Frist calls for halt to UAE Port deal

[mburbank]

It's KILLING me that neither naldo or Vinth are here so I could call on them to say who was right, W or Frist. It would be like that psych experiment where you place to food bowls at equal distances from a Baboon and it goes insane.

On the other hand, you cannot imagine how uncomfortable it makes me to find myself agreeing with Frist about something.


Frist Calls for Halt to U.S. Ports Deal

By WILL LESTER, Associated Press Writer 31 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - Senate Republican Leader Bill Frist called Tuesday for the Bush administration to stop a deal permitting a United Arab Emirates company to take over six major U.S. seaports, upping the ante on a fight that several congressmen, governors and mayors are waging with the White House.
ADVERTISEMENT

"The decision to finalize this deal should be put on hold until the administration conducts a more extensive review of this matter," said Frist. "If the administration cannot delay this process, I plan on introducing legislation to ensure that the deal is placed on hold until this decision gets a more thorough review."

[mburbank]

WASHINGTON - ap wire
President Bush was unaware of the pending sale of shipping operations at six major U.S. seaports to a state-owned business in the United Arab Emirates until the deal already had been approved by his administration, the White House said Wednesday.



So, now, hold on a sec here... W wants to use his VERY FIRST VETO EVER DURING HIS ENTIRE PRESIDENCY over a decision he had NOTHING TO DO WITH?

THAT my friend, is what leadership is all about. Complete, unwavering, unquestioning confidence in the decision of your team to undertake an obviously controversial decision without bothering to inform you.

[mburbank]

WASHINGTON, AP wire - Under a secretive agreement with the Bush administration, a company in the United Arab Emirates promised to cooperate with U.S. investigations as a condition of its takeover of operations at six major American ports, according to documents obtained by The Associated Press.

The U.S. government chose not to impose other, routine restrictions.

In approving the $6.8 billion purchase, the administration chose not to require state-owned Dubai Ports World to keep copies of its business records on U.S. soil, where they would be subject to orders by American courts. It also did not require the company to designate an American citizen to accommodate requests by the government.

Outside legal experts said such obligations are routinely attached to U.S. approvals of foreign sales in other industries.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

So, now, hold on a sec here... W wants to use his VERY FIRST VETO EVER DURING HIS ENTIRE PRESIDENCY over a decision he had NOTHING TO DO WITH?

http://boortz.com/nuze/200602/02222006.html#ports

WHO'S RIGHT, MAX!!? WHERE'S MAX!!?

Sorry. I think this Dubai thing is getting a bit exaggerated, IMO. Our ports have been contracted out ot other countries for a while now. To argue that we are somehow less safe because it's Arabs instead of the British or the Japanese is sort of, I dunno, racist, no?

[Cosmo Electrolux]

we're not at war with the British or the Japanese...and you know as well as I do that your garden variety American doesn't differentiate between Lebanese, Iraqi, Iranian, Turk...etc....they only see "Rag-head".....

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Sure, but that doesn't justify a knee-jerk reaction to this.

THe people who physically work at the ports may very well still be Americans (or illegal Mexicans, but that's neither here nor there).

And we aren't at war with the UAE.

[mburbank]

Personally, I think the NSA spying is a far bigger scandal, since it ivloves a sitting President admitting to a federal crime and insisting he intends to keep commiting them, but the Republicans don't agree with me.

And I don't know, Kev, handing a huge fat juicy bag of money deal that also has to do with the weakest point in our already sad homeland security operation without even consulting the President (who apparently couldn't care less anyway) to a country that doesn't recognize Israels right to exist might be the kind of play Congress ought to have been consulted about, and if they object, might not be worthy of the very first veto ever used by our President.

Do I think this is blown out of proportion. A little. Do I think it's an excellent example of the administration behaving like a monarchy and proving once again that they are not actually republicans. Do I trust W when he says the deal has been thoroughly vetted and it as safe as can be. Not even slightly. I imagine he knows next to nothing about it, and it might be safe OR it might be a huge corrupt swindle and fantastically dangerous.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/02/22/opinion/meyer/main1335531_page2.shtml


In Defense Of Dubai

WASHINGTON, Feb. 22, 2006
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(CBS) This commentary was written by CBSNews.com's Dick Meyer.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A nefarious multinational corporation secretly controlled by a hostile Arab government has engineered a covert takeover of six major U.S. ports. America is at risk of losing control of its borders and compromising national security in an entirely preventable way.

Horselips.

Never have I seen a bogus story explode so fast and so far. I thought I was a connoisseur of demagoguery and cheap shots, but the Dubai Ports World saga proves me a piker. With a stunning kinship of cravenness, politicians of all flavors risk trampling each other as they rush to the cameras and microphones to condemn the handover of massive U.S. strategic assets to an Islamic, Arab terrorist-loving enemy.

The only problem -- and I admit it's only a teeny-weeny problem -- is that 90 percent of that story is false.

The United Arab Emirates is not an Axis of Evil kind of place, it will not own U.S. ports, it will not control security at U.S. ports and there is nothing new about foreigners owning U.S. ports. Odds are higher that you'll be wounded interfering with a congressman providing soundbites than by something smuggled into a port terminal leased by Dubai Ports World.

But please: let's not let the facts get in the way of a good story. And what's wrong with a little Arab-bashing anyway?

I am no expert on ports, transportation or shipping. But it takes very little reading and research to cut through the gas on this one.


Myth #1: An Arab company is trying to buy six American ports.

No, the company is buying up a British company that leases terminals in American ports; the ports are U.S.-owned. To lease a terminal at a U.S. port means running some business operations there -- contracting with shipping lines, loading and unloading cargo and hiring local labor. Dubai Ports World is not buying the ports.

Several companies will lease terminals at a single port. In New Orleans, for example, the company Dubai Ports World is trying to buy (P&O Ports) is just one of eight companies that lease and operate terminals.

P&O Ports does business in 18 other countries. None of them are in righteous lathers about the sale of the business to a company owned by the United Arab Emirates. Dubai Ports World already operates port facilities all over the world, including such security-slacker states as China, Australia, Korea and Germany.


Myth #2: The U.S. is turning over security at crucial ports to an Arab company.

No, security at U.S. ports is controlled by U.S. federal agencies led by the Coast Guard and the U.S. Customs and Border Control Agency, which are part of the Homeland Security department. Local jurisdictions also provide police and security personnel.

Complaints about security at ports should be directed to the federal government.



Myth #3: American ports should be American.

Well, it's too late, baby. According to James Jay Carafano of the Heritage Foundation (a place really known for its Arab-loving, soft-on-terror approach), "Foreign companies already own most of the maritime infrastructure that sustains American trade…" Thirty per cent of the countries port terminals are operated by companies that are, um, unAmerican.

At the port of Los Angeles, 80 per cent of the terminals are operated by foreign companies. Chinese companies operate more than half the terminals. So why is this suddenly a threat? After all, political outcry managed to scupper the deal a few months ago in which a Chinese company was going to take over the Unocal oil company.

Remember the global economy? Internationally, 24 of the 25 largest companies that operate port terminals aren't American. That means just about every container that enters a U.S. port has come from a foreign-controlled facility.

Go to any port in the country and you'll be lucky to see a single giant vessel with U.S.A. on its stern. Foreign-owned airplanes fly into American airports every hour. Many U.S. companies have foreign entities among their largest shareholders.

My colleague Charlie Wolfson reports that State Department sources say Dubai Ports World already handles port calls for U.S. Navy ships from the 5th fleet for their regular port calls in the United Arab Emirates -- a pretty high measure of trustworthiness.


Myth #4: The United Arab Emirates has "very serious" al Qaeda connections.

That's what Republican Rep. Peter King says. It's also what the administration said of pre-war Iraq, but that didn't mean it was true. I suppose you could say each and every Arab and Islamic country has al Qaeda issues, but even on that yardstick the UAE is a pretty good player and by most accounts, getting better.

Politicians have been quick to point out that two of the 9/11 hijackers were from UAE. And we're turning over our ports to them? Well, by that logic, we shouldn't let Lufthansa land in our airports or have military bases in Germany, because that country housed a bunch of the 9/11 hijackers as they were plotting.

Yes, Dubai has plenty of blood in its hands, especially as a source or courier for terror funds. To my knowledge its crimes were not government sponsored. It is not a rogue state. It has been among the closer and more cooperative Arab allies for the past two years (another conspiracy theory: Bush is paying them off at the expense of our safety).

Some combination of these facts led the Dubai Ports deal to be approved by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, a joint effort of a dozen government agencies tasked with security (yes, I know, that's slim solace).

Certainly the security of American ports is an important issue. Certainly who controls the finances of companies that lease terminals at ports is far down the to-do list of how to improve security at ports.

That has everything to do with adequate funding and proper management at the relevant agencies. Management is the responsibility of the executive branch, while funding and oversight is the job of Congress. There is scant evidence that Congress or the administration have excelled in their duties.

That's why it's so tempting for politicians of both parties to indulge in xenophobic Arab-bashing on this matter of minimal national security importance. There are scads of real homeland security issues and glaring national security problems coming out of Arab or Muslim states; this is not in either category, not even close. But as one Republican said, regardless of the facts, the administration was politically "tone deaf" on this one. Appearance is more important than reality.

Often bipartisanship is a sign of pragmatic consensus or noble common cause. In this case it is merely a demonstration of an occupational hazard of politicians: cover-your-arse-itis.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dick Meyer, a veteran political and investigative producer for CBS News, is the Editorial Director of CBSNews.com, based in Washington.

E-mail questions, comments, complaints, arguments and ideas to
Against the Grain. We will publish some of the interesting (and civil) ones, sometimes in edited form.

[Abcdxxxx]

Wait a minute. Arab-bashing? Outsourcing our security is a mistake, just the same way it was a mistake to subsidize our military in Iraq by hiring privatized companies, and just the same way hiring a private security company to go into New Orleans amongst the other 50 State, City, and Government agencies running around was a bad idea.

Now, should we be extra-extra concerned that it's the UAE? Well. Duh. This was part of a sweetheart deal to launch Dubai as a publicly traded company, and like Bush's other sweetheart deals, they're rarely in the best interest of our Country. See, in UAE's quest to become viewed as moderates they've become the crossroad for sketchy activity. Their security as a nation is guarenteed by us, the United States.

The whole multiculturalist "What message does this send to the Arab States" defense is just pandering. Why do we need to reward anyone for being decent? If they're true allies, it should be because they stand with us for moral reasons, not because we hand out good treats to make it worth their while. It's the absolute wrong way to make friends in the Mid-East. You think Saudi really has our back, because the US threw them a bone and pushed the Road Map peace plan? You think Egypt's a really friend, when we pay them 2 billion a year to stay out of trouble, and adhere to a peace treaty? I don't care how loyal any of these nations are, they should not be gaurding our soveriegnty. Our borders are already a mess.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

We're not "out-sourcing our security". That's politically motivated lingo used b people like Hilary Clinton to score points in Iowa.

The UAE isn't in control of our port security, any more than China or Britain was/is in charge of our port security. The federal government regulates that, at it still will, whether it's Dubai or Greenland that's getting the shipping contract.

You can argue that we're not examining the contents in ships well enough, but that argument was a fctor before this deal. That's not Dubai's fault, it's our fault.

And I don't see this as a multiculturalist argument. It's the global economy, and it's the way we've done thing for a while now. The only reason this has traction now is because politicians on both sides of the aisle see an opportunity to be tough on security. Port security is one of those sexy topics that has come up, but has never been addressed. Now everyone with 2006-2008 ambitions can get in line an say they "did something." Bull.

[Abcdxxxx]

Why should any foriegn government handle our ports?

Singapore, the less controversial choice, wouldn't really ease my mind. I think we need to revise whatever policy puts a Chinese company on our ports, too. For one thing, we already give Dubai plenty of business with military contracts...there just has to be limits.

Are we hiring the UAE that puts females in authority positions, or are we hiring a company subsidized by people who support Hamas with a tiered payment system to reward Shaheeds, and defended the Al Qaeda money trail? Hamas credit the UAE for being the first to use oil as a weapon. http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=21413

What is your understanding of what these companies are doing exactly? It's not just the usual Hilary Clinton hysterics, this time. The administration has a terrible record so far. Why should we believe they've made an ethical smart choice in this regard?

[mburbank]

"Now everyone with 2006-2008 ambitions can get in line an say they "did something. Bull."

While certainly true, it is in no way an argument that nothing is wrong here.

"The administration has a terrible record so far. Why should we believe they've made an ethical smart choice in this regard?"

Exactly.

Right now W is claiming that while he supports this deal with a Veto threat, he didn't even know about it until after it happened. Plausible. I think his administration involves him in decision mking as little as possible. But here's my question to you Kev. The folks who made the decision. Are they

A.) So positively stupid that it never crossed their minds that rightly or wrongly this would be a controversial decision, especially in this election season where anyone with 06, 08 inclinations would jump all over it

or

B.) Pulling the sort of bullshit "Make my friends rich fuck everthing else" type of deal the adminstration is frequently guided by. Not to be paranoid, but in the frenzy of denail right now (not only W didn't know about it, Neither did Rumsfeld or anyone at Homeland security even though ports are their domain.) Dick Cheney hasn't said he didn't know. Someone ought to ask him if anybody knows what hunting lodge he's holed up at this week.

If the answer is A, it worries me, because people as stupid as that should not be negotiating deals about ports. They might do something stupid, like forget to require the company to keep records in America where they can be suppoeanad. Like we do with the Britts and the Chinese. A 45 day delay so someone besides people as dumb as answer A would indicate can look over the deal wouldn't hurt, especially if it's people from Both camps that want to win elections.

If the Answer is B, then I don't trust that the deal was looked into at all, except in terms of who it made money for. Dubai has positioned itself in a very wierd and somewhat brilliant way, as a country and a commidity. Sort of like if Coca Cola was a company. I think we need to look under some rocks and see who in the administration gets rich the fastest if Dubai gts this deal.

If you have a C, D, E or F I'd be happy to hear them.

Like I said, I'd be way happier if the folks who would be King both R and D were this upset over the imperial presidency, but if they wrre they wouldn't want to be King. So it's sexy. You're waiting until this current batch of politicians is motivated by altruism and a keen desire to humbly serve their constituents? If this gets wider investigation and it turns out to be a tempest in a teapot I'll be fine with it. But answers A and B both smell rotten to me, even if they smell sexy too.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

This is not a practice that began with this administration.

If your argument is something about human rights un Dubai, or the treatment of workers, then I suppose I can sympathize.

However, if you think it's a security thing, then you're barking up the wrong tree. HS regulates our ports, not this company (which will probably employ a great number of the same people it employed when the British owned it). To my understanding, this wasn't some deal bartered bythe Bush admin. This is the policy that our government takes on dealing out these contracts. Thisisn't simply a bad Bush policy.

[mburbank]

So, are you positing

C.) This was a perfectly normal business transaction not unusual in any way. Its understandable that the low level buerocrats who conducted the deal never informed higher ups, or if they did the higher ups saw no reason the President needed to even know the deal was taking place. It's not a matter of stupidity or lack of forsight, it's just that this sale (Which violates the lease in the NYC case and lacks assurances required by other foreign companies involved in our port dealings) simply had no features at all that ditinguished it from any other sale our government is in a position to approve.



I guess it would be different if Iran or North Korea was buying the ports. But, if as W argues, the company (or in tis case, foreign country) getting the crates off the ships and doing the cutoms paperwork. But no, it would be different, because they are our enemies.

But what bout our staunch friend in the W.O.T, Pakistan? I personally would think that might be worth letting the Pres in on, what with their lax history of passing out Nuclear knowhow and them being a military dictatorship. I think similar concerns regarding a monarchy that was one of the few countries to ever officially recognize the Taliban.

And when it's the Bush admnistration offering the assurances that there's nothing to worry about, a pubic outcry for fourty five days just to see if maybe they might just be full of shit or perhaps totally incompetent doesn't seem so outlandish to me. Who knows, maybe the guy who made the decision without telling W is some guy who has no prior experience in Ports and used to, I don't know, be in charge of selecting and policing the Judges for Dog shows? Stranger things have happned.

I agree that anyone who thinks Dubai would be in charge of Port Security is a hysteric. But anyone who think that being in charge of offloading cargo and handling customs declarations about contents has nothing to do with security, and that the country owning that operation isn't a matter of significance... why one might almost argue they had a pre 9/11 mindset.

[Abcdxxxx]

First of all, we know Homeland Security has zero ability to delegate. What I understand is would actually be a subcontract. Our ports handle all sorts of sordid business to begin with, and only 3% of it is regulated by Homeland Security. I'm still at a loss in trying to understand how a foriegn company can be put in charge of these ports daily operations without the giving them the opportunity to breach security clearances, and gain exposure to information which should be priviledged.

By the way, a Chinese company was blocked from buying a US Oil services company, last year, for the same concerns.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

There seems to be three distinct arguments here that you guys are trying to make.

1. Dubai is a deplorable nation, so they shouldn't be put in charge of these ports, mainly due to their poor record on human rights and terrorism.

2. Homeland Security is a dysfunctional organization, so handing over the port contract to an ARAB nation is bad.

3. Foreign countries shouldn't run the companies that ultimately run our shipping.

For the first one: I think Dubai certainly has a better record on compliance in the WOT than some other allies of ours (although Saudi Arabia is being applauded today for stopping that bombing). Dubai has been helpful in assisting us in the war, and the company they now own (which seemed perfectly fine when it was owned and operated by white folks from England) has a solid track record around the world.

#2: Okay, so HS is a poorly run organization, and they have no business contracting out the ports. Where were you two weeks ago, or a few months ago for that matter? It has all of a sudden become a security threat, simply because an Arab nation owns THE COMPANY that will be processing the shipments.

If you think HS is too inept to handle security, then you're making a different argument.

#3: Fine, foreign countries shouldn't own the companies that often just hire American longshoremen to handle port cargo. But what again is your argument against this? Two of the 9/11 terrorists were from there? Haven't we already capitulated on that one regarding Saudi Arabia???

Max, you argue that "anyone who think that being in charge of offloading cargo and handling customs declarations about contents has nothing to do with security, and that the country owning that operation isn't a matter of significance... why one might almost argue they had a pre 9/11 mindset."

It matters because why? Why does it matter now, when it didn't seem to matter to you before it was owned by Arabs???

[KevinTheOmnivore]

By the way, a Chinese company was blocked from buying a US Oil services company, last year, for the same concerns.

No, to my recollection, the Chinese company withdrew the offer due to the protests. Granted, it may have been blocked, but that doesn't make it right.

[Abcdxxxx]

What's the difference if they were blocked, or just backed off due to protests? It shows that the scrutiny over our ports didn't just start the second someone said Arab.

Of course a front page news story is going to get more attention - but we know Burbank already has some OCD issues that forces him to make a post everytime he finds out about some privitized, outsourcing type story. You know my problems with the UAE run a little deeper then some Arab-phobia. There is greater awareness for one aspect of a huge problem, that most Americans are overwhelmed in frustrations over. The bottom line is deep down in their hearts, the typical American doesn't trust that we really have true allies in the Islamic States. The last thing we should encourage is more entaglements, especially at a time when disengagement, and alternative fuel resources have become popularized terms for a sensible long term goal towards safety. I think the reasons for that distrust are valid. I also think the strong reaction to this story is sincere, and comes from a rare moment of sensible clarity.

[ScruU2wice]

I find it ironic that no one even thought twice about port security before they found out that arabs would be handeling it.

[Preechr]

Here's a timely example: It seems that the Democrat impetus behind protesting the sale of those American ports doesn't actually lie in real concern for security. In reality, they are attempting to protect the jobs of longshoremen who might get down-sized if the firm from Dubai were to take control and automate some of their jobs. The same thing happened a few years ago when new technology threatened to streamline the process of unloading ships, and they pulled a big strike, remember?

Speaking of that Twinkie job, did you know union longshoremen make around $100k/year to drive forklifts and cranes?

[Abcdxxxx]

I find it ironic that no one even thought twice about port security before they found out that arabs would be handeling it.

Read above, re: China.
Not as much attention, not as much outrage...but c'mon, Americans never talked about port security? Where have you been?

Preechr - the dubai folks are already job recruiting off their website. I really do think people are on the same page with their concerns... I don't believe there's much difference on how one party or another is appraoching this. The Neo-cons are backing away and supporting Bush a bit quicker, but that's no shock.

[ScruU2wice]

By the way, a Chinese company was blocked from buying a US Oil services company, last year, for the same concerns.

pffft... that was in Syriana, check your facts.

[Juttin]

we're not at war with the British or the Japanese...and you know as well as I do that your garden variety American doesn't differentiate between Lebanese, Iraqi, Iranian, Turk...etc....they only see "Rag-head".....

Well,living in BackWaterFuck-Iowa,I have to hear: "Hey! Bush is be a gud prez-uh-dent! Saddum hurt r country at 911!"

Like Saddam Hussein even had anything to do with 911.
We attacked the wrong country,for oil,yet stupid rednecks only believe in firing their 12 gages and "Towel-Head Huntin",thinking that they're all the same if they wear a turban.

I hate JesusLand :(

[KevinTheOmnivore]

pffft... that was in Syriana, check your facts.

Uh, no. it happened.

Preechr-- Forgicve me if I'm wrong, but you seem to think that it's just the Democrats that are jumping all over this (see title of thread).

Everybody is going to use this, especially since it's the mid-cycle.

[Preechr]

It's Ok... I forgive you, buddy.

The Dems started the challenge to it. The Republicans jumped on it to both spin it their way and to have a nice little "I'M not just another Dubya Yes-Man" feather in their caps.

This is political gold to the Dems, just another news-cycle issue to the GOP. Kerry made a lot of hay with port security in 04, so they can claim some high ground here. Their impetus here, however, was protection of the longshoremen's union. That pressing it will help them appear stronger on defense is a happy bonus. That's two really good reasons that make me believe this will be a news item for the next 20 months.

I honestly believe the deal will die. The Bushies are doing a hell of a job of calming the waters, but I think their tack is wrong and their will to push it through weak. Maybe I'm just not factoring in enough for whatever behind the scenes benefits there are to bribing the UAE with foreign aid type money filtered through a corporate deal such as this one. Yeah, we need the air base and the flyover rights, as well as the entry point for future ME conflicts... the intelligence help and the tap into ME finance... but I'm just not sure we will lose those things were this deal to fail.

There are also some benefits to the GOP in killing it. Even if it goes away, though, I still think port-security should be a major topic for the Dems till 08 is decided. I will honestly be amazed if they don't start up one of those "whisper campaigns" trying to paint this deal, and others that they could dig up, as TeamBush© deliberately opening holes in our defense in order to score another attack for their political benefit... even without an additional terror attack on America.

If they don't run with this ball they've taken, I have no hope left for the party at all. I don't really have any measurable hope for it now, but if they blow this opportunity, I will be able to comfortably say they are completely un-salvageable and hopeless... at least until the next chance to sign out comes around...

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Preech, Tony Blankley, conservative columnist for the Washington Times, was ranting and raving over this long before it became sexy for Hillary Clinton. The conservative talk radio soldiers have been on this like rabid dogs.

Compare that with Joe Lieberman, certainly no pushover on security and the Middle East, was saying this whole thing had been sligtly overblown a week or so ago.

The politicians jumping all over this have a vested political interest in doing so. I don't believe the concerns raised over this are wel founded, and I think they are based on fear, ignorance, and good old fashioned xenophobia.

I think the 45 day revie will go by, the deal will either go through, or the Dubai company will withdra the offer like China did the oil deal (NOTE: China still runs American ports today).

[Preechr]

Dammit.

I got this new keyboard recently, and it has these two little buttons on the left hand edge. The top button closes whatever window you are working in. What the fuck would anyone need that for? Seriously?!

Recognizing that I hadn't made my views on this topic easy for you to put together, Kevin, I just spent the last half hour summarizing my whole end of the discussion for you. I thought for a moment about driving up there and telling it to you in person, just to make it so easy for you as to be making fun of you... but y'know... gas prices and whatnot...

Anyhoo, Dubai did not get the deal until 2.10.6, when Singapore officially backed out. On 2.11.6, the AP story that circulated the majors in America did not quote Tony Blankley, but Chuck Schumer. The Times Op-ed that came out on the 15th actually said in the last paragraph that the editors agree with Chuck Schumer on the issue. I have never said this was only an issue for the Democrats. To imply that would be to say I have my head up my ass and never catch the news. Thanks for implying that.

Now that I'm pissed at my keyboard, I don't really want to re-type the whole explanation for you. I do believe port security will be a foundation of the Dems 08 campaigns. I believe they're rallying around the longshoremen, though, rather than some actual concern for security. As long as Bush backs them, I believe Dubai won't back out. Say they do, though... Will we prefer Singapore? Will Singapore even re-offer their bid? What will China say about that? Will we give P&O a bunch of money so they can stay in operation?

I had at least 10 paragraphs when I dumped my post. It was all great, too. You'd have really loved it.

*goes to change keyboard settings*

[KevinTheOmnivore]

I prefer the pithy anyway. And preech, it's not that we constantly misunderstand you, we just think you're wrong. :)

Schumer is always talking about something, there's never a slow news cycle in his world. Beyond the parties, the conservative groundswell seems just as real as the liberal. I think it's great to see some consensus, unfortunately I think it's misplaced.

Port security probably should be an issue, and as I said, it already HAS been a Democratic issue. The longshoremen stuff is all fine, but it will primarily be a security issue rather than a labor one, obviously.

[Preechr]

But it's not.

One one side of the isle it is a labor issue that can be disguised as a security issue for political gain, on the other side of the isle it is just a convenient platform for spin. Maybe some good will accidentally come of it... maybe our fearless leaders will inadvertantly draw enough attention to the ports that some random person might realize how important his job is and actually do it... but this issue is only just political gain based in xenophobia and ignorance.

AND... if you think I'm wrong, then you are pretty much doubting your own opinons here. You've jumped to a conclusion somehow that I'm arguing with you. We only differ in our predictions, and on that you can't say I'm wrong, at least yet.

[Abcdxxxx]

I still don't understand, how it's xenophobic when we're talking about ports, but not when we're talking about oil ?

[KevinTheOmnivore]

China is a direct, global, and economic opponent. Ostensibly giving the Chinese government, a competitor in the globalmarket, control over our access to a natural resource semed like a crazy idea.

This company has a stellar record as far as I know, and has followed all of the appropriate guidelines. DP World has friggin offered to establish ANOTHER company, only headed by an American citizen, to have direct oversight over the American ports. It was Dubai that requested the 45 day review period, offering their bid up to yet another period of review and scrutiny.

Everything they've done seems perfectly legit and by-the-book to me. Contrast this with our own leaders, such as Senators Clinton and Schumer, who have taken this opportunity to hold press conferences on docks, or with Senator Frist, who used it as an opportunity to get in a "rolled up sleves" photo opp. as he flew over some ports in a helicopter.

The American reaction I see seems to be turning this issue into a security matter. I think that response is a product of yes, xenophobia, and America's understandable fear of the Arab world. That, to me, makes the current actions of our leaders all the more irresponsible.

[Abcdxxxx]

The American reaction I see seems to be turning this issue into a security matter. I think that response is a product of yes, xenophobia, and America's understandable fear of the Arab world. That, to me, makes the current actions of our leaders all the more irresponsible.


OKay, I'm following that, but how is it any different then saying "we can't be dependent on Arab oil in the future" ? As in, we're not gonna let these Arabs have us by the balls anymore - which is then followed by the green-eco slant of that same "Arab oil business is bad" only their version adds the claim that everything we do with Arabs is about oil, as in "no war for oil". When we talk about oil dependency, there's a reason we're talking about the Middle East, and not our other main suppliers. Bush has said it, the Dems have said it, most members of I-mockery have said it....and there's justification for it, right? So what's the difference?

[mburbank]

A 45 day review is entirely appropriatte, seeing as hw te administration says the ENTIRE deal was conducted by undersecretaries without even consulting any of their bosses. Based solely on the performance in other matters of the appointed crony pool that is the administration, I would at very least prefer some less easily scarificed cannon fodder to know what was going on, and I'd love it if some branch of government other than the executive had a look see.

THAT is what I think is problematic here, and hopefully this waiting period will make some headway toward resolving that issue. Once the whole thing is out n the light of day, if it smells clean and safe, fine. I think this is symptomatic of the way the administration makes key decisions, and it's a bad, potentially dangerous way. To me, this is far more imprtaant than the fact that the buyers in question are Arabs, and it's a much larger picture. THAT's what I want the administration hammered for, THAT's what I think it needs to pay a political price for. If this was the very first instance of the administration being cavalier about demonstrating the degree to which it doesn't give a fuck about the people it represents, I dout this woud be such a big, bipartisan issue.

Think about the way this careless move screwed Republicans in congress who actuyally have to get reelected. The one issue the corrently have going for them, rightly or wrongly, is security. The Presidents second tier players, rightly or wrongly, make a decision that any political science major could have told you would rightly or wrongly be hugely controversial, a move that puts R's who need to get reelected in a tight spot. Does ol' W say "Whoah, now, I don't think they shoulda done that wiffout a-talkin to me. Ah'll take 'em out behind the woodshed and we'll get a looksee at thuis here deal, see if it's all hunky dorey."? No. He threatens his first veto over a deal he didn't even know about till someone read it to him from the paper.

This level of careless, callous stupidity IS a security issue, all by itself, the same way Brownie running FEMA and Chertoff being his boss was a security issue, and it doesn't matter if Dubai or the Taliban or the fucking Lucky Charms Leprechaun is unloading ships.

So do the 45 days thoroughly and KEEP SAYING that this is no damn way to run a country. Any politician that does that has my interest.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

but how is it any different then saying "we can't be dependent on Arab oil in the future" ? As in, we're not gonna let these Arabs have us by the balls anymore

BECAUSE THIS COUNTRY IS ADDICTED TO PORTS, ABC! WE NEED ALTERNATIVE PORTS, PRODUCED RIGHT HERE AT HOME, LIKE TRIP GRASS AND BIO-PORTS!

Again, I think the two are a little different, although I don't know that the American public has been informed enough to realize the difference.

I think the difference in the matter is where the power is. OPEC and the oil producers literally have us by the sack. I don't think it's the same with this port deal. We're the ones making the decision, and it appears that we made the most sensible one from a business perspective and a security perspective. The only thing that wasn't accounted for was the PR perspective.

Oil independence, btw, doesn't just pertain to the Middle East. It's also about independence from asshats like Hugo Chavez, who I think currently provides us with over 10% of our oil.

[Abcdxxxx]

well right, oil isn't a middle east problem, but how common is it to view the middle east as an oil problem?

hell, i don't like being dependent on oil from even mexico - but that's not who most people are talking about when they're talking about oil dependency. i also agree that opec is very different from some port administration - but both involve business ties to arab nations that have abused those partnerships. divesting oil interests is also about divesting our interests in the mid-east. it's just not sensible to forge ahead creating new partnerships with an arab business in a role that involves a security clearance. don't forget, even knowing people like muhhamed atta were running around didn't help us. arab companies have found endless ways to do business in the us, and those will continue... but our ports are way too important, even if it's just symbolic.

on paper this deal might sound completely safe, assuming everyone from the coast gaurd on down were competant...but we know that irregardless of who contracts our ports, we have some serious problems. so why play with fire?

[mburbank]

Okay, after reding todays papers, I'm once again pissed. The 45 day delay for further review? That further review is to be done by the same people within the administration who approved the deal in the first place. What are the chances they're gonna say "Oh, crap, you know what? The first time we did it there were a lot of things we didn't catch." What is the point? How is this a compromise. It's like saying "Okay, I know we said you had to do it our way, but if you're going to be so pissy about it, I guess we could wait 45 days and then make you do it our way."

[Abcdxxxx]

Okay errrrr yeaaaaa xenophobia...or corruption?

Homeland Security Protested Ports Deal
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060226/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/ports_security
By TED BRIDIS, Associated Press Writer Sun Feb 26, 7:19 AM ET
WASHINGTON - The Homeland Security Department objected at first to a United Arab Emirates company's taking over significant operations at six U.S. ports. It was the lone protest among members of the government committee that eventually approved the deal without dissent.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0602/22/ldt.01.html
DOBBS: President Bush's family and members of the Bush administration have long-standing business connections with the United Arab Emirates, and those connections are raising new concerns and questions tonight in some quarters about why the president is defying his very own party leadership and his party in defending the Dubai port deal.

CHRISTINE ROMANS: The oil-rich United Arab Emirates is a major investor in The Carlyle Group, the private equity investment firm where President Bush's father once served as senior adviser and is a who's who of former high-level government officials. Just last year, Dubai International Capital, a government-backed buyout firm, invested in an $8 billion Carlyle fund.

Another family connection, the president's brother, Neil Bush, has reportedly received funding for his educational software company from the UAE investors. A call to his company was not returned.

Then there is the cabinet connection. Treasury Secretary John Snow was chairman of railroad company CSX/. After he left the company for the White House, CSX sold its international port operations to Dubai Ports World for more than a billion dollars.

In Connecticut today, Snow told reporters he had no knowledge of that CSX sale. "I learned of this transaction probably the same way members of the Senate did, by reading about it in the newspapers."

Another administration connection, President Bush chose a Dubai Ports World executive to head the U.S. Maritime Administration. David Sanborn, the former director of Dubai Ports' European and Latin American operations, he was tapped just last month to lead the agency that oversees U.S. port operations.

UAE gave $1 million to Bush library
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/nation/3681451.html
By WENDY BENJAMINSON
Associated Press

A sheik from the United Arab Emirates contributed at least $1 million to the Bush Library Foundation, which established the George Bush Presidential Library at Texas A&M University in College Station.

UAE terminal takeover extends to 21 ports
http://upi.com/SecurityTerrorism/view.php?StoryID=20060223-051657-4981r
By PAMELA HESS
UPI Pentagon Correspondent

WASHINGTON, Feb. 24 (UPI) -- A United Arab Emirates government-owned company is poised to take over port terminal operations in 21 American ports, far more than the six widely reported.

The Bush administration has approved the takeover of British-owned Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation Co. to DP World, a deal set to go forward March 2 unless Congress intervenes.

P&O is the parent company of P&O Ports North America, which leases terminals for the import and export and loading and unloading and security of cargo in 21 ports, 11 on the East Coast, ranging from Portland, Maine to Miami, Florida, and 10 on the Gulf Coast, from Gulfport, Miss., to Corpus Christi, Texas, according to the company's Web site.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

okay, has this company never run a port before??? Were they Spanish pony breeders beforehand, or what? This company has a proven record here. Two days ago you guys were up in arms that Bush allowed lower-level cronies to make this deal, now it was arranged in some back room with the entire Bush family (pets included) getting a cut.

abc, a couple of days ago you couldn't care less about the HSD, citing how dysfunctional they are. Now it's crucial that they were the "sole objector" in all of this.

Also, read a little bit more into the article you cited:

"The department's early objections were settled later in the government's review of the $6.8 billion deal after Dubai-owned DP World agreed to a series of security restrictions."

STOP THE PRESSES!!!!

It seems like you guys can't decide on what it is about this story that outrages you. It's corruption, or no, it's a security threat, or it's out-sourcing, or it's Homeland Security incompetence, etc. etc.

AND WHAT ABOUT THE DAMN LONGSHOREMEN!!?

If we can only distinguish between our friends and our enemies by using their skin color, than we are pretty fucked in this whole war on terrorism thing. Have the UAE not complied with our wishes in the WOT??? Has their company not taken all of the required steps to secure this contract by the books??? Have they not in fact extended their bid, and opened themselves up for extra scrutiny??

The only positive that I can see coming of this is that we actually WILL make our ports safer, and invest more in protecting them. However, I think it'll set a bad precedent and tone if we reject this company, which is seemingly qualified, because the owners happened to change skin color. Do AMerican officials not have relationships with companies around the world? Is it only with the UAE where politics and money seem to mesh???

Who should be the auditor over the next 45 days??? CONGRESS!? I would almost like to see that.....

[Geggy]

If the 21-port deal goes through, I predict there will be an afghanistan imported opium boom in the US. And the illegal arab immigrants will take our jobs for less money and no health benefits..

Very good for business...very bad for us...

just saying...

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Thanks, Geggy.

[Abcdxxxx]

Now Kevin, how can you say our security will improve because of this deal, when your argument has been that they won't have any important role in our security ?? Which is it? Because if they can play a positive improvement roll, it makes it possible that they can also play a negative one too.

I'm sorry if you're looking for one specific reason why people are oppossing this. When idiots like homeland security actually have a problem with SOMETHING for like a second even it really is a stop the presses kind of moment.

By the way, aren't you kind of disturbed that 6 ports became 21 ports, and there's yet another Carlyle connection to all to all of this?

I'm sure you've heard, the UAE just confiscated history textbooks from a private American school, because they didn't like the chapters on the mid-east & Israel. http://www.khaleejtimes.com/DisplayArticle.asp?xfile=data/theuae/2006/February/theuae_February883.xml&section=theuae&col= They fund the Edward Sai'd chair at Columbia's middle eastern studies program, which is now filled by a former PLO spokesman. They still fund Hamas.

Why shouldn't we worry about Islamists making moves towards the global port control this article describes....

http://canadafreepress.com/2006/jonsson022506.htm

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Now Kevin, how can you say our security will improve because of this deal, when your argument has been that they won't have any important role in our security ?? Which is it? Because if they can play a positive improvement roll, it makes it possible that they can also play a negative one too.

No. My hope is that with all of these folks in Congress sooooo concerned all of a sudden, it might....just MIGHT.....result in some legislation that beefs up the Coast Guard, or improves upon the way Homeland handles oversight.

By the way, aren't you kind of disturbed that 6 ports became 21 ports,

Would it matter if it were the British, rather than Dubai? Admittedly, I'd like to know why it jumped like that, but those 21 to my understanding are ports that were already under P & O authority.


I'm sure you've heard, the UAE just confiscated history textbooks from a private American school, because they didn't like the chapters on the mid-east & Israel. http://www.khaleejtimes.com/DisplayArticle.asp?xfile=data/theuae/2006/February/theuae_February883.xml&section=theuae&col= They fund the Edward Sai'd chair at Columbia's middle eastern studies program, which is now filled by a former PLO spokesman. They still fund Hamas.

The EU today essentially decided to still fund the Palestinian government, which is now run by Hamas. China, which actually has existing port deals with us, is way ahead of the game on the whole censorship of texts thing. The Sai'd thing? Come on....

If you are saying we need to wash our hands immediately of every Middle Eastern country (excluding Israel), then you are making a much bolder argument than the one being made here. How are our friends the Saudis, the Jordanians, or the Egyptians on revisionist history?

If we choose to withdraw from these nations over every thing we find wrong, then we are simply withdrawing completely.

Why shouldn't we worry about Islamists making moves towards the global port control this article describes....

http://canadafreepress.com/2006/jonsson022506.htm

"Dubai Ports Operating Shariah Compliant Ports"

As I said already, they have offered to essentially create a subsidiary, headed by an American only, to oversee the American operations. I highly doubt that these ports will be run by "Shariah" law......I'd like to see them try that in Baltimore, or Boston. :lol

Again, what's your argument? Muslims shouldn't dominate our ports, out-sourcing so many ports is bad, muslims running our ports are going to blow us up, etc. etc. ???

I am honestly a bit taken by the sudden jump in the number. Something tells me that has more to do with our own governments sloppy handling of this on the PR end, and less to do with those nefarious, cabal-like mooslims.......

[Abcdxxxx]

hey, i'm just responding to the whole "these are our friends" argument. they're about as much our friends as they are the friends of our enemies. i'm sorry that the united states is under the threat of attack from specific nationalities, but the uae has ties to terror groups which are a lot more incidental then they all happen to be arabs or muslim or purple. we're talking about ports, and our concerns are valid. so are that of the coast guard. i have a feeling this story is only just starting to unravel.

on a larger level, i think there should be limitations on foreign companies, and what we allow to be outsourced.

[Preechr]

I've been out of the loop for a couple of days, but IIRC, The deal was always for 21 or so ports worldwide, with 6 in America.

As I see it, the ownership of ports in any particular country is just an under-the-table form of payola. We don't want the media reporting that we are giving UAE billions of dollars in compensation for flyover rights and intelligence, so we set them up with a sweet little deal where they can rake in a nice profit for doing nothing.

What will DPW actually be getting? They lease the spaces in a dock to the actual companies with boats and cargo. Do they control what actually gets on the ships or where they go? No. No more so than your landlord can tell you what wear to work on any given day. There is a small security concern that through employment with or connections to DPW an infiltrator could access some specific information regarding where a particular shipment of coargo might be at any given moment, but I guarantee you could wrap a towel around your head, grab a briefcase with a blinky light and walk down to any dock in the United States and pay $1000 to get any container unlocked you wanted.

Remember the news organization that TWICE smuggled shipments of depleted uranium into New York from Indonesia? We need to be more worried about rampant incompetence and graft in the shipping industry more than we are about who owns what berth where.

Abcdxxxx, when you talk about ties to terror organizations, you are speaking in the extremely broad terms preferred by exaggerationists. What ties? The guys from 9/11? Criminals are born everyday all over the world... should we keep track of nationalities of various evil people so we can decide what countries are just inherently bad and which ones are good? The fact that they actually have a westernized banking system that was usable to terrorists? Weren't our own banks used similarly? The fact that Dubai is the most western city in the ARAB Middle East and thus the most economically sound? How is any of that proof that the country should be punished (or not rewarded for helping us out?)

Yours is a nuanced towel-head argument, man.

[Abcdxxxx]

21 Ports IN the United States according to this report:
http://upi.com/SecurityTerrorism/view.php?StoryID=20060223-051657-4981r

Might wanna "get back into the loop" and read the fucking thread, or at least keep up with the story before commenting on "nuanced arguments".


Abdul Qadeer Khan used UAE ports as the transfer point of nuclear components to Iran, Libya, and N. Korea

Page 137-139 of the 9/11 Commission Report blames a UAE tip off for protecting Bin Laden from a US assassination plan. Al-qaeda made claims of infiltrating UAE government in 2002.

UAE support Hamas:
Welcoming Terror to U.S. Ports
By Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld and Alyssa A. Lappen
FrontPageMagazine.com | February 24, 2006
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=21413
On July 27, 2005, the Palestinian Information Center carried a public HAMAS statement thanking the UAE for it’s “unstinting support.” The statement said: “We highly appreciate his highness Sheikh Khalifa Bin Zayed Bin Sultan Al-Nahyan (UAE president) in particular and the UAE people and government in general for their limitless support"

.......

The HAMAS statement included a special tribute: "One can never forget the generous donations of the late Sheikh Zayed Bin Sultan,” the father of the current UAE president. Sheikh Zayed bin Sultan al Nahayan of Abu Dhabi, was the first Arab leader to understand the importance of waging economic Jihad against the West, and was the first to use oil as a political weapon following the Yom Kippur War in 1973. On the eve of the 1991 Gulf War he branded the United States “our number two enemy” after Israel.

The multi-billionaire Sheikh Zayed, was an early patron of the PLO, and from the 1970’s until his death in 2004, contributed millions of dollars to the terror agenda of the PLO, HAMAS and Islamic Jihad.

......

For example, according to the Orient Research Center in Toronto, Canada, the UAE “compensation” plan for the Palestinian intifada in 2001 included $3,000 for every Palestinian shaheed, $2,000 for his family, $1,500 for those detained by Israel, $1,200 for each orphan. In addition, families of those terrorists whose homes Israel demolished each received $10,000.

Also in 2001, in support of the martyr’s families in the Palestinian intifada, two telethons were organized in the UAE.




According to a 2004 poll conducted by Zogby International:
73% of UAE citizens had a negative view of the United States; only 14% had a favorable view.

· Only 5% of UAE citizens felt that “democracy” was an “extremely important” reason for the U.S. invasion of Iraq. Preventing the spread of weapons of mass destruction was cited by 16%. “Oil” and “domination of the Muslim world” were the main reasons offered by UAE citizens for our invasion of Iraq.

· 81% of UAE citizens felt Iraq was worse off after the war. Only 4% said it was better off without Saddam.

· Asked to identify their “most admired” world leaders, 18% of UAE citizens chose Osama bin Laden. “No one” finished first with 22%.

· When asked how they viewed themselves, only 19% said they identified first and foremost as citizens of the United Arab Emirates, while 66% said they saw themselves as “Muslims” first.

[Preechr]

I've read the thread. That's the reason I commented to you directly on your posts here. At least now you are trying to cite a bit more evidence that just "They're Arabs, too." Still, even with efforts toward that end, you aren't able to paint a picture of the government of the UAE being any more an enemy of the United States than Singapore... or even Israel. Has the UAE military ever staged a direct attack on an American ship, trying to make it look like some other country did it, so we'd attack one of their enemies? I'm not trying to say the UAE is a better friends to us than Israel... I'm not discounting the value of either friendship though, either.

Your arguement is basically that they are not good enough friends to us, so we should not let them have this deal. If you could show that there was any legitimate security concerns, then your evidence might be able to show that they can't be trusted to this degree, but I don't see the security concerns. All in all, the UAE... with all it's bumps and scars, seems to be about the most modern and civilized of the Arab kingdoms, and they have been very helpful in fighting the WOT so far. I think this deal has been chosen as a way to reward them for that, and I don't have a problem there.

Maybe you don't think they should be rewarded for anything because of other things they've done or not done of which you do not approve and that matter more to you than the WOT. Maybe you have some proof that there are some legitimate security concerns in this deal that I haven't seen or heard of. Maybe you just don't like towelheads. Hell if I know. I've seen you make much better arguments than what you've done here, so I commented on that. It's obvious how you feel about the situation between the Arab world and Israel, and I pretty much side with you on that... but if you can't see hope for the Arab world because of their past misdeeds, that says more about your own opinion of the Western world than it does about Arabs.

Personally, I feel that the Middle East will eventually join us in the 21st Century. It will be an uncomfortable transition, but I believe in our lifestyle and our values so much that I think their advantages will be too tempting for them to deny much longer. This is the key to Israel's nationhood and it's support from the West, and this is the motive behind the WOT altogether... Well, with some bombs and stuff, too.

[Preechr]

Oh yeah, and Zogby's a towelhead... You probably shouldn't quote his polls. His brother used to run CAIR, y'know... I'm sure John is screwing with his polling data in order to help the terrorists.

[Abcdxxxx]

The Arab-Islamic nations which are the greatest security risks are the moderate ones because they are open to exploitation. In the case of UAE, there is enough ambigious information to send up red flags. That's not a slam on the nations ability to modernize, so much as a recognition of that governments activities.

you aren't able to paint a picture of the government of the UAE being any more an enemy of the United States than Singapore... or even Israel.

I'm assuming you have a basic education, and grasp world politics to the point where i shouldn't have to. It's not a double standard. I wouldn't want Israel to run our ports either.

Has the UAE military ever staged a direct attack on an American ship, trying to make it look like some other country did it, so we'd attack one of their enemies?

Spare me. If you want to slam Israel, there's plenty of legit points you can make without promoting an outright lie.

Your arguement is basically that they are not good enough friends to us, so we should not let them have this deal.

No, that's not my argument. I have a bunch of reservations for a bunch of reasons. None of them involve the phrase "towel heads" which actually offends me.

Have you figured out that it's 21 ports in America, and not just the six yet?

[Preechr]

I believe you. I have no reason to question what you posted. As I had said, I'd been working a lot with no time to keep up with the news, and I thought the numbers discrepancy was confusion due to the deal involving more than just American ports.

I still don't understand where the security risks you are concerned about lie in Dubai owning, NOT operating ports in America. The only thing I can be concerned about in this issue, really, is that the Bushies should have known this would be a PR nightmare and could easily have made steps to smooth this over before it exploded. Crap like this is just what we do when we want to give money to a country that is too rich for us to be able to call it "aid." It's just payola.

And, it wasn't my intention to "slam" Israel. I was making a comparison. I suppose when I pulled an example off the top of my head, I picked a bad one. If you say it's a lie, I guess it must be so... it's not my lie. I don't really care enough about the history of Israel to have an opinion on it, honestly. I'm more concerned about where it's going, and that's why I support Israel and the democratization of the Middle East.

You still didn't give me the answer I wanted most from you: Do you think Arabs will eventually be able to modernize?

[Abcdxxxx]

Well, you might not agree with my argument, but it's hardly an invite to start bashing Israel with non-sequitor accusations. Anyway, you view this as a Republican vs. Dems issue, when it was the Republicans and Fox Broadcasting who made this a front page issue.

Zogby's a towelhead... You probably shouldn't quote his polls. His brother used to run CAIR, y'know..

Speaking of CAIR - their Washington offices are located in a property owned by Sheik Maktoum, who also owns a controlling equity in Dubai Ports World. He's also the UAE Defense Minister. In 1999 he provided cargo planes to Al-Qaeda camps for hunting trips, and a UAE plane when a portion of the Royal family went to visit Bin Laden in Kandahar. This happened 2 months after Bin Laden attacked our Embassy in Africa, using Emerate banks for financing.


Do I think Arabs can modernize? Depending on what you mean by modernize, I think they already have for the most part...in places like the US, Israel, and the EU. They do just fine in Westernized culture when they want to, but you're talking about modernizing, not westernizing. Globalization isn't going to modernize third world countries. So what if they can buy a can of coke and go to their job at outsourced ATT call centers giving technical. Arab States have financial interests in all areas of the US economy, and it doesn't make them any more loyal, comprimising, etc. Modernization does not breed tolerance, or assimilation. The heretics will only use these tools against us, because they see them as products of evil. The problem in countries like the UAE is that they are Islamic loyalists, that run their nations like a business. Why should I care how modernized these Muslims countries become while they treat women as second class. How modernized can you be in a country that enslaves young boys to the camel jockey trade? Economic growth really isn't the the issue or the solution.