To those who believe UAE is in league with bin Laden

[President Jesus]

I think there is a tremendous amount of Arab bashing going on around here, and it is disturbing to say the least.

Do you trust Al Gore? I do.

Here's what Vice President Al Gore said on March 6, 2000 about an issue 100 times more important to Our Security™ than port operations, specifically the sale of advanced fighter jets and systems to the UAE:

"The UAE will reap immense national security benefits from the F-16, and from the close relationships it will bring them with the finest Air Force and finest defense contractors in the world. The sale also advances U.S. interests by equipping an important Gulf ally with an advanced fighter jet that can help deter aggression in the region."

But please, don't take my word for it, visit the Clinton archives and see for yourselves.

So, six years ago we were willing to sell advanced weapons systems to the UAE, but now they are so evil and diabolical that we can't let one of their companies be in charge of scheduling at some of our ports.

I see this current 'uproar' as nothing more than garden variety fearmongering. I expect this crap over at freepville, but here and at dKos, it's just sad.

We all want to take Bushco down a notch, I get it. But choose your battles wisely, and make sure you don't lose your soul in pursuit of that end.

[fooj]

1. There is no reason that Americans should have to look elsewhere

for port security. That's just my 2 cents...

Peace.

[FreedomAngel82]

56. I agree

Why can't an American company guard them? I don't get it. :shrug:

[Webster Green]

2. I can see a difference in delivering aircraft to them.......over there...

and having them manage our ports.....over here.

[LiviaOlivia]

15. exactly

let's hope Mr. Gore speaks on this before anyone else tries to put words in his mouth.

To the originator of this thread: shabby work. I read thread this as an anti-Gore post based on shit.

[worldgonekrazy]

21. I think you are being unfair

I don't think the original post was an "anti-Gore post based on shit." I think the author's point is that if Al Gore didn't think selling weapons to the UAE was bad, then we shouldn't worry about giving them control of our ports. I don't agree with that, but to label it as anti-Gore is just false, IMO.

[LiviaOlivia]

24. I have to disagree

eom

[President Jesus]

26. what part of "I trust Al Gore" is anti-Gore?

I'm anti-racism, not anti-Gore.

[LiviaOlivia]

33. Aren't we all!

:)

[uppityperson]

22. exactly. I don't want even England running our ports.

[FiveGoodMen]

71. Same here!

[NVMojo]

3. dude, dont' foget that 9/11 had not happened yet ...although I

appreciate the info you posted here. Didn't remember the f-16 deal...

[BlueEyedSon]

4. Just goes to show that we are a one-party country when it comes to

the military-industrial-congressional-complex......

[Selatius]

5. To be frank, we shouldn't sell arms to authoritarian regimes.

The last time I checked, the UAE isn't a bastion of democracy.

[Mr Rabble]

6. Luckily for us, it has become a republican uproar,

For the most part I agree with you about this. I think our port systems should be nationalized, but if they are going to be run by private companies, it really does not matter which country does it. Either way, DHS will only inspect 5% of the cargo.

This is about perception management. And in that area, the republicans are going to be hurting for this.

[dflprincess]

14. When you consider that this in not a private company but owned

and operated by UAE, we are nationalizing our ports - it's just that another nation will be running them.

[stepnw1f]

7. lol...

How's Iraq going there Chuckle-Nuts? Doesn't look like you chose your battle wisely.... just sayin.

[tsuki]

8. I don't think that it is bashing to point out that the UAE has close

ties to the terrorists.

[rpannier]

9. A few things

1. To be flippant...It's post 9/11. The rules have changed since six years ago.
2. Considering the instability of the region, allowing any company or government from that region to run those ports is potentially dangerous. Don't think it could happen? Let us not forget after the Shah fell, the Iranian government was printing millions of US Dollars on presses we gave them.
3. As a person who lives in Asia, the UAE government is a very good government, as far as the region goes. However, it leaves a lot to be desired. There's a tremendous amount of corruption and cronyism that goes on in their government.

I oppose them allowing any foreign company or government to run those ports. It's a disaster waiting to happen.
You can call what people are saying, ignorant, arab bashing, xenophobic, political opportunism whatever. It doesn't change the fact that the idea sucks -- regardless of what Al Gore or anyone else says.

[Redstone]

10. Six years ago, two UAE citizens hadn't been involved in 9/11.

Also, six years ago, there was no Taliban for them to have dimplomatic relations with. As they still do.

Been listening to old Rush Limpbag, have you? I heard this same crap from a rightwinger today.

Redstone

[President Jesus]

25. so now 2 citizens = all citizens?

Interesting logic. Freeps are never guilty of that type of logic.

Oh, and yes, the Taliban DID control Afghanistan at the time the statement and sale was made, brainiac.

[worldgonekrazy]

31. The UAE royal family met with bin laden in Afghanistan in '99

The CIA wanted to kill bin Laden then but couldn't for fear of taking out half of the UAE royal family as well. So we know the UAE royal family had ties with bin Laden and al-Qaeda, we know that UAE banks were used to launder money for al-Qaeda, we know that a couple UAE citizens were among the hijackers...taken together, don't you think it means we should not trust a UAE state-owned company to guard our ports?

[President Jesus]

36. yes I've heard this meme ad nauseum

but no facts to back any of it up, with the exception of the 2 terrorists from UAE.

If there is any basis to these claims, it's VERY odd that Gore would have made the glowing statments he did about the UAE (even downright negligent?) less than one year later, and the the Big Dawg's administration would sell them advanced weaponry.

No offense, but I trust Bill Clinton and Al Gore a thousand times more than you, or talking points circulating about the Internet about "what we know."

As for this argument about two UAE citizens being 9/11 hijackers. I don't understand where you are all going with that? Are you implying that those citizens were marching to the orders of their government (which they had disavowed), or are you implying that all UAE citizens are terrorists at heart? Either way, sounds like one of biggest "guilt by association" arguments ever made.

[Redstone]

40. Keep making excuses for a country that still supports the Tailban,

serves as a transshipment point for North Korean arms destined for terrorists, and traffics in slavery.

Go right ahead and keep making excuses for them; I won't mind.

PS: What's your personal stake in this? Why is it so important to you that this deal go through? Let's have some disclosure, please.

Redstone

[President Jesus]

52. what's so important to me is that I hate to see

fellow liberals act like racists, which is exactly what is going on here.

Don't you feel you need a shower when you hear statements like "two 9/11 hijackers were from UAE, therefore the entire country is a terrorist nation"?

Two out of millions. Yeah, I'm just not that easily persuaded to indict an entire nation.

What is your stake for seeing this crushed? You work for Halliburton? Full disclosure please.

[High Plains]

72. What is this crap?

"What's your personal stake in this? Why is it so important to you that this deal go through? Let's have some disclosure, please."

It's pretty low to be calling into question the motives of fellow posters. If you have something on this person, let's hear it. Otherwise, let's not resort to this McCarthyite kind of crap.

[Flabbergasted]

11. No frankly I don't trust him. I don't trust 90% of politicians.

[worldgonekrazy]

12. Apples and oranges, IMO

It is an interesting point, but on the one hand you are talking about sending military aircraft to a far away region whereas in the other you are talking about the most vulnerable entry points in our own country. Now, I'm not saying its alright to send weapons to questionable characters halfway across the world, but as far as national security goes its not nearly the same as giving them the keys to the country.

[Erika]

13. If they are enslaving children and treat women as inferior

then we should not be funneling $ to them. They do not have a democratic government.

[President Jesus]

30. just like Jews drink the blood of Christian babies...

...right?

Good Lord, do you actually buy that crap? Doesn't the bullshit meter light up when you hear something like that?

[QC]

53. Jews don't eat babies. The government of the UAE, however,

is a theocracy that denies women equal rights and, yes, does tolerate human trafficking.

So you have given us a false analogy here, along with a touch of the old guilt by association.

Are there any other logical fallacies you would like to share with us?

[SHRED]

16. "F" them

They sell in the human slave and sex trade, run drugs and WMD, no democracy, women are treated like hell.

Fuck them.

[rateyes]

17. Maybe it would be a good thing just to kinda....

keep quiet about it, and let the Repukes turn on themselves. Just keep feeding them a little rope....not making statements, just asking the questions. Did Bush obey the law and have it investigated and sign off on it himself? No, he didn't. He never obeys the law when it gets in the way of making a buck. Just keep asking questions.

[stepnw1f]

18. SATAN LOVES YOU... GET OVER IT

[Jayhawk Lib]

19. Would we all feel better if Halliburton had won the bid???? nt

[ewoden]

20. it is not about the UAE....it is about

relenquishing control of important strategic installations to off-shore corporations, moreover to offshore corporations that are wholly owned by foreign powers.

Today's ally becomes tomorrows adversary. That is the way of the world. Selling an ally a few fighter jets, and you should note that the F-16's sold to UAE are not first line issues of the same model used by the United States, is a far cry from allowing foreign nationals to control strategic installations on our soil.

I do not personally care if those foreign nationals are Arabs, Swahilis, of Fijians. I want American domestic interests served, protected and managed by AMERICANS. I would also prefer, politically, that those interests also be served, protected, and managed by non-neocon Americans, to which end I plan to exercise my right to participate in a 2006 election to reach this later goal.

[baldguy]

23. The bushies have spent the last five years demonizing Muslims.

To sell the management rights for six major American ports to a Muslim company totally contradicts their established foreign policy. DPW may very well be the best people to manage these ports - but Bush should have spent the last four months trying to convince the anti-Islamic bigots he's created.

[President Jesus]

27. so now it's our turn to pick up the mantle and demonize?

I don't get it, and I'm not buying.

[Ciggies and coffee]

28. Play soft? n/t

[ProSense]

29. This is just another distraction from the real issues.

How does selling weapons to a country equate with protecting American shores? So if I sell a person a gun, I should trust them to guard my house?

What other homeland security functions should be sold off to companies America sells weapons to?

Port security should not (and does not need to) be in foreign hands, and it has nothing to do with them being the best company (buy that Halliburton line again). This is a dubious deal:


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2475837&mesg_id=2475837

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2475804&mesg_id=2475804

[worldgonekrazy]

32. Very good point

Are we going to put Saudi Arabia in charge of airline security?

[President Jesus]

34. see, there's the misconception

DPW will have nothing to do with Homeland Security. It has no effect on US Customs agents, the Coast Guard, or any other security protocol executed by Homeland Security at our ports.

It's imperative to understand this if you want to argue about the deal intelligently.

And how does selling them weapons equate to protecting our shores? Read the quote further. Gore calls them an important "ally." That's how.

Ask yourself, why was no one outraged last month, last year, or 6 years ago when foreign companies controlled port operations in the US? Could it be that it is actually a non-issue, and we're all being whipped into a frenzy because now the "Arab bogeyman" has entered the picture? That's the only new development here.

[NYCGirl]

35. There's a difference between a foreign company controlling port

operations and a company OWNED BY A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT controlling port operations. That's why people are outraged now.

[President Jesus]

38. Really? What is the difference?

Glad to see you are calling it "port operations" and not the grossly inaccurate "port security" like most around here.

But I still am unclear what the difference could possibly be between a company that is privately owned (and likely far more secretive and unaccountable) and a company that is owned by a foreign government (like our Post Office or Amtrak).

Secondly, whatever that difference may be, I wonder if it is worth all of this "outrage," which frankly smacks me more as fearmongering and Arab bashing in order to score points against Bushco than genuine concern.

[NYCGirl]

39. If you don't see the difference (and it is a BIG one), I have no idea how

to explain it to you.

What foreign government owns our Post Office, BTW?

I guess all those Republicans are trying to score points against Bushco, by your reasoning. Being a New Yorker, I'm genuinely concerned and don't give a shit about the political ramifications.

[President Jesus]

42. in other words, you can't think of any

Got it! Thanks for playing.

Oh, and nice play of your "I'm a New Yorker" card. So am I. Big whoop.

Again, nowhere in this deal is DPW put in charge of port security. Absorb that fact and move on.

I apologize for not being clear in my last post. What I meant to say was "a government-owned business, like our Post Office or Amtrak," not that a foreign government owns those companies.

[NYCGirl]

43. I (and most every other poster in this thread) can think of plenty that's

wrong with your reasoning. You just don't want to hear about any of it. Talking to a brick wall is not my idea of a fun evening. Too bad I can't get the five minutes of my life back I wasted reading your post.

[President Jesus]

49. just the opposite...

I absolutely want to hear your reasons how a state-owned company is different from a privately-held one when it comes to managing port operations.

This is my third request now from you for this information you claim everyone knows.

Where in the world do you get off on accusing me of not wanting to listen when I keep asking you to give me an answer, and all you do is stonewall?

[KittyWampus]

41. Give me a fucking break and spare us all the condescension.

there is a world of difference between selling weapons to a foreign govt. for strategic reasons and allowing a foreign govt. to control our ports.

Especially when said foreign govt. has proven itself to be unhelpful in apprehending terrorists etc etc.

And while it might, in a realpolitik way, strategically make some sense to arm the UAE, that is an entirely seperate matter then considering same govt. as manager of our ports.

If you can't wrap your head around something that simple, it says volumes.

[Redstone]

44. Well said, CS, well said.

Redstone

[High Plains]

73. Show me how in the real world it makes one whit's worth of

difference who is running port operations.

I don't claim to be an expert in port operations, but all the experts I've read or heard are either laughing at this uproar or scratching their heads over it. What security problem? they all say.

[ProSense]

47. Here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2476061&mesg_id=2476061

[President Jesus]

50. here what?

How is pointing me to varying articles helpful whatsoever?

All it does is seem to back up what I've been saying all along:

"most experts seem to agree on only one major point: The gaping holes in security at American ports have little to do with the nationality of who is running them."

Gaping holes in security absolutely is a major issue, but it has ZERO to do with DPW. Homeland Security is to blame for our current problems with port security, just as they will continue to be blamed while DPW is running operations.

Get it through your heads, people. DPW will not be responsible in any way shape or form for port security.

The level of disinformation you are all lapping up is appalling.

[ProSense]

57. And who is responsible for Homeland Security?

Get it through your head: The company that manages the port will have:

Those records broadly include details about the design, maintenance or operation of ports and equipment.

And

The administration did not require Dubai Ports to keep copies of business records on U.S. soil, where they would be subject to court orders. It also did not require the company to designate an American citizen to accommodate U.S. government requests.

Now when the schematics for NY and NJ building were found in the Middle East, those establishment were put on high alert for weeks.


Gaping holes have to do with where this information ends up. Now you can pretend that companies and governments are not fallible or corrupt, hell Bush is. You can try to justify this stupid and dangerous deal with logic that seems to escape this administration at every turn, but unless you can, with soothsayer-like ability, predict that all the factors---from the UAE support of the Taliban up to 2001, it's connection to money laundering and 9/11, and the rest---should be of no concern to the millions of Americans that are expressing them, then I say have your opinion and value it as just that: your opinion.

Unless you haven't noticed, the Bush administration in all situation where logic should have been applied, has failed miserably in drawing rational conclusions and acting responsibly. I have no faith that this is different.

I'm not prepared for American ports to be another "oops!" like the war, New Orleans and the rest. If this was so up and up, why all the false statements, why the uproar from every top Republican and Democrat in Congress and across the country in the governorships? Don't try to label this with your BS "you people don't understand." I understand full well, and this deal stinks.

[President Jesus]

59. why all the uproar?

Because they are appealing to the hidden racist in all of us. Don't fool yourself, that's what politicans do best: fearmonger.

A lot lot lot lot of "ifs" in your arguments. Must be terrifying to live with that type of fear.

Were you outraged and fearful for your life last week before you ever knew foreign companies managed operations at our ports, or is it only now with the possibilty of little brown men that pray to a weird God in charge?

Oh, and clear something up for me: exactly how is DPW going to get in the way of the US Customs, the US Coast Guard, and Homeland Security agents doing their jobs at the ports? Also, are all the American longshoreman unions manning the ports going to drop allegience to the stars and stripes and become wild-eyed Islamic terrorists overnight, or will that happen over a longer period of time? I'm curious.

Go peddle fear to someone who's buyin'. Shouldn't be hard, we've become a nation of shivering sheep.

[ProSense]

60. Since Bush became president I fear for a lot of people's lives

not just my own. And in case you haven't noticed it isn't only politicians in an uproar. People are fallible and you believe that the UAE will have no employees, port workers, etc. in place. Whatever.

In addition to the Bush sheeple, there obviously are the apologists, who like Bush need to make the leap to logic. Ifs are usually weighed to get there.

[darkmaestro019]

37. re: Arab-bashing

I hate any --ism that is related to hating someone because of something they cannot help. Like being brownish, from the middle east, gay, tall, short, or unable to tolerate dairy.

I DO think that the middle east in general has a lot of reasons to not want what is best for us. I think we've brought that on ourselves, from the amorphous complicated reading I've done, which I cannot assemble into anything like a timeline, so please don't ask. I'm more editorial than research-paper oriented.

I don't think it's racism to admit that fact: those native to the Middle East are probably not a good choice to put in charge of something as important to our security and well-being as our ports. It's our own fault that this is so, but I'm not saying it is so because I hate all "Arabs"

We've been dunked repeatedly in a large washtub filled with hatred for all things brownish, Middle Eastern, and non-Western dressed, and it's probably inevitable that this drips onto any discussions we try to have now about what this means, why, and what to do about it now and in the future. Whether we dig it or not, we're gonna be as wet as the next guy after such immersion.

All in all, why the fk would we want to hand control of this over to ANYONE else, friendly or not? I have a bunch of friends but I don't hire any of them to answer my door or my phone. That's my responsibility. And when I DO need someone to housesit, as it were, I sure wouldn't choose someone I had fucked over in the past. Whether I "deserved" what that would get me or not, I'd still have a house and household to protect. Grok me? It's not my HOUSEHOLD's fault that John Doe is pissed off at me for the drunken rampage through HIS house last year....

I smell a lot of invisible money getting handed to someone by someone under an expensive table somewhere. (sniff) And I'm pretty sure that isn't my upper lip I'm smelling.

EDIT: Not related, but anecdotal. And constantly resonating inside me. About a week after 9/11 I was in a store with my boy, maybe walmart, just, shopping. There was a semi-traditionally dressed young woman of some Middle Eastern origin or cultural system, and I could not stop staring at her, because she and the dress and the gestalt of both was so beautiful. Sunset, baby kitten, finally growing rosebush.....the kind of transcendent beautiful you are lucky to see a time or two in ten years. I started getting hostile/worried vibes from her......and I realized she thought my staring was out of, hate. Not out of, admiration, and the reflexive drifting of the eye to what the brain finds lovely. It made me very sad. I've been the victim of the hateful version of stares enough times to know what she thought and what she felt. I wished I could say something to her, but in the climate we were in, I didn't know what I could say that wouldn't make it worse. That has made me, sad, to this day.

To the lovely girl who was stared at by a queer gothboy--If you see this, which I know you won't, dear: forgive me. I wasn't staring because I hated you. 9/11 was nowhere present in my mind. I was staring because I could not look away, and because the sight of you made me happy to be on Earth. I'm sorry I hurt you. I meant, only the opposite.

[Doohickie]

45. And by the way

Those F-16s are now being delivered.

[LittleClarkie]

46. I trust Al Gore

But that quote is from 6 years ago.

[Dr Fate]

48. Selling planes and handing them the keys are 2 diff. issues.

I dont have to agree with Gore on everything- but I do not agree with Bush on this issue.

[QC]

51. Argumentum Ad Verecundiam

http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/authority.html

[President Jesus]

54. a tad pedantic, and pathetically misused

To claim the vice president of the United States is an authority outside his field of expertise when lauding the UAE as an important ally is, well, pathetic. Gore's quote is absolutely germane to the argument of whether or not our national security is jeopardized by a UAE company managing assets within our borders.

Thanks for the lesson, prof.

[QC]

55. Your reasoning here, such as it is, is that if we like Al Gore

then we must surely agree with him on this issue. That's obviously flawed.

Frankly, anyone who argues as clumsily as you should be grateful for any lesson that comes along.

[President Jesus]

58. my bad

I mistakenly thought when you pedantically posted a link to the definition of Argumentum Ad Verecundiam you were claiming that while serving as vice president, Al Gore was not qualified, or an "improper authority," to comment on the official position of the US as it relates to the UAE.

No, now I understand that you have no idea what Argumentum Ad Verecundiam means (you likely heard it class today), so you were just pulling that out of your ass to look smart. Clumsy me.

[Name removed]

64. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

66. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[QC]

68. "And at least I don't peddle irrational fear..."

Nah, you just compare those who distrust repressive fundamentalist theocracies to those who spread the blood libel against Jews. That's so much better!

[rman]

61. Has nothing to do with "believing";

Bush ally in war on terror vacationed with bin Laden...
http://www.madcowprod.com/11122004issue.html
Mohammed bin Zayid, the UAE's Crown Prince and Chief of Staff, is tied to al-Qaeda yet regularly meets with Bush Administration Officials to discuss the prevention of terrorism.
November 25, 2004 - Venice, FL
by Grant Noah

The United Arab Emirates, one of the U.S. government’s closest allies in the War on Terror, has a new King and Crown Prince. Earlier this month the UAE’s long-time ruler passed away at the age of 86.

Reuters, November 2, 2004:

“The president of OPEC member the United Arab Emirates, Sheikh Zayed bin Sultan al-Nahayan, has died… The UAE holds 98 billion barrels of oil reserves, close to nine percent of the world's total”…

“Last year he paved the way for a smooth transfer of power after his death, appointing his son Sheikh Mohammed as deputy crown prince of Abu Dhabi which puts him second in line to rule Abu Dhabi after the succession of his brother Sheikh Khalifa.”
http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsPackageArticle.jhtml?type=worldNews&storyID=614031§ion=news

<snip>

So these agents report that they followed bin Laden to this camp and the CIA puts a satellite up and takes some pictures. Then they see a C-130 transport plane. They trace the plane to the United Arab Emirates…
http://www.salon.com/books/int/2004/03/03/coll/index_np.html

<more>

[AntiFascist]

62. That's a completely different issue...

For the UAE government to attack the US using a fighter jet would be a blatant act of war. For a rogue (or not so rogue) terrorist to sneak a WMD into the US in a container could happen under the radar, while everyone else isn't watching, and we won't even know about it until the dirty bomb goes off. We may not even know how it came into the country. Even if the US is handling security, we can't inspect every container!

[leesa]

63. Ummm...we sell weapons to everyone, or hadn't you noticed?

Nice try.

[President Jesus]

65. oh, do we call everyone an "important ally"

...even when, as many around here claim, less than a year earlier they supposedly stopped the CIA from killing bin Laden?

Cuz the Vice President made this speech in early 2000.

Um, nice try. The quote is 100% relevant to all fo the Arab-bashing fearmongering that is going on here.

[lojasmo]

67. Money for 9/11 came through UAE banks

It's a fact, it's not a "belief"

UAE also stynied the treasury department's investigation into 9/11 funding.

Also a fact.

[Generator]

69. HA! UAE is the least of it

Some of us aren't so sure Washington isn't "in league" with Bin Laden.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,249500,00.html

In the hours after September 11th, FBI agents in Minneapolis shared a macabre joke. For weeks prior, they had tried to interest FBI headquarters in Washington in Zacarias Moussaoui, now known as the 20th hijacker. They had begged FBI Headquarters to give them permission to seek a search warrant of Moussaoui's computer. They were denied. In their frustration, they joked that headquarters back in Washington must be infiltrated by agents of Osama Bin Laden. Why else would their work have been thwarted?

Oh and:

http://www.dawn.com/2003/11/14/int5.htm



PARIS, Nov 13: The CIA has rejected as fantasy claims in a new book that it tried to negotiate a non-aggression pact with Osama bin Laden just two months before the Sept 11, 2001, attacks in the United States.

Richard Labeviere, author of “The Corridors of Terror”, released on Thursday, says the CIA’s Dubai station chief approached Osama while the Al Qaeda leader was being treated for a serious kidney complaint in the United Arab Emirates.

He said the meeting took place in the American Hospital in Dubai on July 12.

“Such an allegation is sheer fantasy, no such thing occurred,” CIA spokesman Mark Mansfield said, echoing an earlier rebuttal by the agency of French media reports in Oct 2001 about the alleged Dubai meeting.

Mr Labeviere said he had learned of an encounter from a contact in the Dubai hospital, and said the event was confirmed in detail during a separate interview in New York with a Gulf prince who presented himself as an adviser to the Amir of Bahrain.

The prince, whom the author met in a Manhattan hotel in Nov 2001, appeared very well-informed about the CIA-Osama meeting.


I believe my government. My government never lies. I trust the CIA. I trust the FBI.

[MrBenchley]

70. I don't see Al Gore putting them in charge of US air defense there....

They bought some planes and Al said something blandly nice about them. So fucking what?

Just because somebody bought a pack of twinkes in your store is no reason to let the son of a bitch mind the cash register....

[Chi-Town Exile]

74. This thread is ridiculous.

If one cannot understand why as Americans we do not want ANY foreign nation controlling our ports, there is no reason to keep splitting hairs.

Trust me, I am VERY sensitive to bigotry and I am certain that a lot of the concern about the port deal from the Republican side does involve anti-Arab sentiment.

For most intelligent individuals, however, this whole matter is about common sense. No foreign entities should be charged with the responsibility of protecting our ports. The US should be responsible for its own security.

What is even more reprehensible about this deal is that the US government chose not to require the UAE company to file reports or keep any papers in this country related to what policies, what people will be put in place for protection etc. and what their procedures will be. Such requirements are standard in agreements with foreign entities when transactions are completed with the US.

This is a terrible deal on so many levels. The fact that this is an Arab country is not what upsets me about this deal.

What upsets me is how quickly President Asshat will trade the security of his citizens for cold hard cash. Why can't the @#4king sheeple see what a complete POS Bush is? :banghead:

[President Jesus]

75. yes, so ridiculous you felt you had to write a 6 paragraph response

You're clearly showing your lack of knowledge on this deal when you state, "No foreign entities should be charged with the responsibility of protecting our ports. The US should be responsible for its own security."

Gee. No shit.

Ironically you state that only intelligent people recognize the above statement when you yourself have clearly no idea what is going on here. It is this ignorance which is driving me crazy, and making us look like total fools.

DPW and the UAE will not be "charged with the responsibility of protecting our ports." Protection and security of the ports always has been and always will be the responsibility of the the Dept of Homeland Security, US Coast Guard, US Customs, and the local port authorities.

DPW, by buying British P&O, is simply inheriting the contract to manage operations at a number of our ports, already under foreign management. Where was your 'outrage' about this 7 days ago? Nowhere, because this is a total non-issue given rise only because now the specter of little brown men enter the scene.

Don't you ever lecture me on what is ridiculous when you don't know your facts.