Are neocons behind the outcry against the UAE ports deal? Answers here:

[Wordie]

This article may expose some of the impetus behind the outcry over the ports deal. (Things are not always what they seem.) Apparently, some leading neocons are deeply opposed to the deal.

DP World Invests in the US
"As I’ve had occasion to note over the past few years, Dubai is home to billions of mullahdollars, and the black market through which all manner of illegal arms shipments and money-being-laundered have passed." Michael Ledeen, AEI

"Critics claim that the UAE recognized the Taliban, and al Qaeda used it in 9/11 preparations. " Peter Brookes Heritage Foundation

"From the very beginning in the 1970s, the UAE has been a key source of financial support for Saudi-controlled organizations like the Islamic Solidarity Fund, the Islamic Development Bank (IDB)" Alex Alexiev, CSP

Among Neoconservatives, the debate is no longer whether to scuttle the sale, it's whether disinformation or bigotry will do the best job. Oddly enough, DP World's record of investing in underdeveloped ports from Yemen to Romania has played a vital role in kick-starting moribund economies with desperately needed foreign direct investment. Neocons should hail DP World's role as an example of how to fight terrorism, conflict and desperation through economic development. Instead, pundits from Michael Ledeen to Alex Alexiev have reached into the mud and begun flinging with both hands...

The article then goes on to make the following points, among others:

DP World is working with the US to increase port security. For instance, it has formed a partnership with the US to ensure that the Port of Aden (site of the terrorist attack on the USS Cole), becomes the most secure port in the region.

The UAE was the first Arab country to join the Container Security Initiative of the US Customs and Border Protection (CBP). The program places CBP officers at UAE ports to identify and pre-screen cargo headed for the US.

What are Neocons After?

Neoconservatives are incensed at DP World's move into the US market. Increasing US-Arab trade, slated to grow 27% this year, runs against the vision of turning the region into a "seething cauldron" in the name of a "war on terror".

"One can only hope that we turn the region into a cauldron, and faster, please. If ever there were a region that richly deserved being cauldronized, it is the Middle East today. If we wage the war effectively, we will bring down the terror regimes in Iraq, Iran, and Syria, and either bring down the Saudi monarchy or force it to abandon its global assembly line to indoctrinate young terrorists. That's our mission in the war against terror." Michael Ledeen

Unfortunately for Leedeen the other singers in the Neocon chorus, DP World offers the region, and the US, an engine of economic and trade growth that simply must be harnessed. No amount of bigotry and fear should be allowed to overturn the U.S. Committee on Foreign Investments well-considered acceptance of DP World.

http://www.irmep.org/dp_world.htm

Personally, I'm still uncertain about the deal. Some of the arguments I've heard on both sides do not persuade me. But it does seem that we need the time to obtain more info in order to fully evaluate the deal. It is in that spirit that I have posted this article.

(Mods please note: this post may appear at first glance to violate the four paragraph rule. However, if you will note, there are only four paragraphs of opinion posted from the article, the rest is comprised of direct quotes, to which copyright concerns would not apply. Thanks. -Wordie)

[havocmom]

1. Also concerned with what is going on under the radar during this ruckus

Big dog & pony shows usually mean something even worse is going on with these guys.

[Wordie]

3. Yeah, that's what's got me worried, too. I think there's a lot we don't

know, even yet. :(

[IsItJustMe]

5. I believe the ideals represent in the article posted to be hog wash.

It seems to me this article is making the Administrations argument for them. Sophisticated lobbying (no more, no less).

Anyone who believes that this administration is going to straighten out the middle east through trade seems to be living in an altered state of reality.

Look at what is happening in Iraq? And you think trade is going to solve these problems. To me, this is Neocon thinking. Just like the idea that America is going to establish Democracies everywhere.

To me, this type of thinking is exactly why this country finds itself in this situation. Just say NO. The minute you start buying into these theoretical structures, the Repukes have won in the most subtle way.

More diversions, pure and simple.

[Wordie]

14. Welcome to DU, IsItJustMe!

:hi:

The thing is, just as I think that the neocon opposition to the deal doesn't automatically make it good, so I believe that the administration's support of it doesn't automatically make it bad.

And when you refer to "sophisticated lobbying", I'm not certain why you overlook that on the neocon side, as it was presented in the article pretty clearly. Although the article does talk about trade, I didn't see any claim that it was the thing that would "straighten out the middle east." Rather, I saw evidence of how the UAE company was cooperating with US efforts to combat terrorism.

And the comparison to Iraq wasn't a particularly good one. The circumstances are so different that Iraq hardly can provide us any clue as to the advantages or disadvantages of this deal.

The article presents info on how some notorious neocon Repukes are opposed to the deal. So won't those Repukes have won if the deal is nixed?

This is a highly complex issue and there has been a tremendous amount of misinformation and attempts to inflame presented about it. It appears to me that we need more info (and I mean accurate, unbiased info) before we can know what's the best thing for the US.

[IsItJustMe]

16. I will agree with you on this one point. Be prepared for misinformation.

The lobbying firms on K street are working over time, right now, on this issue. The Administration staff is working overtime, right now, on this issue.

And if the past is a good guide of what will happen in the future, and I think it is, most of us will believe that this is a great thing for america, by the time it is all said and done.

Why? Because the Pres. wants this bad and the American people will be sold a bill of goods from every direction, by crook or chase.

You see, critical thinking on this issue is a must. And I think that the given situation should be thought through very seriously. It is that important.

I also agree that it complex and is not as simple as racism, or anti-arabic, or some of the other silly explanations that I have heard.

Of course, your going to have idiots out there saying stupid things; however, that does not define the issue. You must see the forest from the trees.

For me though, the issue is truly security and the best for our country. And on the face of it, there are serious issues having any foreign country own our ports, regardless of who owns them now or past procedure.

This should be a honest discussion in this country of where we are going and how we are going to get there.

[Wordie]

17. I agree, in part, with what you've said too.

The lobbying firms on K street are working over time, right now, on this issue. The Administration staff is working overtime, right now, on this issue.
It is really important for us to really understand the facts concerning this deal, no matter who is lobbying for what.

You see, critical thinking on this issue is a must. And I think that the given situation should be thought through very seriously. It is that important.

For me though, the issue is truly security and the best for our country. And on the face of it, there are serious issues having any foreign country own our ports, regardless of who owns them now or past procedure.

I agree with your point about critical thinking too, and so offer this link to another thread, that points out that the deal is not for "ownership" at all; it doesn't involve security; and there will be no effect on US jobs or unions: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x493956
It seems to me to be crucially important that we understand the actual facts of the deal - its details and scope - before making judgements about it. And we need to do that also, in terms of understanding what the UAE is really all about. There's a lot of emotional misinformation floating around out there.

I also agree that it complex and is not as simple as racism, or anti-arabic, or some of the other silly explanations that I have heard.

I would completely agree that it's not as simple as racism or anti-arabism, but do point out that that very clearly is what is driving some of the opposition. That doesn't in any way mean that all opposition is automatically racist or anti-arabist, but I have noticed that some who clearly are Islamophobic, for instance, are milking the general concerns over this deal for all they're worth. Michael Ledeen is a good example. We need to carefully analyze the info we receive for possible biases, and take a sceptical approach to much of it.

This should be a honest discussion in this country of where we are going and how we are going to get there.

And that, I agree wholeheartedly with. Although I've come out strongly against a rush to judgement against the UAE, I still am not certain of where I stand on this deal itself. The reason, I think, is that so much more factual information and reasoned discussion seems to be required before I can truly understand all the ramifications of the deal.

[IsItJustMe]

19. Liberal or Conservative, I don't know, but my leanings on this issue

are fairly simple.

Globalization is not intrinsically good for this country

and

As a country, we are better served for future existence if we keep as many jobs and as much of our infrastructure as possible in America.

Of course there are always exceptions; but I honestly believe that if we stick to these two guiding principals we will be doing ourselves justice in the long run.

And yes, NAFTA was a horrible ideal.

[Wordie]

30. Well...

As a country, we are better served for future existence if we keep as many jobs and as much of our infrastructure as possible in America.

In fact, this contract isn't going to affect jobs at all, from what I've read. The union workers that work for the British company will all retain their jobs when the UAE company buys it, and the union will stay too.

And it turns out this deal doesn't transfer ownership of the port at all. It's more like a lease, as I understand it.

There is an interesting article debunking some of the myths about this deal. I posted a link to it in reply #26, downthread.

[cantstandbush]

2. Anything that favors or puts Arabs in favorable light the neocons hate.

This deal may be a case of some being caught in their own petard. The neocons will surely use the fear and anti-Muslim card to their advantage on this issue. It's just that perception and neocon agenda matches us here AND...here is the BIG AND: The neocons have to be pissed that the Bush administration has handled this issue so poorly that it is calling into question ALL of the administration's actions in the ME with once rabbit supporters and threatens to blow the PNAC agenda big time.

[Catrina]

35. You put that very well ~ thank you. Michael Ledeen is a certified lunatic

imo. His hatred for all Arabs knows no bounds so his opinion, while here seems to coincide with those who oppose the deal, really means nothing ~

As far as the rest of the article, neocons were on the CFIUS. Rumsfeld signed the PNAC, as he did the approval for this deal, although he claims he signed it without reading it.

Ledeen's policies coincided with the Bush administration's for a while, but most people wondered once they all got to Iraq, the different factions, so united before the invasion, having a common goal, what would happen when their individual goals would clash with each other. I think that's what is now happening. Ledeen helped get them there, with his lies and fixed evidence, along with Feith, Larry Franklin and others.

Now, however, Ledeen's focused agenda may not be broad enough for the globalists and oil barons ~ they are ALL bad, bad for this country and bad for the world. For a while they were united, now the predictable has happened ~ they are going their different ways, none of which will benefit anyone but themselves ~

So, imo, I remain very much against this ~ for many reasons not the least of which is the way they went about it, in secret ~ until it was, they thought, a 'done deal'.

While Ledeen and the other neocons who oppose this were used by the real 'masters of the universe', he and they are probably expendable now. It couldn't happen to a nicer bunch, imo. But that in no way diminishes the fact that Condy, Chertoff, (and the other members of the CFIUS, Gonzalez et al and the Bushes, Cheney, Bolton, Wolfowitz, The Carlyle Group, Halliburton et al, are the ones we really need to worry about ~ Ledeen was just a stooge, imo, if a willing one.

This country's national security, jobs etc should not be for sale ~ not to the British, the French, or anyone else.

If there is a threat to this country from terrorists, a president who really cared about the country would not have dispersed the troops to forever wars in the ME. He would have kept them here to protect and guard this country. He would have secured the borders and the ports and would never have removed the civil liberties of US citizens, or approved of torture or the invasion of a country that had nothing to do with that threat.

While I despise Ledeen, and instinctively feel compelled to oppose anything he says, in this case, I think he is irrelevant and may be a distraction from those we really need to be worried about ~

[laststeamtrain]

4. It's a hard 'read'. There's lots of things I can't quite figure out, but..

..that's usual...

Neo-Con Superhawk Earns His Wings on Port Flap

Jim Lobe

WASHINGTON, Feb 23 (IPS) - The founder and president of the Washington-based Centre for Security Policy (CSP), a small think tank funded mainly by U.S. defence contractors, far-right foundations, and right-wing Zionists, Gaffney was among the first to seize on the government's approval of a Dubai company to manage terminals at six major U.S. ports and helped blow it up into a major embarrassment to Pres. George W. Bush.
<snip>

http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=32275

[Marie26]

50. It's almost reminicient of the

right-wing paper that published the Muslim cartoons that inflamed anti-Western and anti-Arab sentiment. It seems like they're stirring the pot.

[no name no slogan]

6. I tend to agree. This was not a problem when UK companies ran the port op

This whole port thing is a distraction for other shit that's flying beneath the radar. Once again, the press gets distracted by a fairly standard bidness transaction, while South Dakota all but outlaws abortion, a Shi'a shrine gets blown up in Iraq, the economy festers anemically along, and US support around the globe continues its downward slide.

Pay no mind to the man behind the curtain.

[IsItJustMe]

10. Please note, big difference between UK company and UAE country.

[no name no slogan]

15. Dubai does NOT operate the company-- they only provided seed $$

UAE/Dubai have NOTHING to do with the day-to-day operations of the company, which is headed by a UK national, IIRC. In fact, the UAE is very hands-off with it. The only thing they provided was the seed money to start the operation.

The UAE owns this company as much as the federal government owns NPR.

[IsItJustMe]

18. That may be so, but think about this.

Things change rapidly among countries and international arrangements.

One day large companies own the oil rights in Venezuela and the next day it is taken over by the state. We are living in a world of constant flux and a friend one day will be our enemy the next.

Case and point: Saddam was our friend back in the early eighties.

Would it not be common sense for the US to own its own ports? Would that not produce the most secure situation for our countries survival in the long term?

A countries Infrastructure is everything.

[no name no slogan]

24. The US still owns the ports-- NOT Dubai

The ports are still on US soil. The company may be based in Dubai, but most of the employees will be Americans. The only thing that's different is where the company is officially "headquartered". In fact, the only thing that's changing is the ownership of the company-- NOTHING else is changing. Why would Americans want to deliberately harm other Americans through terrorism? A change on the name on the letterhead will not stop terrorists from attacking us.

BTW, some big "American" companies are not even based in the US anymore. Many of them have fled to Bermuda and the Cayman Islands for tax reasons. They also have sizable overseas operations, which produce more of their profits than their US operations do. Not to mention the sizable number of foreign companies that have operations in the US as well. It has ALWAYS been this way, only it's more pronounced in these days of economic insecurity and jingoism.

This is a non-issue that distracts us from the REAL issues at hand, and gives the neoCons an excuse to distract us from those issues: Iraq, Afghanistan, the Supreme Court, the ongoing Katrina fallout, the soaring deficit and widening gap between the rich and poor.

As usual, the Democrats have 50 issues to pound Dubya on, and they choose the weakest one.

[chalky]

39. You're right. The federal goverment doesn't own NPR. Or the MSM.

And we see how little influence it has on either. :sarcasm:

[Skidmore]

7. The neocons may have some perverted reason to capitalize on

the groundswell around this deal. I do think that this is a grassroots issue. Americans are tired of a number of issues that this deal illustrates.

First, they have been sold terror out the wazoo for five years now and watched every commonsense way of shoring up national security be shunned by this administration and congress.

Secondly, they have watched jobs and infrastruture being sold overseas and their jobs go by the wayside while being sold the bill of goods that the economy is roaring right along.

Thirdly, they are tired of not being consulted and being excluded from major decision making processes that affect the citizen very directly.

I think this is something the neocons did not instigate but are more than happy to find a way to make work for whatever twisted subplot they are working on now.

[karynnj]

8. It's not just the neo-cons who raise questions about the UAE

Somethings are facts; they were one of 3 countries to recognize the taliban and they have a financial system and port used by terrorists. Even in the days when Kerry was investigating the Pakistan based BCCI, they were involved.

As to their being an engine of growth, that is usually true of any successful country. During WWII would we have put a fascist Italian state owned company in charge of our railways - he made the trains run on time.

There are likely two parts to the questions to be answered:
Should critical infrastructure be owned by private companies, if so, should they be American only? It would be an unusual step in America to have something go from private to government, but we may have gone to far in privatization. Is their a way to use imminent domain here?

[Wordie]

12. This is a highly complex issue...

And I certainly don't mean to imply that because neocons like Ledeen oppose the deal that makes it automatically a good one.

But on the other hand, I'm not certain if a couple of the arguments you present are on target, either.

Somethings are facts; they were one of 3 countries to recognize the taliban and they have a financial system and port used by terrorists. Even in the days when Kerry was investigating the Pakistan based BCCI, they were involved.

When I read things like that I feel uncomfortable, because they seem somewhat out of context facts that are being presented. While the UAE did recognize the Taliban, that was before 9/11. Since 9/11, their record has really been pretty good in supporting efforts against terrorism. I read somewhere that they had even instituted new laws, outlawing ties to terror, and money laundering.

UAE renews commitment to combat all forms of crimes
posted on 20/04/2005
The UAE yesterday reiterated its commitment to combating all forms of crimes and pledged to fully implement relevant international conventions. Addressing the 11th Conference of the United Nations for Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice, Abdul Rahim Yousif Al Awadi , Undersecretary of the Ministry of Justice, Islamic Affairs , said that the UAE had gone a long way in implementing international conventions to which it is a signatory.

"The UAE has issued stringent legislation criminalizing money laundering, terrorism, cyber crimes and all forms of other crimes,” said Al Awadi. He pointed out that the UAE has set an example worth emulating in combating cyber crimes, noting that the UAE cabinet recently passed the cyber crimes law and will be issued soon.

"This law complements the anti-money laundry law issued earlier,” he said. Al Awadi told the conference that the UAE made several initiatives to beef up anti-terror measures, particularly in the area of terror financing by organizing three conferences on alternative transfer system or Hawala. (The Emirates News Agency, WAM)

http://www.uaeinteract.com/news/default.asp?ID=220

Now, that excerpt is off the UAE website. I don't know enough yet to understand how rigourous the laws really are, nor anything about the enforcement effort. It does seem to me that inflammatory information about actions taken back before 9/11 should be viewed with a grain of salt, and things from the 70s, perhaps even more so. For me, 9/11 was a huge turning point; it appears it may have been for the UAE as well.

I'm just urging a little caution, until we are really certain we have a clear enough picture of what's going on.

That said, your idea about nationalizing ports also resonates with me. I just don't really know enough about actual port operations, to understand what the deal actually does (I do know there's been a lot of misinformation about it - it's not for port security, and US jobs would not be lost).

As I said, just because neocons like Ledeen are opposing it, doesn't make the deal a good one. But it sure ought to raise a very big red flag, imho.

[karynnj]

23. You may be right

However, the fact is it should very seriously be looked at. As I mentioned Kerry's work in the 1990s, I realize they could have changed. If you look at Kerry's letter to Snow, in fact, he is simply insisting on transperancy and checking things out very carefully - and criticizing all the cronies who didn't recluse themselves from the approval process though they had close ties. It probably would be better to follow his example. If after a comprehensive evaluation it was shown that this company and the country itself present no problem, this should be approved - unless we want a new law that these places should be publicly run. In which case the company should be made whole on their expenses.

[Wordie]

28. That's a wise analysis, karynnj. There's a lot we don't know even yet, imo

And it's important to remember that the UAE company responded to a bid request from our government; it followed our rules. Whatever is eventually determined about this deal, it's important to remember that they were acting in good faith, and did nothing wrong in bidding for the contract.

I haven't read anything yet about his specific comments, but from what you say, I think Kerry's approach - to demand transparency and check everything out carefully - is very level-headed.

Once we are confident we really understand all the details and ramifications, then a decision can be made as to whether this is a good deal.

[karynnj]

33. Thanks for the kind words Here's the link to what he wrote

I hope I didn't mischarachterize it.

http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Kerry_demands_disclosure_of_contacts_with_0222.html

Here's a link to a kerry group thread with an interview he gave this morning - in Colorado where he's helping smome 2006 candidates.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=273x72858

What you wrote did make me understand Kerry's comments better - he attacks what is known and demands transparancy - rather than attacking before all is known.

[chalky]

40. I agree. And would even go so far as to say if we'd had transparency

from the start and all the tools to make a reasoned opinion on the deal, the knee jerk reactions from both the pro and con sides could have been avoided.

When forced to make a decision without the proper data, the only thing everyone has to fall back on is their prejudices, no matter what side of the aisle they're from.

[global1]

9. Think About This - If Like You Indicated In Your Post........

"Neoconservatives are incensed at DP World's move into the US market. Increasing US-Arab trade, slated to grow 27% this year, runs against the vision of turning the region into a "seething cauldron" in the name of a "war on terror".

"One can only hope that we turn the region into a cauldron, and faster, please. If ever there were a region that richly deserved being cauldronized, it is the Middle East today. If we wage the war effectively, we will bring down the terror regimes in Iraq, Iran, and Syria, and either bring down the Saudi monarchy or force it to abandon its global assembly line to indoctrinate young terrorists. That's our mission in the war against terror."

Now - if this deal is reversed and it looks like the U.S. is dumping on the Arab world - discriminating and racist. Do you think that this would add fuel to the fire and cause the Arabs to seethe more in that cauldron that * has created?

Also - if the deal is reversed and we don't allow this to go through - the fact that * has forcefully said that he would veto any legislation - even if the veto is voted down - it gets * off the hook - but still achieves the same end of fueling the cauldron.

This seems masterful to me - they really can have it both ways. If this is what's happening - these guys are really sinister.

[bloom]

11. That is interesting

That does seem to go along with the arguments that most of the neocons have had.


Ledeen may not be speaking for the group though...

It sounds like the Weekly Standard people are supporting the port deal:

"Ironically, during his defense of the UAE's record on cooperation, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld failed to mention one of their most significant achievements to date: the November 2002 capture of Abd Rahim al-Nashiri, a senior al Qaeda leader generally regarded as the mastermind of the USS Cole bombing and the head of the terror network's maritime operations. While this would indeed be a significant achievement in its own right, it is made all the more remarkable by the fact that the UAE had been directly threatened by the al Qaeda leadership several months prior to al-Nashiri's capture....

THE ISSUE of whether or not the UAE should be allowed to manage U.S. ports highlights many of the paradoxes involved in fighting al Qaeda in the Middle East as well as the dangers of over-simplifying or mischaracterizing U.S. allies in the region. The UAE has been a valuable U.S. ally in the areas of both military cooperation and counter-terrorism and should be rightly recognized as such...."

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/011/900risbm.asp

[Wordie]

13. It appears there may be a split between Israel-hawk and pro-business neos

:popcorn:

[OneBlueSky]

20. the questions we need to be asking are . . .

"Is there ANYTHING in the U.S. that is NOT for sale to foreign powers?" . . .

"If so, what are they?" . . .

[Wordie]

21. You must be watching Lou Dobbs...

that sounds exactly like him. I agree with him sometimes, but I'm not certain that's a useful question for those who want to find out more about the actual facts of the deal before coming to a conclusion. For instance, I read a thread earlier that pointed out that this deal is more of a lease, rather than constituting "ownership."

The same thread also pointed out something else that I didn't know. That is that even if the deal goes through, that doesn't mean that the entire port would be affected, as the deal would only cover certain terminals within each port. Most ports would have several companies such as Dubai World Ports, running individual terminals. Now that sounds very different than the picture that seems to be painted about what the deal represents, wouldn't you agree?

So, I say, before we can get to the question you posed, perhaps we ought to get a hold of a lot more of the facts surrounding this.

[autorank]

22. Recommended...no deal with oligarchs....

I've had a thing or two to say about this issue on http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=2454971">02/12/06.

My opinion has not changed.

We know that Dubai:

"banked" for the terrorists;

wittingly or unwittingly housed terrorists and terrorist training; and

currently is known as a user friendly domain for organized crime in the ME.

It is totally unacceptable to allow a government that operates like this to manage domestic ports, the 21 now announced.

AND it was unacceptable to allow the British to do it before this deal.

We look like fools for even considering it and our government is foolish.

This must not go down. It's such stunningly bad decision making, it calls for IMPEACHMENT.

[Wordie]

44. Ironically, our OWN country could not meet the criteria you list...

"banked" for the terrorists;

wittingly or unwittingly housed terrorists and terrorist training

Didn't we do those things too, autorank? And didn't Germany and for that matter, Britain, from which the contract is being taken over, also have banking relationships with terrorists and terrorists living within their borders?

My concern is that the ugly demagoguery that Bush has used against "terra-ists" is being generalized to a country which may not deserve it. I think many of us aren't distinguishing between those nations which are basically extremist, and therefore our enemies, and others, like the UAE, which seem in some ways to have gotten caught in the crossfire. Yes, some of the terrorists lived there. Some of the terrorists lived here for a time too. And while one could criticize the UAE for not having more stringent screening procedure for who was allowed entry into their country, an equivalent criticism could be leveled at our OWN country for exactly the same thing. 9/11 was a turning point; the actions of the UAE since then from many reports that I've read indicate that they are cooperating with anti-terrorism efforts, albeit in a low-key way (for understandable reasons).

And the democracy issue is a tricky one too. The ideals of democracy certainly resonate very deeply with me, as they do with all Americans. But I think Americans can, sadly, be manipulated through those ideals as well. After all, the entire "bringing democracy to the middle east" thing hasn't worked out too well in Iraq, has it? I think many of the proponents of that approach, such as Michael Ledeen, knew all too well that premature imposition of democracy could only lead to chaos, and in fact, that was his plan all along. Bush was sold a bill of goods regarding "bringing democracy to the middle east," imho, by those who had a far better understanding of the workings of the ME, and now that's come back to bite him in the opposition to this deal. So however deeply I feel about the ideals of democracy, I'm not certain that it's a valid criteria to use in evaluating this deal. It appears to me that building a firm relationship with those countries in the ME that really aren't extremist, and encouraging a step-by-step liberalization of their policies is a far better approach. I'm certainly open to a discussion on the issue, however.

I've said elsewhere that it's possible that there really are reasons to oppose the deal. There's a lot I think we really don't yet understand about it, and a tremendous amount of misinformation that is circulating. I just hope everyone will try to keep a cool head, until we have more information. Isn't that reasonable?

[debbierlus]

25. Uncertain about deal?

I am CERTAIN. It is VERY simple. Keep American ports under American control. And, watch those who gain the control like hawks.

Period.

[Wordie]

26. Very good CBS news article about some of the misinformation about the deal

was posted just today. It's here:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/02/22/opinion/meyer/main1335531.shtml

It's by Dick Meyer, the Editorial Director of CBSNews.com, who also occasionally blogs at HuffPo. Here's a link to his HuffPo bio: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/contributors/bio.php?nick=dick-meyer&name=Dick%20Meyer

He says, in the article, that there are a number of myths floating around about the DPW deal, and he debunks them. Here's his list of myths:

Myth #1: An Arab company is trying to buy six American ports.

Myth #2: The U.S. is turning over security at crucial ports to an Arab company.

Myth #3: American ports should be American.

Myth #4: The United Arab Emirates has "very serious" al Qaeda connections.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/02/22/opinion/meyer/main1335531_page2.shtml

He debunks each one of those myths in his piece.

Since you raised a particular concern about American ports remaining in American hands, here's part of what he says about that:

Well, it's too late, baby. According to James Jay Carafano of the Heritage Foundation (a place really known for its Arab-loving, soft-on-terror approach), "Foreign companies already own most of the maritime infrastructure that sustains American trade…" Thirty per cent of the countries port terminals are operated by companies that are, um, unAmerican.

At the port of Los Angeles, 80 per cent of the terminals are operated by foreign companies. Chinese companies operate more than half the terminals. So why is this suddenly a threat? After all, political outcry managed to scupper the deal a few months ago in which a Chinese company was going to take over the Unocal oil company.

Remember the global economy? Internationally, 24 of the 25 largest companies that operate port terminals aren't American. That means just about every container that enters a U.S. port has come from a foreign-controlled facility.

Go to any port in the country and you'll be lucky to see a single giant vessel with U.S.A. on its stern. Foreign-owned airplanes fly into American airports every hour. Many U.S. companies have foreign entities among their largest shareholders.

My colleague Charlie Wolfson reports that State Department sources say Dubai Ports World already handles port calls for U.S. Navy ships from the 5th fleet for their regular port calls in the United Arab Emirates -- a pretty high measure of trustworthiness.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/02/22/opinion/meyer/main1335531.shtml

Just for your information, I too have been wondering if the more important issue is whether the US should be not letting contracts to any foreign government for critical infrastructure functions. It appears though, according to this article and some others that I've read, that to try to change that in regards to ports at this point would be virtually impossible. So that brings us back to the question of the UAE specifically should be nixed, when so many other port deals with foreign governments (including China) have not been.

[mom cat]

27. Thanks for that quote from Michael Ledeen. I had not hears the basic

destabilization agenda articulated quite so blatantly before.

[Wordie]

29. From Iraq news this week, it appears his plans are working all too well :(

This UAE deal doesn't fit with his plans, on the other hand.

[katym]

31. Dubai Port World exec is the Maritime Administrator in the US

I'm leaning towards thinking the whole thing is another crony deal.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x514415

[lala_rawraw]

32. Neocons jumped the Bush/Cheney ship a while

Back... this, I assume, is reaction to a country that does not recognize Israel.

[Wordie]

37. I think you may be correct.

Israel sought diplomatic relations with the UAE in 2004, but the overture was rebuffed as I understand it, apparently as a result of the continued occupation.
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/D57D8ED9-1AE6-47F0-A9AC-D29CEFE3868B.htm

[Wordie]

54. UAE: recognition of Israel contingent on Israel ending the 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.

[atommom]

34. Here's another article about the neocon connection. It's real.

Neo-Con Superhawk Earns His Wings on Port Flap

WASHINGTON, Feb 23 (IPS) - Love him or hate him, Frank Gaffney is effective.

The founder and president of the Washington-based Centre for Security Policy (CSP), a small think tank funded mainly by U.S. defence contractors, far-right foundations, and right-wing Zionists, Gaffney was among the first to seize on the government's approval of a Dubai company to manage terminals at six major U.S. ports and helped blow it up into a major embarrassment to Pres. George W. Bush.

Indeed, it was Gaffney who wrote the first nationally syndicated column about the approval, which, if sustained, would turn over the management of terminals in the ports of New York, New Jersey, Philadelphia, Miami, Baltimore, and New Orleans to Dubai Ports World (DPW), a government-owned company based in the United Arab Emirates (UAE).

"How would you feel if, in the aftermath of 9/11, the U.S. government had decided to contract out airport security to the ...country where most of the operational planning and financing of the attacks occurred?" he asked in his weekly column in the right-wing Washington Times Feb. 14.

"It seems a safe bet that you, like most Americans, would think it a lunatic idea, one that would clear the way for still more terror in this country," he argued, concluding that, "If the President will not, Congress must ensure that the United Arab Emirates is not entrusted with the operation of any American ports."

More: http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=32275

[Wordie]

36. Wow! Gaffney wrote the *first* nationally syndicated column about ports

deal on February 14th!!!

So he was the one who lit this fire. Very interesting. I hope everyone gets a chance to see your article, atommom! Have you considered starting it's own thread? It's a great find.

:applause:

[atommom]

42. Will do. I almost started a thread earlier, but wasn't sure it could

stay afloat on its own. ;)

[Wordie]

48. Please post a link to it here, when you do start it. eom

[atommom]

56. Here you go. I just kicked it myself...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2480198&mesg_id=2480198

[Wordie]

58. Thanks! That's a great post. I recommended it. eom

[Jim Sagle]

38. This thread is pro-terrorist hogwash.

[Wordie]

45. Care to back up that statement, Jim? How about a real discussion?

[Jim Sagle]

57. And it's pro-Bush hogwash as well. Not much to discuss, Gus.

[Wordie]

59. An interesting twist on the idea of participating in a discussion forum:

don't discuss anything. Oh well.

[Jim Sagle]

60. Don't promote Bush talking points is more like it.

[Wordie]

61. If the UAE is a "terrorist" threat, why did Israel seek diplomatic

relations with them in June of 2004? We know that Israel doesn't form relationships with such states, so why did they make the overture to the UAE, if there was any real threat from them?
http://www.somethingjewish.co.uk/articles/1027_israel_talks_to_uae.htm

The overture was rebuffed at the time, although the UAE said it would recognize Israel once it withdrew from the Occupied Territories and recognized legitimate Palestinian concerns.

[Jim Sagle]

62. Keep pushin' those WH talking points.

You're doing a heckuva job, Wordie.

[Wordie]

63. LOL...that was hardly a WH talking point...but nice try, Jim.

The fact that Israel sought diplomatic relations with the UAE and was rebuffed because of the Israeli occupation is hardly a "WH talking point" - more like something they'd like hidden.

I can't say that you're doing a good job, as you aren't really addressing any issue, just trying to smear me and what I'm saying. Oh well, demagoguery has always been a refuge of last resort for those whose points are weak.

[Jim Sagle]

64. The "WH talking point" is the idea of UAE as a suitable overseer of port

security.

It's called reading for comprhension - check into it.

[Wordie]

65. So

your only objection to the deal it that Bush came up with it? Or, perhaps to be more exact, perhaps your objection is that the sale from P&O to DWP happened to occur during the Bush administration?

You aren't going to be bothered with pesky little details and expend any effort trying to look into the actual merits of the deal?

[Jim Sagle]

66. The deal has no merit. I thought that was understood by all.

Do try to keep up.

[orleans]

41. a couple things

first, i'm glad it's on "hold" so we can find out more about this crap

second, i heard/read (maybe friday?) that the idea that we are still controlling security is NOT true--that once these shipping containers get unloaded (after they've passed our coast guard and whatever else) the security lies in the hands of the port

third -- i think it's messed up that we would consider turning control of these "sensitive" areas (ports, airports, nuclear facilities) to ANY OTHER COUNTRY! (what the hell are we all thinking? i don't give a shit how close of an ali they are--or what their history on terrorism is--in a "post 9/11 world" no other COUNTRY should be controlling our boarders/ports/etc.)

i don't know.

is this all a rouse? so the repukes can appear "strong" on security and bushy takes a dive for the team? (i kinda doubt that--i don't think his ego would allow him to intentionally dive anywhere)

is this payback for their 100 million donation to katrina relief? and other deals that went down with carlyle? (bush is such a whore he would sell us out for that amount--even though we probably could've gotten far more out of the uae)

and what is this crap i heard tonight? that it's really not just 6 ports? it's actually 21 ports? huh?

or are we getting set up for another "planned attack" on this country and with uae owning the ports we can blame THEM AND THEIR CRAPPY SECURITY and no one will ever suspect bush was behind and we'll all rally around him AGAIN, his poll numbers will go up, defense contractors make another killing, and he suspends the two term limit for the sake of national security and continues to remain in the white house for as long as we keep "getting hit".

hum....sounds like a plan to me! yee-haw!

(sorry for the ramble)

"Another administration connection, President Bush chose a Dubai Ports World executive to head the U.S. Maritime Administration. David Sanborn, the former director of Dubai Ports' European and Latin American operations, he was tapped just last month to lead the agency that oversees U.S. port operations."

http://usliberals.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0602/22/ldt.01.html

my my my. what a CO-INK-E-DINK.

[CJCRANE]

43. So what? The problem is the CRONYISM with NON-DEMOCRATIC

countries.

Bushco have raised the hysteria against Islamic non-democratic dictatorial regimes to fever-pitch and now it turns out they've been thick as thieves with these guys for decades and want to hand over the ports to them?

No amount of muddying the waters cancels out the cronyism, hypocrisy and confliCt of interest thiS deal represents.

[Wordie]

47. The furor over this deal really does seem to be of Bush's own making.

Terra! Terra! Terra!

It's really true that his actions and words have contributed to the fever-pitch hysteria and suspicion against Muslims. (Although I must add, to be fair, that he has cautioned against presuming that all Muslims are terrorists.)

The thing is, should those suspicions, which seem to have been raised unfairly against all Muslims and countries that are predominantly Islamic, be applied to the UAE in order to nix this deal?

My hope is that there will be a fuller investigation on the actual merits of the deal. My fear is that in the current climate, the investigation will be politicized, and we will have just more of the same.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

46. It's a squabble between corporatations about money.

And, a convenient bogeyman for politicians.

[Marie26]

49. So in this scenario, Bush is the good guy!

Just saying... I'm not quite sure what I think of the port deal either. Right now it isn't so much the UAE ownership that bothers me, but the possibility of what Bush got in return. Why does he seem to want this deal so bad? Democrats, Republicans, even neocons are all against it, yet Bush is threatening a veto to protect it. Who benefits from this deal? Why is everyone pretending not to have known about it? How exactly has UAE been such a valuable ally to the US?

While there is a security risk, a lot of the outcry seems based on simple xenophobia & fear-mongering. We've been indoctrinated so well w/"Arab = terrorist" that it's hard for them to change that now. But there are valid reasons for opposing this deal. My initial reaction was to think this was an overreaction, but I revised that once I saw the numerous connections between UAE & big corp. like Halliburton; new contracts to build spaceports, etc. in the UAE, new tax-free "free trade zones". I think the ultimate vision may be for the UAE to become an oasis for multi-national corps., oil, & military contractors. That might make Halliburton happy, but it makes me suspicious. And while the UAE itself is not involved w/terrorism, it seems to often be a place where money-laundering & smuggling is done. So, I'm sort of caught like you in between. It's good that this sale was at least delayed so that these issues can be addressed.

[Wordie]

53. I agree wholeheartedly that the delay is a good thing...gives us time to

catch our collective breath and try to look at things more objectively. I don't know about the multi-national corporate issue regarding the UAE that you raise. I need lots more information about all the detaisl before I can feel I really understand what's going on. It appears that just about everyone needs more information!

I think there is a lot of misinformation floating around that needs to be sifted through, and the wheat removed from the chaff. For instance, the UAE has instituted strict money laundering laws; it did so after 9/11, at the urging of the US and UN. Here's a link to more info on that: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=504839&mesg_id=517238
The info is from the State Department, who on that particular issue I would be inclined to trust. Even so, I'm continuing to dig around. This all has so many facets; part of the problem is that it's all being treated as if it was a simple black and white question.

You seem like me to be trying to carefully weigh all this rush of information. It's not easy. I've found several things which everyone, including me, just seemed to assume were true, that turn out to be not so. For instance, the contract isn't for ownership, but more like a lease, according to one article I read ( http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=103&topic_id=192928&mesg_id=192928 )

So I'm really with you on the merits of the delay - we all need it.

[sadiesworld]

51. So now Bush is at odds with the neocons?

What a load.

:eyes:

[IsItJustMe]

52. If * is for it, there's something wrong. PERIOD

[ronnie624]

55. "Personally, I'm still uncertain about the deal."

I am also torn.

While the UAE government itself is probably sincere about security, I have little doubt there are elements within the government that would relish an opportunity to facilitate an attack against the U.S. After all, it is unrealistic to believe we can invade and destroy another country, killing hundreds of thousands in the process without creating many very determined enemies.

As an aside, it is for people like Michael Ledeem that I wish I could believe in hell.

"One can only hope that we turn the region into a cauldron, and faster, please. If ever there were a region that richly deserved being cauldronized, it is the Middle East today."

The oxygen this filth consumes would be better served burning garbage.