Bush supporters' aftermath thread II

the UAE is a drug transshipment point for traffickers given its proximity to Southwest Asian drug producing countries; the UAE's position as a major financial center makes it vulnerable to money laundering; anti-money-laundering controls improving

"All roads lead to Dubai when it comes to money. Everyone did business there," said Patrick Jost

No, woiyo, I've noticed that line.

So Dubai is one of the region's most open banking centers and is the commercial capital of the United Arab Emirates. Okay.

So, which one is an indication for UAE support of Al Qaida:

- that it is one of the region's most open banking centers
- that it is the commercial capital of the UAE

Furthermore, it maintained diplomatic relations with the Taliban until shortly after Sept. 11. Alright. I'll assume that means that they broke diplomatic relations with the Taliban shortly after 9/11.

However, as Walter noted, the USA still maintains diplomatic relations with the Saudis, as well as with the Pakistanis. Indications for US support of Al Qaida?

1) Maintaining "relations" with Saudis et, al.. is one thing. Turning over major Ports in the USA to a State Run Company is something different. Would "OLD EUROPE" turned over control of their ports to a German State Run Company DURING WW2??

Maintaining "relations" with Saudis et, al.. is one thing. Turning over major Ports in the USA to a State Run Company is something different.

woiyo wrote:

Maintaining "relations" with Saudis et, al.. is one thing. Turning over major Ports in the USA to a State Run Company is something different.

By the way, that is quite a funny argument.

You're saying that maintaining relations is one thing. Well, the UAE maintained relations with the Taliban. The USA is maintaining relations with Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. One thing.

Now, turning over ports to a state run company from a country that is/was maintaining relations is something different. By implication you mean something dangerous.


Following your logic, every country in the world should hence be warned not to allow UAE or American state owned companies to invest in its infrastructure.

And, even funnier: American infrastructure should be safeguarded against investments from American state owned companies, because of Al Qaida connections....

Huh? What American state owned companies,

and what al Qaeda connections?

Sen. Charles Schumer, who's been a leading critic of the Bush administration's decision to approve a takeover of U.S. ports by a company based in the United Arab Emirates, said Monday that he'd rather give Hallibuton the contract.

"I'd take Halliburton over U.A.E. at this point, if I had to take a choice right now," Schumer told Fox News Channel's John Gibson.

Quote:

And, even funnier: American infrastructure should be safeguarded against investments from American state owned companies, because of Al Qaida connections....

Huh? What American state owned companies, and what al Qaeda connections?

Ticomaya wrote:

Quote:

And, even funnier: American infrastructure should be safeguarded against investments from American state owned companies, because of Al Qaida connections....

Huh? What American state owned companies, and what al Qaeda connections?

You've got to read up and follow the whole argument.

The UAE state is suspect because it upheld relations with Afghanistan.

According to the same logic, the US state would be suspect because it upheld relations with Saudi-Arabia and Pakistan. For one because those countries too upheld relations with Taliban Afghanistan. But also because Saudi-Arabia itself was tied up as much with Al-Qaeda as Afghanistan.

So if UAE state-owned companies should be barred from owning US ports because of the country's past "relations" with Afghanistan, then, according to the same logic, US state-owned companies should be barred also, because of the country's "relations" with Saudi-Arabia and Pakistan...

I think it was that logic that Old Europe thought was funny, not the notion of the right of any "sovereign country [to] take whatever steps they think best in that regard to safeguard their infrastructure" itself.

(Then again, perhaps you had actually gotten all that, but were just playing stupid?)

I gotta agree with OE. I dont really have an opinion about the matter itself at all, but the logic that some have applied has sure been entertaining ;-)

Tico, come on. Strike the "state owned companies". We all know the US is capitalist heaven, and would never allow a company to be state owned.

<sigh>

Back to the issue at hand.

What's your opinion about the UAE - are they a dangerous lot?

February 22, 2006
They Are All Profilers Now
By Michelle Malkin

For the past several years, I've been condemned as an "extremist" for advocating nationality profiling -- unapologetically applying stricter scrutiny to terror-sponsoring and terror-sympathizing countries in our entrance, immigration and security policies.

Now, mirabile dictu, some of the same Democrats who have routinely lambasted such profiling are rushing to the floors of Congress and in front of TV cameras espousing these very same policies. The impetus: the White House's boneheaded insistence on ramming through a $7 billion deal giving United Arab Emirates-owned Dubai Ports World control over significant operations at six major American ports in New York, New Jersey, New Orleans, Baltimore, Philadelphia and Miami.

Make no mistake. I stand with critics on both sides of the aisle who want to stop the secretive deal transferring operations of our ports to the UAE -- a Middle Eastern government with a spotty record of fighting terrorist plots and terrorist financing. The issue is not whether day-to-day, on-the-ground conditions at the ports would change. The issues are whether we should grant the demonstrably unreliable UAE access to sensitive information and management plans about our key U.S. ports, which are plenty insecure enough without adding new risks, and whether the decision process was thorough and free from conflicts of interest.

From every angle -- political, safety and sovereignty-wise -- Dubai Ports World's business transaction (made possible by an unprecedented $3.5 billion Islamic financing instrument called a "sukuk" that upholds sharia law) looks bad and smells worse.

But there is a teachable moment here that shouldn't be missed. The tone-deafness of the White House is bad. The craven political opportunism of the Democrats is worse.

Listen to Sen. Evan Bayh, Indiana Democrat: "I think we've got to look into this company. I think we've got to ensure ourselves that the American people's national-security interests are going to be protected. And frankly, I think the threshold ought to be a little higher for a foreign firm."

And Sen. Barbara Boxer, California Democrat: "It is ridiculous to say you're taking secret steps to make sure that it's OK for a nation that had ties to 9/11, (to) take over part of our port operations in many of our largest ports. This has to stop."

And Sen. Hillary Clinton, New York Democrat: "Our port security is too important to place in the hands of foreign governments. I will be working with [New Jersey] Senator [Robert] Menendez to introduce legislation that will prohibit the sale of ports to foreign governments."

And Sen. Charles Schumer, New York Democrat, who said the Dubai company's involvement "is enough to raise a flag -- at least to do a thorough review, at minimum."

I wish these politicians luck in their quest to block the UAE transfer, shed light on the process led by the shadowy Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, and join with congressional Republicans to put American security interests first. But as they attempt to do their best Pat Buchanan impressions, let's not forget:

It was Democrats who tried to block Bush administration efforts to impose common-sense citizenship requirements on airport security workers in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks.

It was Democrats who attacked the Bush Justice Department after the September 11 attacks for fingerprinting young male temporary visa holders traveling from terror-sponsoring and terror-friendly nations; temporarily detaining asylum seekers from high-risk countries for background screening; and sending undercover agents to investigate mosques suspected of supporting terrorism.

It was Democrats who secretly attempted to remove funding for the National Security Exit-Entry Registration System -- the Justice Department program that helped nab at least 330 known foreign criminals, 15 illegal-alien felons and three known terrorists who attempted to enter the country.

And just one week ago, it was failed Democratic presidential candidate Al Gore who was in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, attacking the Bush administration's profiling and immigration enforcement against illegal aliens from terror-friendly countries as "terrible abuses."

Perhaps the UAE will be hiring Gore to condemn the "abusive" practices now being championed by his fire-breathing extremist Democrat colleagues?

After all, they are all red flag-raising, threshold-hiking, thorough review-espousing, foreign ownership-banning profilers now.

An imperial presidency?

By David Limbaugh

Feb 22, 2006

Surely no one paying attention to national politics could be missing the left's orchestrated effort to paint President Bush not only as a man infected with poor judgment and bad policies but as a power-hungry, would-be dictator.

You know the drill. The alleged litany of Bush's abuses is extensive. They say he's stubborn, won't listen to advice, won't admit mistakes and lives in a bubble. He wants to force his "fundamentalist" religious views down America's throat.

Liberal legend further has it that he made a "unilateral" decision to attack Iraq -- as just the first step in his plan to enslave the world through democracy -- both by ignoring the wishes of our allies and trying to sidestep, then dupe, Congress. He locks up enemy combatants and throws away the key, he and his henchmen have masterminded their abuse and torture, and he denies them the full protection of the Bill of Rights.

He and his fiendish vice president inhabit undisclosed locations, play hide-the-ball from the benign, well-intentioned Old Media, and conduct secret meetings to discuss schemes to deny health care to the uninsured, deprive the elderly of Social Security, and transfer the assets of the poor to the wealthy.

Worst of all, he spies on innocent Americans who deserve a little privacy when jawing with Osama. Why, he even found a federal judge for the Supreme Court -- Samuel Alito -- who'll facilitate his sinister scheme to consolidate executive power in his quest for world domination a la Austin Powers' Dr. Evil.

Think I'm exaggerating for effect? You be the judge.

Most recently, Newsweek's misanthropic Jonathan Alter penned a column piling on Vice President Dick Cheney, titled "The Imperial (Vice) Presidency." He demonized Cheney as insular, arrogant, unaccountable and an integral part of "a government that increasingly believes it is a law unto itself."

But this idea has been brewing in liberal cauldrons for quite some time. Columnist Helen Thomas wrote in 2002, "The imperial presidency has arrived. On the domestic front, President Bush has found that in many ways, he can govern by executive order. In foreign affairs, he has the nerve to tell other people that they should get rid of their current leaders."

Bruce Shapiro, writing for Slate in 2002, said, "The Bush administration rivals the Nixon White House when it comes to secrecy and unchecked power, with John Ashcroft as our modern-day John Mitchell."

"The Nation" editorialized in 2002 on "The Imperial Presidency," citing "the assumption of imperial war-making powers by George W. Bush and his coterie of close advisers."

John Dean, former counsel to President Richard Nixon and permanent darling of liberals everywhere, wrote in early 2004 of President Bush's "imperial presidency." As evidence, Dean cited the administration's "'preemptive' and 'preventive' military policy, its contentions that it can go to war regardless of whether Congress approves, its policies calling for American world domination, and its unprecedented blending of national security policy and domestic law enforcement."

Fast-forwarding back to the present, The New York Times wrote just last month that "Mr. Bush, however, seems to see no limit to his imperial presidency" and noted he would be aided by "Judge Samuel Alito, the man Mr. Bush chose to tilt the Supreme Court to the right."

These examples were retrieved from the first page of a simple Google search. A Nexis search of "George Bush and 'imperial presidency'" was interrupted because it yielded more than a thousand entries.

You have to wonder where the likes of Jonathan Alter were when Bill Clinton openly flouted the rule of law. Was he not seeking to become a law unto himself? How about Hillary's penchant for secrecy and her frequent flights from accountability? What about Bill's "unilateral" bombings of Iraq and Serbia?

No, it's not expansions of executive power that bother the left, but when they occur under a Republican presidency. Indeed, the term "the imperial presidency" was made fashionable by historian Arthur Schlesinger Jr. in his book with that title, lamenting the arrogation of power by the executive branch that culminated in the Nixon presidency.

Today, the left has resurrected the term as part of its strategy to avoid a debate on policy by scandalizing and criminalizing President Bush. The claims of Bush's dictatorial propensities are as unsupportable as they are preposterous, but liberals have run out of ammunition.

One of their greatest challenges for 2008 will be to figure out how to transfer their personalized defamation of President Bush to the Republican Party in general. Which is why we're hearing so much today about the supposed "culture of corruption" and why they are willing to go to any lengths to frame the Abramoff affair as an exclusively Republican scandal.

This is quite an ambitious undertaking, but don't underestimate their desperation.