More news about the Republicans favorite nation to open up our ports to comes in
Al Qaeda warned the government of the United Arab Emirates more than three years ago that it “infiltrated” key government agencies, according to a disturbing document released by the U.S. military.
The warning was contained in a June 2002 message to UAE rulers, in which the terror network demanded the release of an unknown number of “mujahedeen detainees,” who it said had been arrested during a government crackdown in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks.
This information comes from the notoriously left wing NY Post and its far-left benefactor, Rupert Murdoch.
>> Republicans Opposing Dubai Deal Have Long Opposed Efforts To Secure America’s Ports
Somebody, today, should ask George W Bush if he still carries George Howard’s police shield.
Oh, wait — he doesn’t carry it at all.
Unless you subscibe to the New York Post, you did not read this:
Sometimes what we reveal is less important than what we conceal.
Sometimes what we reveal is less important than what we conceal.
…must be one of those covert “secret, even in success” operations Dubya told us about all those years ago.
I find this document as convincing as the advert for joining al-Q, and the filled in application forms that were found.
There have been instances where Western workers have been attacked in Middle-Eastern countries and the compound guards have been nowhere to be found. The reason? Perhaps a sympathy, if not an active participation in the cause of the attackers.
The U.S. Military Academy seems to think it’s authentic. You can see some other interesting al-Qaeda letters there, too.
Of course, this letter supports the administration’s case. Why do you think they declassified it now? It’s basically al-Qaeda telling the UAE, “you’re either with us or you’re against us.” They threaten the Emirs, and warn them not to side with us.
The fact that the UAE’s response was to give the document to us shows what side they chose. And when you think about it, they have a lot more to gain from siding with us, and siding with bin Laden comes with a heavy downside. If I wasn’t already convinced that Bush is right on this one, I would have found this document very persuasive.
[...] e here Photos and blogs from UAE here (via Common Sense Political Thought, Oliver Willis, and The Weekly Standard) This entry was posted [...]
Somehow I don’t think it is wise to use the argument that we have to allow this port deal to go through as “a reward for good behavior” on the part of the UAE.
No one is arguing that the UAE is “the enemy.” What they’re arguing is that the port deal opens us to a number of unnecessary security risks. You might be best friends with an alcoholic and you might be proud of him for faithfully going to AA meetings. That doesn’t mean you need to hire him as your chauffeur.
Constantine,
“the port deal opens us to a number of unnecessary security risks.”
Considering what we know about security, the operation of this firm at other ports (Germany, Korea, Australia, etc), that it is essentially an experienced British firm (now owned by a UAE entity), considering there have been terrorist incidents in Britain, France and several terroists from the US, what are the ‘number” of unnnecessary risks this deal opens us up to?
Dugger
The real focus on ’security’ at our ports should be increasing
the number of containers inspected to, I don’t know,
say 25% of the 61,000 each day, rather than the
FIVE PERCENT currently inspected.
Dugger, see above in original blog post.
Dugger – sorry, but based on the track record – DPW does have some issues; and there’s too much at stake not to at least do due diligence on the deal. Which was not done. Granted, there’s alot of political posturing involved with opposition, as well as a little xenophobia – but nowhere near the amount, and certainly not the racist charge we’ve been hearing (and laughing at).
Here’s an example of their sterling ability to help investigations…
http://consortiumnews.com/2006/022206.html
And there’s the simple fact that DHS strongly objected to it. Initially…
“You might be best friends with an alcoholic and you might be proud of him for faithfully going to AA meetings. That doesn t mean you need to hire him as your chauffeur”
Nice analogy Constantine…
I don’t see the problem. I see conjectuer – conjecture that could be brought into play with any foreign contractor.
Dugger, Oh well
Not with any foreign contractor, Duggy. Obviously, there’s a difference between a country that’s been our closest ally for nearly 150 years and one that has kind of played both sides and only recently claims an alliance with the US.
Again, I fail to see why US port management is outsourced to anyone. There are plenty of US companies that do this work–in fact, the US were the innovators of modern port management.
The arguments against this deal are plain: port management will be privy to port security operations. Additionally, this deal has cronyism written all over it.
The arguments for this deal is that AWOL George says he wants it.
But Dugger… I thought that was the whole ideology – mindset that seperated the Republicans and Democrats… the deal is terribly “pre-9/11 thinking” vs. “post-9/11 thinking”. You know… the whole mantra that’s been used to carry the admin for the last 3+ years?
Anyway, and on a more serious note – there are too many dubious aspects to this deal, to much to be mere coincidence… that leads to conjecture.
Though, you’ll note – that there was much less (but similar) concerns raised by the GOP when the Chinese began operations on the West Coast… that was one of the early charges against Clinton, remember?
Didn’t hear anyone throwing the race card then.
And please explain to me this – why… why, approaching midterms; in the midst of faltering public support; as a string of initiatives fail… and programs aren’t received well by the public – why, would no one in the administration have had the sense to work w/ congress closer, let alone anticipate that this would be a lighten-rod and try to pre-emptively damage control?
The whole thing is silly… and terribly telling.
The “racism” charge(s), however continue to be the most hilarious thing I’ve seen since Hillary’s “plantation quote” brouhaha. Guess that’ll be a continuing GOP theme going into midterms as well.
Should be entertaining.
Jadegold wrote:
Then perhaps you can explain to us why when P & O went up for sale (that was last October, not just a couple of weeks ago), there were no American bidders.
At least at Tioga Marine Terminal, in the Port of Philadelphia, the port is owned by the state. Delaware River Stevedores (half owned by P & O) won the contract from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to manage Tioga. Apparently there were no wholly American companies that could compete with DRS’s bid.
dana,
Re your response to jade. Its not port management and this is not outsourcing – in the sense that it is in essence the renewal of an existing foreign contract.
The only diffreence is that the company is now owned by an UAE entity. The only difference.
Dugger
I guess we should kick the Saudis out while we’re on the whole racial/ethnic profiling thing, eh?
http://www.sweetness-light.com/archive/meet-the-national-shipping-company-of-saudi-arabia/
Bush Zombies:
Rendition: better safe than sorry
Torture: better safe than sorry
Invade Iraq: better safe than sorry
Illegal Wiretaps: better safe than sorry
Letting a gov’t with ties to Al Qaeda run some of our ports: who cares.
Nice job zombies.