Given how relations are in the Middle East between money and royalty, it would probably be the case that UBL and UAE royalty are related, but not friends. This is how it is, to an extent, between him and the Saudi royalty.
Anyone with actual power in the UAE rather than a title? 'Cause there is a big difference. Could you please clarify?
I may be new here, but I must say: Teeheeheehee
Because there’s a lot of royalty in the UAE, and most of them have a title, but no real power, and not much of a chance of getting any. So, you know, who in any of the UAE royal families does Bin Laden know, and how well does he know them?
One example of a UAE royal family member that met with UBL and Mullah Omar and went on some of these hunting expeditions in the 90’s:
Sheik Mohammed bin Rashid al Maktum, United Arab Emirates Defense Minister and Crown Prince for the emirate of Dubai
I don’t think we’re seeing eye to eye. What in my OP or subsequent post(s) is causing this confusion?
Zoe, I am blaming this “Dubai Ports’ Debacle” on the xenophobia of the blinkered, poor white who knows how to use the telephone or email. They’re the people driving this stupid thing, the Democrats are simply along for the ride. BTW: if you’re a Dem, here’s a hint: learn how to use your voices as effectively as these simple folk.
Stalin said the first cornerstone of Dictatorship is isolationism. As it happens, the fourth is ignorance.
Holy Defense Ministers, Batman! I’ll trade you one sheik who went hunting with ObL for a Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam Hussein. It’s from the 80s, but it’s in mint condition. Perhaps we shouldn’t entrust the US with the management of US port terminal operations.
“I’m concerned about a broader message this issue could send to our friends and allies around the world, particularly in the Middle East,” the President said.
You know, have you thought about how the UAE will respond to this shit? They’re building a SPaCE PoRT, for Christ’s sake, is this niggling thing a real challenge?
The nation is vastly wealthy. They’ve got huge stakes here. My X-ray Specs see big-time PR in the coming months about the beauty, the splendor, the forward-thinkingness of the Emirates.
I’m not kidding, this juvenile Moe-like “poke in the eye” may actually backfire. Mr and Mrs America is gonna end up being force-fed more than they ever wanted to know about Arabs, as soundbites and ads, by creative Agencies. Instead of “Oppenheimer Funds,” look for BBDO during Survivor with a generic, yet inviting “Come to Dubai: Treasure Seekers Welcome.”
God willing only US firms will end up with the ad contracts.
Looks like RaftPeople has answered this in the affirmative, but if he hadn’t, my answer would have been: isn’t the burden of proof on the Administration to verify a negative answer to that, rather than on us to determine what’s what?
They are the ones who are, under law, supposed to have found that there’s no plausible way this sale “could affect the national security of the United States.”
Looks like there were all sorts of things they might’ve needed to investigate before being able to say that, but still nobody in Washington who claims they headed such a review.
Holy shit, batman! I actually agree with Mr. Mace about something. We absolutely should not trust the current American administration with the management of US port terminal operation, or anything else for that matter. In fact I trust the UAE more cause we know they are in it for the money, who knows what the Bushistas are after.
Hey, RT. How do you reconcile this with President Bush’s early-on disconnect; IIRC the White House first gave this thing its blessing, then Mr Bush said he was “unaware of the deal”? I’d appreciate your opinion.
Could you clarify? My answer to what you’re asking as I understand it would be, none of that disconnect changes the underlying legal requirements. But you know that. So I assume you’ve got a different question you’re trying to ask than the one I think I’m seeing. Try again?
Has anyone gotten back to you and said just what enemy this was? I’m curious.
It may be true that America has enabled terrorism too, but it’s from stupidity rather than malice. Of course the terrorists were in American airplanes. They boarded them as passengers, like anybody else. What’s your point? As far as the pilot training the terrorists had is concerned, the FBI screwed up big time when it ignored reports that Arab-looking men were learning to fly, but not land large jets. I’m not sure I would trust the FBI to guard our ports either.
Well, if the picture included Donald’s 8 brothers, 4 uncle’s and grandpa, and they were on Saddam’s yacht for a week long cruise, then it might be similar.
Answer a few questions if you wouldn’t mind:
If you were the person in charge of determining whether the deal should go through, would you not even investigate the relationship between UBL and UAE?
If you do feel it’s worth investigating, then given your current position on this matter you must have information that makes you think this is not an issue. What information is it that has convinced you? Or do you take the stance that circumstantial evidence is not enough to kill a deal like this, there must be hard evidence of wrongdoing by UAE already?
Is there any situation that you can think of in which you would not support some company in a deal like this, due to security concerns (not due to operational capabilities)? In other words, if UBL himself wanted to take over the ports obviously you would not consider that ok, but I’m not looking for extreme cases, I’m trying to understand where that line is, for you, that would cause you to think twice.
Not to be too snarky, but I wouldn’t start an investigation based on a post by an anonymous person called “RaftPeople” on an internet message board. 
I think you need to flesh out your claims with some cites. We all know that the UEA had some questionable ties in the past. If there are ties today that are relavent, what are they? The UAE is one of the most forward looking, if not the most forward looking, Arab country in the Middle East, and DPW is a highly respected multinational company, not some shadowy mystery company that just popped onto the world stage yesterday.
But keep in mind that there was, in fact, an investigation of this deal by the CFIUS commmittee, which has members drawn from the Defense Department, Homeland Security as well as a rep from the National Security Advisor. And, remember that the US part of this deal is rather small, only about 10% of the total. And, there are quite a few other countries involved, all of whom (AFAICT) approved this deal without a hitch. These include, but are not limited to: the UK, Germany, France, Australia, Belgium, Singapore. I just find it extremely hard to believe that your concern was completely overlooked by the US and all those other countries. I can’t offer you proof that it wasn’t-- the reports from those investigations aren’t publicly available-- but it sure looks like a lot of different peolpe from a lot of different agencies from a lot of different countries all came to the conclusion that whatever relationship might have existed in the past is not relevant today.
Kind of a moot question in light of what I posted above, and in light of the fact that all parties had agreed to a further investigation.
Sure there is. The US, as well as other countries, maintains lists of countries, companies, and organizations with known terrorist or criminal ties. I don’t know all those listings, but I wouldn’t support any of them having business interests in the US that could affect national security. In fact, I suspect we would not allow such entities to have any business interests in the US. AFAIK, neither the UAE nor DPW is on any of those lists.
Well, first the Bush Administration gave its blessing on the Ports’ deal. Then the President said “who, me?” when the Public made its first harumphs. Then he asked for the 45-day investigation. Why hasn’t there been more hay made about the disconnect between what should have happened (the deal should’ve been properly vetted) and what actually happened?
So what’s the story, was it a smoke screen, were they buying time … ?
I didn’t think they were a shadowy mystery company. I merely think that regular people in a regular company can be supportive of AQ and willing to help. And given past relationships between UBL and UAE, the probability that this will happens seems higher than if there had been no relationship.
I wasn’t aware of the extent of the investigation and who was involved from which department. I would be very interested in hearing why they think the relationship with UBL is not an issue at this time. (again, go read those 2 sources I mentioned to confirm that a relationship existed).
Thanks for your reply.
If we truly had our most appropriate people from the various agencies OK this deal, as you suggest, then I would tend to agree with you that we can trust their judgement.
However, after reading Ghost Wars and seeing the interplay of personalities between the State dept, White House and CIA and how they had a tremendous impact on direction of policy (for example: the State dept winning the argument that the Taliban were really ok and just needed to be engaged, while at the same time UBL is blowing up our embassies and the CIA is saying we need to kill the guy), I’m not left with a feeling that ALL deals are automatically thought through by the best people. Maybe this one was, maybe it wasn’t.
So I think we primarily disagree on whether we can automatically assume that the analysis by the US is performed well.
Probably. All joking about US intelligence aside, I think we need to recognize that the CFIUS review might have seemed swift and low profile, but I doubt they would do any actual intel gathering by themselves. Rather, when they need to vet the UAE, they simply tap into the reems of material that various US intel agencies would have on most any country. And given the key role that the UAE has played as a staging point for our military in the M.E., I suspect we know every detail about that country inside and out. If there was some high visibility security risk that was ignored about that country (like the example you gave), it would have to have been ignored purposely. And if that was the case, no amount of additional investigation would have made any difference.
If I had seen even one of those other countries affected by this deal raising some red flags and putting the breaks on, I’d be much more suspicious of our own vetting process. As it is, it just seems hard to imagine that all those other countries would be rushing willy-nilly into a deal with significant security risks.
Oh Lord, more bs.
OK, I suppose Israel being cool with DPW wasn’t enough. All those other countries’ judgement on DPW wasn’t enough. ‘Cause, I guess, y’all are such security experts. Better even than the US fuckin’ Navy:
…and, you’re willing to stick a fork in doing business with a country that just happens to be going through a major growth spurt at the moment, and is ready to buy all kinds of things from us. 'Cause, you know, you want security that’s not just good, not just really good, not even close to perfect, but perfect.
'Cause, you know, y’all are such experts on security that you know, you just know, that when you hear Arab and ports in the same sentence, that constitutes a threat too serious to be countenanced.
Sure. “Arab” has become the codeword for “Those People Over There Who Want To Kill Us All”, and any politician who wants to appear “tough on security” is latching onto this like flies on shit (Republicans and Democrats both). Forget logic, there ain’t any.
Maybe we’ll see a revival of US companies running our port terminals. What do you think the existing leases are worth, now that foreign companies will consider them risky investments. We probably just tanked the asset value of the leases in every port in the country. I feel safer already.