News Control of US ports: Bush selling out on US security?

[edward]

Facilities:

UAE:

ASIA Pacific:

Australia - Adelaide;
China - ATL Yantian;
China - Shanghai Ji Fa;
China - Tianjin;China - Yantai ;
China - Yantian;
Hong Kong - ACT ;
Hong Kong - ATL;
Hong Kong - CT3

Europe and West Africa:

Romania - Constanta;
Germany - Germersheim;

Latin America:

Dominican Republic - Puerto Caucedo;
Venezuela - Puerto Cabello

West Asia/East Africa:

Djibouti - Djibouti;
India - Cochin;
India - Visakhapatnam;
Saudi Arabia - Jeddah

So is NY and NJ so much harder to manage than all their other ports Edward? NY and NJ would be a fraction of their problems.

...and you tell us to give you a break?? Why don't you start putting your information into context Edward.

I already posted a link to the Asian ports acuired by DP. It was just last year right after the mereger. What does this have to do with anything. A list of what they own has no connection to how they would run the Port of New York.

Don't tell me you are another one of those guys who needs to see dead bodies CYRUS
I held a secret security clearance for 10 years and a top secret clearance for another 20.

 

[edward]

Then I will take that to mean you can't PROVE any of your false accusations.

CYRUS
DO NOT INSINUATE THAT I AM POSTING FALSEHOODS There has been a link for everything I have posted.


GOT THAT!

If you are too lazy to read the 911 commission report link which I mentioned that does not make me wrong. If I am wrong then the 911 Commission report was wrong. Accuse them of lying! Once again the link is in post 58.

In addition I woud imagine that you are too young to remember when we had Bin laudin cornered in a camp in Afganistan in 1999. Why didn't we bomb it.? Because High level UAE officials were there.. How did we know that. We saw their freaking airplane sitting there on the ground.

February 10, as the United States considered striking the camp, Clarke reported that during his visit bin Zayid had vehemently denied rumors that high-level UAE officials were in Afghanistan. NSC email, Clarke to Kerrick, UBL update, Feb. 10, 1999. Subsequent reporting, however, suggested that high-level UAE officials had indeed been at the desert camp. CIA memo, "Recent High Level UAE Visits to Afghanistan," Feb. 19, 1999

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Tone it down.

Now.

 

[McGyver]

Why the Race Card Doesn't Hold Water

You know, even if these senators are right, they sound awfully racist in now trying to block acquisition by foreign companies, considering the ports before were under the control of a British company and they didn't seem to care then.

Now that we've seen the Arab and Muslim spokespeople play the "race card," please allow me to retort.

The definition of Racism is discrimination of person(s), groups, or organizations solely based upon "dislike or disfavor" of those persons and/or groups. When civil rights legislation was passed in the U.S. in the 1960s, those that it served were not considered terrorists or threats to society by any sense of the imagination.

On the other hand, "many many" Arab states and their sponsored organizations have made repeated threats against the U.S. and its world-wide interests. To deny certain U.S. rights and privileges to those states and organizations is not racists - but rooted in national security.

If ordinary Americans must now submit to more strict strutiny in the interests of national security - certainly, that same scrutiny should apply to states and organizations with "suspicious ties" to terrorists networks.

We must not only guard against "threats coming into" the U.S. at our major ports, but also assure that sensitive materials, technology, and other resources "do not unlawfully leave" the U.S. via these same ports.

 

[Cyrus]

The United Arab Emirates, the financial center for the Gulf area, also had a reputation for
being “wide open,” with few regulations on the control of money and a woefully
inadequate anti-money-laundering program.32 The UAE system had been a concern of
U.S. policymakers long before the 9/11 attacks, and they directly raised their concerns
with UAE officials. The UAE had no money-laundering law, although at U.S. urging in
1999 it started drafting one, which was not finalized until after 9/11. Although the UAE
was aware that terrorists and other international criminals had laundered money through
the UAE, and that it was the center for hawala and courier operations, it did little to
address the problem. Additionally, the United States expressed its concern about UAE
support for Ariana Airlines and the movement of Bin Ladin funds through Dubai. Shortly
before the September 11 attacks, the departing U.S. ambassador to the UAE warned
senior officials in the Emirates that they needed to move forward on money-laundering
legislation, so as not to be placed on the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) “blacklist”
of countries not fully complying with international standards in this area. These warnings
had no discernible effect.

Perhaps you are seeing something I am not Edward. Please show me where it says the United Arab Emirates was taking part? Just becuase the United States tells them they should fix their laws does not mean the UAE is obliged to say YES SIR RIGHT AWAY SIR!

I told you before show me some PROOF of your accusations. I already said simple hand waiving is not going to cut it. Show me explicity where the government of the UAE was at fault. Being slow to comply is not the same thing as funding terrorists. It even says they were slow to fix the money laundering problem but still moved ahead to fix it.

 

[edward]

Perhaps you are seeing something I am not Edward. Please show me where it says the United Arab Emirates was taking part? Just becuase the United States tells them they should fix their laws does not mean the UAE is obliged to say YES SIR RIGHT AWAY SIR!

I told you before show me some PROOF of your accusations. I already said simple hand waiving is not going to cut it. Show me explicity where the government of the UAE was at fault. Being slow to comply is not the same thing as funding terrorists. It even says they were slow to fix the money laundering problem but still moved ahead to fix it.

Don't push it CYRUS , I am seeing something that you are not because ", I have been there and done that in a security setting", and perhaps because you don't want to see.
The quote above referring to the 1999 UAE officials in A terrorist camp in Afganistan is proof enough. Are you reading or just writing.

 

[Cyrus]

Be fair Edward, you Edited your post AFTER I had posted in response to your first post. Until I see the CIA, NSA, FBI, DHS, and the Department of State/Defense say that the UAE are supporting terrorists, I am not going to buy into your argument. THEY are the experts on these issus, NOT congressmen. If they say the UAE is a terrorist supporting state I will buy your argument. So obviously your argument about it being proof enough is not true.

 

[edward]

Be fair Edward, you Edited your post AFTER I had posted in response to your first post. Until I see the CIA, NSA, FBI, DHS, and the Department of State/Defense say that the UAE are supporting terrorists, I am not going to buy into your argument. THEY are the experts on these issus, NOT congressmen. If they say the UAE is a terrorist supporting state I will buy your argument. So obviously your argument about it being proof enough is not true.

I don't think that I once mention that the UAE is currently supporting terrorists. I mentioned that their track record was not good.

UN Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 1267, Oct. 15, 1999. UNSCR 1267 demanded that the Taliban render Bin Ladin to justice within 30 days; upon noncompliance, UN member states were called on to restrict takeoff and landing rights of Taliban-owned aircraft. The sanctions also required member states to freeze Taliban funds and financial resources. But Taliban "charter flights" continued to fly between Afghanistan and the UAE.

 

[rachmaninoff]

WASHINGTON - The Bush administration secretly required a company in the United Arab Emirates to cooperate with future U.S. investigations before approving its takeover of operations at six American ports, according to documents obtained by The Associated Press. It chose not to impose other, routine restrictions.
...
Bush personally defended the agreement on Tuesday, but the White House said he did not know about it until recently. The AP first reported the U.S. approval of the sale to Dubai Ports on Feb. 11, and many members of Congress have said they learned about it from the AP.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060223/ap_on_go_pr_wh/ports_security_53;_ylt=Ak9L1r3Rksmh4E5kvRfL3c4Tv5UB;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl"

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I picked up on that. Bush was backing this before he could even know what it was; according to what he says now.

Even if we assume only the best of intentions by all involved, there is a secondary issue of trust in competence. The Bush administration's ability to access the facts is known to be highly flawed. And now we are asked to trust them on this issue of port security [again, trust] which we already know are highly vulernable [our ports] and one of our greatest weaknesses in terms of national security - with only about 5% of all cargo being inspected.

And the Bush admin has already admitted that Congress should have been included on this, so they admit to yet another failure to manage critical issues.

 

[Gokul43201]

However, I don't think it is ethical to assume that the the company is going to be a risk any more than it is ethical to assume that an Arab-American owning a business in the US would pose a risk.

It looks like the administration itself considered the operational control of the ports by this specific company an increased risk, as evidenced by the requirement that DP mandatorily take part in security measures that are only voluntary for other companies.

To assuage concerns, the administration disclosed some assurances it negotiated with Dubai Ports. It required mandatory participation in U.S. security programs to stop smuggling and detect illegal shipments of nuclear materials; roughly 33 other port companies participate in these voluntarily.

Source : http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/nation/terror/20060222-1410-portssecurity.html


Is it not unethical that the administration demand these additional measures of this company ?

 

[Moonbear]

And the Bush admin has already admitted that Congress should have been included on this, so they admit to yet another failure to manage critical issues.

I think my jaw hit the floor when I heard that. Yesterday, Bush was insisting all was fine, nothing to worry about, this is going to happen no matter what, it's a done deal, and he's going to veto any legislation attempting to do otherwise, and then I nearly got whiplash to hear him claiming he knew nothing about it until it was too late, and Congress should have been kept informed, and he should have been kept informed. Which story does he want us to buy? That he's backing this 100% and is completely confident that all necessary security issues have been addressed in these secret meetings, or that the meetings were so secret, even he wasn't told about them? He can't have it both ways. I think full disclosure needs to be made to Congress before the ink dries on this "done deal" and they should have the opportunity to decide for themselves whether all assurances really have been made or not. One of the frustrations we're having in this thread is that nobody even seems able to tell the public just exactly what it is that they will be doing once they take over. This shouldn't be such a difficult question to get answered, but we really still don't have a clear idea. I've gotten some glimpses from jobs P&O was hiring for, and some vague mission statements on the P&O and DP World websites, but NONE of it gives a complete picture of what they will be doing. They're in charge of something, somewhere there is money to be made in this deal or nobody would take over that job. About all I can glean is that DP World is aggressively expanding, and they needed this takeover of P&O to gain the status and reputation of a leader in that industry. I think I linked to whatever site I saw that on last night. So, they need the U.S., but does the U.S. need them too? And if so, why? I'm willing to listen to an hour long, or longer, Presidential press conference if Bush will please explain it all to us, and bring along the folks from DP World who are visiting and the folks from this secret committee, so nobody gets to weasel out and say the person with the answers isn't there. I want them all in the same room and I want answers out of them. Why should we trust them when they have given us zero information about the deal and given us zero reasons for that trust?

 

[SOS2008]

Even if we assume only the best of intentions by all involved, there is a secondary issue of trust in competence. The Bush administration's ability to access the facts is known to be highly flawed. And now we are asked to trust them on this issue of port security [again, trust] which we already know are highly vulernable [our ports] and one of our greatest weaknesses in terms of national security - with only about 5% of all cargo being inspected.

And the Bush admin has already admitted that Congress should have been included on this, so they admit to yet another failure to manage critical issues.

You're hitting the nail on the head. It is about perception, which includes the track record. The weak link for Bush has been homeland security -- American's have known about security issues in regard to our ports, are concerned about the flood of illegals coming over the border, and of course have felt great dismay about the management of Katrina.

What is happening now is the "mob mentality" that used to be used by Bush to his favor, has now turned against him. Members of Congress currently are swamped with letters, email, and phone calls from their constituents. With the 2006 elections in the near future, this has become very damaging. Bush and the GOP are looking soft on security:

"Bush faces a potential rebellion from leaders of his own party..."

[In] Rove's speech to the Republican National Committee...[he]conveniently said nothing about that pesky leak investigation. Rove noted that we face "a ruthless enemy" and "need a commander in chief and a Congress who understand the nature of the threat and the gravity of the moment America finds itself in."

"President Bush and the Republican Party do," Rove informed us. "Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for many Democrats."

Rove went on: "Republicans have a post-9/11 worldview, and many Democrats have a pre-9/11 worldview. That doesn't make them unpatriotic -- not at all. But it does make them wrong -- deeply and profoundly and consistently wrong."

Oh, no, those Dems aren't unpatriotic, just security idiots.

- http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/23/AR2006012301261.html

Though I personally feel the fear of terrorism has blown this matter out of proportion, I feel no sympathy that Rove's dirty politics are back firing.

 

[edward]

I think my jaw hit the floor when I heard that. Yesterday, Bush was insisting all was fine, nothing to worry about, this is going to happen no matter what, it's a done deal, and he's going to veto any legislation attempting to do otherwise, and then I nearly got whiplash to hear him claiming he knew nothing about it until it was too late, and Congress should have been kept informed, and he should have been kept informed. Which story does he want us to buy? That he's backing this 100% and is completely confident that all necessary security issues have been addressed in these secret meetings, or that the meetings were so secret, even he wasn't told about them? He can't have it both ways. I think full disclosure needs to be made to Congress before the ink dries on this "done deal" and they should have the opportunity to decide for themselves whether all assurances really have been made or not. One of the frustrations we're having in this thread is that nobody even seems able to tell the public just exactly what it is that they will be doing once they take over. This shouldn't be such a difficult question to get answered, but we really still don't have a clear idea. I've gotten some glimpses from jobs P&O was hiring for, and some vague mission statements on the P&O and DP World websites, but NONE of it gives a complete picture of what they will be doing. They're in charge of something, somewhere there is money to be made in this deal or nobody would take over that job. About all I can glean is that DP World is aggressively expanding, and they needed this takeover of P&O to gain the status and reputation of a leader in that industry. I think I linked to whatever site I saw that on last night. So, they need the U.S., but does the U.S. need them too? And if so, why? I'm willing to listen to an hour long, or longer, Presidential press conference if Bush will please explain it all to us, and bring along the folks from DP World who are visiting and the folks from this secret committee, so nobody gets to weasel out and say the person with the answers isn't there. I want them all in the same room and I want answers out of them. Why should we trust them when they have given us zero information about the deal and given us zero reasons for that trust?

I can't believe that Bush was left out of the loop here. Each day we seem to get a differen't version. Could someone possibly have been pulling something over on Bush? Did we ever decide where the very first revelation of this sale was published? I am thinking that it was a result of DP Worlds own press release announcing the acquisition.

And to think that everyone knew except Bush, that is just so totally bizzare. If Cheney's hunting accident had happened a week later we may have never found out about it.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

One more thing that about makes my head explode here. The logic put forth by the admin so far is this: This deal is critical to the UAE, and it is critical to the perception of us among Muslims, hence our national security, that we allow a foreign agency controlled by a government with a dubious track record on terror to control a US port. Note that the UAE was one of three countries that recognized the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan.

How about if we run this around the block: We have a right to act in our own best interest. If after 911, and considering that we are allegedly AT WAR, the people in the UAE can't understand our concerns, then, frankly, I don't trust their motives.

 

[Moonbear]

I can't believe that Bush was left out of the loop here. Each day we seem to get a differen't version. Could someone possibly have been pulling something over on Bush? Did we ever decide where the very first revelation of this sale was published? I am thinking that it was a result of DP Worlds own press release announcing the acquisition.

I don't know, I'm wondering if that's why he was so defensive about the deal when the news first broke, trying to cover that he was pissed about being left out of the loop. How does the President get left out of the loop? The DP Worlds press release is the earliest news I can find of it, on Feb 13, though while that mentioned the acquisition of P&O, it doesn't really talk about what was included in the deal, so you'd have already had to know that P&O was the company already running port operations in the US to have caught on to that tidbit. I find it really hard to believe he appointed someone from DP World to a high level position back in January, yet didn't know anything about the goings-on with DP World, short of his newly appointed Maritime Administrator back-stabbing him, but aquisitions like this just don't happen overnight. It has had to be in negotiations for months, and even if he didn't know who was going to win the bids with P&O, someone had to know who the contenders were to start running background checks.

 

[Gokul43201]

Did we ever decide where the very first revelation of this sale was published? I am thinking that it was a result of DP Worlds own press release announcing the acquisition.

I'm not sure where it was first published, but I'd heard on the radio that the news of the deal come out as a result of a Miami company suing to block the transaction. Was this after DP's own announcement ?

 

[edward]

I don't know, I'm wondering if that's why he was so defensive about the deal when the news first broke, trying to cover that he was pissed about being left out of the loop. How does the President get left out of the loop? The DP Worlds press release is the earliest news I can find of it, on Feb 13, though while that mentioned the acquisition of P&O, it doesn't really talk about what was included in the deal, so you'd have already had to know that P&O was the company already running port operations in the US to have caught on to that tidbit. I find it really hard to believe he appointed someone from DP World to a high level position back in January, yet didn't know anything about the goings-on with DP World, short of his newly appointed Maritime Administrator back-stabbing him, but aquisitions like this just don't happen overnight. It has had to be in negotiations for months, and even if he didn't know who was going to win the bids with P&O, someone had to know who the contenders were to start running background checks.

And this is a first. It is the first time a state owned company has been allowed to get their foot in the door in the U.S.

 

[Cyrus]

Is there a law against that Edward? (Im not being a smartass I am curious)

 

[edward]

Is there a law against that Edward? (Im not being a smartass I am curious)

Obviously not. But it is still a first. China tried to get Unocal and then Maytag. Both times they were outbid by comapanies who suddenly acquired funds that they didn't have a month before. In essence state owned companies have been fought off by American Industry in the past.

 

[Cyrus]

Just becuase it is a first does not mean anything is wrong with it. They have to comply with the same laws that a US owned company would have to. They already said they are willing to make changes to any additional security measures the US Government would like to see done.

 

[SOS2008]

One of the frustrations we're having in this thread is that nobody even seems able to tell the public just exactly what it is that they will be doing once they take over. This shouldn't be such a difficult question to get answered, but we really still don't have a clear idea. I've gotten some glimpses from jobs P&O was hiring for, and some vague mission statements on the P&O and DP World websites, but NONE of it gives a complete picture of what they will be doing. They're in charge of something, somewhere there is money to be made in this deal or nobody would take over that job. About all I can glean is that DP World is aggressively expanding, and they needed this takeover of P&O to gain the status and reputation of a leader in that industry. I think I linked to whatever site I saw that on last night. So, they need the U.S., but does the U.S. need them too? And if so, why? I'm willing to listen to an hour long, or longer, Presidential press conference if Bush will please explain it all to us, and bring along the folks from DP World who are visiting and the folks from this secret committee, so nobody gets to weasel out and say the person with the answers isn't there. I want them all in the same room and I want answers out of them. Why should we trust them when they have given us zero information about the deal and given us zero reasons for that trust?

This is the story the media is missing, and the questions Congress is not asking--except to ask for a review in general.

One more thing that about makes my head explode here. The logic put forth by the admin so far is this: This deal is critical to the UAE, and it is critical to the perception of us among Muslims, hence our national security, that we allow a foreign agency controlled by a government with a dubious track record on terror to control a US port.

That would be Bushspeak, and I am still suspicious of what is in the water that affects people's logic.

I find it really hard to believe he appointed someone from DP World to a high level position back in January, yet didn't know anything about the goings-on with DP World, short of his newly appointed Maritime Administrator back-stabbing him, but aquisitions like this just don't happen overnight. It has had to be in negotiations for months, and even if he didn't know who was going to win the bids with P&O, someone had to know who the contenders were to start running background checks.

He might have been riding his bike, or on vacation, or preoccupied with warrantless wiretaps, or just a puppet on strings... The article rachmaninoff provided made it look as if these kinds of transactions take place all the time, and are usually so mundane as to not require direct presidential review. The lawsuit no doubt was unexpected, and now, well there is some 'splainen to do.

 

[edward]

Just becuase it is a first does not mean anything is wrong with it. They have to comply with the same laws that a US owned company would have to. They already said they are willing to make changes to any additional security measures the US Government would like to see done.

That is not the point. It is not just a security issue. For the last 60 years , state owned, meant either socialist or communist. They didn't even try to enter the U.S. business scene because our industry was so strong that they were driven out. In more recent years banks would loan money to companies that they may not have loaned to in ordinary circumstances, just to keep out anything that was socalist.

The recent Whirlpool purchase of Maytag to prevent Maytags purchase by China is a prime example.

Even now Bush harps on the state sponsored and state subsidized businesses in foreign countries accusing them of unfair trade practices.
ie They can sell goods at a lower price because of the finacial aid they receive from their government.

This is not just a first. It will set a precedent for the future.
DPWorld is the very type of state backed conglomerate that has been so stronly criticised and rebuked by Americans in the past.

 

[edward]

The link below provides an interesting interactive map of P&O (British) holdings in American ports. There seems to be eleven with an all or partial interest held by P&O, soon to be DPWorld UAE.

http://portal.pohub.com/portal/page?_pageid=169,1,169_82863&_dad=pogprtl&_schema=POGPRTL

 

[SOS2008]

Transcripts from CNN -- http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0602/22/acd.01.html

First about laws:

Patrick Mulloy, an attorney who helped write the law, says the president should have known.

PATRICK MULLOY, INTERNATIONAL TRADE LAW EXPERT, GEORGE MASON UNIVERSITY: The process was not followed as Congress laid it out in the law.

J. KING: The law calls for the president to weigh in and to report his findings to Congress, if the initial review suggests the foreign investment could undermine national security.

MULLOY: Then, senior people get involved and start debating the merits, pros and cons.

J. KING: But Mr. Bush and his top aides were not involved in this deal, to the astonishment of critics, because the lower review, led by Treasury, did not warn of a national security risk that warranted presidential attention.

Only six months ago, the investigative arm of Congress raised alarms on this very issue, suggesting, Treasury is too biased in favor of foreign investment, and, as a result, "narrowly defines what constitutes a threat to national security, and is reluctant to initiate investigations for possible presidential action."

MULLOY: And that's what happens when you don't follow the law. You short-circuit it. And, then, you get yourself into trouble.

Then about security concerns:

P. KING: Oh, but, again, we don't know who all the personnel are with the company. We don't know what their hiring practices are. We don't know, for instance, whether or not those in the Dubai and Emirates government which brought about the recognition of the Taliban back in 1996, and was one of the only -- you know, one of only three governments in the world to recognize the Taliban, how much of an influence they still have in the government.

And how much influence does the government actually have on this company, since they are the principal owner of it? So, these are all real issues that should have been looked in to. And, under the statute -- you know, everything in the statute, as Pat Mulloy said before, cried out for a full 45-day investigation. What was the rush to judgment here? There's 24 years left on the lease.

COOPER: Well, the other two governments... who supported the Taliban were Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, both of whom are, allegedly, our very close allies in the war on terror.

P. KING: Right. Right.

But, even on that point, Anderson -- on that point, for instance, I think Pakistan has been a very good ally. I would not want a Pakistani company, though, working on our ports, because I know -- and all of us know -- there is still a large Taliban influence in the Pakistan government, in the Pakistan intelligence agencies.

President Musharraf is a good ally, but his government is still infiltrated by Taliban and al Qaeda supporters.

COOPER: Supporters of this deal will say, look, if union -- American union longshoremen are still the folks working in these ports, as they're going to be, and the Coast Guard, and the Customs, and the Border Patrol are still in charge of security, why does it matter who actually manages the port?

P. KING: Because you would have -- assume that there is a problem with this company. And that's what we have to investigate to find out.
You would, then, have an enemy, you know, within our own defense perimeter. They would know what all the operations are, as far as security. They would know what all the machinations and mechanisms are within our ports. So, you would be giving them access to the ports, which they wouldn't have otherwise. That's the real danger here.

And about outsourcing concerns in general:

COOPER: But I don't think most Americans realize that just about all major American ports are run by foreign companies. I mean, you have got Chinese -- I mean, even here in New York, you have got, you know, a Chinese company running some of the terminals in the New York ports, or running, you know, terminals out there in L.A. You have got Dutch companies. You have got British companies.

P. KING: Mmm-hmm...

----------

ROBERTS: Certainly. ...in fact, 30 percent of container operations in this country are handled by companies that are based in third countries.

For example, in the Port of Baltimore, you have companies from Denmark, Taiwan, and Singapore that are involved in -- in container operations and terminal operations there.

So our government under Bush did not follow the law? And there are no security issues to be concerned about--Are we sure about that? And the Bush administration is selling America again to compensate for their tax breaks and bungled ventures of war? I can't believe it.

 

[edward]

Where did our distrust of islam come from

First of all it is somewhat unusual that a thread gets to the 14th page and is still pretty much on topic.

So where did many of us and the general John Q public get its distrust of Islam. (the hinge on which this thread at times has turned and twisted)

After 9/11 most of us had a great hatred for a certain well defined terrorist group. The real distrust of Islam has been ingrained in us by GW Bush. And it was done so in order to gain favor for the war in Iraq.

He has given hundreds of speeches and news conferences over the past three years and in each one he has repeatedly used the terms, Haters of freedom, doers of evil, axis of evil, relentless killers, haters of democracy.
And each and everytime these comments were aimed supposedly at radical Islam.

The problem has been that most people can not differentiate between Radical and moderate Islam, thus eventually Islam itself became the object of our anger and distrust. We can not look at two Islamics and tell the difference. The end result has been that the racism, and religious intolerance that exists deeply implanted in our minds, was put there by the very same man who now proclaims that It is perfectly safe for an Islamic company to operate a number of our sea ports.

 

[turbo]

That's the heart of the problem, edward. Bush is so cozy with the Saudis that when the 9/11 hijackers (overwhelmingly Saudis) struck us, he immediately arranged for rich Saudis (including Bin Laden family members) to be spirited out of the country, while US citizens were locked down, unable to use air transportation. For him to side with the UAE on this issue is more of the same. He cozies up to whomever can grease him, and demonizes everyone that he wants to attack. Every time he makes a speech, he mentions "9/11", "terror" and "Iraq" as closely together as he can and repeats it over and over, until the less-educated and less-informed of our citizenry is absolutely convinced that Iraq was behind the hijackings. This results in knee-jerk reactions in our populace against even the most moderate, peaceful Muslims. Spawning hatred is evil, and it plays right into the hands of the Zionists, who want to portray every Arab organization as "terrorist". If we don't have a conflagration in the Middle East involving Israel and Iran at a minimum, we should count ourselves lucky.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Edward, if a thread manages to stay on topic, please don't feel obligated to change that. This story may have a long way to go yet.

 

[turbo]

I picked up on that. Bush was backing this before he could even know what it was; according to what he says now.

Even if we assume only the best of intentions by all involved, there is a secondary issue of trust in competence. The Bush administration's ability to access the facts is known to be highly flawed.

Now that the cat is out of the bag - that David Sanborn (once head of European and Latin American operations for DPW) was appointed to run the Maritime Administration of the Transportation Department, should we follow the money? This administration is rife with cronyism, and it seems that any of them can be bought for a price. Cheney refused to divest himself of his Halliburton holdings and right now, he is sitting fat and happy, thanks to all the no-bid contracts and overcharging in Iraq. I expect that our port security has just been sold the same way. This is our weak link, people. Fewer than 5% of the containers entering our ports are inspected and anyone of them could contain a dirty bomb or biological or chemical agents, along with some dispersive mechanism. Mayors and governors of major port cities should be on the news every night for as long as it takes for this travesty to be reversed. It only takes one well-placed person in a port authority to subvert security measures and allow an attack to proceed. It need not be the president of a corporation or the director of operations, it might only need to be a secretary privy to their information. Never underestimate the power of a funtionary holding a grudge.

 

[edward]

Edward, if a thread manages to stay on topic, please don't feel obligated to change that. This story may have a long way to go yet.

Your are correct sir.

Pace said the United Arab Emirates receives U.S. aircraft carriers in its ports, allows U.S. forces to use its airfields and airspace, and provides logistics support for U.S. forces.
”They’ve got a world-class air-to-air training facility that they let U.S. use and cooperate with them in the training of our pilots,” he said.

The port the carriers use is of course, Dubai, home of DPWorld (Dubai Ports World)

This whole scenario is starting to sound like something that wasn't quite good enough for Tom Clancy to write. Naa that's an overstatement.