Dubai threat to hit back

[sabra]

http://www.thehill.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/Frontpage/030906/news1.html

Dubai threat to hit back


Dubai is threatening retaliation against American strategic and commercial interests if Washington blocks its $6.8 billion takeover of operations at several U.S. ports.

As the House Appropriations Committee yesterday marked up legislation to kill Dubai Ports World’s acquisition of Britain’s Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation (P&O), the emirate let it be known that it is preparing to hit back hard if necessary.

A source close to the deal said members of Dubai’s royal family are furious at the hostility both Republicans and Democrats on Capitol Hill have shown toward the deal.

“They’re saying, ‘All we’ve done for you guys, all our purchases, we’ll stop it, we’ll just yank it,’” the source said.

[Mika]

1. 5.. 4.. 3.. 2.. 1..

:nuke:



Ha Ha Ha America


You want job? Ask Dick Cheney.


Dick Cheney say "Fuck you America".

[Epiphany4z]

19. Boy this

Just makes me trust them so much more...ahh forget it...give them ports!!! :sarcasm: ?Christ on a cracker....didn't they just make the point against letting this deal go thought for us ?

[roguevalley]

148. fine. nationalize all their american assets. fuck them.

[northzax]

168. nationalize their US assets?

their largest US assets are T-bills, they help finance our spending binges. Don't think that will work.

[roguevalley]

169. hmm. then default. :) what are they going to do? turn us over to a

collection agency? this is a dead man's deal. we stop paying. they retaliate how? Not send us their stuff? They lose their biggest market. no one wins. we all die together.

[northzax]

174. default?

you're joking. Welcome to Argentina, circa 2000.

[Just Me]

2. Threatening? US?

:eyes:

I wonder, who in the IMF and World Bank benefits from this contract with UAE? Who are the financiers profitting from a mult-billion dollar loan to UAE on this port deal? If I had time, I'd look it up. Maybe, later.

[The Backlash Cometh]

21. We all knew that Bush was someone's bitch. Now we know who.

[Julius Civitatus]

30. Exactly!!!

[saigon68]

92. Love the Photo

A kiss on the cheek

[wordpix2]

107. oh, YUCK!!! Is that photoshopped or for real?

[genieroze]

115. A kiss from a azz. My goodness, he even closed his eyes.

:puffpiece:

[wordpix2]

106. he's the bitch of a lot of people in ME and BigOil everywhere

[PaulaFarrell]

23. I doubt the UAE needs a loan for a few billion pounds

they are prety cash rich at the moment

[muriel_volestrangler]

37. No, it's funded by commerical loans

Dubai Ports World (DPW) has mandated Barclays Capital, the investment banking division of Barclays Bank, and Deutsche Bank AG to arrange facilities totalling $6.5 billion to finance acquisition of Peninsula and Oriental Steam Navigation Company (P&O) by Thunder FZE, the acquisition vehicle set up by DP World.

The two banks will together be the mandated lead arrangers and bookrunners for the facilities, which incorporates a $6.3 billion term loan facility and a $200 million revolving credit facility for working capital purposes.

The facilities, which have a five-year tenor, will be used to finance the acquisition and to refinance existing indebtedness. The facilities have been fully underwritten by Barclays Bank and Deutsche Bank AG.

http://www.tradearabia.com/tanews/newsdetails_snBANK_article100790_cnt.html

[Just Me]

48. One of the Dubai guys said on CNN they'll be acquiring a loan from IMF,...

,...and the WB, last night. Bragged about how mutually beneficial the arrangement will be. :eyes:

It's ALL about money. Money, money, money.

[rfranklin]

55. Yes and many members of the Bush Crime Family are...

skimming a percentage, including James Baker and Poppy Bush.

[anotherdrew]

58. what does this have to do with world bank/IMF ?

looks like two normal banks doing the lending here.

at least the bank is working to keep arab royalty out of poverty.

oh, and smart move making threats, real smart.

[Just Me]

94. Here's another article that goes into more detail about the financing,...

,...arrangements:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=48907

Pretty interesting info in there.

[wordpix2]

97. "DPW also appears wired into the Bush administration"--VERY wired

snip: DPW also appears wired into the Bush administration. Last month, George Bush nominated one of DPW's senior executives, David C. Sanborn, to serve as maritime administrator, an important transportation appointment reporting directly to Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta. Mr. Sanford, a graduate of the U.S. Merchant Maritime Academy, joined DPW in 2005. Before being nominated to be maritime administrator, Mr. Sanford served as DPW's director of Operations for Europe and Latin America.

[Just Me]

111. The ties to Iran and her ruling clerics is pretty wild, too. eom

[wordpix2]

114. yes, Iran's ruling class is heavily invested in Dubai

[muriel_volestrangler]

130. Don't forget the way he ties Hillary Clinton in as well

Maybe the explanation is that President Bush takes seriously the idea of establishing a Bush-Clinton dynasty and he just seized the opportunity to allow Hillary Clinton to move to the center, leading with Senate hawks who see the Bush administration decision as risking our national security by turning over control of our ports to an Arab Islamic state that is obviously too comfortable with terrorists.

In "Atomic Iran," I specifically chose the scenario that terror sleeper cells in America would seek to obtain an improvised nuclear device manufactured in Iran and shipped into the United States in a container delivered to a New York area port. The Bush administration has been lax in patrolling our porous border with Mexico. Evidently, the Bush administration proposes to deal with our ports with a similar lack of concern that we are turning over operations of key American ports to what amounts to the government of Dubai. The DPW deal is giving me serious concern that we might see yet another prediction I made in "Atomic Iran" become reality.

Jerome R. Corsi received a Ph.D. from Harvard University in political science in 1972 and has written many books and articles, including co-authoring with John O'Neill the No. 1 New York Times best-seller, "Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry." Dr. Corsi's most recent books include "Black Gold Stranglehold: The Myth of Scarcity and the Politics of Oil," which he co-authored with WND columnist Craig. R. Smith, and "Atomic Iran: How the Terrorist Regime Bought the Bomb and American Politicians."

So, the man who wrote the Swift Boat book, and claims the Iranians have a bomb they want to use to attack the USA, is claiming Bush is in cahoots with Hillary Clinton? Wow, that's a damn fine article we've got there. :sarcasm:

[Just Me]

134. Funny, ain't it!!!!

:rofl: I was wondering when someone would point out the source.

Neverthelss, he does do a good job detailing some of the information relating to the deal, though.

:shrug: What can I say? Looks like BushCO is losing some of his base, now.

[ebayfool]

159. Jerome R. Corsi ? The ultimate repub swiftboater & gun for hire?

Not to mention World Net Daily, one of the unofficial *ush megaphones/mouthpieces - formerly one of Jimmy/Jeff Gannon's little outlets!?

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

I knew *bush was in deep shit over this deal w/some of his supporters, but I didn't realize how deep & dark till seeing his army aiming at him! Never thought I'd see the day! What's next? A Gannon expose of his days & nights in the White House?

You just made my day ... TY!

(but he just couldn't resist slipping back into mode & taking a swipe at a Clinton, could he?)

[The Backlash Cometh]

140. Yeah, what department of IMF? It wouldn't be the one that is being

headed by a PNACer?

[Just Me]

43. Oh, they ARE taking out loans,...don't doubt that.

Lookie here:

http://www.tradearabia.com/tanews/newsdetails_snCM_article100789.html

It's all about the big money game.

[PaulaFarrell]

49. Well, I guess that just shows that in spite of being government-owned

they are being run as a private company. I don't really understand how taking out a loan counts against them. It's what all corporations do.

[Just Me]

59. Kickbacks, bribes, oppression against indigeneous people,...

,...money-laundering, drug trade, et al,...all leading to redistributing obscene wealth into the hands of a few. You haven't read much about how the multi-national corps, IMF and WB work, have you?

Pick up a copy of, "Confessions of an Economic Hitman" and "The Best Democracy Money Can Buy".

[PaulaFarrell]

67. actually I have read much about them

I just don't see why THIS deal and THIS company merit the amount of fuss they are getting. I am actually an anti-globalist but I can't stand the hypocrisy of what's going on. People aren't upset because a foreign company is buyingthe containrer ports, the're upset because an Arab one is. I actually voted against the sale - yep, a real P & O shareholder, one of only 1% who did. I didn't do because of hysteria about the fact that Arabs would own the ferry company which operates in MY town, even though I think ferries are much more open to having illicit goods on board than container ships, where every piece of cargo is documented. You'd agree with me if you ever saw the French customs at Calais!

[sendero]

72. This isn't about the UAE....

.... this is about George Bush.

He has spent most of his presidency whipping up anti-Arab sentiment to further his own (disastrous for America) goals. Now he is shocked, just shocked that such anti-Arab feelings exist.

I'm tired of people, companies and politicians who want to have it both ways.

I hope this deal is killed in a most ungraceful way, and I hope it costs Bush politically anyway, because it SHOULD.

[Copperred]

86. Exactly.

Sadly...this deal SHOULD go through on the basis of the facts...however Bush and his camp have turned so many of our own people into hate mongers...that it is biting them in the nipple....and good riddance.

This deal is dead.

Effects:
1. It is now publically understood that Bush is in bed with the same people he is telling his own public to hate- what is this all about? Who is the trick on?

2. The Arab Gulf finaciers (the royal families) will look to other more neurtral progressive Americans to support/invest in who 1. do not preach hate at home and then try to get the same scapegoats to do business with them. Many of the royal families, especialy in UAE, are progressives. They do not support global jihad like the Saudi's, and in fact have been good friends of the US. The issue is this relationship continues to be bottlenecked through BushCo...and that is now going to change...for the better of the American people.

I pesonally urge normal Americans to call the UAE embassy...tell them look, this is more abotu Bush than about you.....you want to invset in America...go the the Midwest....build factories....etc, etc...but stop making deals with the elites who are screwing their own people.

:)

[Brothaman2k]

165. Gotta disagree

The UAE ain't about being progressive, it's about making cash, pure and simple. laissez-faire Capitalism to the utmost.

These are guys that, despite urging from the US government to do so, refused to stop a shipment of nuclear triggers to Iran. These are the same guys who got on CNN and basicly said, "Yeah, OFFICIALLY we have a boycott against Isreal, but if it makes us cash, unofficially, we don't give a f*ck".

As far as I can tell UAE is an ally and "good friend" of anyone or organization that will put that all mighty dollar in their hand. They help America because we're the richest country in the world and they want their cut, pure and simple. The day that changes is the day they stop helping.

This is as much about them as this administration. The administration has ZERO integrity/sincerity, which explains why they'd keep company with the UAE.

Birds of a feather flock together.

[Ouabache]

166. UAE supported the Taliban how is that NOT supporting

Islamic fundamentalist jihad ? All kinds of money flowed through there. UAE royal families are progressives,,, that's a JOKE, right? The UAE royals are the ultimate elites SCREWING their own people.
Get real. If a corporation owned by the government of UAE can run our ports, why can't we form a PUBLIC Corporation like the TVA to run our own ports? It could operate at a profit with the profits going into National Health Care for Americans rather than into the pockets of elite royals in the fucking desert of the Middle East.

[hughee99]

149. Trying to have it both ways...

Some people who were criticizing * because he was whipping up anti-Arab sentiment are now shocked, just shocked, that anyone would support this deal.

[Occulus]

73. Bullshit.

I'd be just as upset if it were a Canadian, Peruvian, Dutch, or Mexican company taking over the port security jobs. The racism charge is a demonstrated RW charge designed to make Dems look like anti-Arab bigots- when we all know which party has traditionally desired to go "kill a bunch of ragheads".

These jobs should be held by Americans, as a matter of national security. Period.

[PaulaFarrell]

80. Nothing is going to change regarding port security

The jobs will still be held by Americans. I don't know or care what republicans are saying. I call it like I see it.

[progressivebydesign]

125. And those Americans you cite, will work for UAE. Period. n/t

[PaulaFarrell]

172. Do you mean those Americans working in these ports are

suddenly going to start letting terrorist cargo through on purpose? I think you are slandering a lot of people if that's what you're saying.

[TankLV]

177. They will do what their EMPLOYEER damands of them.

Their employeer is NOT interested in the security of the US, and will be the FIRST to screw us if they could make money off it.

So, yes, these workers would be FORCED to let the cargo go thru, hence wreaking damage to the US and THEIR FELLOW citizens.

THEY WOULD HAVE NO CHOICE.

And they have enough to do all day without being in charge of SECURITY, too.

[Quakerfriend]

84. Yes, why not give some of these jobs to those soldiers who

return home and must look for work.

[Higans]

161. They can work at Walmart.

Kicking a f---ing cash register like the rest of us Americans because all the good jobs have been out sourced.

[Just Me]

74. People's interest wasn't peaked until the deal involved the "evil,...

,...Arabic terrorist-types". The BushCO/neoconster regime's "War on Terror" propaganda backfired on them, ultimately in a good way for the rest of us.

Personally, I could care less whether this controversy involved THIS deal and/or THIS company as much as I am satisfied to witness that, information pertaining to global profiteering at the sacrifice of human rights and interests is finally reaching the national conscience. Yes, it's not the way I would have anticipated or preferred but I can't help but be tickled by how the BFEE/neoconsters' own bullshit is biting them in the butt!!!

[PaulaFarrell]

78. well, you've gotta appreciate that, it's true

I just feel like the whole thing's bringing out an ugly side to people I just don't like to see.

[Sterling]

110. Ugly side?

You mean the side that loves your country and wants to see it stay safe and not bought up by people who could give a fuck about the US? Ugly side? Bullshit. It does show some people's stupid side if they are buying into this BS and it sure shows that greed trumps loving your country where it concerns the people who support and benifit from this deal.

[PaulaFarrell]

171. Thanks for ilustrating the point so well n/t

[TankLV]

178. He said it beautifully.

YOU are not reading what he wrote.

YOU are the one who needs comprehension skills.

[pauldp]

122. It's about Al Qaeda NOT Arabs. n/t

[w4rma]

124. No, no, the folks who belive that Dubai's ties to Al Queda are too great

(the reason Clinton couldn't bomb Osama bin Laden before the Cole attack was because the Dubai royal family was hunting with him and they would have been blowned up too) and the folks who don't like *any* foreign company to own our ports are being supplimented to by folks (who tend to be right-wing) who don't want Arabs owning our ports.

The anti-Arab sentiment brings in right-wingers to make the oppositition to the port sale bipartisan, rather than just progressive/liberal/left-wing.

[PaulaFarrell]

173. Neither one of us knows what those people were doing meeting with bin lade

you assume they were socializing and planning terorist plots. It's surely just as possible they were there trying to buy him off. ANd of course, it's not like any AMericans ever associated with bin laden. Or that Unocal had the Taliban over for a visit. By your reasoning, the board of unocal has terrorists ties and should not be allowed to do business in the US.

[aquart]

144. I do NOT agree with foreign management of American ports.

I was damned unhappy to find that it was a common occurrence.

The best thing about the Dubai deal is that anti-Arab bias makes our idiot legislators look at the whole concept of outsourcing management of the access points to the United States.

[TankLV]

176. No - we're upset because a FOREIGN entity is controlling US ports.

And hence impacting US Security.

Has nothing to do with "Arabs"

Has PLENTY to do with FOREIGNERS!

Don't YOU see a problem with letting FOREIGNERS CONTROL US Port security?

We certainly do!

[northzax]

142. can someone please explain

where the Bank and IMF come into this? it's not their baliwick, really, and this sure looks like private capital to me. None of the links say anything about it. So where did this rumour start?

[KoKo]

89. "Thunder FZE" is the group...Check out Sen. Leahy's letter to Gozales abou

(Seems no one knows who controls "Thunder FZE" and Leahy want's to know. This is from Senator Leahy's office so assume I can post it in full)
CONTACT: Office of Senator Leahy, 202-224-4242

U.S. SENATOR PATRICK LEAHY
VERMONT

Leahy Presses Gonzales On Ports Deal

. . .Letter Seeks Answers On Bush Administration’s Speedy Review Of Deal While Leaving Congress Out Of The Loop

WASHINGTON (Friday, Feb. 24) – Senator Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, on Friday sent a letter to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales seeking more information about the Administration’s approval of the deal that turns operations of six U.S. ports over to Dubai Ports World, a company owned by The United Arab Emirates.

The deal has sparked significant controversy among Democrats and Republicans in Congress, who were not informed of the agreement until after it was announced, despite a mandate in the law for a thorough review process. Several lawmakers, including Leahy, have also raised questions about the national security implications of turning the operation of major U.S. ports over to a country with previous ties to terrorism.

Leahy and several other Democratic and Republican senators have called for a thorough investigation into the deal struck between the Bush Administration and the UAE-owned company. In his letter, Leahy asked Gonzales to provide information on what role the Justice Department played in the deal, whether any national security concerns were raised and discussed, why the Administration opted not to adhere to the 45-day review process set out in law, what legal analysis was done, and whether the special assurances offered by the Dubai company in a confidential January 6 letter could be enforced.

“The Administration should have recognized that an unprecedented sale of this size and scope requires extraordinary precautions to ensure that appropriate security safeguards are in place at all of our ports. Instead, they rushed through and rubberstamped a secret review, and now they once again ask us to trust their vague assurances that adequate national security arrangements are in place,” said Leahy.

The text of Leahy’s letter is below. A PDF version is also available.



# # # # #

February 24, 2006

The Honorable Alberto Gonzales
Attorney General
United States Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20530

Dear Attorney General Gonzales:

The Bush-Cheney Administration’s decision to approve the takeover by Dubai Ports World of operations at six U.S. ports is controversial. Republican and Democratic members of Congress have criticized this decision and many have called for more review, reconsideration and reversal of the President’s apparent determination to allow the transaction to proceed in spite of the concerns that have been raised.

You are a member of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (“CFIUS”), which expedited what review was conducted. That leads me to ask the following questions of you on behalf of Democratic Members of the Judiciary Committee:

What role did you play in the CFIUS review of the proposed transaction?

Who from the Department of Justice assisted you in connection with the CFIUS review?

What role did each person play and what specifically did they do? What was Paul McNulty’s involvement, if any?

Did you on behalf of the Department of Justice raise any national security concerns about this transaction?

What security precautions, if any, did you request?

What led to the January 6, 2006 letter of assurances to the Department of Homeland Security in connection with this transaction?

Why has this transaction required a special mandatory commitment by the Dubai-related companies in the Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism program?

Why are Dubai Ports World and Thunder FZE not parties to the assurances letter dated January 6, 2006?

What security commitments have been made by Thunder FZE?

What security commitments have been made by Dubai Ports World?

What security commitments have been made by Ports, Customs and Free Zone Corporations?

Who is the “responsible corporate officer” who will serve as a point of contact for DHS in each U.S. facility owned or controlled by Dubai Ports World, Ports, Customs and Free Zone Corporation, and Thunder FZE?

How has the United States ensured personal jurisdiction over the “responsible corporate officer”?

What assurances are there that relevant business records will be maintained in the U.S. and subject to United States court jurisdiction?

Are the “assurances” in the January 6, 2006 letter enforceable in United States courts?

Do United States courts have jurisdiction over Ports, Customs and Free Zone Corporation, a Dubai public corporation established by Dubai Royal Decree?

Do United States courts have jurisdiction over Thunder FZE, a Dubai corporation?

Do United States courts have jurisdiction over Dubai Ports World?

Do United States courts have jurisdiction over Sultan Ahmed Bin Sulayem?

Is Sultan Ahmed Bin Sulayem living in the United States? If not, where is he residing?

Do United States courts have jurisdiction over Sheik Mohammed bin Rashid al-Maktum?

Who are the principal officers of Thunder FZE and where do they reside?

Who are the principal officers of Dubai Ports World and where do they reside?

Who are the principal officers of Ports, Customs and Free Zone Corporation and where do they reside?

Who owns Thunder FZE?

Who owns Dubai Ports World?

Who owns Ports, Customs and Free Zone Corporation?

Who controls Thunder FZE?

Who controls Dubai Ports World?

Who controls Ports, Customs and Free Zone Corporation?

Please provide copies of the legal analysis of whether foreign sovereign immunity attaches to Ports, Customs and Free Zone Corporation, Thunder FZE, Dubai Ports World, Sultan Ahmed Bin Sulayem, Sheik Ahmed bin Rashid al-Maktum and others associated with the UAE parties to the transaction.

Please provide copies of the legal analysis of the Exon-Florio provision, the Byrd Amendment and other aspects of section 721 of the Defense Production Act of 1950. How did you determine that this transaction was exempt from the Byrd Amendment’s requirement for a more thorough 45-day investigation?

Do you view the law as requiring a full 45-day investigation if the acquirer is controlled or acting on behalf of a foreign government?

Do you view the transaction at issue as one that could result in control of a person engaged in interstate commerce in the United States?

Do you view the transaction at issue as one that could affect the national security of the United States?

At your confirmation hearing last year you testified that you would respond to our letters and you indicated that you “respect” and “understand” the oversight responsibilities of the Judiciary Committee. We would appreciate your prompt response to this inquiry.

Sincerely,

Patrick Leahy
Ranking Democratic Member
http://64.233.179.104/search?q=cache:zfGguarUvS0J:leahy.senate.gov/press/200602/022406.html+Thunder+FZE&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1

[Just Me]

98. It's the borrowing entity --> Dubai-government created and controlled.

My guess its creation was intended to cushion the UAE from legal liability, not that they needed that since our government was already providing them a means of evading our laws (keeping all corp documents off our shores and out of reach of our courts).

Total bullshit deal,...no matter what corporation was/is involved.

(Of course, U.S. multi-national companies have been imposing these kinds of deals all over the world so I guess this kind of deal isn't particularly unusual,...it's just a global practice of avoiding laws that protect people from economic barbarians.)

[KoKo]

102. Yes and Leahy wants to know the members of the "borowing group."

His letter has some pretty detailed questions...which somehow I think he knows the answer to and it's a great way to trap Gonsalez...If Gonzales ever answers the letter...given that Dems have no authority to request anything of the "Emperor" and his enablers.

I suspect there might be a surprise or two in the connections with "THUNDER" which sounds like a Bush Military Operations name...and kind of :scared: too. i.e. Thunder before the storm...etc....

[wordpix2]

103. "Thunder" does conjure up "Desert Storm" image-this is a clusterfuck

Have a feeling DPW involves Halliburton-KBR-Carlyle Grp-rich sheiks-rich Americans-Big Oil clusterfuck.:think:

[Just Me]

105. I'd like that answer, as well. Plus, identify the 30+ financing,...

,...institutions that will be involved in this deal.

[wordpix2]

95. World Bank headed by our friend, Wolfowitz. He might have a hand in it

[The Blue Flower]

3. What they say about payback

Guess it's true. Yikes.

[Mika]

5. looks like they're following the legal advice from Baker and Botts. n/t

[atomic-fly]

7. George is gettin upset!

[Sequoia]

77. Thanks...needed that!

round is funny?!!!

[atomic-fly]

85. from raising arizona...

Evelle: Do these blow into funny shapes and all?
Grocer: Well, no, unless round is funny.

I had it slightly wrong....corrected now.

[Sequoia]

96. Great movie!

About the only one I liked Nick in. Valley Girl was a cute movie.

[KoKo]

155. Kick..

[Teaser]

4. How much of our debt do they own?

That could hurt us...if they have that leverage.

[file83]

162. Saudi Arabia is what we need to worry about - not UAE

In fact, the UAE and Saudi Arabia aren't exactly the best of buddies. So, I bet Saudi Arabia likes this latest move by the USA.

[xultar]

6. Which proves the point. They'd yank the ports if we were attacked

and needed to get supplies out to deploying troops.
Is 'The Hill' trustworthy? I don't doubt the story but I'd like to know how other DUers feel about 'The Hill' in terms of accuracy.

[sattahipdeep]

17. Ask this guy

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[wordpix2]

108. who is it?

[sattahipdeep]

151. Adam Ereli Deputy Spokesman, Department of State.

How does someone become an ex-terrorist?

Q Did you get a -- did you get any information on the visa
for Mr. Rahmatullah?

MR. ERELI: I did. I thought we shared it with you. The
information is that he applied for a visa, and -- he applied for a
visa. We looked at the reasons for his wanting to come here, his
eligibility, determined he was eligible, and issued him a visa.

Q A question yesterday was also how does someone become an
ex-terrorist, if you will, member of the Taliban?

MR. ERELI: Well, I guess -- all I can tell you about that is
that at the time he applied, for the purposes for which he wished the
United -- to come to the United States, and based on a review of his
activity in the past, it was determined that there was no basis for
ineligibility.

Put in simple English, I think what you can conclude from that is
-- well, if -- I don't know that if -- if he was indeed a member of
the Taliban, being a member of the Taliban, in and of itself, is not
-- was not necessarily and is not -- was not necessarily at the time,
given what he was doing and what -- he wanted to come to the United
States, a grounds for ineligibility.

http://www.tmcnet.com/usubmit/-state-department-regular-briefing-briefer-adam-ereli-deputy-/2006/03/01/1421259.htm

more....

How does someone become an ex-Taliban?

Where is Salam Zaeef Taliban Ambassador?

Remember?



"We vow to help ensure security and peace and take part in reconstruction of our
country," he said. Among those, who have taken up the offer, were former Taliban
Foreign Minister Wakil Ahmad Muttawakil and Taliban regime's Ambassador to
Pakistan Abdul Salam Zaeef.

The men travelled from various provinces from across Afghanistan to Kabul for a
ceremony at which their surrender was announced by the head of the government's
reconciliation commission Sebghattullah Mujaddadi. They included members of the
extremist Hezb-e-Islami faction of wanted warlord Gulbuddin Hekmatyar.

Wednesday Feb. 8, 2006, KABUL: More than 170 Taliban and other fighters
surrendered on Sunday as part of a government amnesty scheme, vowing to lay
down arms and work to rebuild the war-ravaged Afghanistan, officials said.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/26/magazine/26taliban.html?pagewanted=10

[HereSince1628]

8. Gee that's tough noogees Dubees. Being a dictatorship you hate

it when democracy does one of its messy things don't you?

[catmandu57]

9. Oh yeah this will work

enough to get the reptiles dander up, I think this deal is dead.

[lostnfound]

45. Only if it hits the news channels. We ought to capitalize on this.

LW grassroots ought to make sure that the RW grassroots (bushroots?) is well aware of this, and asking themselves, where is Mr. Toughguy now???

This could hurt us all, but better to take a pound of pain now than megatons later.

[zanne]

10. Another failed business deal...

Another 9-11?

[habitual]

11. So is this proof that maybe we are giving the wrong company

a sweetheart deal.... 'If you don't go through with this deal, we will destroy you.... but don't worry, we are your ally in the war on terrorism....'

HAHAHAHAHA

[katinmn]

40. ROTFLMAO. Right on.

:rofl:

[ItsTheMediaStupid]

60. Marriage of convenience?

nm

[cantstandbush]

12. Music to my ears! Shows everyone what kind of people the Bushbots

love to deal with. With friends like these, who needs Al-qaeda? America has been sold out a long time ago. Israel on one side and folks like the UAE on the other side and all the American working men and women and their cannon-fodder children in the middle! I am damn sick and tired of this crap and will do whatever it takes to get these bastards out of office and out of power! This may have been intended to give the Republicans an issue from which to distance themselves from Bush but it is much more serious and dangerous than that.

[fasttense]

13. Which only goes to show you how they will run our ports.

We don't like the security restrictions, we'll yank our money. We don't like having to pay minimum wage, we'll yank your Navy's access to our ports. We don't like hiring citizens and treating them like humans, we'll stop funneling money to bush*.

This is why you can't sell off your country to a foreign government no matter how much money you need.

[still_one]

14. all they have done for us???

the royal family of dubai have no control over us

obviously they have control over the bush family, and maybe this finally might open the eyes of some people to where bushco is coming from

[northzax]

146. well, they spend billions of dollars a year in the US

helping to maintain our massive account deficits. So that is something they are doing. If I were them, I would stop investing in the US as well, and we frankly need their dollars.

[Atman]

15. THREATENING? To take over our ports?

Doesn't this sound oddly like a threat to invade our country if we don't let them in?

[Sydnie]

18. No, it's economic blackmail

remember, one of the things that blivet** loves is finding new markets to export things to (often our jobs and not our products - because we are producing less and less these days) and one of the speculations was that this ports deal was part of a trade deal, remember?

They are saying "kill this deal and we will pressure everone we can to stop trading with you". Wouldn't surprise me to see them support the Oil Bourse either!

[ItsTheMediaStupid]

20. Thanks to Moronic ecomonic policies

We're open to economic blackmail.

If the rest of the world stopped loaning us money and cut off our oil, we'd be up shit creek.

[wtmusic]

24. No, we'd be much better off

Alternative fuels would suddenly become viable and we'd suddenly start balancing our budget. I'd like that kind of world.

[ItsTheMediaStupid]

63. If we lost our oil supply today - economic chaos

We use oil to grow food and to get that food to market.

I agree that alternative fuels are the way to go, but a sudden cutoff of petroleum and credit would put the US in an economic depression I hate to imagine.

[wtmusic]

68. A sudden cutoff would be difficult to accomplish

although even a cutback would cause prices to go nuts.

It would be difficult for a while. But the longer we wait the worse it will be.

[jwirr]

76. Also, many of these alternatives are manufactured using

oil based production. You do not make a wind machine without mining ore, refining it and shaping it. All oil based businesses.

[wordpix2]

109. oil is traded on world market so as long as it's produced, some US entity

will be buying

[ItsTheMediaStupid]

152. Yes, but we are currently buying on credit everywhere

I'm just saying that we are in a very precarious situation between our need for energy and our balance of payments defecits.

[jwirr]

71. Dumb me. Please explain Oil Bourse?

[NYC]

79. Iran wants to trade oil in euros, not dollars.

This is supposed to begin around March 23rd. Bad for U.S.

[jwirr]

81. Thank you.

[Akoto]

16. Ah, so now it's blackmail. Take our business, or ELSE!

My, what trustworthy-sounding people we're handing control of our ports to. :eyes:

[Julius Civitatus]

22. F*ck the Dubai Royals and f*ck their threats!

They are threatening us if we don't seal this deal? Economic blackmail if we decide we don't want their business?

F*ck 'em!!!

Who the hell do these bastards think we are? They sure can treat their subjects like shit and allow SLAVERY in their hellhole of a country. We are NOT their subjects, and we DON'T like to be told what to do, specially under threats of retaliation.

But again, these bastards are DUBYA'S BEST FRIENDS, and Dubya told us he too will use serious measures (veto) if we don't let his arab royal buddies take over control of our ports.

This is even more of a reason to pull the plug on this deal for good.

:rant:

[genieroze]

126. Now we know who are the men behind the curtain pulling the strings.

What's Israels take on this thing? Just curious.

[UpInArms]

25. Wow! I wonder how they would react if our military needed to use

our ports and exactly who and what they would allow to enter our ports?

This doesn't seem to be the "bus for us", now does it?

[PaulaFarrell]

54. Not going to be a problem

All they will be doing is unloading the comntainer ships. They won't be controllling the ports themselves. Just the container terminals.

[wordpix2]

113. PaulaF, get a clue: Issue is DPW will know every hole in port security

and these ports are all located in major cities. Do you really want an Arab gov't or ANY gov't that hasn't been thoroughly checked out (managment, money backers and employees) to know every security problem in these ports that we KNOW have many security problems?

[Bridget Burke]

150. Yes, the mostly uninspected container ships.

The container ships that come up the Houston Ship Channel to our Port every day. The Channel that's lined with our huge petrochemical industry. The Port that's quite near downtown.

One good bomb could do a lot of damage to my city.

[FredStembottom]

26. Ummmm...OK. Yank away.

:P

[BR_Parkway]

27. OMG - isn't threatening the US covered under the Patriot Act?

Especially against our Strategic interests?

That ought to go over really well in the Red States. I guess it's time to call "my" Senators (Burr & Empty Wig) and play outraged Republican again (it's the only way they listen to you - if you don't start off with I Voted for GawdW so he could keep us safe from all those crazies... - then you can tell the staff is not even making notes about it.

[htuttle]

28. To paraphrase the esteemed New York City firefighter Mike Moran,

"They can kiss my royal Irish ass!"

[grahamhgreen]

29. BS - THEY WILL ALWAYS ALLOW OUR TROOPS THERE IN ORDER TO PROTECT THE ROYAL

FAMILIES AND OTHERED MONEYED INTERESTS. AND IF THEY SCUTTLE OUR OTHER DEALS, THEY WILL BE TERRIFIED THAT WE PULL OUT OF IRAQ, AND THE SURROUNDINGS, AND LEAVE THEM WITH THAT MESS ON THEIR BORDERS.

[0007]

31. We'll just yank it" Getting yanked off is nothing new to us, 'eh?

[Bake]

32. Hey Doobees: YANK THIS!

(Grabbing crotch).

Bake

[xiamiam]

33. americans dont like to be threatened....this is an unwise posture..nt

[High Plains]

121. No, they just like to do the threatening.

[LynneSin]

34. Thank god Ed Rendell has a solution for Pennsylvania

he's just going to let the lease lapse when it expires in May

[spanone]

36. Just a little more cowbell, Please!

[EmperorHasNoClothes]

35. Somewhat OT, but very intersting fact on UAE:

From the CIA World Factbook ( http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ae.html ):

United Arab Emirates

Sex ratio:
at birth: 1.05 male(s)/female
under 15 years: 1.04 male(s)/female
15-64 years: 1.58 male(s)/female
65 years and over: 2.691 male(s)/female
total population: 1.442 male(s)/female (2005 est.)

Are all those women leaving when they turn 15? Somehow I think not (or, at least, not of their own accord). Just goes to show you what kind of a place UAE is, I guess. Maybe they're threatening to come here and abuse our women. :eyes:

Saudi Arabia, by comparison, is somewhat unbalanced, but not nearly as much, and Iraq is almost balanced (1.03 males/females).

[muriel_volestrangler]

52. Much more likely to be due to immigrant workers

Here's the population figures for 2005:

Table 094. Midyear Population, by Age and Sex
---------------- --------------- -------------- -------------- ----------- -------- -------- 
Country or area/                                                                                                                       
Year/                 Population     Population     Population     Percent  Percent  Percent
Age                   both sexes           male         female  both sexes     male   female
---------------- --------------- -------------- -------------- ----------- -------- -------- 

United Arab Emirates/2005

Total, all ages        2,563,212      1,513,499      1,049,713       100.0    100.0    100.0        
  0-  4                  224,000        114,405        109,595         8.7      7.6     10.4        
  5-  9                  204,056        104,117         99,939         8.0      6.9      9.5        
 10- 14                  221,190        112,747        108,443         8.6      7.4     10.3        
 15- 19                  280,612        142,721        137,891        10.9      9.4     13.1        
 20- 24                  244,940        124,664        120,276         9.6      8.2     11.5        
 25- 29                  183,574         93,928         89,646         7.2      6.2      8.5        
 30- 34                  117,066         61,826         55,240         4.6      4.1      5.3        
 35- 39                   95,664         53,351         42,313         3.7      3.5      4.0        
 40- 44                  145,126         89,145         55,981         5.7      5.9      5.3        
 45- 49                  249,299        171,927         77,372         9.7     11.4      7.4        
 50- 54                  253,635        187,003         66,632         9.9     12.4      6.3        
 55- 59                  157,970        120,000         37,970         6.2      7.9      3.6        
 60- 64                   94,998         71,261         23,737         3.7      4.7      2.3        
 65- 69                   50,497         38,464         12,033         2.0      2.5      1.1        
 70- 74                   24,067         17,641          6,426         0.9      1.2      0.6        
 75- 79                   11,029          7,299          3,730         0.4      0.5      0.4        
 80+                       5,489          3,000          2,489         0.2      0.2      0.2        
---------------- --------------- -------------- -------------- ----------- -------- -------- 
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, International 
        Data Base.

See http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/idbpyr.html

As you can see, it's quite a weird population profile - a huge bulge of males from around 45 upwards. Most estimates (I can't find up to date ones) say things like only 20% are UAE citizens, with the rest of the population being migrant workers.

[On the Road]

99. It Could be That Female Babies Used to be Killed at Birth

but that the practice has stopped in the last 15 years or so. Just guessing -- it's happened in other countries.

[PaulaFarrell]

38. Let's see, if an American company tried to buy a foreign company

and a third country tried to scupper the deal because they didn't want americans to run a business in their country, and most of the politicians started pronouncing how untrustworthy america was, and most the citizens started badnouthing the country, would the US pull its business from that third country? Nah, we'd probably just arrange a coup.

It's also interesting how some posters seem to think we have a right to use Dubai's ports for our navy, but don't want a Dubai company to unload containrer ships in the US. I mean, it's not like having a foreign navy docked in your home town is any kind of security risk or anything - not a terrorist target at all (oops, except for the Cole) - nothing like having a foreign company unload your ships. Now that IS dangerous.

[Dhalgren]

91. This isn't a "Dubai company", it is the government of a totalitarian

state. I think that the sentiment expressed here is more "go ahead and pull your business - see ya' around." The idea that the US citizenry (the supposed rulers of this country) do not have the right to determine who can and who cannot (for any reason) operate vital facilities in this country is what is getting everyone's "back up". The idea that someone with a monetary interest in this "deal" might say "bigotry!" is of no concern to me...

[progressivebydesign]

131. If you're smart enough to own stock, as you mentioned..

Why are you insisting on playing dumb? Why are you here trying to cheerlead this deal? It's not about "a Dubai company" wanting to unload their ships, it's about a State-Controlled company OWNING our PORTS. It's about selling off our country. It's about giving control to a country with bad human rights violations, ties to Osama Bin Laden, and ties to the 9/11 hijackers. Why exactly are you trying to PUSH this deal down our throats on DU right now???

[PaulaFarrell]

175. I'm too smart to buy stock

I was given it as an (ex-)employee of P & O. And I voted against the deal (because I'm against foreign comapnies owning critical assets - you may gather from this that I've lived in England quite a while). I'm not playing dumb. I'm trying to point out the hypocrisy of people who are OK with a Britsh company running these ports, but not an Arab one. And the company won't OWN the PORT - it will unload (and of course load) the container ships.

But if you're worried about a country with a poor human rights record running a US container port, you're obviously also quite upset about Long Beach and COSCO. Or maybe not. Clinton signed off on that one so it was probably ok. I won't give any links about that as they all seem to be from RW sources, yet strangely their arguments are nearly identical to the ones on this thread. Ironic that, especially when anyone going against the common opinion is accused of spouting RW talking points. ANyway, the deal is out the window now so you'll be happy - until you find Halliburton runnning the ports at great cost and in a bad way, as opposed to one of the top port operators in the world. Well, still Halliburton's great at security...(be careful what you wish for)

[coalition_unwilling]

147. The cant, hypocrisy and irony are just so delicious, arent' they?

* getting devoured by the "terra monster" he created.

The best thing about it is watching the Dems sit back and let the Repukes eat their own.

I'm sorry that the issue had to be one of crass economic nationalism (with the attendant afore-mentioned cant, hypocrisy and irony) rather than, say, torture or warrantless wiretaps. But I've gotten to the point with the Repukes that I celebrate anything that damages any member of their party, all the more so when the damage is inflicted by members of their party or self-inflicted.

[berni_mccoy]

39. As the White House said about Iran's comments, that sounds "provocative"

When do we start bombing Dubai?

[emald]

41. I guess mr bushit will have to kiss another arab on the mouth

that should solve the problem. Or bend over and take it. Stupid stupid stupid. stupid is as stupid does according to some old movie. Stupid seems to be what we have for a government.
Really, threatening americans with retaliation for NOT doing a deal? Bushit wants these guys in charge. Wow.

[lovuian]

42. Make our day!!!

:grr:

[Fridays Child]

44. Oh, no! Georgie has a bit of a problem here, doesn't he?

I believe that this is what they call reaping what you sow.
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Auntie Bush]

46. So now we KNOW WHY bush tried to make this deal in secret !!!!!

He probably made an illegal agreement/promise (without congresses knowledge) long ago. He knew WE needed a port and place to operate from when we invaded Iraq and Iran to control/steal their oil. Now we'll be kicked out of Dubai and be forced to stay in Iraq for a base...so I guess we won't be able to withdraw our troops. Bush sure has made a hell of a mess with his aggressive/stupid foreign policies. I wonder how he plans to spin this fact?

[LSK]

47. sounds like blackmail to me

Remind me what they make that our economy needs? Oh yeah, oil...

[sattahipdeep]

50. They're idiots.... better ck their oil sales n/t

[mac56]

51. This is Georgie's worst nightmare, isn't it?!

They're like the Mafia, aren't they? I thought we wouldn't deal with terrorists!

It just keeps getting worse and worse and worse.....

[sattahipdeep]

57. Or the Taliban

"We vow to help ensure security and peace and take part in reconstruction of our
country," he said. Among those, who have taken up the offer, were former Taliban
Foreign Minister Wakil Ahmad Muttawakil and Taliban regime's Ambassador to
Pakistan Abdul Salam Zaeef.

The men travelled from various provinces from across Afghanistan to Kabul for a
ceremony at which their surrender was announced by the head of the government's
reconciliation commission Sebghattullah Mujaddadi. They included members of the
extremist Hezb-e-Islami faction of wanted warlord Gulbuddin Hekmatyar.

Wednesday Feb. 8, 2006, KABUL: More than 170 Taliban and other fighters
surrendered on Sunday as part of a government amnesty scheme, vowing to lay
down arms and work to rebuild the war-ravaged Afghanistan, officials said.

http://indiamonitor.com/news/readNews.jsp?ni=10435

[cliss]

118. This is quite entertaining....

I'd say this deal only has about a 1.3% chance of going through. Even in the unlikely event the deal were approved, it would be a Deal made in Hell. People would bitch and moan, there would be so much grumbling. The minute anything went wrong, the American population would instantly blame UAE.

UAE should accept this defeat with dignity. In fact, they should thank their lucky stars it didn't go through. What a mess, to protect the most hated nation on earth (for now...with Bush).

But it's juicy to think about Bush, on the phone with them constantly. He's sweating, nervous. Promises them the Sun and the Moon.....while they yell at him, cuss. Lots of sweaty armpits in Washington right now!!!!

[BattyDem]

53. Wait a minute ...

BushCo says the deal should go through because Dubai is our friend and they are no threat to our safety ... yet now they're threatening retaliation against American strategic and commercial interests if they don't get their way?!?!?

Thanks Dubai. You just made the case AGAINST you! :-)



On edit: If this story is legitimate, then these guys are even more stupid then BushCo. You don't THREATEN people when you're trying to prove how UNthreatening you are! :eyes:

Doesn't this kind of threat make them "terrorists" under the Patriot Act?

[loudsue]

75. They haven't hesitated to threaten us -- everyone knows we have a coward

at the helm, and some chickenshit economic policies to go along with him.

This deal WILL go through.

Watch the republicans CAVE to the threats of someone with money. Money is their true GOD, and they will protect Boeing (THE MILITARY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX EISENHOWER WARNED ABOUT) at ALL COSTS.

If the mainstream media reported on this like they do about missing blonde girls, the sheeple WOULD finally realize that we have been sold to the highest bidder, and we are SLAVES to the oil producing nations... particularly dubya's oil buddies, the Arabs.

Once agains, us grassroots "liberals" have proven to be correct. Too bad the so-called "liberals" in Washington don't have a CLUE what we've been talking about (with very few exceptions -- thank you Mr. Conyers, Feingold, and McKinney, and Wellstone, may he rest in peace).

I'm sending this to my rightwing "friends".

DAMN the republicans to hell!!!!!

:kick::kick::kick:

[wordpix2]

117. Chickenhawk* has ruined us militarily & financially so UAE threats

won't be taken lightly by BushCo.

I am really surprised that the repukes in Congress are finally willing to stand up to Bush on this, though.

[BobF]

56. Worth saying once again...

...if anyone needs any further proof that the 'War on Terra' is nothing more than a War Profiteers wet dream, look no further.

From the article:

"It is not clear how much of Dubai’s behind-the-scenes anger would be followed up by action, but Boeing has been made aware of the threat and is already reportedly lobbying to save the ports deal."

So much for bringing "freedom' to the Middle East. We don't care if there's blood on your hands, just so long as you wipe the blood off of the cash you're holding out for us to take.

'Freedom' once again takes a back seat to 'Profit'. Corrupt monarchy calls the shots, and Dubya the Wonder-Monkey dances like a little puppet with a Veto Pen in its hand, all the while screaming 'Freedom is on the March'.

Someone please do me a favor and let me know when we find a 'Good Guy' anywhere in this mess.

[saigon68]

116. Dubya the Wonder-Monkey dances like a little puppet with a Veto Pen

[wordpix2]

120. LOL, what a photo---did you produce it? hahahaha

[saigon68]

141. Its stolen

[wordpix2]

119. Amen.

[Massachusetts]

61. Dubai is threatening retaliation

It would be a tough pill to swallow, BUT its the MEDICINE the Middle Class BUSHITS need to WAKE THEM UP!

[Sequoia]

62. Bunch of whiners. We don't need you.

We know what you've done for us....crash planes into our towers that's what.

[jwirr]

64. So finally we are going to see what kind of clout the US has

left after bushie has weakened us.

[Deep13]

65. Landlord does not like being double crossed. nt

[goforit]

66. This is only a threat to the Carlyle and CXT(?).....

pressure on corrupt politicians is intensifying.

America needs to stand tall.....RIGHT NOW!!!!!

[Az_lefty]

69. Strategic interests? Are they threatening the Strait of Hormuz?

If they do, this is going to get real serious. I still can't understand what that idiot in the White House was thinking when he went down this road. Has to be some kind of payback for the bush cabal.

[NYC]

70. Why would you want to do business with a country that threatens you?

And don't miss this gem:

State Dept. trashes UAE rights record

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x614753

[AndyA]

82. Threats! How nice.

Yes, indeed. We certainly want another country to bully and threaten us into a deal to guard our security. More proof that this is a bad deal for America, and anyone for it is not only anti-American, but pro-terrorist!

This deal needs to be stopped!! :mad:

[Ravy]

83. This is EXACTLY why the deal CANNOT go though....

A foreign government is now offering retaliation if something dealing with their business activities doesn't go their way. If the UAE ports deal goes through, what is to keep them from using such tactics to shut down OUR ports if the US does something else they don't particularly like. Could they use the same tactics to gain other concessions from the US (like a taxpayer subsity for their ports interest)?

[DirtyDawg]

93. How right can you get?

...as ravy says, exactly. The thing that I don't understand...well, I suppose I can understand it, but it sickens me...is how in hell did we - and I include bushco along with every administration over the past 25 years - become so vulnerable as to allow a pissant little country half way around the world to be able to make a dent in us at all? And even more to the point, why is it we don't have the leverage, and the ability, to make their position completely untenable? Where's our ability to put the squeeze on them in return? Other than invading their asses and all the wonderful thoughts that presents. I blame bushco for all of it, but clearly clinton, bush41, reagan, et. al., have been asleep at the wheel as well.

[wordpix2]

123. "what is to keep them from using such tactics to shut down OUR ports"

Good points

[jillan]

87. Congratulations Bush for continuing to make America a safer place.

Any other countries on your list that you would like to see
threaten us?

[NYC]

90. I got the impression Dubai is making up the list.

They'll just submit it to George Bush for his approval. (guaranteed in advance)

In an article within the past week, they mentioned that "others" would be discouraged from doing business with the U.S. if this deal falls through.

[loudsue]

88. And Dubai is moving to work with Iran on all types of "deals".

check out this thread, too.

So much for the "axis of evil".

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2152776

:kick:

[oneold1-4u]

100. After the ports are theirs-

What will they threaten?
How about: No military shipments anywhere in the world! No US products shipped to anywhere and no needed products shipped in!
Will you ever get another Japanese built car, PC, or electronics? How about China or India who don't like islam very much? Are you ready to give up all of their cheap labor and products?
If they can today control US government decisions with threats today, what do we deserve?

[wordpix2]

101. UAE military buying Boeing Apache helicopters and AWACs planes & Iranians

VERY tied into UAE. :wtf: And Hasturd's involved.


snip:The UAE military also bought Boeing’s Apache helicopters. Meanwhile, Boeing has been in talks with the emirates to try to sell its AWACS planes.

snip: Any repercussion to Boeing could put House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) in a delicate position. Boeing’s decision to move its headquarters to Chicago has been seen as calculated to facilitate a close relationship with Hastert. He is against the ports deal, and his office did not return calls by press time.

[Dr Fate]

104. What WONDERFUL allies on the war on terror they are.

With these threats & all, there canbe no doubt of that.

[gasperc]

112. blackmail...myself and others posed this last week

Bush granite head support against a mind boggling array of holes that terrorists could easily exploite led us to one conclusion

BLACKMAIL

So is it over ships in the Dubai port? Bush past? Cheney?

the American government is being BLACKMAILED!!!!

[Copperred]

127. Not really.....

Not really. What is happening is some Americans are being exposed for very duplicitiuos relations, not only with foregieners, but with their own people.

It is normal for the UAE, or any foreigner to react the way the UAE is reacting.

Sadly...this deal SHOULD go through on the basis of the facts...however Bush and his camp have turned so many of our own people into hate mongers...that it is biting them in the nipple....and good riddance.

This deal is dead.

Effects:
1. It is now publically understood that Bush is in bed with the same people he is telling his own public to hate- what is this all about? Who is the trick on?

2. The Arab Gulf finaciers (the royal families) will look to other more neurtral progressive Americans to support/invest in who 1. do not preach hate at home and then try to get the same scapegoats to do business with them. Many of the royal families, especialy in UAE, are progressives. They do not support global jihad like the Saudi's, and in fact have been good friends of the US. The issue is this relationship continues to be bottlenecked through BushCo...and that is now going to change...for the better of the American people.

I pesonally urge normal Americans to call the UAE embassy....CALL THEM.....tell them look, this is more about Bush than about you.....you want to invset in America...go the the Midwest....invest in new industries, build factories....etc, etc...but stop making deals with the elites who are screwing their own people..... Many charge that it is Bush who is blackmailing Arab elites....sell us your oil...or else.....BOOM BOOM BOOM...coup coup coup....etc, etc, etc...... The problem is here at home...

[northzax]

167. ding, ding, ding!

We have a winner!

We just told the most progressive, least fundamentalist Arab state to go fuck itself. Publically and humiliantingly. Why would anyone want to do business here again, when the mob, people who don't even understand the issues, the contracts or the UAE's inner workings can turn on you and chase you out of the country? If you go into a store and the owner tells you that you aren't good enough to shop there, are you really going back the next day?

I have heard more ignorance on this topic, almost willful ignorance, especially for DU, than on almost anything else. It's disturbing. But I now expect that this same passion will continue until there are no foreign companies running any infrastructure in the US. Then we'll know that it wasn't simply directed at Arabs. Look at this thread alone, we are supposed to be progresssives and liberals, and our response is not to learn anything and then tell another country to go pound sand. shameful.

on the whole, in all seriousness, this is not a good thing.

[progressivebydesign]

128. Most Port Districts include Airports.

There is something that deeply disturbs me in all this. The Port of Seattle, for instance, operates SEATAC Airport as well. They are linked tightly. Do I really want an foreign entity to RUN our Port, when the workings of the Airport is closely linked to port operations? Do you see where I'm going with this? When will the fight be about a foreign country owning our airports? That will come next. There are already private companies buying HIGHWAYS..

AMERICA IS NOT FOR SALE!!! I don't give a fuck if Bush has borrowed us to destruction from China (who ironically is NOT a Democracy, and openly bans religions), I don't care what he's done so far... or how we owe our asses to foreign countries, I'm saying that in MY HEART, as a patriot and Democrat, THIS COUNTRY IS NOT FOR SALE!!!

[pitohui]

129. well put yourself in their shoes

i'd be fairly peeved if i had a deal with someone and then suddenly everyone is putting in their two cents and wants to rescind the deal based on my racial background

of course they are angry

it's a no-win for everybody really

[progressivebydesign]

132. Please. Dump the race-card. That is such bullshit.

It's not about race, it's about selling off our country's vulnerable ports to a foreign entity. And.. an entity that has a relationship with OBL, ties to the financing for 9/11, and dismal human rights. I don't know what your particular feeling about America might be, but in my book.. it's not for sale. And it's not about race. Why are you clouding the issue??

[Copperred]

133. The Cloud is over head.....

"an entity that has a relationship with OBL, ties to the financing for 9/11, and dismal human rights".


Do you mean the CIA?

[Orrin_73]

154. Well said progressivebydesign

who said there were no bigots at DU? there are indeed.

[Megahurtz]

156. Right! Good Posts. n/t

[brentspeak]

135. It's not because of their "racial background"

It's because, among other things, Dubai is known to have been infiltrated by al Qaida. How stupid is it for our own President to hand over the oversight of American ports to an organization that may well employ the very same terrorists we're trying to guard against?

[Copperred]

137. Ya....RIGHT......why dont you come to the farm with me....

I'm sorry to point this out to you, but you do realize that the Islamic radicals hate just as much, if not more, the progressive Arabs (elite and non elite). There have been Arab Americans in the US for over 100 years, served in WWI-II, etc, etc etc......

This whole thing came up because they are ARABS..... now...the better question is ...why?

The UAE government is not supporting terror that is for sure. They have put down BIG bets for stability in their own country and don't want any sort of Islamic revolution in their midst. Further they have gone to great lengthns to be sure their own people are not starving, homeless, or uneducated, as has happened in Saudi...which is truly the diabolical dragon we are not dealing with appropriately.

[genieroze]

136. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.

[Copperred]

139. G_D BLESS AMERICA

Great movie... Timless....amazing..i wonder if the makers at the time knew how timeless it would be.

[Earth_First]

138. Anyone have the spin on this one yet?

Rush won't be on for another 37 minutes, anyone have the advance talking points memo yet?

[petepillow]

143. gosh it just gets better and better don't it?

i'll be in my bunker awaiting nuclear winter. bye bye!

[stepnw1f]

145. Let's Invade Dubai (nt)

[Megahurtz]

153. BOO!

:scared::hide::yoiks::sarcasm:

:rofl:

[GoddessOfGuinness]

157. Like a spoiled brat, Dubai threatens us.

How dare we not allow them the opportunity to purchase the country!

We must accept responsibility, however. Why the hell did we start selling our ports to other countries anyway? What bullshit!

[plasticsundance]

158. It's just plain dishonest to suggest anything racial in this matter

Or else ignorance of the evidence ... perhaps denial. This is from the 911 Commission Report:

163. Days before overhead imagery confirmed the location of the hunting camp, Clarke had returned from a visit to the UAE, where he had been working on counterterrorism cooperation and following up on a May 1998 UAE agreement to buy F-16 aircraft from the United States. His visit included one-on-one meetings with Army Chief of Staff bin Zayid, as well as talks with Sheikh Muhammad bin Rashid, the ruler of Dubai. Both agreed to try to work with the United States in their efforts against Bin Ladin. NSC memo, Clarke to Berger,Trip Report, Feb. 8, 1999; Theodore Kattouf interview (Apr.21,2004).On 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. General Shelton also told us that his UAE counterpart said he had been hunting at a desert camp in Afghanistan at about this time. Hugh Shelton interview (Feb. 5, 2004).
164. Mike briefing (Mar. 3, 2004). Talking points for the DCI to use at a late March Small Group meetingnote that concurrently with the UAE being "tipped off " to the CIA's knowledge of the camp, one of the tribalnetwork's major subsources (within Bin Ladin's Taliban security detail) was dispatched to the north, fur ther hand-icapping reporting efforts. CIA talking points,"Locating Bin Ladin," Mar. 29, 1999.


InFact - The 9/11 Commission Report - Page 486

Here's more:

In early 1999, the Clinton Administration wanted to fire missiles at bin Laden without risking civilian casualties. Bin Laden played into our hands. Intelligence reports from Afghan "tribals" indicated he was frequenting a small hunting camp adjacent to a larger camp outside Kandahar, Afghanistan. Here U.S. missiles could score a clean kill.

But then officials from the UAE got in the way. The commission said:

"On February 8, the military began to ready itself for a possible strike. The next day, national technical intelligence confirmed the location and description of the larger camp and showed the nearby presence of an official aircraft of the United Arab Emirates. But the location of Bin Laden's quarters could not be pinned down so precisely. … According to reporting from the tribals, bin Laden regularly went from his adjacent camp to the larger camp where he visited the Emiratis. The tribals expected him to be at the hunting camp for such a visit at least until midmorning on February 11. Clarke wrote to Berger's deputy on February 10 that the military was then doing targeting work to hit the main camp with cruise missiles and should be in position to strike the following morning. Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert appears to have been briefed on the situation.

"No strike was launched. By February 12 bin Laden had apparently moved on, and the immediate strike plans became moot. According to CIA and Defense officials, policymakers were concerned about the danger that a strike would kill an Emirati prince or other senior officials who might be with bin Laden or close by. Clarke told us the strike was called off after consultations with Director Tenet because the intelligence was dubious, and it seemed to Clarke as if the CIA was presenting an option to attack America's best counterterrorism ally in the Gulf. The lead CIA official in the field, Gary Schroen, felt that the intelligence reporting in this case was very reliable. The bin Laden unit chief, 'Mike,' agreed. Schroen believes today that this was a lost opportunity to kill bin Laden before 9/11.

Did UAE Save Bin Laden?

[lies and propaganda]

160. wtf do they plan on doing?

this makes them real trustworthy, why ever would we not give up everything to em?

[file83]

163. 100 years ago they lived in Tents - 100 years from now....

...they will live in Tents.

[lovuian]

164. Don't threaten the US!!! We have an army you don't

all you have is money and that means nothing without an army!!! to protect it!!!

[Charlie Brown]

170. I really don't think we should be doing business with extortionists n/t

[The_Casual_Observer]

179. maybe they will raise the oil prices.

:eyes: