Do you agree with President on the Dubai Port Security issue?

[IHL]

After learning more about the issue of six U.S. ports being secured by a company owned by Dubai's DP World, do you agree with the President and his decision to allow this to happen?

The controversy started because of DP Worlds plans to take over six U.S. ports. Ports that were previously under a U.K. company that DP World purchased.

DP World would take control of ports in New York-Newark, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Miami and New Orleans. Dubai is the second- largest member of the United Arab Emirates federation, from which two of the Sept. 11, 2001, hijackers came.

[Wadi66]

Actually IHL, its 22 ports.

http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=48991

[BushRocks]

Correction. TERMINALS AT 22 ports. And they won't own these ports, they lease them. And U.S. workers and management will still work at this ports. So I just want to clear up any misconceptions that anybody has here. We aren't allowing a bunch of Arabs to run our ports and operate them. We aren't outsourcing jobs or security.

[Devil_rules_in_extremes]

Correction. TERMINALS AT 22 ports. And they won't own these ports, they lease them.

Dude... Get over yourself... I think people understand what is goin on here. People can read the link WADI provided and comprehend the information that they read.

"Dubai Ports World is scheduled to take over operations at 22 U.S. ports, not six as previously reported by most major media."

Thats what the article says... You don't need to get into the semantics of the whole damn thing and say "Its just TERMINALS, not the entire port."

We all know that. There is no "mis-conception". I know who is running security at these ports. I know who will be doing the Labor at these ports. Now I know who will be OPERATING these ports... THE UAE...

So get over it.

[BushRocks]

You know, I PMed you to have a civilized debate, but then you tell me to get over myself. Get a life. I've presented my side, and I don't want people to have he wrong idea about what the President and many many others who are now taking his side are saying.

[Yankee Doodle]

I don't know.

Dubai represents a whole different part of the Arab world. In that UAE foreigners, especially rich British and American entrepots, are encouraged to do business in the city. It is a total levee of capitalism and I doubt it is about to break. Except for some minor terms of engagement with regards to doing business there (i.e. an American would have to seek sponsorship before conducting business there . . . unless, of course, he/she is bringing a significant amount of capital into the country).

But all in all Dubai is much more secular in the sense it has a very pragmatic love of and approach to business. Dubai and the UAE in general want nothing to do with fundamentalist ideas from either the Arabs or Christians. Traditionaly the city (although really not more than a port a not long ago) is recognized as a leave-your-personal-agenda-at-the-door sort of place. It is a space for world business to be conducted.

My own early feelings that is a Dubai authority running US ports is purely based on a unique professionalism in international port management. US workers remain in place but fall under the auspices of proven credentials in the port industry. I know that in Vancouver, Canada they have been running the port for a few years and no conflicts have been noted (and no, that's not because Canadians are too stupid to care or anything.)

I have a strong feeling that the Dubai port authority would not tolerate a molecule of a possibility that anyone in its organization would present a threat to its business partners.

[BushRocks]

Some of the 9/11 hijackers were in Florida before 9/11. If they could get flight training, couldn't they become U.S. workers, working on our ports? So let's say we tell the Arabs and the Chinese to take a hike, and we start controlling our own ports, there is still a threat. Terrorists could still operate in our ports from within our own country. So WTF? People are just so frustrated with the President because he doesn't follow the path they think he should, and now they've found something that they could hurt him on, except, this isnt the right issue to screw with the President on. People are already starting to back away from this, just like I said they would.

I was talking to Aunt last week, we were having dinner and she asked me about the deal. And she was totally under the impression that we were outsourcing security, and American jobs to a bunch of Arabs. She thought that Arabs were going to just "move in here because of this deal". I had to simply tell her that that wasn't true at all. But the liberal media wanted her to think that, so that they could knock President Bush off of his post. Don't you understand the ramifications of the media providing misinformation to the main stream public?

[Wadi66]

Narcissism becomes a way of life.

Sorry folks, now that I've had a chance to thoroughly check this out, I am adamantly opposed to it. I couldn't care less whether someone is Muslim or not, Christian or not, black, white, red or yellow. There is no prejudice in my thinking toward anyone. Whether the media has misrepresented the information to the general public in an effort to sabotage the President to me is irrelevant. I know enough of port management to see the dangers. I know enough of economics to see the global benefit. I know enough about public relations and team work. Throw all of it together and I feel we need to pass on this one. Murphy's law always prevails.

I've posted links that provide food for thought. Some I imagine have read them, some have not. Its all in what you want and whether the information substantiates your views. Myself, I glean information from multiple sources and weigh their views. Those links were provided as they offered points of consideration.

My loyalities are God, Family & Country. Anything that threatens one of these three will be met with firm resistance.

[BushRocks]

Many people are quickly breaking ranks from this moronic display of reporting.


http://newsbusters.org/node/4191

[Wadi66]

Hmmm, SF, I don't recall having said those words. Care to pinpoint that for me?

And SF, I'm not following the rest of your remarks to me. Maybe I've just been up to long. Where do you come by the idea that no country can run those terminals?

[Wadi66]

So BR, because people are "breaking ranks" that gives it credibility? I'm not trying to get into a fight with you on this, but I do have a problem with some of your thinking here.

[aaron22]

Sinn Fein, Bush Rocks I am glad to see that not everyone on this site has lost themselves in the media smoke screen. I haven't read too much about it from IHL. IHL u there?

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/2/24/04017.shtml

This is an article about General Pace describing our situation with U.A.E. and how they have helped us.

[BushRocks]

Sorry folks, now that I've had a chance to thoroughly check this out, I am adamantly opposed to it. I couldn't care less whether someone is Muslim or not, Christian or not, black, white, red or yellow. There is no prejudice in my thinking toward anyone.

I think that is where he may be getting this.


But to address your question towards me, everybody was saying "OMG WE CAN'T HAVE ARABS IN OUR PORTS! BUSH IS OUTSOURCING OUR SECURITY! WHY DO WE LET FOREIGN COUNTRIES OWN OUR PORTS?!"
That was all bullshit. Now people who are privy to the facts are breaking ranks from their first outbursts at Bush. That's what I meant. Shit, even some liberal columnists are starting to side with Bush.

How can misrepresentation be irrelevant in this matter? You aren't the average American Wadi. The average American isn't able to sift through all the bullshit media bias. They take what they hear as the truth. Hell, even some people who watch John Stewarts show think it is all true. Isn't that a bad thing Wadi? Isn't it wrong that the media presents false information to screw over the President?

Thanks Aaron.

[Wadi66]

SF, now I gotcha. Okay to me Murphy's law is "if anything can possibly go wrong it will". Things will go wrong, they always have and always will. As the saying goes, the best laid plans of mice and men. In the case of DP, many people are concerned that terrorists will have an inside track to getting WMD's here. Other's proclaim that since DP does not provide security, that everything will be fine. That's where Murphy's law comes in. Would Murphy's law apply if another country managed the ports? I suppose, Murphy's law. Where the difference comes in is the availability of inside information. Managers know EVERYTHING that is going on at the Port. They have to know or they can't manage effectively. Frankly, at this time I'm not in favor of any non-American company managing our ports.

Right now, as we speak, Russia and the US are working jointly on the WOT. We are sharing with them our information and methods of detection. Now some people say, so what's the big deal, they're helping us. BS. Russia is the author of terrorism, Russia was helping Saddam acquire WMD's. Russia TRAINED Al-Zawahiri, AQ's #2 man. Russia removed the WMD's and cleaned up afterwards to avoid detection. Russia is "reaching out" to Iran. Russia and China are as we speak gearing up to engage us in war. And we're "sharing" sensitive information with them? Why don't we just give up now?? To top it all off we're now suppose to believe that UAE who has greater ties to the ME than they do with the West, is NOW our friend? A pigs eye they are. Billions of dollars are moving from Iran to the UAE, why? Iran has used DP to import materials that won't serve us well. UAE has been used to launder money. NOW they're our friends? Yeah, and I have a bridge for sale. I've read about all these great and wonderful things they have done to help us. But I'm not prepared to reward them with MANAGEMENT of our sensitive ports. NO THANK YOU. Have you even wondered why Syria changed their currency from Dollars to Euro's. Hmmm? How many things have to happen, how many dots have to be connected before we start to see the picture?

[Wadi66]

BR, the fact that the media isn't getting their facts right is a problem.... for other people, for John and Mary Q. Misrepresentation is irrelevant because I don't form my opinions on anything the media says. I will form a strategy based on what the media says, because people's perceptions are formed by what they hear and read. But then you have to take the facts as you've discovered them and merge that with the strategy. The strategy is how you get the truth to John and Mary Q. so they can make an informed and often times altered opinion. What the media does is wrong and we all know that. But we have to react differently. Quietly, systematically. But not blindly. People go off half cocked. If you're in politics at whatever the level, you can't afford to do that. When you go off half cocked, your credibility drops dramatically. So when you see the media pulling their little stunts, make sure you don't react as they expect you to. Calmness and maturity has a soothing affect.

[Wadi66]

http://www.homelandsecurityus.com/site/modules/news/article.php?storyid=121

An anonymous source has provided the Northeast Intelligence Network with a translated copy of a recovered Al Qaeda document from Afghanistan dated 14 May/June 2002. The text informs officials of the UAE that "we have infiltrated your security, censorship, and monetary agencies along with other agencies that should not be mentioned."

In light of the current debacle with Dubai Ports World, and fears of security vulnerabilities at 21 American port facilities, this document is further evidence of the need for a full, no-stone-left-unturned review of the transaction and its implications.

The full translated text of the Al Qaeda document recovered in Afghanistan:

In the Name of Allah the Most Compassionate and Mericful


Number ________ Date 14/May/June/2002


Al Jihad Qaida's

{Get the idolaters out of Arab island}

To: Officials in the United Arab Emirates and especially the two emirates of
Abu-Dhabi and Dubai:

We have come to know definitely that the Emirate country is committing acts of
injustice against the striving youth of the Emirates and others who sympathize
with us in order to appease the Americans' wishes which include spting,
persecution, and detainments. The United Emirates authorities have recently
detained a number of Mujahideen and handed them over to suppressive
organizations in their country in addition to having a number of them still in its
custody. Undoubtedly, these practices bring the country into a fighting ring in
which it cannot endure or escape from its consequences especially since the
Emirates' social composition is the most productive, and very explosive.

You are well aware that we have infiltrated your security, censorship, and
monetary agencies along with other agencies that should not be mentioned.
Therefore, we warn of the continuation of practicing such policies, which do
not serve your inteests and will only cost you many problems that will place
you in an embarrassing state before your citizens. In addition, it will prove
your agencies' immobility and failure. Also, we are confident that you are
fully aware that your agencies will not get to the same high level of your
American Lords. Furthermore, your intelligence will not be cleverer than
theirs, and your censorship capabilities are not worth much against what they
have reached. Inspite of all this Allah has granted us success to get even with
them and harm them. However, you are an easier target than them; your
homeland is exposed to us. There are many vital interests that will hurt you if
we decide to harm them, especially, since you rely on shameless tourism in
your economic income!!! Finally, our policies are not to operate in your
homeland and/or tamper with your security because we are occupied with
others which we consider are enemies of this nation. If you compel us to do
so, we are prepared to postpone our program for a short period and allocate
some time for you. Therefore, we ask you to release all the Mujahideen
detainees since September.

The author of this official communication from Al-Qaeda to the government of the UAE :

أسامة بن

http://www.homelandsecurityus.com/site/modules/news/article.php?storyid=113

.................. Perhaps the most important fact, researched and developed by Northeast Intelligence Network’s own Sean Osborne, was the the most alarming admission (http://www.homelandsecurityus.com/site/modules/news/article.php?storyid=112) made by CIA Director Tenet. The director testified on March 24, 2004 that a mission targeting Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan was aborted because “had the mission proceeded, half of the royal family of the UAE would have been wiped out.” In other words, bin Laden was in the company of UAE royals.

Tenet's testimony
http://www.homelandsecurityus.com/site/modules/news/article.php?storyid=112 (http://www.homelandsecurityus.com/site/modules/news/article.php?storyid=112)

[Bumblebee]

Well thanks alot Wadi, I was just going to get ready for bed. How am I going to sleep now?

One thing that puzzles me. Wasn't it already reported about these Arabs with Osama, and that it was the reason we didn't hit Osama Bin Laden? I think that story was around, except the part that it was half of all the royal family was there.

I'll come back tomorrow and read it all again. You're scaring the palookas off me. :icon_eek:

Whatever comes of this, I hope they will have better security at those ports from now on.

[alwaysRight]

My loyalities are God, Family & Country. Anything that threatens one of these three will be met with firm resistance.

Amen Wadi, Amen. I completely agree with you and DRIE, yet again. I listen to a gentlemen on WTVN on Sunday nights, and last night he was talking about this port situation, and I absolutely loved something he said...


"No matter how friendly the fox, don't let him guard the henhouse because sooner or later he's gonna get hungry."

[BushRocks]

The President is always the scapegoat, especially W. Look at Katrina, Ray Nagin and the Governor of LA should have been blamed for that, but the media made those two incompetents look like the victims and made the President look like a criminal. At least W was man enough to take the fall, Bill Clinton would have used the IRS to bully his opponents around to blame somebody else.

[BushRocks]

From Newsmax.com:


2008 presidential hopeful Sen. Joe Biden said Sunday that some critics of the Dubai ports takeover deal, which include many of the Senate's leading Democrats, are guilty of "anti-Arab-bashing."

"The fact of the matter is that there are some people - I'm sure this is anti-Arab-bashing," Biden told "Fox News Sunday," adding, "I'm sure that's true."

But in the next breath Biden said that Arab allies throughout the Mideast should be treated differently from European nations.

"You don't sell the same aircraft to Saudi Arabia - our great ally - that you do to England or to France or to a NATO country. So there's always been a distinction."

Can't you smell the hypocracy??

[toddy rotton]

off the T.R. ticker....weighing in.... voted "know" (as in your enemies)... nice to see B.R. has a new friend... this topic should be taking more turns than an Ozark highway... I can't wait... Bumblebee get your rest, the wolf is not at the door but pooh is definatly after your honey...

[BushRocks]

From Newsmax:

Sen. John McCain said Sunday that the reaction to a Dubai-based company's proposed takeover of several U.S. shipping terminals has reached the point of "near-hysteria," singling out Sen. Hillary Clinton for criticism.

"The near-hysteria about this is not warranted, particularly in light of the other major crises that we're facing throughout the world," McCain told ABC's "This Week."

The Arizona Republican criticized Mrs. Clinton for urging that all foreign operation of U.S. ports be banned, warning that if she gets her way, "We've got a lot of disinvestment to do."

"Does that mean the British are not allowed?" McCain posited, before reminding that convicted al Qaeda shoe bomber Richard Reid "was British, as you know."



"I think obviously this has to be looked at on a case-by-case basis," he added, rejecting Mrs. Clinton's blanket ban.
McCain said that the United Arab Emirates, home to Dubai Ports World, is "freer than China," reminding that "700 [U.S.] warships have visited Dubai."

The Arizona Republican said that he agreed with former Iraq war commander, Gen. Tommy Franks, and Joint Chiefs chairman, Gen. Peter Pace, that the UAE was a "vital" ally in the war on terror.

[Wadi66]

How people think is a source of constant amazement to me. I'm curious about something. In #23 I posted some information, now the question is, how many of you actually read it? If you read it, what were your thoughts. Don't fine tune them, don't try to rationalize them or justify them, just say what they were. If you didn't read it, why?

[Wadi66]

Really SF? How did you glean it was a "rumor". I didn't see that. Ummm, are you looking for something more concrete, more factual or would it make any difference to you? I'm just trying to see things as you see them. What strikes a cord with you?

[Wadi66]

SF, please point it out to me? Where it is "rumored"

It has come to my attention that there exists a direct link between the royal family of the United Arab Emirates, Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda. This information comes from a March 25, 2004 report from the India-based rediff.com which reported on the verbal testimony given before the 9/11 Commission by former DIRCIA George Tenet who was responding to direct questions from Commission member Fred F. Fielding. This has not yet been given the full attention it deserves, and in light of this would be reason enough to immediately halt all negotiations for Dubai Ports World to gain control of eight critical US port facilities.

I’ll make this short and to the point. Director Tenet testified on March 24, 2004 that a mission targeting Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan was aborted because had the mission proceeded half of the royal family of the UAE would have been wiped out.

Here is the relevant excerpt of the exchange between DIRCIA George Tenet and Mr. Fred Fielding:

FIELDING: Well, yesterday we talked about the three events in '98 and '99 where there were occasions that it looked like there might be an opportunity which then, in each instance, was deemed not to be operational. And the one that I find the most intriguing and the one that's been labeled as perhaps the lost opportunity more than any was the February '99 hunting camp -- I guess it's been described -- the desert camp.

And yesterday in the staff statement that was read, we're told about that and we were told that the intelligence seemed pretty strong and that the preparations were made and then the strike was called off. And the lead CIA agent in the field felt that it was very reliable intelligence.

I guess, was there anything unique about the intelligence or the circumstances that necessitated that decision?

FIELDING: And who made that decision?

TENET: I don't have a recollection of the uniqueness of the intelligence in question at the time. I can go back and provide that for you. In fact, I'd like to go back and try and package up all the data at my disposal when we were thinking about these issues.

I believe this was a collective decision. I also believe this target went away because the camp was ultimately dismantled. So in reading through your staff inquiry -- your staff notes on this, I can't recall who made the call, but I know we were all in the same place about it, Mr. Fielding.

FIELDING: I would appreciate that on behalf of the commission, if you could do that because it seemed that this -- when the intelligence was so good and that by the time the camp was dismantled, days and days had passed. So I would appreciate that.

TENET: It's also a question, I believe, as to whether bin Laden was inside or outside the camp...

FIELDING: Of course.

TENET: ... the complicating issue in this whole thing and whether he was there or not. So there's a second complicating factor here.

The third complicating factor here is you might have wiped out half the royal family in the UAE in the process, which I'm sure entered into everybody's calculation in all this.

The date given as February 1999 is approximately 30 months prior to 9/11/2001. DIRCIA Tenet also testified that had such strikes been successful and removed bin Laden that there would have been no effect on the 9/11 plot because that plot line was up and running with Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in charge of the operation. Still the the strike was called off because of the concern of killing half of the UAE royal family. This was clearly "collateral damage" the US was not willing to accept.

These are America’s allies?

The questions which remain and must now be openly answered by the Bush Administration are patently obvious. Exactly how much due process did the US government engage in concluding that the UAE deserved to be rewarded as an American ally in the Global War on Terrorism? When did the Islamist UAE royals switch sides in this war, and notwithstanding the Islamic practice of al-Taqiyya (dissimulation), where are the American people to believe their loyalties lie today?