Here's a guy who refused to veto one pork-laden or budget busting bill now threatening Congress with a veto if they pass a bill blocking the Dubai port control.

The story

He's facing bipartisan opposition in Congress to this, but talking about strange bedfellows, Jimmy Carter supports Bush!

Now we KNOW this Dubai thing is wrong.

I bet this Dubai port deal is in exchange for the UAE taking Michael Jackson off our hands. If you ask me, it's a fair trade.

More proof that Bush is soft on terrorism.

Yet you right-wingers keep sucking on the GodOP cock.

So then you must admit Carter's soft on terrorism, too. After all, he likes this deal.

You can't have it both ways.

(For the record, I'm against this whole Dubai thing.)

Only the blind, dumb and stupid think this is a good idea.

Well at least the Brits haven't tried to control or destroy us in over 200 years. Give the UAE that long without incident and MAYBE we'll think about letting them do this.

Personally I enjoy it. The Repugs, are seriously infighting again about this. Till the last man is standing it looks like.

Actually hasn't been 200 years yet. It will be 192 years in December or next January. Depending on whether you go by the treaty of Ghent or the Battle of New Orleans.

So in your book the Brits need 8 more years before the can start controling our ports.

I kept wondering to myself, given how much George W. Bush mentions 9/11, given that he's emphasized that we're engaged in a "War on Terror," given that he's seen how fanatical some of the Muslim states are, why on earth would he allow a United Arab Emirate-based and owned company to control operations of *any* sort in the US, let alone at our vulnerable Eastern ports? Maybe this is the answer, from a right-leaning newspaper:

NY Daily News: \"Bush aides' biz ties to Arab firm\"

And then there's this, from the overtly left-leaning Raw Story:

Raw Story; Bush nominated exec from Dubai port company eyed for US ports to Maritime post

So personal and financial ties trump good politics, good policy, and the safety and security of the American people. Catastrophic success, a heck of a job!

200-ish v. 6-ish (give or take): See my point? The Brits are our allies.

Which is why Bush supports this.

November 4, 2008 can't come soon enough.

Me neither, hopefully I won't need the alcohol during the election results this time.

Has Bush lost the last ounce of common sense that he may or may not have possessed? This has to be the STUPIDEST idea I have ever heard. Has our favorite liar gone back to cocaine and whiskey? If not, maybe he should consider taking up his old habits again. Who knows, his brain may function better when under the influence. At least we would know it is the whiskey talking, and not him. Brother, what a f*cking idiot we have in the White House. I hope this nation makes it to November, 2008.

I has taken me quite a while to think about this one.

I have a contrarian view.

I suppose in an infinite world of infinite decision making it would have to happen someday.

I agree with Bush.

If we are going to support non violent Muslims, and encourage them to disown the violent extremists among them; then we can not discriminate against all Muslims and still expect their cooperation and understanding.

--------------------------------------------
Quote:

"I don't understand why it's OK for a British company to operate our ports but not a company from the Middle East when we've already determined security is not an issue," Bush said.
---------------------------------------------

He is right. If we have determined that no foreign power should be allowed to be in charge of these ports for security purposes, then we should restrict them to US ownership. (Frankly that is what I believe should have been done in the first place).

Once we have determined that security is NOT the issue, and that an international company can own these management companies; then it is not only bad politics to ACTIVELY DESCRIMINATE, but it sends the wrong message.

Namely, it tells other people/countries:

a - Do as we say, not as we do.

b - We do not like you, trust you, or think of you as equals.

For a Muslim looking at a and b, what can they think but that we are not interested in playing on a level field. We are not interested in any real detente with your society, religion, or culture.

If we wish to be judged by our actions, then we must make those actions in accord with our principles even when to do so puts us at risk.

It is the difference between them and us.

We need to do what is right.

We need to be extra vigilant of all of our security.

We need to give our friends the opportunitty to prove that they are not our enemies.

Rob

Rob, thanks for giving me something to think about, in a positive light no less. I admire your thinking, but I recall an old saying...fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. I would hate to think our nation would or could be fooled again. I have also become increasingly opposed to turning over our resources, such as ports, the Chicago Skyway or the Indiana Toll Road to foreign entities. Isn't there anyone left in this nation that knows how to run or make something? Why must we always turn to other nations to run thing here?

Darnit you liberals just can't get anything right can you.

I agree that this is *terrible* domestic politics, but not so sure that it's bad international politics. And I'm also not convinced that it's bad policy.

I have to wonder, is it possible Karl Rove was asleep at the switch on this one? I mean, allowing the boss to indirectly sign off on a deal and then verbally support it when it can be so easily twisted into a case of making money at the expense of domestic security seems to be a terrible decision. And to give the Dems an edge on the single issue that Bush "owns", national security, seems terribly stupid.

In terms of international politics, I think gives Bush the opportunity to smooth some of the ruffled feathers in the Middle East. If he had the capacity to be more of a statesman, he'd appear to be a reasonable man who has no inante animus or bigotry against Arabs and Muslims. But Bush will awkwardly bungle and stammer his way through this and it will turn into a big mess.

Is it bad policy? It sounds to me like the security detail won't change, so is there an increase in risk? I wonder.

Nov. 4th 2008 can't some soon enough On that, we agree.

Cant we just get Halliburton to run those ports?
Im sure they would give us a reasonable deal.

Yes, I agree.

There are certain resources that we should hold solidly in US ownership for national security reasons. Ports, Airports, etc are certainly way up there on the list.

But you know - more than 50% of the supplies and equipment for fighting this war come from foreign countries (GAO) already. That is where the Pentagon got the cheapest contracts. In fact part of the problems with supply have been that some of these foreign corporations have not been able to supply the US with the huge quantities needed.

I too would hate to see a tragic repeat of 9/11.

----------------------------------------
Warning: Ridiculously Patriotic vervor
----------------------------------------

But, you know what? We will survive, this country will endure. We will even triumph as long as we stick to those important things that make us different from the barbarians and the warlords. Our Actions and our Principles are what is important. As long as we are willing to back our principles with deeds, then the rest of the world will notice.

It is when we stray from acting on those principles that we get in trouble.

Rob

All very good points, and ones that make sense and with which I agree. However, I have to take the traditional liberal view here: this just looks bad, and the media emotionally charging this as "Arab country to run ports" makes it look worse. Therefore it cannot be permitted. Appearance and style over substance.

Hmmm, it is so much easier thinking this way--no need to use intelligence and common sense.

But I still like your points, Rob.

It was bound to happen once: Bush is right.

However, I'm quite confident our ports are unsafe for myriad other reasons, many to do with governmental incompetence.

Government incompetence? Nah! Not in this overly bureaucratic era of "smaller government."

I think the term "government incompetence" itself is rather redundant.

What's the difference in the British or the UAE's managing the port? The workers there are still American workers and the port is subject to the security measures that are implemented by the government.

Do we really think that an American worker would allow things to just pass through the port based on the UAE management telling them to?

Bush is right. Where were these damn politicians when we released control to any foreign country?

Good point Aubster, I didnt see the Hillaskank complaining when the China folks started running them, nor the British. Racist Bitch.

Is it an election year or what? Only reason they took a stand.

I do find it odd that the same folks who complain that you can't profile at airports to upset people are all up in arms and right in tow with the party when it's a complete opposite of what they have been saying for years.

Just sayin..

Was that a light bulb going on above when someone realized that politics is image over substance? Well, no shit. How long have you been coming to this page? Thanks for the laugh.

Bush will finally use his veto and this is what matters enough for him to use it. Interesting.

Why are Republicans so willing to fall on their swords over business deals? Is it just knowing where their bread is buttered? Is there something more I'm missing? What do these UAE people have on us?

Pardon if I dissent, but:

1) the issue is not ALL Muslim countries, or Arab countries, but the United Arab Emirates. Two of the 9/11 hijackers flew directly from there before the attack. The country served as a funding conduit for Al Qaeda. The country refused to cooperate with the US's investigation into Al Qaeda, or surrender key information about the terrorist organization. The UAE is not an ally in any sense in the way that the UK is. The last I looked, the UAE does not have troops in Afghanistan, does it?

2) the White House did not conduct the required (by 1993 statute) 45-day legal review of this transfer, so it may be illegal. Right now, they don't have any anwers as to why they didn't follow the law.

3) today we learn that George W. did not even know that the deal was being done until shortly before the announcement. Why, given the importance of this issue, was George W. kept in the dark until the last minute, yet again? The Treasury Secretary, Snow, appears to have lobbyist links to the UAE, as do others in the George W. administration. So it appears as though cronyism, big business and inside connections are trumping valid national security concerns.

4) George W. has vowed to veto any bill that attempts to curb this transaction. So in 6 years he's vetoed no legislation--not the atrocious Medicare bill, not the heinous recent budget bill, not the glutted pork bills--but he IS willing to veto a bipartisan bill that focused on protecting our ports? Insane.

5) There is no guarantee that Americans will be working in the UAE company's jobs. We've been repeatedly assured of things by this administratioon, only to see the exact opposite once reality sets in. The fairy tale about how things are going to work is nice, but I'll take British control over UAE control anyday. Oh, and if the issue were simply to have a Muslim country running things, I wouldn't have a problem with Morocco or Senegal, say. The last I heard, neither country's officials were cooperating with or underwriting Al Qaeda, there were no riots against Danish cartoons, and the majority of their citizens don't think Osama bin Laden is worthy of being a hero.

There is merit in some of what fantomas says -- I should've posted that "Bush" is "right" (since he didn't even know about it til after the agreement was made) based on what we know so far. If the 45-day vetting process was skipped, sounds like business as usual for the Administration...

OTOH, Saudi Arabia owns lots of things here, yes? And where did most of the 9/11 hijackers come from? This seems awfully parochial about the UAE. Securing the ports regardless of who owns them should be the issue.

[ February 22, 2006, 10:36 AM: Message edited by: Bill W ]

I completely agree about securing the ports and have said so before. This is a failing both of Congress and the administration. The 9/11 Commission urged it as a priority, but it hasn't been. Why?

Also Bill, why must things be an either-or? Look, I don't want Saudi Arabia running our ports either, or operations at them. Again, I was one of the posters on here who repeatedly questioned the administration's deference to Saudi Arabia back in 2002-2003 on through today. On the Frontline show last night on the insurgency in Iraq, one of the things that was apparent was how Saudis are still funding Al Qaeda and how the country is a breeding ground for suicide-bomb fodder. Saying that a UAE-owned company is not a good idea doesn't mean that every Muslim nation-owned company is an idea or that we give Saudi Arabia a pass. And let me ask: do Saudi-owned companies own or control any of our port facilities?

Fantomas - thanks for posting the facts! The way that the UAE was used in conjunction with the 9/11 hijackers ALONE is enough reason to doubt their abilities.

All I can say is there they go again. Bush didn't even know the deal was signed. Hello! Was he reading books to children and just couldn't pull himself away? Was he on the ranch for his weekly vacation time?

Someone please start impeachment precedings for both the President and the Vice-President.

Bryan, thanks for the reply. One other point that's just come out in the latest news cycle is that when the CIA wanted to kill Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan, it was unable to strike him because the royal family of the United Arab Emirates was with him and about half of them would have been wiped out! But hey, why let facts get in the way of a horrible policy that was faciliated by UAE lobbyists with ties to the White House?

What's next, Uzbekistan controlling our air traffic control towers, Pakistan controlling our toll booths, and Bolivia controlling our gas meters? Because hey, if a foreign-government owned company owns ANYTHING in the US, that means that any government on earth, no matter how hostile it is to US interests, should be allowed to control ANYTHING else, so long as we get "guarantees" that they'll, uh, maybe employ Americans and do the right thing. Yep, uh huh...

[ February 22, 2006, 12:11 PM: Message edited by: fantomas ]

So 9//11 WAS Clinton's fault after all! A ha!

Im a liberal Democrat and I have to agree with Bush on this. I work in the shipping industry for an ocean carrier also. A foreign one. Oh no Im doomed! Heavens me.

The unfortunate situation that this whole thing does bring up is that, guess what, foreign companies run the shipping world. Its been that way for years. Brits, Danes, etc run port companies. The vast majority of ocean carriers are foreign owned. Should we then toss out APM Terminals from our shores too, since theyre Danish. That might provoke some Muslim extemist to blow up our ports right?

The other argument, well its the UAE government thats going to own the port operation. So what? The Israeli government until recently owned an ocean carrier, Zim Lines, hauling the containers around the oceans. Which is worse? If Al Qaeda or whomever wants to know about our port operations, they already do. They dont need the UAE or anyone else to do it for them. Oh and didnt 9/11 bombers come from Saudi Arabia? Dont we still do business with their government? Dont forget about the Saudi ocean carrier, National Shipping Co of Saudi Arabia. Thats also like saying we should stop doing business with Arkansas because Timothy McVay was from there and blew up the OKC Feb building.

What I think is worse, is that all this is simply bs that blows smoke over the fact our own government is soft on port security. The security of ports and inspection of containers is the job of HOMELAND SECURITY- specifically US Coast Guard and US Customs. NOT the port operator.

[ February 22, 2006, 02:14 PM: Message edited by: DallasUNC ]

Back to the topic at hand, Treasury Secretary John Snow, who approved the UAE port operations takeover deal, ran the CSX Corporation before joining George W.'s cabinet. Well, guess what? Right after he took his Bush admin post, who was CSX sold to? The UAE corporation DP World. (I already posted the Daily News link, but here it is.)

Yeah, I know, a total coincidence.

According to CSX's own reports (thanks News Blog!), Mr. Secretary Snow received a $72.2 million in income from CSX last year, of which nearly half was from pension related income. As the News Blog points out, his options in his special option plan became vested once CSX was sold. As it was. To the UAE's DP World!


Also, according to AlterNet, Mr. Snow was a disaster at CSX, but did find ways to get goodies from the US government:

But hey, why put the United States first, when you're getting rich off the United Arab Emirates? And if your boss doesn't know or care to know, well, all the better, huh?

[ February 22, 2006, 02:22 PM: Message edited by: fantomas ]

Want a short 6 degrees of George Bush? CSX also owned an ocean carrier at one time. It bought the domestic leftovers of what was Sealand, which was purchased by Maersk. Sealand became CSX Lines which became Horizon Lines. Horizon Lines was sold by CSX to guess who- Carlyle Group. Who was involved in Carlyle? George Bush.

Carlyle since sold it in 2004 to another investment company.


[QUOTE]Originally posted by fantomas:
[QB] Oh my, it only grows more and more perverse. Treasury Secretary John Snow, who approved the UAE port operations takeover deal, ran the CSX Corporation before joining George W.'s cabinet. Well guess what? Under his watch, who was CSX sold to? DP World. (I already posted the Daily News link, but here it is Daily Nwes.)

But is Denmark involved in any way with 9/11? Did Danes fly on the airplanes that caused explosions killing nearly 3,000 people? Did Britons? Did either Britain or Denmark or most of the other nations who own these ports play any role in assisting Al Qaeda? You see, what I don't get is why people keep making blanket statements about all FOREIGN ownership, when the issue is this specific country with its specific history. I asked earlier, so I'll ask again, does Saudi Arabia control or own any corporations that are controlling port operations at some of the most high profile, high target ports? At any ports? Please do enlighten us.

Also, as I said to Bill W, opposinng this deal does not mean that we should not also be improving port security. We have a serious problem with the department that's supposed to control that. It's badly run and its leader is incompetent. We saw this with the aftermath to Hurricane Katrina. But that doesn't mean that while this needs to be addressed, we let this particular country, which is directly linked to Al Qaeda and the 9/11 attacks, gain control of these port operations just because of some strong ties to the Treasury Secretary and the Bush administration, especially now that we know the President himself was unaware of what was going on, and that a federal (1993) law may have been broken.

I'm not sure what your argument is in comparing Israel to the UAE government, so perhaps remind all of us, has Israel or Zim Lines participated in attacks on the United States? On its allies? Isn't Israel a close ally? Or are you claiming something different? It's obvious to me that having UAE control any sensitive US operation is "worse," but you ask the question, "Which is worse?" So you're not clear on this?

Finally, not all the 9/11 bombers came from Saudi Arabia, I'm sure you're aware. But given that most did, it is a bit troubling that the US has tiptoed around them so much, though it's clear that our national appetite for oil keeps us in their thrall. Comparing Arkansas, which as far as I know does not sponsor religious fanaticism, help build madrassas or underwrite suicide bombers going into Iraq, with the sheiks of either Saudi Arabia or the United Emirates, is just ridiculous, but again, maybe you know something we don't. As conservative as past governors of Arkansas have been, I don't think any of them gave material aid or comfort, provided direct funding or resources, or urged Timothy McVeigh to blow up the Oklahoma Federal Building. Did they?

I am an independent. The Bushies have basically botched every aspect of this port deal, but it is a false pretense to suggest that the UAE company is any more dangerous than any other foreign corporation. In fact, I think its outright racism...

I think the reason that this is playing badly is twofold. First, there is the overall shock that the ports have been run by "foreigners" in the first place. Secondly, the company is being sold by one foreign company to another, and they are Arabs!

I want to believe that the American people aren't racist but I certainly see no evidence that anyone has looked deeply enough at the Dubai company. All we know is that they are Arabs, essentially the UAE government; therefore, they must be dangerous?

I hope Bush can find a way out of this mess. And by the way, the Dem leaders' racist responses to this outrage me perhaps even more than what I have heard from any Republican.

More came from Saudi Arabia, and many went through London

Banks in the UAE served as conduits for that money - as did nine(9) major US banks; many of the UAE states have cooperated fully; some (3/7) have refused to turn over a US request that they turn over huge amounts of banking & finacial records, as well as personal and tax records which are protected under some of the state laws. The UAE is a confederacy -

The United Arab Emirates (also called the UAE) is a Middle Eastern country situated in the southeast of the Arabian Peninsula in Southwest Asia on the Persian Gulf, comprising seven emirates: Abu Dhabi, Ajmān, Dubai, Fujairah, Ras al-Khaimah, Sharjah and Umm al-Qaiwain.

The UAE is involved only in Defense forces, and keeping its foreign affairs carefully neutral.

The seven sheikdoms are de facto independent states.

I know alright - I left Jumeira an Dubai less than 3 days ago.

The UAE are among the most liberal and westernized of the Islamic states. Civil Rights and culture here are decades ahead of Saudi Arabia or even Kuwait.

You are right, we do not have a 300+ year cultural relationship with them. They have only existed as a state since 1972. Actually they don't really have troops anywhere. Constitutionally it would take a unanimous declaration by all seven sheiks to send troops if they had them. They do have a sort of national police force which is severely limited, and a small 'guards army' which is mostly for civil defense. The largest boat in their navy is smaller than mine - 41' ex coast guard patrol boats bought from the US.

BTW - the UAE, all seven sheikdoms and four million people paid for 6.12% of the costs of the first gulf war - direct payments to the US. (Janes)

Lots of people have links to the UAE. Hell, even I do. I just came from one of their junkets to sell beachfront prperty on the palm islands, at my dinner table were a player for the Yankees, a player and his wife from the 49ers, the president of a major US bank, a black print movie star, an English Duchess, an Italian restraunteur, a Japanese auto exec., and a Seattle Billionaire. The Beckhams were two floors down checking on the construction of their new home. Maddonnas new home is HUGE. Stings is very modest by comparison.

No I did not buy: way out of my league.

Millions of people have 'connections' here. Seven of the ten largest construction projects in the world are here since the big dig was finished.

Errr, I have been saying he is a nut case for over 4 years while you have taken his side at every turn. Now I finally agree with one single decision and you decide he is insane?

Hmmm you don't say, so you don't like the man or his decisions huh? Hard to believe. I must have been speaking to some other guy...

Riots? I haven't seen any riots. Or even a protest. Though the newspaper here was highly critical. Where did you get this other crap info. about him being a hero?

For your information most of the Al'Queda leadership would go before Sharia Courts within 72 hours of landing here, they would be tried, convicted, and beheaded within another 24 hours. There are already arrest warrants out for them in all seven sheikdoms.

Justice here is not blind, and it is different, but that does not mean it does not work.

The rest of your argument is gutter racism.

R

Excuse me, but how is this "racist"? I'm missing something. No one who's upset about the deal has said that all Arabs--or Muslims, since they're not the same thing--are evil or bad. No one. They have specifically criticized this particular deal because of the country associated with it. That's not racist. No one said ALL people in the United Arab Emirates, who in any case are NOT ALL ARABS, are bad or evil.

BUT, the truth is that:

1) Two of the 9/11 hijackers flew from UAE to the US to launch the attacks;
2) The UAE leadership--the government--not all the people--supported Al Qaeda by permitting the country to serve as a financial conduit
3) The UAE royal family met with Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan
4) The UAE refused to turn over information or fully cooperate with the US after the 9/11 attacks.

Now, if any other predominantly Arab or Muslim (not a race but a religion) country whose leadership did not support Al Qaeda wanted to run the ports, I can assure that most of the Republicans and many of the Democrats would not have gotten upset. But it is sheer nonsense to call this "racism"; we have more than enough racism in the world and in this country, and criticism of a deal that is tainted by the administration's inside wheeling-dealing, cronyism and potential disregard for our federal laws (don't they matter any more?) is NOT racism. If someone can explain how this is racism, I'm all ears.

Excuse me, but it is NOT gutter racism. I am not talking about ALL Arabs. So you're wrong. I'm not even talking about ALL Muslims. So you're wrong again. I don't know where you are, though you do always seem to be in multiple places at the same time, but seriously, I mentioned a predominantly ARAB country--Morocco--and a predominantly MUSLIM country--Senegal. So obviously neither in terms of RACE or RELIGION am I claiming that all Arab or Muslim countries would be wrong to run the ports--or anything else.

I'm not sure what you're babbling about in terms of "justice not being blind," but seriously, if the UAE royal family had such a problem with Osama bin Laden, knowing what he'd done in the past, why were they meeting with him? Do they get a free pass? Also, have there not been riots all over the Muslim world, or where were you? I never said they were in UAE; I made quite clear what the issues with UAE were. They're well documented.

Do you deny the facts about the UAE's royal family's being in Afghanistan with Osama bin Laden? Do you deny the fact that the government there refused to support the US after the 9/11 attacks? Do you deny the fact that the government there allowed financing for Al Qaeda? If you can prove otherwise rather than getting hysterical and calling my comments "gutter racism," I'll listen.

The last I heard, criticizing the awful actions of a particular government is not "racism." It's called criticism. But oh, I'm not supposed to criticize UAE's past governmental behavior. I understand that you have a particular attachment to that particular government, and that's fine. But I'm concerned here about the United States and our citizens. Of ALL races, including Arabs. That's not RACIST.

I think you must be insane if you're claiming that I've "taken his side at every turn." Really. Remember, I am the one who calls him "Warrantless Wiretapper," "Emperor Katrina," and have been accused repeatedly of being a BUSH HATER. Just read through any random 100 of my posts, and you'll see that I have been one of the most consistent critics of Bush since I started on this board. I think you're confusing me with MIB, which confirms that you may seriously need help.

Get your news somewhere reliable, there is no 'Royal Family' in the UAE. The President and the Premier are elected every five years from the council of seven sheiks who are themselves heads of state.

From Wikipedia:

The Supreme Council consists of the individual rulers of the seven emirates. The President and Vice-President are elected by the Supreme Council every five years. Although unofficial, the Presidency is de facto hereditary to the Al-Nahyan clan of Abu Dhabi and the Premiership is hereditary to the Al-Maktoom clan of Dubai. The Supreme Council also elects the Council of Ministers, while an appointed 40-member Federal National Council, drawn from all the emirates, reviews proposed laws. There is a federal court system; all emirates except Dubai and Ras al-Khaimah have joined the federal system; all emirates have secular and Islamic law for civil, criminal, and high courts.

Sheikh Zayed bin Sultan Al Nahyan was the union's president from the nation's founding until his death on 2 November 2004. His son, Khalifa bin Zayed Al Nahayan was elected president the next day.

or if you don't believe that see:
The CIA World Factbook

What there are is 40 separate Emirates divided into seven hereditary/administrative Sheikdoms.

About two thirds of all the residents are directly related to the ruling families... it was until very recently a clan society.

These people are warm, friendly, generous, and very open. They do not understand us any more than we understand them.

They are trying for something better.

They know the oil is running out. They are not stupid or uneducated. They are desperate to invest almost anywhere so that they are left with more than just sand to give to their children and grandchildren.

They should be encouraged.

Rob

The royal family = the sheiks. But really, take your criticism up with the 9/11 Commission and CIA. They're the ones that used the general name "royal family" for the rulers. As I said, I understand your affection for this place. That's fine. Defend them all you want. But criticism of the rulers and government of a given country is not "racism." There's a basic, logical, categorical difference. I'm sure you can find out more about this in Wikipedia. Though not the CIA factbook.

Oh, to help you out, from Wikipedia:

Oh, and more on my bad sources: this is from US Today, you know, a really unreliable, racist newspaper, right? Just 18 months ago....

USA Today: Bin Laden's operatives still using free-wheeling Dubai

But hey, what do I know. I didn't realize USA Today, the Daily News, the 9/11 Commission and the CIA, and so on, were trying to demonize UAE. I mean, the things described above happened everywhere, right?

The truth has many forms:

1 - The rest came from Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, our best friends, and incidentally the biggest economies and Airports in the region.

2 - No they didn't. Just like in the US, UK, Spain, Germany, Japan, Thailand, Singapore, and HK: some banks based there were used.

Here they have very strict Banking laws about non disclosure; something the US gov't has known about and taken advantage of since the Iran/Contra scandals of the Reagan Admin.

3 - There is no 'Royal Family', there are roughly three million clan members out of 4.5 million residents who are related to the hereditary rulers. If you find that difficult to picture think of the Scots and Iris Clan systems. Everybody is related to the Sheiks.
Everybody is family, and proud of it.

4 - The UAE did cooperate with the US as far as UAE law went. Their laws are different than ours. Do you wish to dictate their laws to them too? I thought you would be happy with just telling the rest of us Americans how to behave as good little Republicans.

I have said all along that this admin is corrupt and beholden to powerful corporate and foreign interests - welcome to the club. 6 years late, but better late than never.

R

Gee imagine that, they have a free and open society with little violence or corruption. They are small, almost defensless, and neutral and want to remain neutral.

Hard to figure these people out.

And you are going to dispute my facts with articles from a Gannett Co. Inc. publication?

You are right that I confused you with another posters writings, I am sorry for that, you have been a constant and vocal critic of this Admin.

I apologise.

I just think we need to disagree on this issue.

R

Ed for sp

[ February 22, 2006, 06:40 PM: Message edited by: ITJock ]

If you don't think that there is racism against Arabs operating in the United States, you are deluding yourselves. I don't know if the Dubai company has been thoroughly investigated, or not, or even if Bush has some suspicious connections to it, but the overwhelming oposition AT THIS POINT comes from the fact that this is an Arab country. Don't fool yourselves that anyone cares anymore than to know that. That's all they want to know. They just keep repeating it on every news show--listen--"An Arab Company". It's in every lead on every news station. In fact, Anderson Cooper right this minute has this on the screen : "Arab Port PLan"

[ February 22, 2006, 07:09 PM: Message edited by: buccoman ]

BTW - If you are really truley interested in my travels I will be in Ormara by tmrw night on my way to Hingol and Hazarganji NP's. If I can get the permits I hope to ride my bike up to see the Kyber Pass. I am hoping Iain can get away for two days to see the NP's with me, but it does not look good.

The middle of next week I will be flying back for some orthopedic operations at UVM, and then some recuperative time (I was hospitalized last year around this time due to a severe infection - I almost lost my leg. Probably due to steroid abuse when I was younger, I have quite a few health problems, life goes on.); probably a couple weeks at my home in VT before flying back yet again to meet my boat in Narmada, Mumbai, and Goa.

Yes I travel a great deal. That was part of my plan. I admit I never imagined quite this much back and forth by Air. Due to some business deals, I now find myself required to be in the UK, Switzerland, and back in the US at least once every month or so.

Yes - I admit I have a great deal of affection for most of the people I meet. As Cecil Rhodes knew, travel and education are an incredible leveler of preconceptions and a surefire cure for ignorance. Yes - I do know what an incredible racist he was - please do not write to tell me. His foundation has still done enormous amouts of good for millions of people.

Almost everyone I have met have been warm, friendly, open, and willing to share; even those who did not have much themselves. I have also met some incredibly wealthy, pampered, and beautiful people whom I would not wish to meet in a darkened alley - or again in broad daylight on the beach for that matter.

People are in general reasonable and the same everywhere: they want food, clothing, shelter, a little prosperity, and to watch their children grow in peace; it is their political/economic/religious leaders who whip them into fervors for their own private agendas and profit that create so much suffering in the world.

Dogma, electioneering, and duplicitous scheming are not limited to the leadership of two American political parties.

R

Rob, good to hear that you're enjoying your travels. If you're saying that the very fact of a Gannett publication invalidates the information presented in it, what possible response is there? The facts in the USA Today article have been borne out by other publications as well as US government investigations, but I guess we'll believe what we'll believe. I'm quite glad you've realized you confused me with someone radically different. I mean, that would be like me confusing you with, oh, PhillyFan!

Buccoman, I'm quite aware of strong anti-Arab and anti-Muslim feeling. The two are related but not the same. But even accounting for that--and perhaps this is the case where you live, it isn't here in Chicago, where this a very large Muslim community (many of whom are Iraqi Americans, South Asians, and Lebanese)--the Congressional opposition to this is not based simply on the fact that the UAE is headed by Muslim Arabs. Most of the Democrats and even many of the Republican opponents, I would venture, have valid concerns about UAE. If some Congressperson--and you specifically said you were angriest at Democrats--has made an anti-Arab or anti-Muslim comments, please point them out.

Lo and behold, it appears that Bush & Co. made some sort of secret deal with Dubai Ports World, but it's been leaked. Many of the guarantees, it seems, are exactly what I'd suspected--weak and basically ceding all sorts of power to the company, regardless of the potential security ramifications. But hey, it's all about the greenbacks!

[ February 22, 2006, 11:40 PM: Message edited by: fantomas ]

Gannett publications are a little more pop culture, a little looser with their reporting standards, and a lot more editorial on their front page, than I would like to see in a paper of record.

What do I consider 'Papers of Record'?

Boston Globe: Boston (sisters)
The New York Times: New York City (sisters)
International Herald Tribune: Paris (sisters)
The Washington Post: Washington, DC
The Wall Street Journal: New York City
The Los Angeles Times: Los Angeles
The Globe and Mail: Toronto
La Presse: Montreal (In French)
South China Morning Post: Tai Po/Quarry Bay
The Hindustan Times: Delhi
The Times: London
The Daily Telegraph: London
Ming Pao: Chai Wan in Hong Kong (In Chinese)
La Nación: Buenos Aires (In Spanish)

There are others that I subscribe to by clipping (and translation services when I don't speak the language), but those are a few I scan once a week or more if they are online.

They are all fairly definative, and widely used as academic research standards.

That does not make them foolproof or unbiased; It does mean they have a record of excellence.

BTW - my opinion of even these papers is not ... great, I have spoken of those opinions - and the death of true investigative journalism - elsewhere, but they are the best of the media.

Other good 'second tier' papers include:

Financial Times: London
The Guardian: London
The Irish Times: Dublin
Le Monde: Paris
Le Figaro: Paris
El Mundo: Madrid
Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung: Frankfurt
Süddeutsche Zeitung: Munich
L'Orient-Le Jour, French-language, based in Beirut
Asian Age: Mumbai
Yomiuri Shimbun: Tokyo
The Age: Melbourne
The Sydney Morning Herald: Sydney

There are a lot of others with decent credentials.

BTW - the GARTNER GROUP offers many excellent clipping, translation, analysis and specialized information journals to the IT industry in particular: just about anything they send me can be taken to the bank. They are relatively expensive however.

Rob

Ed for content and sp

[ February 23, 2006, 07:19 AM: Message edited by: ITJock ]

I think the racism charge is unfair. If we don't like Cuban policies, does that make us racist against brown-skinned peoples? When some Americans disagreed with France and Germany before the Iraq invasion, was it because they were mostly white-skinned people there? I think that if every time we have an issue with a country comprised of people of a different race we're charged as racists, we have seriously limited our foreign policy options.

Having said that, I'm sure there are people that are racists against Arabs, but I don't think everyone who thinks this deal should be reviewed more closely fall into that group.

Has anyone here thought about WHY the UAE even wants to manage our ports? Was it some type of test to see if we would allow them to do so? What is their motivation to manage these ports? We have to realize too that nothing may happen for many years if anything happens at all.

This could be a very long range plan to manage our ports now, gain access to all plans, systems, schematics etc. and then down the road they turn over the management to us or some other country but they still have all the details of these port systems and plans.

ITJock, you are the international history buff. Wasn't this what gave the Israeli Army a hand up when the plane and hostages were captured back in Uganda when they raided Entebbe? Didn't Israel have the contract years before to run the airport so they knew the place like the back of their hand? In this case it was a good thing.