This flap over the ports is pretty simple to understand.

[WilliamPitt]

Starting on September 12, 2001, Bush and his people have been screaming TERRA TERRA TERRA at every available opportunity. They have used fear, day in and day out, to get what they want. The #1 fear as been of "Arab terrorists." Racist? Sure. Effective? You tell me who owns congress, the courts and the White House, and you'll have your answer.

Well, now it has spun around on them.

Are there security issues regarding our ports being managed by the UAE? Perhaps, but no more or less than at the ports where China, Singapore, Japan, Taiwan and several European nations do this work here. Foreign countries have been knee-deep in our port management for years, and the UAE has some of the most extraordinary ports in the world. The deal makes sense...

...except for the fact that Bush and his people have been scaring the hell out of us for years about Arab terrorism and Mideast countries. I'm amazed they didn't see this coming, but they didn't.

The political meat of this issue isn't about racism. It isn't about security, or economics. It is about four and a half years of fear-mongering boomeranging on the fear peddlers.

That's it.

[MichiganVote]

1. Its all about the grand global oil shell game going on Will

There is nothing else to understand. Problem is, damn few of us understand it b/c damn few of us have the knowledge, information, power or resources that the elite have to understand it.

Oh to be invisible or a fly on the walls of a few places....

[formercia]

2. When you make a junkyard dog

and the beating doesn't stop. One day, the dog doesn't let you into the junkyard.

[Disturbed]

4. Not quite that simple.

The Dirty Little Secret Behind the UAE Port Security Scandal
by David Sirota

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0222-28.htm


Why we can't back out of the Ports Deal....US Navy Docking Rights in UAE


John Warner comments on CNN:
Warner was briefed yesterday by Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and Marine Corps Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The senator said he was satisfied that proper procedures were followed on the deal.

But he said he would withhold judgment on the deal's national security implications until after today's briefing. The United Arab Emirates provides docking rights for more U.S. Navy ships than any other nation in the region, Warner noted. He added: "If they say they have not been treated fairly in this, we run the risk of them pulling back some of that support at a critical time of the war."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2477148

[JuniperLea]

9. Right... how can they attack Iran effectively

without those UAE ports? Still, even with this tidbit, we don't know the whole story... on this, or anything that dumbass in the White House has done since the great coup of 2000.

[AntiFascist]

13. This would ultimately be a good thing...

PNAC's plans would probably come to an end, we would begin disengaging from defending our ME oil interests, and we would ultimately be forced to reverse our dependence on ME oil. Didn't the president recently state that this is what we need to do? I don't democracy spreading to Saudi Arabia or the UAE anytime soon, and Iraq is on the verge of civil war.

[radfringe]

58. in a nut shell...

[BurgherHoldtheLies]

3. What about putting cronyism and robber barons ahead of security?

What about the Snow/CSX/Carlyle connection? Isn't that a political issue?

[CJCRANE]

41. Exactly, it's about the CRONYISM and negligence.

It's an accident waiting to happen whenever Bushco cronies are involved in anything.

Surely 9/11 and Katrina were enough.

[JuniperLea]

5. Karma happens

I think you are right in this. Having grown up near Long Beach, CA, and known Longshoremen and Teamsters who work down there, and keeping abreast of the port news all my life, I know for a fact that what you say is true. My head knows this all too well. But my heart says... hell no! I've been conditioned even while resisting, that's just how good a job The Bush Regime has done here.


I hope this sinks Bush's ship and the barnacles eat her hull!

[Earth_First]

6. This deal makes absolutely NO sense.

Sorry Will, but I will have to respectfully disagree with you on this one. There should be no foreign country, let alone government (who recognizes Taliban operations) controlling the security operations of ANY United States infrastructure. Period. Personally, If I had known that this was going on for as long as it has apparently, I wouldn't have supported it then either. Democrat or Republican.

If this makes me a racist, well...

[JuniperLea]

14. It's been going on as long as I can remember...

Hanjin in Long Beach, CA for example. I can't remember a time when they didn't run part of that port. I never thought twice about it in my pre-9/11 mode. And I really never thought about it after that day until this deal came up. Japan's Toyota runs a huge operation down there too. All those companies hire a lot of good ol' American guys and gals... good union jobs.

[fishnfla]

7. Its knee-jerkism disease

double jointed

[cal04]

8. perfectly said.

911 every other sentence and war on terror
This is all about money, pretty sad They could care less about the security of our country

[proud2BlibKansan]

30. That's it exactly

They get our attention with their terra terra terra cry but their real motives are the almighty dollar. Now it is coming back to bite them in the ass.

[peacetalksforall]

10. I think the argument should be kept simple - if the major airports are

owned by U.S. cities, states, or counties - the ports should also be owned by the U.S. Any foreign ownership should be reversed because of 9-11 - to turn their argument back on them.

We need to start a movement to get them to declare all foreign contracts null and void - for real - or to make the argument. And to make it simple.

[peacetalksforall]

12. And if any foreign owner fight the reversal in court and it rises to the

Supreme Court - we will see the ultimate test - will the Supreme Court go with the admin or will they have to decide what a war is and whether we are in one?

[Atman]

48. Excellent point! Another good reason to continue to press the legal angle

This would cause for some potentially ugly shit to come out in court. BushCo would have to make some deals somewhere. More chances for them to screw up, but another chance for them to succeed as well. Hmmm.

[Strelnikov_]

63. Hear Hear!

And I have a real hard time crying tears over a company owned by an oil sheik. They are on probation, for their complicity with 'Al Queda' , as far as I am concerned. They may have cleaned up their act, so be it. Past actions do have consequences, lay down with dogs . . . all that.

Would someone expect to be approved for a job guarding a bank, if their past indicated connections with bank robbers? Denied, well, time to play the racism card (that should reel in some lefties), or the 'how good a job they can do' card.

[davekriss]

65. GWB would never nullify important commercial contracts...

...the contract is inviolate. He'd argue that he could never cancel contracts with foreign entities because he needs to maintain the host conutries' cooperation in the War on Terra. However, nullify a treaty or two, no problem! Even if he thereby alienates the entirety of the democratic world. It shows you where the power is. It resides in a thin sliver of super-wealthy individuals that stand behind the world's major corporations.

F*ck the institutions of We the people, or even the NGO's that advance humanitarean interests -- but annoy a commercial interest and Bush comes alive in his insistence that we need to restrain ourselves!

[CrownPrinceBandar]

11. Great minds, I guess.......

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=503876&mesg_id=504833

[hopeisaplace]

15. Yep, in an other time, this deal could have been done without a blink

but you're right, the fact that Bush has been pumping, terra terra terra,
fear fear fear for YEARS is blatant hypocrisy that will NEVER fly with
people. This times it's just too hypocritical. Yep karma's a bitch. Thank
goodness for karma.

edit: typo

[Junkdrawer]

16. Dear American Public: Remember how the USSR spent itself poor...

with military spending? Well, guess where the the biggest pools of uncommitted money are?

Let's put it this way, the only bidders for the port deal were from Dubai and Singapore. Are you getting the picture yet?

[Nikki Stone 1]

45. Dubai and Singapore?

Is everything being contracted out to feed the war machine?

[Pobeka]

17. I think this is about the 2006 elections. Give GOP reps a chance to

show they can be "independent" from Bush, by rejecting something so absurd even beer-can american can see through it.

The very last thing the Bush cabal wants is a congress with a majority of Dems, who might just impeach him, so they throw out this winger to allow the wacko GOP reps to convince the voters who are currently running away to come back.

[WilliamPitt]

19. This deal has been in the works since early 2004

I think you give them too much credit for being Machiavellian.

[Joe Fields]

18. This deal doesn't make sense....

On a grand scale of what we import, only a fraction comes from the middle east.

I don't recall China, Singapore, Japan or Taiwan harboring, funding or laundering the money of terrorists who are bent to destroy the United States.

And why does Bush claim to have only learned about this deal only a week or so ago, yet vehemently defends it, threatening the first useage of his veto pen? We know the answer to that one. He and his buddies have been working on this deal for a long time.

And who do you suppose this benefits, if it goes through, more than anyone else? You know the answer to that.

So when you say it makes sense, do you mean for him or for us?

[WilliamPitt]

20. Just because a Mideast company is running ports

doesn't mean they will be importing only Mideast goods.

Bush is defending it because this deal is hand-in-glove with our warships docking in the UAE. They allow more of our ships to dock than any other ME nation. If the UAE feels screwed by this, they may not allow us to dock there anymore...so Bush has to defend it. I don't doubt that he just heard of this; the deal was worked out by Treasure and a multi-department committee.

Who benefits? Thousands of Union dockworkers. The majority of employees in these places will be Americans. The Docks in California are not run by Americans in many instances, but thousands of Union Americans work there for good money.

It makes sense because the UAE runs damned good ports.

[Joe Fields]

21. Zoeller has been working on this for years.

I'd bet money Bush has known about it.

[WilliamPitt]

22. And that means...?

[Joe Fields]

23. It means two plus two equal four.

I don't buy into the business of Bush being out of the loop on everything. That is just too simplistic of a view. He may not know the nuts and bolts of the deal, but he had to know it was going down.

[Joe Fields]

24. Also, it is just too convenient of an excuse ....

to be able to distance himself from any fallout from this rotten deal.

Question: If the deal goes sour, and Dubai pitches a snit and won't allow us to use their ports anymore, does it mean we all get to go home?

[muriel_volestrangler]

32. Who's Zoeller? This is a deal between P&O and Dubai

which was accepted by the shareholders of P&O, after a few months of bids by Dubai and Singapore. The US government was just one of several governments that had the ability to stop the transaction in their country. The US section of the deal is about 6% of the total.

http://edition.cnn.com/2006/BUSINESS/02/21/port.europe/

[JuniperLea]

28. One other thing....

Yes, I've personally witnessed wonderfully run ports in the hands of China and Japan, etc. However, they play by the rules. They keep immaculate records... ON SITE! Or retrievable within 48 hours if archived files are kept off-site.


Look at the fine print, Will. The UAE doesn't want to adhere to any of the rules that everyone else has had to comply with. All of their resistance smacks of preemptive cover-up groundwork!

[Lithos]

56. Will

No, let's call this for what it is, another Halliburton-esque bout of cronyism. Bush did know about it, the people who brokered it, James Baker, John Snow, and of course the UAE royal family, are too close to him and the Bush family for him not to know. Remember that Carlyle bought another port company, CSX for $300 million in 2003, yet sold it to Dubai Ports for $1.12 billion a year later. Seems like this was more or less influence peddling on the part of Dubai Ports - that money paid for something. And given Baker's access, that bought access to and favoritism of the Bushes.

Obviously once again, this points out that there is no such thing as a war on terror. Bush doesn't care about National Security as an end result, it's just a means to an end, a straw-man to pull out to attack your political opponents. Obviously it goes by the wayside if it gets in the way of a good deal.

As for the UAE running some damned good ports, please consider.

What the UAE does well is serve as a freeport. And by that I mean they move a lot of cargo and money thru very efficiently. The only catch is that there is deliberately NO control or oversight of what gets moved. As such the UAE is home to one of the largest smuggling (material/sex trade/slaves) and money laundering operatons in the world. This is by choice not only by the UAE royal families, but also by the US government who even as late as 2004 exerted strong pressure to prevent any inclusion of language limiting or regulating money transfer (ie to prevent money laundering).

So in terms of what the US citizen would like practiced, the UAE does not run damned good ports in terms of security. Yes, they may be able to run large scale operations for physically moving the cargo, but they lack the ability and/or desire to provide effective oversight of what gets shipped. Ten years ago they did not have a customs agency that could monitor and control the traffic nor could they effectively monitor and control shipments into and out of their ports including the shipping of nuclear embargoed items to Iran.

This has NOT improved significantly.

- The UAE was the leading country where transfer companies brokered and shipped oil from Iraq and allowed for illegal goods to be brought into Iraq. The ISG listed 20 UAE firms as being involved.
- Centrifuge equipment and electrical equipment bought by associates of A.Q. Khan were intercepted by the US Navy. They had already passed thru Dubai and were on their final leg of transit to Libya (2003)
- Similar issues have resulted in recent shipments of material to both Iran and N. Korea.
- Dubai is one of the major heroin trans-shipment points in the world.
- Dubai is a major end point and trans-shipment point of people kidnapped for the sex-trade industry.

Financially Dubai is one of the centers of illegal activity. Read up on BCCI for starters. Because there are currently NO regulations concerning money laundering, the UAE it has become a favorite place for illicit money to pass thru. Not only has this been utilized by drug smugglers, terrorists (guess who brokered the finances of 9/11 terrorists?), but also appears to now be used by the likes of those in post-Saddam Iraq to launder some of that lost 9 billion dollars.

So yeah, they run a pretty good freeport. And this is the same country Bush wants to open up a free trade zone with. I can't wait to see some of the corporate shennanigans that will be allowed to happen as a result. Probably will make Enron appear like a great corporate citizen. But it's not about the UAE itself, but rather the royal family and the people who they do business with as they are the cause and sustenance of this business culture. Nothing goes on there that isn't tolerated at some official level. It is this which is bothersome.

Add to this the thought that why do we need an increased or long term extension of the current level of naval capabilities in the Gulf area. We already have ports and facilities in Aden, Bahrain, and Diego Garcia - and yet we need more capacity than there was during Gulf Storm? There is only 1 country in the area where that kind of naval force could be focused, Iran. Is that part of the deal?

And while it is nice to think this as a gain for US dockworkers, at best there will only be a continuation of the existing pool. Even so, there are still concerns that O&P will bring in non-Americans to work. The Australian union had an issue in 1997 concerning the attempt by Dubai Ports to bring in strike-breakers to break up the union there. Here, only the NY Harbor Waterfront commission will protect the workers of NY/NJ by their requirment for security checks that are difficult for outside workers to get. Other ports do not have this protection and thus are more vulnerable to loss of work by US union dockworkers. Is this a good deal?

So yes, I realize they are "keeping" US management and ostensibly the workers and protocols, but nothing is in place which will guarantee this for any length of time. Do you trust the Bush administration not to turn the other way when they've done so for other friends of the family (Halliburton, etc.)? I just feel insecure that money is going to win out over the bigger issues of National Security. This feeling is further supported given how the money and quid-pro-quo deals (US Arms sales, free trade - Carlyle again, basing rights, etc.), the out and out coverups and fabrications coming out of the White House, the overall secrecy, and the players involved. I just do not trust what is going on - This deal stinks to high heaven.

[Wordie]

61. Some of the info you presented is quite out of date, Lithos.

9/11 changed everything, for the UAE, too. They have passed stringent anti-terrorism and anti-money laundering laws. We should not condemn them for lax laws prior to 9/11, imho, when our own laws were lax as well.

Here is up-to-date information from our own Department of State:

US Department of State
Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing in the Middle East and South Asia

E. Anthony Wayne, Assistant Secretary for Economic and Business Affairs
Testimony before the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs
Washington, DC
July 13, 2005

...To ensure that these new laws and regulations are effective, the United States has worked very closely with the Financial Action Task Force (FATF), a multinational organization whose 33 members are devoted to combating money laundering. In 2003, FATF revised its 40 Recommendations to combat money laundering to include terrorist financing provisions. These Recommendations along with the complementary Special Recommendations on Terrorist Financing, adopted in 2001, provide a framework for countries to establish a comprehensive regime to fight money laundering and terrorist financing. The two guiding principles the FATF has identified as critical to fighting terrorist finance are cooperation with the UN (respecting, ratifying and implementing anti-terrorist treaties and resolutions) and identifying, defining and criminalizing terrorist financial activity.

...The FATF-Style Regional Bodies (FSRBS) worked throughout the year to adapt the Recommendations to their particular regional requirements. The FATF approved two new FSRBS in 2004, (bringing the total to eight FSRBS): the Eurasian Group (EAG) and the Middle East and North African Financial Action Task Force (MENA FATF). These two new groups filled in critical gaps in global coverage, and the U.S. is an observer in both. The EAG was inaugurated on October 6, 2004 by six member states: Belarus, China, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyz Republic, Russia and Tajikistan. Seven jurisdictions and nine international organizations were admitted as observers. EAG’s second plenary was held just this past April in Shanghai, China. The fourteen founding members of MENA FATF are Algeria, Bahrain, Egypt, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Morocco, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Tunisia, the UAE, and Yemen. (emphasis mine) The group was inaugurated on November 29, 2004, and held its inaugural plenary meeting the next day. Another plenary session was held in mid-April in Bahrain at which the MENA FATF agreed to begin the first round of mutual evaluations in 2006.

...The UAE aggressively enforces anti-money laundering regulations and in 2004 enacted legislation criminalizing terror finance. In April, the UAE hosted the third international conference where ways to prevent use of the hawala (informal money transfer) system by terrorist financiers was discussed. We sent U.S. delegates and a speaker to this conference, and over 400 participants from 74 different countries attended. Conference attendees included representatives from financial institutions, Central Banks, law enforcement agencies, FATF, the IMF, and the World Bank, as well as other international officials involved in regulating money transfer systems. The government registers hawala dealers.

http://www.state.gov/e/eb/rls/rm/2005/49564.htm

In 2004, the UAE strengthened its legal authority to combat terrorism and terrorist financing by passing Federal Law Number 1 of 2004 on Combating Terror Crimes on July 29, 2004. (Law No. 1/2004). Law No. 1/2004 specifically criminalizes the funding of terrorist activities or terrorist organizations. Law No. 1/2004 provides for asset seizure and confiscation.

http://www.state.gov/e/eb/ifd/2005/42194.htm

As for some of the other things you presented, I would appreciate some links. There is just so much misinformation being circulated. I have found you to be fastidious about sources, Lithos, but I'd like to have the chance to read the info for myself.

[omega minimo]

25. + Thom Hartmann's "Larger Issue": The Corporatization of the United States

:thumbsdown:

[sandnsea]

26. In part, but more importantly

It's about the reality fo globalization smack in the face of every American. Sure there's international commerce, etc., but full operation of our ports is another matter. After going through the outsourcing of the 70's and 80's, then seeming to rebound; only to watch it all slip away again, and now OUR PORTS???? To a country that is known to fuel anti-Americanism as much as Saudi Arabia or almost any other ME country? The boomerang is ironic and hysterical and serves them right, but it really isn't the most imortant issue.

This is in-your-face global domination of the corporate BFEE. This goes through, and the reality of our country being sold and gone will really start to settle in. I don't know where that will take us.

[EFerrari]

27. Exactly. Let them reap the wind. n/t

[proud2BlibKansan]

29. I think it is proof of how out of touch they are

with their base. They have been out of touch with us on 'the other side' all along but now their base understands that this administration doesn't consider the best interests of anyone other than themselves when negotiating deals like this.

There have been so many good things (well bad for the prez) that have come from this. The entire country now knows:
1. el pretzeldente didn't know about this deal until Monday
2. The commerce secretary didn't know
3. Apparently no cabinet member knew until the media went wild with it this week
4. There is a HUGE disconnect between dubya and his own staff, not to mention the entire country
5. His priorities are focused on what is best for HIM, not for us little people
6. He has pissed off the Republican leadership in DC

I am so enjoying this. Feels good to laugh at the man for a change instead of being so furious that my blood pressure goes up. Between this and Cheney's hunting incident, it has been a downright enjoyable 10 days.

:popcorn:

[spag68]

36. ports

I know no one is there but I have ideas and have to get them out. Either take a cue fron ceasar chavez and nationalise the ports or get bill gates to buy them. If the UAE wants this deal so bad there must be money to be made

[Blue_Roses]

38. It's payback for the UAE

http://www.halliburton.com/news/archive/2003/hesnws_010903.jsp?printMe

things are NEVER as they appear. I say follow Cheney in this one...but then, who can follow Cheney anywhere? For a man with a heart problem he sure can duck and hide.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

31. Well said. Politicians are fond of erecting false bogeymen.

The "Red Scare" redux with IslamoFascists, "Arab militants", "terrorists", taking the place of "The Communist Menace".

[Pachamama]

33. It's a crazy thought, but wouldn't this be a great way to bring the great

crops of Afghanistan to our country?

:shrug:

[bonito]

34. KICK !

[bleever]

35. I think they're truly painted into a corner.

I don't think they can reverse this fiasco. The notion that sending out Gonzales and Rice and Rove to spread the message that once everyone is fully informed they'll feel okay about this is just them trying by force of will to make it possible for them to tiptoe across all the wet paint and not leave footprints.

They're going to have to eat this one, either by reversing policy, or paying the political price of losing all the "terra-fied" people who will never feel good about this.



Rec'd.

[JCMach1]

37. I agree on your substance, but the left and the right

are framing the issue in a racist manner (which I think is what you are saying)...


:applause:

[muriel_volestrangler]

39. This is pretty much Paul Krugman's view

The storm of protest over the planned takeover of some U.S. port operations by Dubai Ports World doesn't make sense viewed in isolation. The Bush administration clearly made no serious effort to ensure that the deal didn't endanger national security. But that's nothing new — the administration has spent the past four and a half years refusing to do anything serious about protecting the nation's ports.

So why did this latest case of sloppiness and indifference finally catch the public's attention? Because this time the administration has become a victim of its own campaign of fearmongering and insinuation.
...
The administration successfully linked Iraq and 9/11 in public perceptions through a campaign of constant insinuation and occasional outright lies. In the process, it also created a state of mind in which all Arabs were lumped together in the camp of evildoers. Osama, Saddam — what's the difference?

Now comes the ports deal. Mr. Bush assures us that "people don't need to worry about security." But after all those declarations that we're engaged in a global war on terrorism, after all the terror alerts declared whenever the national political debate seemed to be shifting to questions of cronyism, corruption and incompetence, the administration can't suddenly change its theme song to "Don't Worry, Be Happy."

http://select.nytimes.com/2006/02/24/opinion/24krugman.html&OQ=_rQ3D1Q26hp&OP=28de4e11Q2FVu6SV-spQ60Q60-VQ22XXcVXQ22VQ22eVQ600UQ5DUQ60Q5DVQ22efpAZi3Q5DQ27Q2B-iQ3A">Times Select link

non subscription blog

[alarimer]

40. Except that this is a GOVERNMENT owned company

None of the others are/were and the UAE is a government that has soem ties to terrorism but they also condone human traffic (have you seen the reports on camel jockeys-horrendous). They should not be rewarded. And it is also Bush cronyism at the heart.

[bigtree]

42. then there's their response to the outcry . . .

[lonestarnot]

43. Simple: heh heh heh :shouldershrug:

[rucky]

44. Of course it's about security.

In 2004, the GAO releases a report about port security, concluding that it is extremely vulnerable to breaches.

In the Presidential debates, John Kerry mentions port security the biggest security risks to the US that must be dealt with.

You don't hear anything new about port security, until this deal, where the White House decides to hand over the ports to a country whose port is infamous for smuggling of drugs, weapons and possibly humans.

Plus, the government has historically been sympathetic to the Taliban, and Al-Queda - and has not cooperated in our efforts to "follow the money" which is probably the most effective (and peaceful) way to fight terrorism.

On it's face, any one of these points is a dealbreaker, so there's no point in conceding the security issue, just because Rush Limbaugh called us racist.

[mdmc]

46. The white house has been using terra, fear, of "terraist"

but they have failed to remind the USA that not all arabs are "terraist". I still think that this is racism...fear of a race (due top 9-11 and propaganda).

[mtnester]

47. Listen here Amurikans..these here crocodiles, they are dangerous I tell ya

ALL of them. And this gets repeated to you every damn day for 4.5 years, multiple times a day.

Now suddenly...


Listen here Amurikans, not ALL crocodiles are dangerous...these ones here are OK, cause we said so.


How in the WORLD can we overcome our Brave New World Conditioning and narco-hypnosis? They forgot to consider that didn't they?

[Beetwasher]

49. They Fostered The Cognitive Dissonance, Now They Have To Deal W/ It

Coming back and biting them in the ass.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x499068

[DinahMoeHum]

50. Bush & Co. made their fear-mongering bed - now they can sleep in it.

You reap what you sow.

:evilgrin:

[RazzleDazzle]

51. Nah, it's about security too.

[Wordie]

52. I wish I had more than one recommendation to give this great post!

Excellent observation, Will Pitt. Thanks.

Recommended (only one).

[LSK]

53. yep, thats about the gist of it.

And its enough to get freepers heads exploding! :rofl:

[The Straight Story]

54. So - is terrorism a worry for you if the deal is done? (nt)

[mike_c]

55. bingo....

Absolutely correct-- and everyone who's piling on this issue is being an exceptionally good german. Goering would be proud.

"...the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger." --Herman Goering

[pauldp]

57. I've got two names for you Will. Al Qaeda and Bin Laden.

Not just any Arabs, our arch nemesis is connected to this country.

I think you are right for the most part but I think
it is about security as well. At least it sure seems like an issue that
needs to be addressed now.

It's a beautiful picture though, Clinton unable to strike Bin Laden because he
was with UAE royals at a hunting retreat. AFTER the East Africa bombings.

Joe Six Pack's head is exploding.

[obxhead]

59. well said WP.... nt

[Wordie]

60. BIG kick! (And I'd like to encourage more recommendations, too.)

[DoYouEverWonder]

62. It's the hypocrisy

When BushCo refuses to recognize Hamas has the legitimately elected representatives of the Palestinians, and we are hell bent on destroying Iran because they won't recognize Israel, but the UAE who supports Hamas, the Taliban and refuses to recognize Israel is okay?

[Wordie]

64. UAE has made recognition contingent on an end to the Israeli occupation.

The UAE "is fully committed to the Arab peace initiative announced at the Beirut and Algiers summits (in 2002 and March this year) which links any normalisation of ties with Israel with recognition of the Palestinian people's legitimate rights, including their right to the establishment of an independent state with holy Jerusalem as its capital", the source said.

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/184FCB4A-39BD-4A0A-B38B-81FCFBD951BE.htm

This does not sound unreasonable.

And to say that the UAE supports the Taliban is misleading. Their support came at a time when the Soviets had been finally driven out of Afganistan. It was prior to 9/11. Immediately after the 9/11 attacks, the UAE withdrew its recognition of the Taliban. This article is from September 21, 2001:

UAE withdraws recognition of the Taliban

(CNN) -- The United Arab Emirates has cut diplomatic ties with Afghanistan, reducing support for the hard-line Taliban rulers.

...The official Emirates News Agency on Saturday quoted an unidentified foreign ministry official as saying that the UAE has tried to convince the Taliban in recent days to hand over suspected terrorist Osama bin Laden.

The official said that the cuts to relations would take effect immediately.

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/21/gen.america.under.attack/

And here's a recent report that goes into a little more detail about the reasons for the earlier recognition:

UAE Taliban recognition likely pragmatic

By TAREK AL-ISSAWI
ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER

DUBAI, United Arab Emirates --
...The recognition came in part because of a request from Pakistan, the Taliban's main sponsor, one analyst said. The Emirates also wanted to see a stable Sunni Muslim government in Afghanistan to balance mainly Shiite Iran, a top rival of Arab Gulf nations.

...He said the recognition also was aimed at putting an end to a civil war that ravaged Afghanistan following the withdrawal of Soviet troops in 1989, and that the Taliban appeared to be in the best position to control the country.

...Abdulla said the UAE recognition likely would not have happened without at least tacit approval from the United States, which had worked closely with Pakistan and Afghan fighters against the Soviet occupation.

"Islamabad and Washington have been close allies, and the United States at the time saw the Taliban as the group that could control Afghanistan and stop the fighting," he said.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1107AP_Emirates_Taliban.html