CAIR's Dubai Sugar Daddy

Paul Sperry at FrontPage exposes an unsavory connection (thanks to all who sent this in):

When the Council on American-Islamic Relations parrots White House talking points, you know there's something very wrong inside the Beltway.

CAIR spokesman Arsalan Iftikhar agrees there's no reason to get in a lather over the United Arab Emirates taking over just about every major shipping terminal along our Eastern Seaboard. The UAE is harmless, and if you're alarmed about the deal, well, you're an Islamophobe caught up in the post-9/11 "industry of fear."

"What's important to understand here is that all this is doing is demonizing the entire world Muslim population," Iftikhar complained on MSNBC.

And besides, he says the UAE won't have anything to do with port security -- not that it matters if they did. "We have to clarify a few things here," he asserted, sounding more like a White House spokesman. "First of all, none of these port security operations are being given over to this country. The Department of Homeland Security is still going to have full autonomy when it comes to security at the ports."

So relax. Iftikhar, like President Bush, says he sees no difference in risk between the UAE or the U.K. operating the docks where millions of cargo containers enter New York and Baltimore and Miami. What about UAE's terror record? Pshaw! "These are knee-jerk responses" borne of anti-Arab racism, he says.

As a Muslim-rights pressure group, CAIR's own knee-jerk response in defending the UAE is not surprising -- after all, it's populated by Muslims. But the group has more at stake in this case. In fact, it has a direct financial interest in defending the UAE -- a financial relationship that has never been reported in the mainstream media and never publicly disclosed by CAIR, even as it claims to receive no foreign support.

Truth be told, CAIR has an otherwise glaring conflict of interest in speaking out about the White House-approved deal to give UAE-owned Dubai Ports World control of six of our ports effective March 2. And it's something that producers at FOX, CNN and NBC should know before they ever book another CAIR flack. Here's what CAIR is hiding:

The U.S.-based executives of Dubai Ports World report to the emir of Dubai, who owns controlling interest in the Dubai-based company. His name is Gen. Sheik Mohammed Bin Rashid Al-Maktoum. It just so happens that Sheik Maktoum also owns the deed to CAIR's headquarters located practically in the shadow of the U.S. Capitol. As I first reported in my book, "Infiltration: How Muslim Spies and Subversives Have Penetrated Washington," CAIR's deed is recorded in the name of his foundation, the Al-Maktoum Foundation. It put up more than $978,000 for the property and holds the rights to sell it, manage it and collect rents from other tenants in the multistory red-brick building on the CAIR property, located at 453 New Jersey Avenue, S.E., in Washington. (You can view the relevant pages of the documents on the book's companion website, sperryfiles.com.)

CAIR's landlord, Sheik Maktoum, doubles as UAE defense minister. Before 9/11, he provided UAE military C-130 cargo planes to supply al-Qaida hunting camps in Afghanistan with all the amenities they needed when he and other high-level UAE officials and princes took hunting trips there. On one trip
in 1999, roughly half the UAE royal family was the guest of Osama bin laden at his camp near Kandahar. They flew in on an official UAE aircraft, according to a recently declassified CIA memo dated Feb. 19, 1999, and titled, "Recent High Level UAE Visits to Afghanistan." The memo also determined that Dubai officials had lied to U.S. officials about visiting the camps. And they were believed to have even tipped off bin Laden about a coming strike on his camps. Mind you, this was just months after bin Laden blew up the two U.S. embassies in Africa (a plot which was financed in part through Dubai banks), so they knew they were in bad company. Just like CAIR knows it's in bad company.

The Dubai officials also had a cozy relationship with the Taliban. By now you've probably heard that the UAE was one of only three countries in the world -- the others being Saudi Arabia and Pakistan -- to formally recognize the Taliban in diplomatic circles. What you haven't heard is that Dubai was one of the Taliban's only travel and financial outlets to the outside world. Dubai booked flights for them and acted as their banker. But CAIR doesn't care about that, either (nor apparently does the White House).

So with all the bonding that bin Laden did with Dubai royals before 9/11, it's little wonder that he deployed 13 of his 19 hijackers from Dubai to hit America. That's right, all 13 entered the U.S. from Dubai (and that's not even counting the original 20th hijacker Mohammed al-Katani, who also entered through Dubai before an alert INS inspector at Orlando airport sent him packing). Or little wonder that two were Emirates, and that one -- Marwan al-Shehhi -- in fact served under Sheik Maktoum in the UAE Army. He no doubt made the general proud by crashing his plane into the South Tower.

It's also not surprising, given Dubai's cozy ties to bin Laden and Taleb leaders, that the hijackers were able to use Dubai as their financial base in addition to their forward staging base. As they came through Dubai, they were outfitted by the nephew of 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed with credit cards, cash, bank accounts and American-style clothing. More than $100,000 in al-Qaida funds were funneled through Dubai banks. One single transfer from Dubai into al-Shehhi's and his pal Mohamed Atta's Florida checking account totaled $70,000.

The day before crashing his hijacked United Airlines jet, al-Shehhi wired $5,400 in leftover al-Qaida funds back to Dubai. Other hijackers also wired residuals there. After the attacks, investigators traced al-Shehhi phone calls back to the UAE, where he is now celebrated as a hero in mosques and other local gathering places outside the gaze of Western investors, who are too intoxicated by glittering high-rises and other signs of modernity to understand that the desert oasis is still haunted by ancient demons.

Sheik Maktoum's reaction to the mass murder of 3,000 in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania was shockingly unsympathetic (as was CAIR's). In fact, he reserved his sympathies for Palestinians. Two weeks after 9/11, Sheik Maktoum warned Washington not to attack "innocent" Muslims in Afghanistan and to instead focus on "Israeli terrorists" in its war on terrorism. He argued that they are the only real terrorists.

"The Arab and Muslim communities have paid dearly for terrorism, especially the state terrorism practiced by the government of [Israeli Prime Minister Ariel] Sharon and extremist groups in Israel," he bellowed. "Regrettably, the powers in the international community [read: America, "the Great Satan"] have done nothing but watch the Israeli terrorists, a matter which has angered Arabs and Muslims [including most assuredly Sheik Maktoum]." He added, "Confrontation of terrorism must cover Israeli terrorism."

Sheik Maktoum defines Palestinian suicide bombings as "legitimate acts of resistance," and not terrorism (which makes you wonder how he defines 9/11), and he has held Dubai telethons to support the families of suicide bombers. Also, the sheik has been accused of winking at al-Qaida money-laundering in his city-state, and helping an ailing bin Laden receive care at a Dubai hospital when he was on the lam.

This is CAIR's main sugar daddy (it also get funds from Saudi benefactors), and the Arab ruler with whom the White House has entrusted our vital port security.

Making matters worse, the CEO who answers directly to Maktoum at his Dubai Ports operation -- Mohammed Sharaf -- studied in Arizona in the early 1990s at the same time al-Qaida was setting up an American beachhead there. Several prominent al-Qaida leaders emerged from the Arizona university
system. In addition, one of the 9/11 pilots, Hani Hanjour, studied English there in 1990, and later took flying lessons in the Phoenix area.

This is a red flag the Treasury group that supposedly vetted the port deal more than likely overlooked. If officials really didn't rubber-stamp the deal, they would have called the FBI agent who wrote the famously prescient "Phoenix memo" before 9/11. I'm sure he could fill them in on any troubling connections Sharaf may have in Arizona.

CAIR, which has an operating budget of more than $5 million a year, has its own connections to terrorism. Formed by two ethnic-Palestinians from a Hamas front, it has had at least five officials on its payroll or board convicted of terror-related charges or tied to terrorism. They include: Randall "Ismail" Royer, Ghassan Elashi, Bassem Khafagi, Rabih Haddad and Siraj Wahhaj. So it's not exactly the best character witness for Arab officials who say they are cooperating with us in the war on terror.

Problem is, the White House also says we can trust UAE leaders, that they've been a "a very good ally" in our war on terror and, why, they're even letting our Navy dock in their port (which is no real comfort since Yemen did the same thing). Truth is, like the Saudis, they've done next to nothing to help us track down bin Laden or track his finances through their banks. That's why the administration took the extraordinary move of demanding in writing, as part of the secret port deal, that they cooperate in counterterror investigations. There'd be no need to ask for such security concessions if they were already cooperating fully as claimed, and weren't still a serious terror risk (which makes you wonder even more why the White House is pushing so hard to add risk to our already risky port situation).

But then, the administration knows all this. The U.S. Border Patrol has designated UAE as one of the 35 (all Muslim) "special interest countries," according to sensitive Department of Homeland Security documents I've obtained. And UAE shows up on the Customs and Border Protection Intelligence and National Targeting Center's list of 69 "countries of interest for potential terrorist activities." What's more, UAE is one of only five countries where DHS has stationed Visa Security Officers, putting to rest any notion that UAE does not still pose a terror threat.

And think about it: If UAE leaders were friends with bin Laden enough to hunt with him before 9/11, why would they suddenly become our friends after 9/11? They wouldn't, of course, and they aren't. And CAIR, whose real agenda is to Islamize America, isn't either. So no one should care what the hell it thinks on the subject. Just as we shouldn't trade with the enemy, we shouldn't legitimize the terror-tied groups they bankroll.

| 11 Comments
Print this entry | Email this entry | Digg this | del.icio.us |

11 Comments

Paul Sperry's book "Infiltration" has a sensational title, which might normally make one wary. Don't be. Buy it, read it, pass it on. It is akin to John Roy Carlson's "Under Cover" that had such an effect (dozens of printings) in the early days of World War II, and that lifted the rock on all kinds of Nazi sympathizers, from Fritz Kuhn to Boris Brasol, to a certain novelty shop in downtown Boston.

I'll buy the book; read the book; will my faith in our leaders be uplifted a little?

I'm trying very hard not to be cynical -- but George is not giving me many reasons to be uplifted; perhaps this book will help?

LOL :|

You know what else is in the UAE? A naval port. A naval port we use to support our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. It is also strategically placed to deal with Iran should they decide to block the Strait of Hormuz. In short, we need this port. So, if we let them do something in some of our ports that we let foreign countries do in every single other port, so be it.

This controversy is much ado about nothing. The Republicans who are against it don't fully understand it, the Democrats who are against it are merely using it as another instrument with which to beat up the president, and now CAIR's using it to call us racists and Islamophobes.

Well Big G in Texas, I'm glad you understand it...somebody has too. I realize that this deal is much too complicated for republicans or democrats to figure out...Just a question: How many of the Arab owners and power people of this business, would you guess might be muslims? And of these, how many support jihad and Islamic hegemoney? I dont know the answer to that, but I thought you might...have a good day...

Paul Sperry is excellent. Everyone, buy his book!

Big G;

So, what you are saying is if we refuse them (UAE) the port deal, it may remove our access to the naval port there?

Sounds like blackmail. If they are a true ally, they may be upset but would not consider a cancel of our use of that UAE port.

As stated here, they need us more than we need them.

Also, the people of this great land have shown almost 3 to 1 , there are against the UAE port deal. Are you in the minority, or just feel the people have no meaning in this issue?

The latest seepage draining from this particular septic tank indicates that Bill Clinton was encouraging the Dubai Company in question to hire Joe Lockhart, his former spokesman, to handly the PR for the Ports Deal.

I hope this issue opens up the festering sore of corruption in American politics -- and especially the festering sore of how much our ex-Presidents are enriched by their nefarious deals with Muslim potentates. Every one has received speaking fees in the 6 and 7 figure realm, and I've always wondered exactly how this is paid for. Is there a link between the Saudis or the Kuwaitis or the UAEs or the Qattaris and these Presidential honoraria? How about the links between agencies, law firms and consultancies that ex-President's establish, and the sweetheart deals they get hiring out their services for ruinous fees? We know a little about the half million in contributions directly from the Saudis to Mr. Clinton for his trailer home "Presidential Library" -- how much more payola is being exchanged for favorable press on the Arabs and Muslims?

NYT -- Newsweek -- ABC -- CBS -- NBC -- CNN -- FOX -- MSNBC -- -- How about the BLOGS!?!! Anybody listening? Anybody?

This seems like it might be the biggest story since Watergate -- How stunned would most Americans be to see the finances of ex-Presidents spelled out, dollar by dollar? How sensational would it be to learn that ex-Presidents, ex-Secretaries of State, ex-Ambassadors had all profited to the tune of millions -- tens of millions -- more??? from their former posts and current dealings? Wouldn't that be a story worth telling? Wouldn't that move some media product?

And with good reason I might add.

Islam constitutes conspiracy to commit murder. Protecting ourselves from it is all any of us need concern ourselves with.

'I hope this issue opens up the festering sore of corruption in American politics -- and especially the festering sore of how much our ex-Presidents are enriched by their nefarious deals with Muslim potentates. Every one has received speaking fees in the 6 and 7 figure realm, and I've always wondered exactly how this is paid for. Is there a link between the Saudis or the Kuwaitis or the UAEs or the Qattaris and these Presidential honoraria?"
--- from a posting above

Not for want of trying here. Google, inter alia, "Raymond Close" and "Jihad Watch" or "James Akins" and "Jihad Watch" or "Faris" and "Fletcher School" and "Jihad Watch" or "Fred Dutton" and "Jihad Watch" or....

The 9/11 Commission missed its chance. Now is the chance to open to the lights, the cameras, the action, an Investigation into the Recycling of Petrodollars in the Western World. Start with the sums given to Bush's father by a grateful Kuwait, paying him off with million-dollar honoraria. See how much Arab money went to the presidential libraries of Bill Clinton and Bush and othres. Find out about exactly when the Arabs, and which Arabs, decided to endow the Center for Contemporary Arab Studies (reigning shill: Michael Hudson) and the Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding (reigning shill: John Esposito, with underlings Yvonne Haddad and John Voll dancing attendance upon him). See who supports those various "Middle East" magazines (check out "Andrew Kilgore" among the ex-diplomats). Find out what the Council on the National Interest is all about, as it disinterestedly promotes the national interest by engaging in Israel-bashing -- who funds it, who supports Eugene Bird (oh, and did I forget to mention the very busy Mrs. Bird, and her little project on Jerusalem?). Find out what United Technologies and the Whitney Corporation did to organize the beneficiaries of Saudi contracts a quarter-century ago, during the battle to stop the sale of AWACS to Saudi Arabia? Find out about the British ex-diplomats -- google "monetary dhimmitude" and "Jihad Watch" for just a few of what should be their mugshots. Find out about what the late John C. West, the "honorable" John C. West, did for his friend Crawford Cook, in helping him obtain a public-relations job with the Saudis, even while West was Ambassador in Saudi Arabia. Find out who, in spreading the line that Saudi Arabia was our "staunch ally" and therefore we didn't have to tax gasoline, we didn't have to subsidize mass transit, we didn't have to, back in 1973, start government support for solar and wind energy, because the Saudis would keep "doing us favors" (what favors? when? how?) and that would be our "energy policy" and so any other energy policy was not needed.

They, those hundreds or thousands of the well-connected, have for several decades been making out like gangbusters -- though they are gangsters -- acting as shills for the Saudis and preventing a serious energy policy.

The two Dubai deals now in question --that involvign the ports, and the second that has just come to light, involving another Dubai company that is attempting to buy an American company involved in military technology -- simply shows that the Americans, like the rest of the Western world, cannot bring themeslves to do what they should do to limit Arab and Muslim oil revenues. No, all they can think of doing is soaking up some of those revenues by letting the rich Arabs buy, and buy, and buy, both companies, such as the P & O, and also individuals -- individuals who, whether Repubican or Democrat, have been happy to be bought.

We, the Infidels en masse, are suffering. But those who have been "recycling petrodollars" are not suffering at all.

There is a distinction to be made between the corrupt and traitorous among our so-called leaders, and those in whose name they have in the past, or the present, pretended to represeent, but all the time were not representing, but ruling -- and misruling.

A question for CAIR:

Isn't "demonizing" a demon, redundant?

Would that be 're-demon'?

As in "NO RE-DEMON SOCIAL VALUE"?

Paul Serry's book is well-written; but I became wary when I read his remarks about Muslim chaplain Captain James Lee having left the army in "disgrace." Captain Lee was acquitted of all charges and given an honourable discharge.