Pier Pressure: The UAE In Perspective

Investor's Business Daily ^ | 3/6/2006 | Editor

[Isara]

Port Deal: America's shabby treatment of imperfect allies has boomeranged in the past. Those who'd kick the UAE out of American ports should ponder what would happen if the U.S. Navy was kicked out of theirs.

...

The UAE has put itself on the line in the war on terror, which is more than can be said of some of our European "friends" whom we liberated twice and protected for six decades. When Winston Churchill was asked abut his alliance with Stalin, he famously replied that he would ally himself with Satan, if the devil was fighting Hitler.

U.S. Navy warships dock at its ports, with the UAE being the No. 2 international port for the Navy. Dubai Ports World has provided services for 700 U.S. Navy ships a year at the UAE ports of Jebel Ali and Fujairah.

The U.S. Air Force uses its airbases at Al Dhafra and Abu Dhabi. U-2 spy planes and Global Hawk unmanned surveillance aircraft have been based there along with KC-10 aerial refueling planes.

Dubai Ports World is also the primary support contractor for U.S. Air Force assets at Al Dhafra.

Look at the nearby map. The UAE is the virtual epicenter of a region from Lebanon to India that contains both our greatest hopes and our greatest threats.... no accident.. Secretary.. Rice recently visited Lebanon on her way to the UAE, or that President Bush visited the world's largest democracy, India, to ink a historic strategic partnership. ...

...

We have expressed certain reservations about the port deal in the past. But in the war on terror we need all the friends we can get, particularly a nation strategically situated between a struggling Iraqi democracy and a mushrooming Iranian threat. President Bush once said either you are with us or against us. The UAE is with us.

[kitkat]

******The Treasury secretary and the head of the Maritime division, have made much money in the last year or so from dealings with the UAE***

I am astounded by the ease with which you libel a member of the President's cabinet WITHOUT posting facts to prove your claim.

[kitkat]

Lots of talk on the part of the naysayers who get their "facts" from the commies at the MSM.

[MNJohnnie]

Hmm seems to be a strange dichotomy here. Suppose the Port Deal Critics post their sources the way the Port Deal supporters are. It is odd to me how people stating their opinions as fact with no supporting documentation considering themselves "smarter" then those who provide the proof to back up their statements. Maybe the Port Deal Critics are not as "Smart" as they think they are?

[Reaganwuzthebest]

Suppose the Port Deal Critics post their sources the way the Port Deal supporters are.

Suppose you'd like to provide some links about how 100% of our containers are being inspected as you constantly imply? Nope probably won't see it except for the ususal hot air and hysteria, which is all we get from MNJohnnie who refuses to answer the question: if Bill Clinton were president and was pushing for this deal could we expect him to be so vocal in his support?

[MNJohnnie]

Stupidity that polls well is still stupid. CFR, No Child Left Behind and Medicare Drug Plan polled well, they are still dumb ideas. Leadership often means bringing people to where they need to be not responding to every passing new Govt expanding Legislation every time the DNC sends out a talking point.

[jeremiah]

Treasury secretary John Snow, the head of the panel charged with making decisions of the port deal, was chairman of CSX railway. It sold its port operations to DP World for $1.15 Billion in 2004 ONE YEAR after he joined Bushes cabinet.

David Sanborn, who runs DP World European and Latin operations, was an exectuve for CSX, was picked by Bush to run the Maritime administration. Madeline Albright is lobbying for this, as is Bob Dole. This deal stinks, on the surface it is a political payoff, and I am ashamed that someone can sell their "good name" for access to our country. This is something the Clintons were good at, and it seems our President is not so bad at either.

[Reaganwuzthebest]

You reply made no sense at all, we're talking about the port deal. Are any of them being taken over by UAE in Minnesota as they are here in NY? This state has been hit twice with major terrorist attacks so excuse those common folk who aren't so quick to jump on the bandwagon of those who say this is all so harmless. And btw I have absolutely no doubt after reading your posts and the extreme political nature of them that if Clinton were president pushing for this nonsense you'd be jumping all over him like the rest of us.

[jeremiah]

Are you disputing the fact that the Treasury secretary benefitted from dealings with the UAE, or that Sanborn did also? A blind trust is a joke, like he did not know the players, and wasn't aware that they should have recused themselves from any decisions having to do with this deal. The facts are easily checked, they happened, the people are in the seats of power that are in control of this move, and blind trusts or not, they would KNOW that any decision they made that improved the company they previously dealt with, would improve their position financially.

[hedgetrimmer]

Lots of talk on the part of the naysayers who get their "facts" from the commies at the MSM.

FACT: Bill Clinton and Al Gore "reinvented" our government in the early 1990s to allow foreign governments and foreign corporations to buy up strategic and sensitive US national assets. The ports deal was worked out with a FRENCH NGO, called the OECD, to "level the playing field" so that foreign agents could get a chunk of the American domestic economy. "level the playing field" is "free trader" code for looting the domestic economy.

So now we have people like you, who obviously don't remember or have no care for the America that actually had some vestiges of constitutional government left, accusing the rest of us of being commies.

I am curious. Why should you so emphatically support a Clinton administration policy that 85% of the American people oppose? Who are the commies, the ones who want to protect their national sovereignty, or the ones who want to "level the playing field" in true communist fashion by taking from the "rich" Americans and giving it away to the "disadvantaged" second and third world nations like the UAE?

[NordP]

:-)

[kitkat]

For any newbies who want the truth about our national defense:

It was MRS. Clinton who said that "we may have to take things away from you for the national good." That's a communist statement. And, it was MRS. Clinton who said that we should not allow the UAE to control the BUSINESS PART of the ports. And it was Bill Clinton who gave advice to the UAE in getting the contract for the ports, after he collected $450,000 from them. Bill Clinton is possibly guilty of having become an Agent of a Foreign country.

It was George Bush who lowered our taxes and brought back a good economy which helps all Americans. It was George Bush who immediately after 9/11 sought to go to war against the TERRORISTS in Afghanistan and Iraq to protect the lives of Americans. MY life is better, and safer, with George W. Bush at the helm. And so is yours. So, who are you gonna believe? People who repeat what is said by the Clintons and their ilk in the MSM? Or people who thank God every day that we have an honest and solid leader to protect us?

[hedgetrimmer]

"we may have to take things away from you for the national good."

You're correct. Her husband Bill took our ports away from us and allowed foreign agents to purchase them, although it wasn't for the national good now was it?