trained on? Immigration/passport control lines at the airport. If MBR sees the lines are getting too long, he picks up the phone and orders more personnel to reduce the lines. Again, his focus is tourism not terrorism.
The US Navy docks its ships at Dubai more often than at any other non-US port in the world. 25,000 Americans (and 100,000 Brits) live and work in the Emirates now.
The realization that Dubai and the UAE is the most pro-American Arab country on earth is sinking in to fevered Congressional brains as their spasm of knee-jerk xenophobia dissipates.
It was also an embarrassment for them to learn that the NATIONAL SHIPPING COMPANY OF SAUDI ARABIA (NSCSA - owned by the Saudi government and Saudi individuals) has operated terminals for years at the ports of Baltimore, New Orleans, Houston, Savannah, Newark, and Brooklyn. A terminals list is on the nscsaamerica.com website.
Why hasn't Little Chuckie Schumer and Over The Hillary Clinton screamed about this? Brooklyn is in New York, right?
You know they're scraping the bottom of the demagogue barrel when they trot out the canard that the UAE is a signatory to the Arab boycott of Israel. Yes, and there are laws against prostitution in Vegas - which means there must be no hookers in Sin City, yes? Dubai does business with Israel hand over fist. The Dubai intel and Mossad guys know each other well. After all, their common enemy, Iran, is only 50 miles away from the UAE across the Strait of Hormuz.
The shame in this is that Conservative Republicans in Congress, by allowing themselves to get suckered into Bush-bashing Democrat xenophobia, blew their chance to make a deal with GW.
While they fulminated and rabble-roused right along with Schumer, GW stayed calm and obdurate, fanned out his folks around the country to explain the ports deal, and had the satisfaction of seeing Tommy Friedman in the New York Times and Richard Cohen in the Washington Post praise him and condemn Schumer.
If they had kept their wits about them, the Republican Conservative Caucus in the House could have gone to Bush in the heat of the frenzy and offered to back him on the ports deal if he would back them on real border protection and illegal immigration control.
Along with allowing runaway government spending, the most maddening thing about the Bush 43 presidency to conservatives is GW's inexplicable unwillingness to put a stop to illegal immigration across the Mexican border. Here at last was a chance to turn Bush around.
Maybe they'll still try. Tancredo is about to give it a shot. But it looks like the moment of opportunity has passed. The "45 day waiting period" has given angry Congresscritters an easy exit from their opposition. Bill Frist has announced he's abandoning any effort at blocking-legislation. Duncan Hunter's threat of a bill to kill the deal is a dead letter.
This deal is set. Bush has won and the conservatives' temper tantrum has cost them dearly.
Thanks to Dr. Jack Wheeler for his brilliance in bringing this to light. God Bless him.
yeah? If we do then why hasn't anybody been talking about the little fact that Saudi Arabia is operating terminals in American ports? hannity is such an idiot. he has been spouting off since this deal was announced about how he is against it, yadda, yadda, yadda..
Don't you know, hannity and weiner(savage) kill more terrorists from behind their microphones, than the Commander-in-Chief, President Bush.
The deal is dead in the water, and even support on FR is dropping rapidly (see the sidebar poll numbers).
It's insane that anyone supported this in the first place. Turn six ports over to an Arab country? Yeah, right.
In 1991, NSCSA (America) Inc., was established to serve as the General Agent in North America for the Liner Service between U.S., Canada and the Middle East/India Subcontinent/East Mediterranean regions.
Damn! We missed our chance to sell out Port Security for Border Security!!! LMAO!!!!
Uh it ain't six ports, DPWorld legitmately bought six terminals from P&O.
Oh BTW, the poll results have reversed since the deal was first announced in the news, and when people find out the truth(i.e DPWorld is not taking over the ports) minds are changed, but you go ahead and spread your schumer lies.
Didn't you read the article? There are ports being run by Saudi's now and they have been for a while. Didn't you read that fact? I even put it in bold. And by the way, the deal is not dead. After the 45 day waiting period, these idiot Rats and Pubies will see the light.
You would have to studiously NOT READ FR to not know the fact of Saudi involvement in our ports.
Gad!!!!!
If the Brooklyn terminal is Red Hook as claimed on the link you provided, then there is another company, ASI claiming operations at that port.
This is probably just a glitch but it needs clarification.
The polls have reversed? Wow, so now 70% of Americans are for this deal instead of against it?
Where's the link?
We have Coast Guard national headquarter just down the road, and no one is changing any signs there, and they still wear uniforms issued by the US government?
I'm simply not seeing the security thing ~ detailed explanations would be nice, eh?!
Excellent editorial.
Thanks for posting it.
Here is another one, which goes into a lot of detail about why rejecting it can harm our strategic plans in the Middle East. With excellent additional comments by Tarnsman.
The downside of rejecting the DWP port deal
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1589419/posts
I was talking about the FR poll.
BTW, 2/3rds of Americans were against Clinton's impeachment, I guess Henry Hyde shouldn't have persevered according to your "logic".
This is about 9 such "terminals" at 6 "ports".
No doubt there are several companies operating different "terminals" at the same "port".
Always good to understand the terms.
You're arguing for giving over six of our terminals to an Arab country that does NOT share our values. Good luck with that.
The sane among us will continue to oppose the deal.
The sane among us will continue to oppose the deal.
Actually I'll take the opinion of the sane Gen. Tommy Franks, rather than that of the insane weiner(savage).
United Arab Emirates actively participated in the following events:
1995-2001: Persian Gulf Elite Go Hunting with bin Laden in Afghanistan Complete 911 Timeline
After the Taliban takes control of the area around Kandahar, Afghanistan, in September 1994, prominent Persian Gulf state officials and businessmen, including high-ranking United Arab Emirates and Saudi government ministers, such as Saudi intelligence minister Prince Turki al-Faisal, frequently secretly fly into Kandahar on state and private jets for hunting expeditions. [Los Angeles Times, 11/18/01] General Wayne Downing, Bush's former national director for combating terrorism, says: “They would go out and see Osama, spend some time with him, talk with him, you know, live out in the tents, eat the simple food, engage in falconing, some other pursuits, ride horses. One noted visitor is Sheik Mohammed ibn Rashid al Maktum, United Arab Emirates Defense Minister and Crown Prince for the emirate of Dubai.” [MSNBC, 9/5/03] While there, some develop ties to the Taliban and al-Qaeda and give them money. Both bin Laden and Taliban leader Mullah Omar sometimes participate in these hunting trips. Former US and Afghan officials suspect that the dignitaries' outbound jets may also have smuggled out al-Qaeda and Taliban personnel. [Los Angeles Times, 11/18/01] On one occasion, the US will decide not to attack bin Laden with a missile because he's falconing with important members of the United Arab Emirates' royal family (see February 1999).
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.