Meanwhile, that papier-mache star performer of the puppet stage, that Charley MacCarthy of Times Square, called Tom Friedman [of the paper that prints what fits], has claimed [see another thread on DW/JW] that opposing the Dubai management of US ports is intolerant, and --no doubt-- against free trade, against the war on terrorism, etc.

Yet Dubai is a partner in the Arab boycott of Israel. Now, let's find out how much money the Dubai ruling family and their leading flunkies give to the Hamas, how much to Fatah, etc. Let's get full disclosure about working conditions in Dubai, about slavery --particularly of underfed boy camel jockeys-- about rates and reliability of payment for foreign workers there, about the treatment of foreign women workers, etc. And for those "leftist" or "feminist" morons or brainwashed baboons who say that Dubai has the right to its own culture and its own way of life, we can answer, Well, If so, then they could do what they want in their country, but the US doesn't have to give them control of US ports. Why does the US have to prove --if the USA stands for a civilization superior to that of the undemocratic Arab world-- that it is friendly to Arab capital investment, especially since Arab capital was so often earned through taking advantage of tax breaks in the US corporate income tax system through the Foreign Tax Credit?

Posted by: Eliyahu at February 28, 2006 7:30 AM

If Dubai Ports World are wholly owned by the Dubai Government, then aren't they obliged to follow Dubai law and block Israeli exports to the US? Surely the US government will be at risk of breaching its trade agreements with Israel if BPW are allowed to take up this contract?

This whole thing gets stranger and stranger, just what kind of pay off is George W getting for this deal?

Posted by: Tziona at February 28, 2006 7:32 AM

Good thinking Tziona ציונה

Of course, now the apologists will counter that the US NEEDS Dubai. But Dubai needs Uncle Sam's military protection against domestic and foreign enemies; domestically that might mean Shi'ites, wahhabis, etc., and abroad Dubai's enemies might include Iran, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia. With its relatively small population of Qataris [not all of whom are reliable] surrounded by foreign workers who just might be discontented, Qatar needs US military support. Only fool thinks that the USA needs them more than they need the USA.

Posted by: Eliyahu at February 28, 2006 7:49 AM

W's popularity down to 34 %. CBS is usually(rightfully so IMO)in their methadology, but the trend is not W's friend. The continuing erosion means the GOP will incrasingly abandon him in Congress. I'm surprised Frist did the 'reverse-cave in,' but I'm sure he'll flip again over this poll. With the Coast Guard, the polls and accompanied inflamed populace, I think that, somehow, the Dubai deal will be off. The obvious answer would be to get Dad, or Neal or somebody with ties to DW and send an SOS. Dubai needs to pull a Harriet Miers, and soon.

Posted by: biorabbi at February 28, 2006 8:14 AM

Even with all our objections, is the Dubai port deal, a done deal?

Posted by: freewoman at February 28, 2006 8:45 AM

"Tom Friedman..."
-- mentioned in a posting above

That he is dumber than any columnist the Times has ever had, and more smug even than Anthony Lewis, cannot be denied. But what infuriates is not the bottomless stupidity, but all those corporations and business groups that hire him to give them a lecture on the world, on one of his cheap formulations -- this year it's the world is flat, and next year it's bringing-down-the-price-of-oil-and-saving-the-world-in-every-way, and a few years ago it was the lexus-and-the-olive-tree. An idiotic lecture, a guide to nothing and nowhere, because stupidity cannot be overcome.

But the one thing that grates is the money. The $45,000 per lecture. That maddens me. That should madden everyone.

Posted by: Hugh at February 28, 2006 9:19 AM

Hugh wrote, re "Uncle Tom" Friedman:

"But the one thing that grates is the money. The $45,000 per lecture. That maddens me. That should madden everyone."

And I thought Court Fool was a undervalued occupation these days...

Posted by: Tziona at February 28, 2006 9:31 AM

Hugh: As if the goofy newspaper TF works for isn't enough, or the corporations and businesses that hire him to speak aren't enough, much more disturbing is the fact that Oprah Winfrey had him on her show a couple of months ago to explain the current state of middle east affairs and terrorism. Now Oprahs HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS of well-dressed and sophisticated female audience members around the world are fully informed - because we can always count on Oprah (and TF) to make sure we all get the truth. I'm willing to bet Friedman influenced more people in that one hour than he has in his entire career.

Posted by: Macondo5 at February 28, 2006 9:35 AM

Another reason why the DPW deal should not be approved.

From the Khaleej Times, Feb. 27

Textbook of American school in capital seized over �smell of racism�
By Anjana Sankar

27 February 2006

ABU DHABI � Close on the heels of the cartoon controversy raging across the Muslim world, it is the turn of an upscale American school in Abu Dhabi to ruffle Muslim sentiments by teaching lessons that allegedly ''smell of racism.''

Over 100 copies of the social studies text book, 'World Cultures' taught to the sixth grade children were confiscated by the Ministry of Education yesterday, for allegedly presenting Islam and the Muslim countries including Gulf states in a negative light while glorifying Israel on the other hand, Khaleej Times has learnt.

It has been accused that chapter 25 of the book running from page 599 to 614 contains a deluge of derogatory remarks against Islam and the Muslim world, for example, dubbing Middle East as one of the most dangerously explosive areas in the world and the Muslim conquest of India as the most bloodiest in the world history, to mention a few.

Read the whole article.
http://www.khaleejtimes.com/DisplayArticle.asp?xfile=data/theuae/2006/February/theuae_February883.xml§ion=theuae&col=

Boy, I am glad these people are on our side.

Posted by: Caratacus at February 28, 2006 10:10 AM

Again, not to worry. Bush and Silvio on tv, just a few minutes ago . . . W again made the comparison b/w a Brittish company and a UAE owned company. No difference at all. The emerites are our friends. Friends we can trust. Nothing to see here . . . move right along.

Posted by: biorabbi at February 28, 2006 10:24 AM

Bill O'Reilly and Rush T.O. Limbo say you are a "racist" if you question this port deal. "These guys are are allies. We need Arab allies."

Keep repeating:

We need the UAE.

We need the UAE.

Posted by: profitsbeard at February 28, 2006 11:00 AM

If you go into the putrid structure of Islam --- a fake religion and the most awful organization in human history --- you will see a 1,000 foot square concrete pillar plunging to the center of the earth.

This pillar is the fundament of Islam, its foundation, its basis. This pillar is composed of the corpses of Abu Afak, Asma Marwan, and the men of the Banu Qurayza. And the corpses of millions more Jews since. And the corpses of 80 million Hindus. And so many Christians and pagans and other innocents.

This is the Pillar of Murder. And it works like a goddammed charm.

SWT SWT SWT SWT SWT SWT SWT SWT SWT SWT SWT SWT SWT SWT SWT SWT SWT SWT

Thank you, Tim Russert! Thank you for your searing insight. The Arab Moslems of the UAE are too subtle and complex for mere mortals to fathom, yes, give them control over our ports, all ports. They are our valuable allies; they do not see that 1,000 foot square pillar because... say, are we being hoodwinked here?

Worse still, are we being hoodwinked by a self-deluding subintellectual and cowardly pompous ass?

Posted by: Alarmed Pig Farmer at February 28, 2006 11:11 AM

That (Thomas Friedman) is dumber than any columnist the Times has ever had, and more smug even than Anthony Lewis, cannot be denied.

With degrees from Brandeis and Oxford, is it not time for us in the Occident to consider holding our own little Cultural Revolution?

Posted by: Alarmed Pig Farmer at February 28, 2006 11:22 AM

Why can't the President at least threaten to kill this deal unless the ports firm ends its boycott of what is an actual American ally?
Posted by Robert at February 28, 2006 05:38 AM

What is the US policy? The policy is spelt out in http://www.bis.doc.gov/antiboycottcompliance/oacrequirements.html#whatsprohibited
We quote from the above.
===
During the mid-1970's the United States adopted two laws that seek to counteract the participation of U.S. citizens in other nation's economic boycotts or embargoes. These "antiboycott" laws are the 1977 amendments to the Export Administration Act (EAA) and the Ribicoff Amendment to the 1976 Tax Reform Act (TRA).
…
The Arab League boycott of Israel is the principal foreign economic boycott that U.S. companies must be concerned with today. The antiboycott laws, however, apply to all boycotts imposed by foreign countries that are unsanctioned by the United States.
…
What do the Laws Prohibit?
Conduct that may be penalized under the TRA and/or prohibited under the EAR includes:
• Agreements to refuse or actual refusal to do business with or in Israel or with blacklisted companies.
• Agreements to discriminate or actual discrimination against other persons based on race, religion, sex, national origin or nationality.
• Agreements to furnish or actual furnishing of information about business relationships with or in Israel or with blacklisted companies.
• Agreements to furnish or actual furnishing of information about the race, religion, sex, or national origin of another person.
• Implementing letters of credit containing prohibited boycott terms or conditions.

The TRA does not "prohibit" conduct, but denies tax benefits ("penalizes") for certain types of boycott-related agreements.
===

Is DP World supposed to do business with Israel? It is to simply manage some ports in USA. The litmus test would be to see what DP World does when ships handling material from / to Israel are to be served at the US ports. If they refuse service then they violate the TRA and EAR and could be booted out.

Chances are they would meekly serve all ships. Thus, the DP World ends up violating the Arab boycott of Israel, at least on US soil. Why are we saving UAE from its future dilemma of obeying the OIC or obeying the business interests by asking President Bush to deny the port deal?

Posted by: Mohideen Ibramsha at February 28, 2006 1:05 PM

Oppositon to Dubai Port World take over if a relatively FEW container terminals is RIDICULOUS!

This boycott issue is another red-herring; here's why:

From TODAY'S JPOST:

The Arab boycott, established by the Arab League in 1951 as an economic tool to hurt Israel, is a dying animal. Ask Aramex.

The company, which provides delivery services around the world, is commonly used by Arab and Israeli companies who want to exchange goods without upsetting any Arab port officials. The company provides customers with US mailing addresses where Israeli products can be sent. It then exchanges the Israeli postalstamped packaging for a US-stamped package and sends it on to its Arab destination.

So while some Arab ports will not accept goods marked "Made in Israel," if you take off the sticker and send it through another country, the deal is done.

"Besides Syria, the Arab boycott is now just lip service," said Doron Peskin, head of research at InfoProd, a consulting firm for foreign and Israeli companies specializing in trade to Arab states.

In its heyday, the Damascus headquarters of the Office of the Arab Boycott (OAB) blacklisted 8,500 foreign companies for buying products from Israeli companies, stopping in Haifa port, having a branch in Israel, or any other number of moves which Israel could benefit from economically.

The OAB went even further: the secondary boycott prohibited foreign firms from operating in Arab States if they had trade or commercial dealings with Israel, and the tertiary boycott prohibited foreign firms from acquiring technology from, and establishing partnerships or joint ventures with blacklisted foreign companies.

Today, however, even the most hardline Arab countries are officially dropping the official primary level of the boycott to join trade organizations and agreements.

The most significant "fall" was of Saudi Arabia, which agreed last September to drop the primary boycott of Israel to join the WTO. On Sunday December 11, the world's biggest oil exporter will become the 149th WTO member. Kuwait, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates are also WTO members.

"Today the Arab boycott is all bark and no bite," said Danny Halperin, who founded and headed the Israeli Authority Against Economic Warfare (IAAEW). "We succeeded."

The IAAEW worked closely with the Foreign Ministry to get the US to pass a bill to make it illegal for US companies to cooperate with the boycott. In 1977 President Jimmy Carter signed the anti-Arab boycott bill, marking the dramatic beginning to the boycott's end.

Various historical events weakened the boycott further. Egypt made peace with Israel in 1978. In 1991, Kuwait agreed to rescind its secondary and tertiary boycotts after the US freed it from Iraqi occupation. The 1993 Oslo Accords were the nail in the boycott's coffin. The Arabs said they would not compromise until a full landfor-peace settlement was reached between the Israelis and the Palestinians, but they partially rescinded the boycott anyway.

In 1996 the OAB stopped convening.

Today, trade between the Jewish state and the Arab world remains "undercover," but goes on regularly. (The products cannot be identified as Israeli or they may end up back on the ship.).

Yet while few Muslim states (Syria, Lebanon and Iran) remain hard-core adherents to the ban, the Arab consumer as a whole remains loyal to it and Arab businessmen say that only a comprehensive peace process will change that.

Peskin said it's a "psychological" barrier. "We didn't get to the point where a consumer in Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Kuwait will feel comfortable opening and using product labeled 'Made in Israel.'"

Posted by: reliapundit - the astute blogger at February 28, 2006 1:14 PM

We need to stop this deal. The enemy gets no seat at our table.

Posted by: 00Buck at February 28, 2006 1:14 PM

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?apage=2&cid=1139395503279&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

link for above article.

Posted by: reliapundit - the astute blogger at February 28, 2006 1:14 PM

facts are stubborn things

Posted by: reliapundit - the astute blogger at February 28, 2006 1:29 PM

Allowing this port deal to go through would prove our equanimity to the Muslim and Arab world!

It would also disprove the notion that we're "anti-Arab" bigots and "Islamophobes"... !

Of couse, at the slightest drop of a hat, sideways glance, publishing of an "offensive" cartoon, or fabricated story by Newsweek about US Military personell flushing Korans down toilets, all that largesse would be tossed out the window, and the Muslims in Dubai would feel free and Islam-bound to wreak the most heinous vengeance on us for simply being infidels...

It happened in Egypt. It happened in Indonesia. It happened in Pakistan. It happened in Iraq. It happened in Iraq. It happened in Saudi Arabia. It happened in Jordan. It happened in unoccupied Palestine...

Muslims are not to be trusted. Every effort to "win their hearts and minds" is doomed to fail and boomerang on us as long as they remain Muslim.

Posted by: jsla at February 28, 2006 1:38 PM

The enemy gets no seat at our table.
Posted by: 00Buck at February 28, 2006 01:14 PM
Dubai is our friend! It is not enemy!!!

Posted by: Mohideen Ibramsha at February 28, 2006 2:37 PM

Muslims are not to be trusted.
Posted by: jsla at February 28, 2006 01:38 PM
Isn’t trust a two way street? A Google search on “Trust is a two way street” yields about 10,500 URLs. Let us trust Muslims, so that they would trust us. I am a Muslim. I am 60+ in age. I do not know if I had betrayed the trust of any so far. To my knowledge, I had kept the trusts that came my way.

Posted by: Mohideen Ibramsha at February 28, 2006 2:51 PM

Funny, Republicans now using the race card. Don't leave home with out it.

Posted by: Wyatt Earp at February 28, 2006 2:57 PM

Dear Mohideen,

Allah commands al-mu'minum to avoid the infidel:

Yusuf Ali 3.28. Let not the believers Take for friends or helpers Unbelievers rather than believers: if any do that, in nothing will there be help from Allah.

and Allah ta'alla knows best.

the Emirates will not have help from Allah.
May the curse of Allah be upon them.
They take interest on loans as well.

Posted by: A_Plague_on_Both_Houses at February 28, 2006 3:29 PM

Allah commands al-mu'minum to avoid the infidel:
Posted by: A_Plague_on_Both_Houses at February 28, 2006 03:29 PM

Wrong. The believers are not to prefer a non-Muslim over a Muslim. The Muslims have a duty to convey the Message of the Holy Quran. If the Muslim avoids all non-Muslims, he / she fails in the duty.

Posted by: Mohideen Ibramsha at February 28, 2006 3:44 PM

I recall being so freaking outraged at a high ranking minister--foreign I think in the Pakistan Government saying how unfortuante the bombing was several weeks ago when we just missed the # 2 to Bin Laden in the border regions via a predator strike. There was such outrage, this minister said, and it was so sad because of all the good will the US had built up, then squandered, as a result of the earthquake rescue. The way I look at this is as follows: Dubai isn't even Saudi Arabia. What I mean by this is Dubai needs us completely -- 100 %, maybe Saudi only needs us 80 % in terms of defense. It is a complete joke. We're afraid of offending Dubai for being pro Jihadist, anti semetic ect.ect.ect.ect. -- they need us far more than we need them.

Posted by: biorabbi at February 28, 2006 3:45 PM

A believer must prefer another believer over a non-believer. Allah tells us most infidel are perverted - even among the People of the Book:

3.110 Ye are the best of peoples, evolved for mankind, enjoining what is right, forbidding what is wrong, and believing in Allah. If only the People of the Book had faith, it were best for them: among them are some who have faith, but most of them are perverted transgressors.

Working with infidels will corrupt the believer!

3.143 O ye who believe! If ye obey the Unbelievers, they will drive you back on your heels, and ye will turn back (from Faith) to your own loss.

Allah commands that believers should shun non-believers - even if they be blood relatives - so strong is the division:

9.23. O ye who believe! take not for protectors your fathers and your brothers if they love infidelity above Faith: if any of you do so, they do wrong.

Allah commands it to be wrong to take an infidel as friend or protector.

Posted by: A_Plague_on_Both_Houses at February 28, 2006 4:00 PM

I was a liberal before 9/11, and moved very far to the right after 9/11, and supported President Bush in the last election. However, my belief now is that he cares more about his family and friend's business interests than he cares about me. I cannot believe that he is supporting this deal.It is an act of treason.

Posted by: templar at February 28, 2006 4:02 PM

reliapundit/ Mohideen-

The Koran is the world-conquest playbook of a pedophile warlord.

Follow its violent, deceitful precepts at your own risk.

And stop trying to lie to those who've read it.

"Trust only those who do not blow smoke up your ass."

Posted by: profitsbeard at February 28, 2006 6:44 PM

Bush hallucinated about the "march toward democracy" in a speech before the American Legion on February 24. Today he made the mistake of allowing Elisabeth Vargas to interview him on ABC News. He was hallucinating. Again he spoke about the "war on terror" and we needed "our Arab friends" who formed part of the "coalition" in this "war on terror" and so it would be wrong to offend those "Arab friends" in that "war on terror" -- shall I stop, or are you a glutton for punishment?

As long as this very stupid and very stubborn man thinks this way, it is inconceivable that the American government will realize it has much more to gain from sectarian and ethnic strife within Iraq, and indeed elsewhere in the Muslim world. He will never realize why stopping the Jizyah of foreign aid is so necessary to changing both the assumptions of Muslims about what they can demand, and get, from Infidels, and the assumptions of some Infidels about our hope residing in some entirely irrelevant, and very likely almost imaginary, "moderate" -- as opposed to "immoderate" -- Muslims. How can Bush, if we wishes to keep "Arab friends" and "allies" in the "war on terror," conceivably recognize that Egypt is not an ally but an oppressor of non-Muslim Copts, and a defender and protecter of the Arab Muslims in the Sudanese government, as they conduct in their campaign against both non-Arabs and non-Muslims, in the Sudan and now in Chad. He cannot conceive of seizing the southern Sudan and Darfur, as a humanitarian act which, in leading to a referendum, would help push back the Jihad and claim both the Sudan and Darfur (its people no doubt susceptible to jettisoning Islam for the Christianity offered them by the powerful and protecting Americans) for Dar al-Harb -- an act of great potential value, which would hearten black Christians in Ethiopia (now under demographic assault by Muslims) and in southern Nigeria (fed up with the Muslim atrocities and spread of Shari'a), and elsewhere in black Africa. Bush can't even allow himself to think in terms of dividing and demoralizing in Iraq, or pushing back in the Sudan, the forces of Islam. For him there are all those good Muslims just waiting to join our "coalition" in the "war on terror." He doesn't appear to realize that every single one of those Arab or Muslim "allies" is only an "ally" in the most limited sense, out of self-interest, and not out of any desire to do away with the Jihad. Qatar is two-faced. Egypt is two-faced. Jordan is two-faced. Pakistan is two-faced. And, yes, the United Arab Emirates is two-faced. One could go into the details in each case, and it has been done many times at Jihad Watch.

Bush is hallucinatory. He lives in his own dream-world. I don't think anyone can wake him up. Waking up would be too painful, because he would have to face up to the terrible waste of resources and of men's lives that he and his Administration have been responsible for. This is something they cannot bear to do. So they won't. And we are stuck. We must work around and against them, in every possible way.

Posted by: Hugh at February 28, 2006 8:11 PM

Hugh-

Bush is off to India.

Has he read the Bhagavad Gita, or Rig Veda, or even seen a Classic comic book version of either?

Would he know the different between raja yoga and hatha yoga?

Or that khaki and shampoo are Hindu words?

Does he know anything but a few cliched phrases, that he doesn't even read well anymore, about "democracy" and "freedom" and "allies" and "winning"?

He reminds me more and more of a dumb little kid with cookie crumbs on his hand blustering and denying forever that his hand anywhere near the jar. Because, to admit any flaw is to admit the possibility that he is flawed, and that his plans are flawed.

Never reassessing anything. Never firing anyone (like the heads of the CIA, FBI, NSA and ONI, to start, after 9/11's showing of a total failure by all of them). Never demonstrating any sign of an ability to shrug, laugh at himself, and say:

"We were deceived by the Iraqis... who told us they wanted freedom to make the future better for their children, but apparently, they prefer endless bloodfeuds for their intolerant religious vendettas. I have to say I am sorry they are such fools, but we cannot be their permanent wetnurse. I am disgusted with them, and I am orderinng our troops to withdraw from ground positions, and, from now on, we will only shoot at the insurgents, these Islamic terrorists, from the air, and will do it with utter superiority of weaponry. And we will hold back nothing. If they want chaos, that is their insane choice. But, if they try to spread it beyond their borders, they will die. And their country will be laid waste to. As will Iran. Or any other terrorism-loving land. You people make me sick. Your religion makes me sick. Our brave young men and women gave their blood and honor to try to drag you from the horrors of the dark ages, but it appears you like it there. The hell with you. Goodnight, and good luck."

And start air sorties over the Iraqi's perpetual clan versus clan killings for as long as need be.

The truth is a bitch.

But she's loyal.

Posted by: profitsbeard at March 1, 2006 12:17 AM

Why would Dubyah hold his ground on this port deal? Could it have something to do with Neil?

INVESTORS from the United Arab Emirates helped fund the $23 million Neil Bush raised for Ignite!, the learning systems company that holds lucrative No Child Left Behind Act contracts in Florida and Texas.
Neil Bush’s frequent travels to Dubai are documented by Datamatix, a Dubai-based information technology company that has featured Neil Bush as a speaker.

Also, least we forget:

U.S. anti-boycott laws that were 1977 amendments to the Export Administration Act and the Ribicoff Amendment to the 1976 Tax Reform Act. The federal statute citation is 15 CFR 760 et seq.
Clearly, Dubai's compliance with the Arab boycott against Israel is a violation of U.S. law, and clearly, for this reason alone, DP World should not be allowed to do business here, as it is a wholly-owned Dubaian government entity, and JPost reports that DP World abides by the boycott. In fact, Dubai even has the official Dubai Customs Department's Office for the Boycott of Israel.

Posted by: eastcoastbuckeye at March 1, 2006 5:22 AM

eastcoastbuckeye, these questions need to be asked by our press. Is their any connection b/w Neal and dubai port works? Sure he'll get mad and fire back, but maybe he'll be caught in a fib. Any connection b/w Dad or his cronies? Your administration and Dubai? How about Snow? Mr. President is it or isn't it true that a Prince from our greatest ally in the middle east falcoln hunted with BinLaden? YES or NO, Mr. President? Are their any predator tapes of this? Will they be released? So the answer is no? OK, we'll get him on the record. How sad the whole business is.

Posted by: biorabbi at March 1, 2006 9:28 AM

And stop trying to lie to those who've read it.
Posted by: profitsbeard at February 28, 2006 06:44 PM

Please understand what you read. Reading the Muslim scriptures and misunderstanding them causes the above accusation that I am trying to lie. Let us look at 3:28.
===
3:28 Let not the Believers take for friends or helpers unbelievers rather than Believers: if any do that, in nothing will there be help from Allah: except by way of precaution, that ye may guard yourselves from them. But Allah cautions you (to remember) Himself; for the final goal is to Allah.
===

‘Rather than’ indicates comparison. My interpretation is the correct one. I do not try to lie; I speak the truth.

Posted by: Mohideen Ibramsha at March 1, 2006 4:05 PM

9.23. O ye who believe! take not for protectors your fathers and your brothers if they love infidelity above Faith: if any of you do so, they do wrong.
Posted by: A_Plague_on_Both_Houses at February 28, 2006 04:00 PM

A father or an elder brother protects the young. Before the advent of Islam, the families were un-Islamic. The above Verse cautions the young revert not to be carried away by the old confidence in the father or brother protecting her / him. The protector of all is God Almighty. In particular, the Muslims rely on God Almighty than any other support.

One can be a friend without being under the protection of the other.

Posted by: Mohideen Ibramsha at March 1, 2006 4:13 PM

I note that Bush is overseas visiting India, after first stoping at one of our other "allys".

Why did this take place on short notice, without announcement before hand? This "ally" is being treated diffrent than say the Brits, who Bush would let it be known a month before the visit.

Actions are more than words here.

No port takeover by the UAE.

Posted by: Islofob IS-1 at March 1, 2006 5:11 PM