Posted on 03/06/2006 2:16:10 PM PST by pissant
Anytime Democrats begin posturing as the enemies of terrorism, as in the political storm over the Dubai ports deal, Americans should look for a rat. Democrats are the defenders of the "rights" of al-Qaeda terrorists locked away at Guantanamo.
Democrat media printed details compromising America’s secret al-Qaeda detention centers -- believed leaked by Senator Jay Rockefeller (D-WVa) -- as a news screen to draw attention away from Iraq’s successful Oct. 15 elections.
The Democrat propagandists of the New York Times chose to divulge details of the administration’s spying on al-Qaeda phone calls the day after Iraq’s even more successful December 15 elections.
In late February, U.S. Rep. Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii, Second District, became the only member of Congress to vote for millions in U.S. funding of the Hamas terrorist government in Palestine.
Of course the Democrats are only pretending to be against the Dubai deal. The 'Financial Times of London on March 1, reported: “Bill Clinton, former U.S. president, advised top officials from Dubai two weeks ago on how to address growing U.S. concerns over the acquisition of five US container terminals by DP World. It came even as his wife, Sen. Hillary Clinton, was leading efforts to derail the deal…. Mr. Clinton’s contact with Dubai on the issue underscores the relationship he has developed with the United Arab Emirates since leaving office. In 2002, he was paid $300,000 to address a summit in Dubai.”
Robert Novak on http://www.TownHall.com on March 2, added: “While Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton was ripping President Bush's handling of American ports management, Bill Clinton was pushing for one of his favorite White House aides to be hired to defend the deal. The former president proposed to the United Arab Emirates (UAE) his onetime press secretary, Joe Lockhart, as Washington spokesman for the UAE-owned company, Dubai Ports World.
“The Lockhart deal was never consummated. But the spectacle of the two Clintons going in opposite directions on the UAE port-management question exposed a Democratic fault line. Widespread public reaction against outsourcing control of the ports was seen by Sen. Clinton and other prominent Democrats as a chance to outflank the Republicans on homeland security in this year's elections. Behind the scenes, however, Democrats aligned with the Clinton family were lobbying for the UAE.”
The UAE is hardly pure. Dubai banks held accounts used to fund some of the 9-11 attackers. Two of the 19 hijackers came from the UAE. In February, 1999, President Clinton used the presence of some UAE princes in Osama bin-Laden’s hunting party as an excuse not to fire cruise missiles. Some UAE leaders made post-9-11 comments which excused or justified the attacks or drew some kind of demented moral equivalence between al-Qaeda and Israel.
Any contact with Muslim states involves the chance that an al-Qaeda infiltrator may slip through. But terrorists have attacked the USA without the UAE leasing any port unloading facilities. They are also capable of attacking without the use of foreign nationals, as the cases of Iyman Faris, Jose Padilla and others show. Any possible threat enhanced by the Dubai Ports deal is already present through many other avenues.
One example would be New York’s JFK airport which receives flights from no less than ten Muslim-owned airlines -- including twice daily non-stops from the UAE on Emirates airline. While the UAE-leased seaport terminals will be staffed by the same American employees who work there now, these Muslim-owned airlines are piloted by Muslims into the skies over New York, Washington, Los Angeles and other cities every day.
The home-country security for these flights is the responsibility of Muslim security officers and screeners. Any of these flights could simply veer off course and take out a skyscraper in a matter of seconds. Any of them could carry a nuclear weapon into our skies and detonate it over a city. Why are no politicians propounding on this threat? Should we shut them down? Even if we did, would that really end the threat?
Every day oil tankers with their volatile cargo arrive in US ports. In the Middle-East these are loaded often by Muslim workers at Muslim-owned ports. Often, many of the ship’s crew are Muslims. It would be a simple matter to include a nuclear device or other weapon on board. Should we cut off the shipments?
Homeland security can make the terrorist’s job more difficult, but it cannot win the war on terror. To win, the spread of freedom, democracy and trade must outpace and block the spread of nuclear weapons technology. That can happen through a combination of anti-nuclear proliferation action—including military action -- and pro-democracy actions, political, economic and diplomatic -- including military actions such as Iraq and Afghanistan.
If nukes are obtained by despotic terrorist regimes such as Iran, the result can be measured in thousands -- if not millions -- dead in Israel, Europe or America. This race between freedom and nukes was set in motion with Pakistan’s 1994 acquisition of nuclear weapons which quickly led to the sale of Pakistani nuclear technology to Libya, North Korea, and Iran.
We can slow the spread of nuclear weapons technology and we can hasten the spread of democracy, but it is physically impossible to wall ourselves off from the threat of nuclear terrorism. The only way to defeat that threat is by action -- political, diplomatic, economic and military -- in the Islamic world. Action which will either physically destroy a nuclear threat or action which will result in the creation of societies no longer interested in waging terrorist war against the free world. The combination of these two methods is our only chance for victory. Walling ourselves off does not protect us, it guarantees our defeat.
The UAE is no democracy, but it is a trade-oriented society rightly seen as the “Hong-Kong of the Gulf.” About 60 percent of the UAE’s 3.4 million residents are non-native. The UAE is currently host to more US Navy ships than any foreign port. It is a banking, tourism, and shipping center for the entire region. In surveys, a plurality of Iraqis indicate the UAE is the country they would most like to emulate.
Among Islamic countries the UAE is one of the most progressive. If we choose to wall ourselves off from a country such as this, then what are we doing in Iraq or Afghanistan? The entire strategy of forcing the development of democracy is at question and the questions are being asked by the usual isolationist forces on both left and right joined by hordes of political opportunists.
We can bring about mutual respect with the Islamic world based on the spread of democracy, trade, cultural and diplomatic exchanges -- and military action as in Iraq and Afghanistan. Failing that, the options only get uglier: fight a nuclear war, or surrender to gangs of nuclear armed head chopping baby killers. A U.S.-Soviet style detent is not even a temporary option with nuclear terrorists.
No strategy is without risk. President Bush’s strategy emphasizing development of broad military, political, diplomatic and economic relations with Muslim societies as full or partial allies in the war on terror has paid off in terms of thousands of terrorists captured or killed. The risk of abandoning this strategy is far greater than the risks associated with continuing it.
There can never be mutual respect between islamic societies and infidels. Never.
We can either pretend islam is just another religion (delusion), we can assume the role of dhimmie (cowardice)...or we can get down to business with the real enemy that plans to convert, enslave or kill us...i.e. fundamental islam (reality).
Couldn't disagree more. I know too many muslims to believe that the majority do not want the same things we do. Freedom and opportunity. The millions that have come to this country are NOT our enemy. The Iraqi expats dancing in the streets with the capture of Saddam are not our enemy. The Kurds are not our enemy. The UAE special forces and Iraq army recruits fighting by our side are not our enemy. The democracy protestors that called for Syria's military to leave Lebanon are not our enemy. The 90% of peaceful Iraqis that are happy about Saddam's demise are not our enemies. The young, pro-american population of Iran is not our enemey. The ruling government in Morrocco stamping out terrorists is not our enemy.
What do mean by "getting down to business" with muslims. That sounds like armagandon that I would like to avoid. Islam is not the problem. Radical ISalm and those who use it for an excuse to have power over the people and the corruption and violence that comes ut of that is the problem.
I know plenty of good muslims too, like the ones you know. And many of them secretly want the same things you and I want. The question is where is the line drawn. Good muslims are considered apostates by devout muslims. Heck, even shia (like Ahmadinejad) are considered apostates by the Sunnis (Wahhabis and Salafists).
I don't know where to the line is to be drawn. I know that all muslims aren't bad (I didn't even use the term muslim in my post). I am not talking about muslims...I am talking about islam.
Any muslim that believes the prophet's life is his example, that believs the koran and the hadiths...they are not assimilating...they are not seeking the good life. Good muslims, real muslims are seeking to do allah's bidding...to spread islam on this earth. They are seeking to establish a world caliphate.
I don't want to throw the baby out with the bath water, but I don't want the baby to continue to be washed with dirty water (does that even make sense?).
This world cannot refuse to identify that part of islam that is waging war with us because we know some nice folks that happen to call themselves muslims.
My suggestion to the President and the world is that we in the modern world need to join together (friendly muslims and non-muslims) to expunge from this planet this things called fundamental islam.
If we don't do this, this planet is toast!
Let's see, I didn't say getting down to business "with muslims" and I didn't say "armagandon"...whatever the heck that is.
Why should I pay any attention to you?
The once respectable Democratic Party has become the Anti-American Party. Period.
I see them losing now and losing badly, all without putting the baby in with the bathwater. Pakistan is finally trouncing some of the Al Quaeda scum in the tribal areas. Afghanistan is developing better than we expected. The jihadis, despite the terror & mayhem they have inflicted, are being stacked like cordwood in Iraq, and being ratted out by the locals...both Sunni and Shia. Jordan and Kuwait and Morrocco have had decent success in cracking their homegrown jihadis. Turkey, Egypt, and Jordan recognize Israel. Even Hamas syas they may talk peace with Israel. The crazy Mullahs in Iran have limited time before they go and have managed to isolate themselves even further. The UAE has been a stalwart in the WOT since 9-11. Britain and some of the other eurpeans are finally cracking down on their radical enemies within. If we keep up this pace, the demise of the radicals may be completed within a few years. And it is only possible with the help of the good muslims.
It started in the Vietnam area and has culminated in the likes of John kerry and Nancy Pelosi leading their party. Pathetic. No wonder Zell is PISSED.
"area" should be ERA
I hope and pray you are correct.
DS
I only remain hopeful as long as the US continues to lead the charge. If a demonrat is the next president, that may unravel alot of the success.
also this aspect--
Here's the real money quote from the Dick Morris column that was posted earlier today at http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1593000/posts regarding the Clintons' relationship with the UAE:
Bill is, after all, a regular in Dubai. The crown prince — that is, the government — contributed to his presidential library and pays him $300,000 per speech. Recently, Yucaipa, an American company that has Bill Clinton as a “senior adviser” and pays him a percentage of its profits, formed a partnership with the Dubai Investment Group to form DIGL Inc., a company dedicated to managing the sheik’s personal investments.
If BJ is deeply involved in a "company dedicated to managing the sheik’s personal investments," he and the Witch will be receiving millions of dollars of income in the following years from that very company. In other words, if she's elected President, the President of the United States will be on the Dubai payroll due to BJ's involvement in managing the sheik's personal investments. Her denunciation of the ports deal is nothing but cover for this raging, continuing conflict of interest. If the Pubbies can't take advantage of this, they can't take advantage of anything.
8 posted on 03/09/2006 5:51:31 AM PST by libstripper
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.