| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Dhimmi Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
Entrusting our future to the gentle ministrations of the UAE. From WND, with thanks to Gabrielle Goldwater:
Dubai Ports World is scheduled to take over operations at 22 U.S. ports, not six as previously reported by most major media.According to the website of P&O Ports, the port-operations subsidiary of the London-based Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation Co. (P&O), DPW will pick up stevedore services at 12 East Coast ports including Portland, Maine; Boston; Davisville, R.I.; New York; Newark; Philadelphia; Camden, N.J.; Wilmington, Del.; Baltimore, Md.; and Virginia locations at Newport News, Norfolk, and Portsmouth.
Additionally, DPW will take over P&O stevedoring operations at nine ports along the Gulf of Mexico including the Texas ports of Beaumont, Port Arthur, Galveston, Houston, Freeport, and Corpus Christi, plus the Louisana ports of Lake Charles and New Orleans.
Previously reported have only been P&O Ports' container operations at New York, New Jersey, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Miami, and New Orleans. Stevedore services also typically involve the loading and unloading of containers on and off cargo ships, as well as moving and storing containers, though often in separate facilities from where containers are initially loaded and unloaded from the cargo ships. Thus, while DPW will be operating the container terminal operations of only the six ports initially disclosed, DPW will be managing stevedore services, handling containers at a total of 21 ports, located along the Eastern seaboard from Maine to Virginia, and across the Gulf of Mexico from Texas to Louisiana.
Posted by Robert at February 25, 2006 11:05 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
|
That's all we need. If something major happens, we'll have George W. Bush and administration to blame.
Posted by: mustang65![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at February 25, 2006 11:46 AM
My anger is gone; the deal will die. No matter how many talking points are given to friendly news outlets(Fox, Rush, National Review). It won't matter. For David Brooks and company will not rule the day on this one. The issue here is what an investigation will reveal. What are the terms of the deal? What are the side deals? is there a quid pro quo? Just what security vetting did this quasi governmental agency do? Why is there a 99.999 percent approval from this shadowy agency? In congressional public testimony, questions will be asked . . . like will the Dubai Ports be privy to our security machinations? in what detail? who at Dubai Ports will be privy to this information? This line of questioning alone is fatal. Will witnesses be called? How about Richard Clark, or W's former CIA chief Tenet? Will he be able to comment on which UAE Prince(s) visited the Bin Laden Falcoln camp in 1999? Is this just an urban myth? Or had the royal party taken a wrong turn? It happens; doesn't it? I know I've taken some wrong turns on the road . . . literally and metaphorically, but I've never ended up sharing a hunting tent with UBL! This is why the administration calls this a cooling off period; it is not in their interests nor in the UAE's to shine the light of day on this. What security duties Dubai Ports will have is not the issue, the trial of information is. I cannot see how the President can stop an investigation. The democrats won't drop it; the Republicans can't . . . it's not in their interests(either out of genuine outrage or pure politics). This is such a red-meat, hot button issue that to support the President is almost political suicide for many in the GOP. What I will find interesting is what happends if high profile meetings are called, wittnesses obtained, Schumer and Hilary putting on their pancake-face makeup on. What will W and company do? Maybe the 45 day cooling off period will turn into a sudden drowning. This would be my prediction. If UAE, withdrawls, no need for a public vetting of the deal. Of course, W will take another hit, another arrow will hit flesh, but what does the cold matter when your near absolute zero anyway. I'm sure W will come up with another fuc% up soon. He's on a roll. And you can thank the chimp in chief for damming the GOP in the fall; thank god they've come to their senses and are standing firm, even Frist is showing backbone against W.
Posted by: biorabbi at February 25, 2006 12:13 PM
It seems the Homeland Security said no to the deal.
How about that, at least one Bush Administration Department had enough loyalty to America to say not and protect America.
The war with Islam is inevitable.
The Texican.
Freedom, the only choice at any cost.
Posted by: Texican at February 25, 2006 12:43 PM
I just don't comprehend why Bush would engage in a political martyrdom operation over this. Do we need any more proof that he is just plain dumb? If you want to be sick to your stomach, pick up "Price of Loyalty" by Ron Suskind. Ghostwritten for Paul O'Neill, Bush's Treaury Secretary from 2001-2002, it catalogues O'Neill's struggle to admit to himself that Bush is really just dim, and that the people around him do not engage in policy analysis. O'Neill is quite conservative and served under Nixon and Bush Sr. He really cared and wanted to make a difference for the country. Unfortunately, he wanted to actually investigate how to do it.
This is the source of "Islam is a religion of peace", the idea that we can invade Iraq and make it all just magically work, claim to be conservatives but bloat the government, and bungle easy political wins like reacting to hurricane Katrina. Remember how skillfully Clinton used the Mississippi floods back in 1994-5? Why does the Bush administration make a mess of everything they touch? The fish rots from the head.
It is really tragic what has happened to the Republican party during the Bush years. They are supposed to be about small government, but instead we've got big, incompetent government. There are still principled people there, but they have been outmanouvered at every turn by their own idiots.
Quijybo
Posted by: Quijybo at February 25, 2006 12:56 PM
Almost four times the number of ports = almost four times the level of contempt for Bush's not knowing about the deal until it was set, and for threatening to veto legislation to stop it.
The inclusion of the smaller ports is almost more outrageous than the six large ones: Those operations will be subject to less public oversight and national scrutiny, and I'm willing to bet they lag behind their larger counterparts in areas like security and radiation detection. Those shortcomings, if they indeed exist, should be addressed in any event, but that's another discussion for another day.
Fatwa time: Death to the port deal!
Posted by: Shinoliite at February 25, 2006 1:18 PM
This goes beyond US defence. It saddens me is that another British institution like P&O is now foreign owned. Dubai also owns Madame Tussards waxworks and planetarium in Baker Street. That's not a potential defence breach to compare with 22 major seaports of course.
But P&O itself is a serious loss to us with our own security potential. They run our cross Channel, Irish Sea and North Sea ferries. Not to mention the services P&O, through P&O Maritime, supply the Australian Navy and marine research. Australia seems more assertive in defense of home interests, do our Australian posters have anything to report?
My football team started originally in 1888 as a pastime for the P&O clerks during the close season for cricket. Now camel racing and infidel smiteing would seem to be the sport of choice.
Posted by: Granny Weatherwax at February 25, 2006 1:19 PM
Granny -
The P&O assets remaining on British soil may still be seized, in a pinch. Real property, though foreign owned, remains a national asset of the country in which it lies.
Do not despair, Granny. It spoils your aim.
Posted by: 00Buck at February 25, 2006 2:24 PM
as some suggest, this port deal seems to be dying, let's hope that that is true.
The deal should have been rejected out of hand purely on the basis that Dubai Ports World is government owned and that government is not the US.
This is from a Washington Post editorial (Feb 24 06)[The highlighting is mine.]
On the other hand, the president's job description does not include taking a personal interest in decisions about whether foreign companies based in countries that are America's allies should be allowed to purchase other foreign companies that are based in countries that are America's allies. This is particularly the case when such purchases do not have any discernible impact on American security whatsoever.
Lets us for a moment assume that the UAE can, as the president claims, be considered an ally on the war on terrorism.
What about tomorrow? How can the presedient reasonably guarantee that the UAE will be an ally tomorrow when the UAE is positioned in such a politically volatile region?
Was Iran under the Shah not an ally until it became a theocratic state and a member of the 'axis of evil'.
Kuwaits population is almost identical in size to the UAE, at about 2.4 million. Iraq, in a blink of any eye wiped the country off the map. Iran is but a stones throw across the straight of Hormuz.
This port deal just does not begin to make sense and one would have to start questioning the judgment of this president.
at February 25, 2006 2:40 PM
Instead of ports, why don't the UAE look into other, safer forms of investment? Why do they want the glory of our ports?
Those lesser, smaller ports were just a fringe group, to small to spend any time talking about.
Perhaps if the UAE would consider buying structures here, they would be safer for us as Islam would never attack them. Another of the same faith, right?
Posted by: Islofob IS-1
at February 25, 2006 3:26 PM
No muslims; Mo mosques; No Ports.
at February 25, 2006 3:31 PM
This is about a year old, I cant help but wonder if this carries any weight in the Bush’s decision? Is this what he refers to when he calls them our ally in the war on terror?
Washington, D.C. - The 35th Container Security Initiative (CSI) port becomes operational today at the port of Dubai as announced by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Commissioner Robert C. Bonner and Sultan Ahmed Bin Sulayem, Executive Chairman, Dubai Ports, Customs and Free Zone Corporation, United Arab Emirates (UAE). CSI is the only multinational program in place in the world today that is protecting global trade lanes from being exploited and disrupted by international terrorists.
The United Arab Emirates became the first Middle Eastern country to join CSI when the declaration of principles was signed in Dubai on December 12, 2004. A CBP deployment team will work closely with the UAE government personnel to target high-risk cargo containers destined for the United States.
Posted by: Bar at February 25, 2006 5:14 PM
CNN is now saying it's 23 ports.
Their list:
•Corpus Christi, Texas
•Freeport, Texas
•Galveston, Texas
•Houston, Texas
•Beaumont, Texas
•Port Arthur, Texas
•New Orleans, Louisiana
•Lake Charles, Louisiana
•Baton Rouge, Louisiana
•Gulfport, Mississippi
•Norfolk, Virginia
•Newport News, Virginia
•Portsmouth, Virginia
•Wilmington, Delaware
•Miami, Florida
•Camden, New Jersey
•Newark, New Jersey
•Davisville, Rhode Island
•Baltimore, Maryland
•Boston, Massachusetts
•Portland, Maine
•Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
•New York
at February 25, 2006 5:31 PM
Forgot the link:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/02/25/port.security/index.html
Posted by: Shinoliite at February 25, 2006 5:31 PM
I've just been looking through a few benjamin Netanyahu quotes, and I've just seen one that could well be fitting for this situation - "A port could represent a mortal danger" - and major US ports in the hands of Muslims especially so.
Posted by: Spirit Of 1683 at February 25, 2006 6:05 PM
The fact that this wasn't newsworthy for so long at least proves that Jews don't control the media.
Posted by: Bacon Eating Atheist Jew at February 25, 2006 6:56 PM
As an example of how bush and condi cover up for the Arabs, Condi denounced Iran and Syria for stirring up the cartoon rage for various political purposes. What she didn't say was that Egypt and Saudi Arabia [HQ of the Organization of the Islamic Conference] were involved in instigating the cartoon riots, etc. The Egyptian ambassadress in Denmark was especially involved in inciting. But Condi pretended that only Iran and Syria were involved, not Our Good Friends the Saudis and the Egyptians.
Well, if geo w bush and condi rice can hide the truth over the egyptian/saudi role in the cartoon affair, then they are capable of concealing the truth about Dubai.
at February 25, 2006 7:06 PM
Does anybody really believe that Bush didn't know about the Ports deal until the last moment?
Posted by: Eliyahu at February 25, 2006 7:08 PM
Eliyahu -
I don't think he knew in advance. He is a thoroughly inept executive. Plus, I have become convinced that he genuinely is dimwitted.
Put those two together, and you don't have much to work with ...
Posted by: 00Buck at February 25, 2006 7:21 PM
Perhaps if 23 aren't good enough for our great ally, the falconing Emirates, why not let them handle all our ports?
If they're that dependable and reliable and helpful, let's just trust everything to them.
All ports to the emirs, now!
And free Korans for all longshoremen!
And prayer mats (with no woven animal representation in them, of course) for their children!
And complimentary fried sheeps' eyeballs every Eid for their wives.
This is sure turning into a great political move by our fearless leader.
Posted by: profitsbeard at February 25, 2006 7:51 PM
The lying arabs must be laughing their heads off at the dumb infidels.
Where are the port unions?? simply tell Bush that if American ports are taken over by muslims, nothing will move in or out.
Problem solved.
at February 25, 2006 7:56 PM
What ever happened to the concept of govenment *for* the people? Home land security? How can we the people feel secure if our ports are in the hands of people known to side with terrorists?
Perhaps nothing would happen if they took over but what if it did? What's our govenment going to say then? OOOpsies?
Posted by: fireangel at February 25, 2006 8:12 PM
Questions:
In some of my poking around I came across the fact the the current Dubai Emir has only been in power for a month. He took power following the sudden death of his brother.
Forgive my ignorance, but Dubai isn't one of specialty areas. So,
Does anyone know if the current Emir has a history showing him to be pro-US?
Much has been made about the changes the UAE adopted after 9/11 that made them move closer to the west and adopt security concerns for us and be an ally. But, I am assuming that this was the now dead brother who made that decision for Dubai?
Also, Feb.5 UAE announced it would start a ground breaking mutual investment type relationship with Palestine. This decision would apparently have been finalized after the Hamas election and the death of the former Emir.
So, where can we find more concrete information about the current Emir.
Is he MORE pro-west? Could he have been "put" into power? Is he less pro-west? Could he have "taken" power? Or, is the change in rulership admist so much else mere coincidence.
I don't really believe in coincidence, but every now and then it does seem to actually happen...
Thanks for your time and input.
Posted by: toleranceorappeasement? at February 25, 2006 8:47 PM
A muslim coworker had a mantra, "Americans are sooo stupid!"
Yup.
Posted by: zhu97 at February 25, 2006 8:56 PM
Quijybo - Unfortunately, your assessment of Bush is correct and the truth is he's not a true conservative. We're talking now about our ports but he's allowed a sunami of illegals to invade our nation with his deliberate failure to control our borders. Aside from the social and economic disaster that's brought us, it's a national security threat. He hasn't vetoed any of the pork bills that have wasted billions of tax payers money; he didn't veto McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform which restricts First Amendment rights; he didn't veto the education bill which he let Ted Kennedy write and which had school choice and accountability gutted from it. He did, however,give us the biggest entitlement since LBJ (prescription drugs) which will burden the next generation with an $18 trillion unfunded liability. A new book has just come out by an economist who served in the Reagan administration. It's titled "Imposter" and it describes how Bush has betrayed Reagan and bankrupted the nation. AND - what bill has he now threatened to veto - his first! - the one about the ports!!
Posted by: Topdog at February 25, 2006 11:12 PM
zhu97 & toleranceorappeasement?-
A few more inspiring details about our glorious ally the falconing United Arab Emirates:
"According to the U.S. State Department... the UAE... government does prohibit non-Muslims from proselytizing or distributing religious literature under penalty of criminal prosecution, imprisonment, or deportation, deeming such behavior offense to Islam."
"The government funds...almost 95% of Sunni mosques and employs all Sunni imams."
"Terrorism is financed using the banking system in two primary ways- through money laundering and through... the halawa system, which is a traditional alternative remittance [method of money transfers]...that operates outside the control of the conventional banking sector.... The halawa finance system is thought to be a conduit of much of the funding earmarked for terrorist activities. Although ...now licensed in the UAE and required to report suspicious transactions... it is unclear whether this regulation is enforced."
"Hundreds of thousands of low-skilled, poorly paid (often unpaid) South Asians work in the UAE in substandard living conditions without any rights or recourse for alleged abuse."
"Under the constitution, sharia, Islamic religious law, is the principle source of law."
-from: THE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS -FEDERAL RESEARCH DIVISION -Country Profile December 2005.
Boy am I reassured!
Phew!
Now I can sleep like a baby!
Or Bill O'Reilly.
Or Rush Limbaugh.
Whichever needs a bigger diaper.
Posted by: profitsbeard at February 25, 2006 11:45 PM
Bush has proven himself to be a closet Muslim. How could he sell our ports to those scum-sucking terrorists if he was not a Muslim? Face it--the war on terror is just a big ploy to take all the money that hard working Americans give to Uncle Sam and send it to Bin Laden! Yeah, he pretends to be fighting a war, but if any american soldier actually does their job and shoots a terrorist they get tried for murder and either put to death or court-marshelled, or both. The war in Iraq is just Mohammed Bush's way of sending our money to Saudia Arabia and Dubai to fund more terrorism! Our soldiers over there are not fighting for America--they're fighting for the Emirs and the house of Sa'ud.
Posted by: GentileSickOfIslam at February 26, 2006 12:02 AM
The Marine Transportation Security Act of 2002 requires vessels and port facilities to conduct vulnerability assessments and develop security plans including passenger, vehicle and baggage screening procedures; security patrols; establishing restricted areas; personnel identification procedures; access control measures; and/or installation of surveillance equipment.
Under the same law, port facility operators may have access to Coast Guard security incident response plans — that is, they would know how the Coast Guard plans to counter and respond to terrorist attacks.
Catherine: How do you feel now?
profitsbeard: I hear you.
Some form of this is going to make it through.
Posted by: zhu97 at February 26, 2006 12:02 AM
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)