[Carlhole]

Last year, Washington blocked China's CNOOC from acquiring UnoCal because of National Security concerns. Objections were that CNOOC was a governement-controlled company. Now, Dubai Ports World is seeking to take charge of 6 US ports and is also government-controlled. How come we don't hear the comparison of the two deals on the news?

UAE to Control 40% of Army Cargo to Iraq
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('source', '&')quot;A major part of the story, however, has been mostly overlooked. The company, Dubai Ports World, would also control the movement of military equipment on behalf of the U.S. Army through two other ports. From today’s edition of the British paper Lloyd’s List:

[P&O] has just renewed a contract with the United States Surface Deployment and Distribution Command to provide stevedoring [loading and unloading] of military equipment at the Texan ports of Beaumont and Corpus Christi through 2010. According to the journal Army Logistician “Almost 40 percent of the Army cargo deployed in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom flows through these two ports.”

Thus, the sale would give a country that has been 'a key transfer point for illegal shipments of nuclear components to Iran, North Korea and Lybia' direct control over substantial quantities U.S. military equipment. "

What is the Bush Administration thinking? Are they thinking? They consider this adequate national security?

This US ports deal shows complete disinterest in protecting Americans from terrorist harm. It illustrates again that the Bush Administration, which claims to be strong on national security, is an imcompetent, boastful paper tiger on security matters FOR American citizens. George Bush is weak on national security!

As New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd commented today, "Maybe it's corporate racial profiling, but I don't want foreign companies, particularly ones with links to 9/11, running American ports.

What kind of empire are we if we have to outsource our coastline to a group of sheiks who don't recognize Israel, in a country where money was laundered for the 9/11 attacks? It's mind-boggling that President Bush ever agreed to let an alliance of seven emirs be in charge of six of our ports."

[gary_malcolm]

Ahem...


The Central Intelligence Agency did not target Al Qaeda chief Osama bin laden once as he had the royal family of the United Arab Emirates with him in Afghanistan, the agency's director, George Tenet, told the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks on the United States on Thursday.

Had the CIA targeted bin Laden, half the royal family would have been wiped out as well, he said.

UAE Emir Luvs Osama (from March 25, 2004)


Nope, nothing to see here... move along... free trade ya know....

[Carlhole]

Geez...well, I hadn't meant for this to be a 911 post but I just found the following story over at 911Blogger.com:

911Blogger.com

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('source', '
')The Moussaoui Spin on the UAE Port Security Scandal

The growing scandal surrounding the UAE port security deal has a pretty interesting twist tied to 9/11, specifically how it may relate to the upcoming Moussaoui trial.

The indictment of Moussaoui quoted below lists numerous references to the UAE. How exactly the Bush administration will handle trying to prosecute the only person to plead guilty to crimes related to 9/11, and the UAE port security deal at the same time may get a bit tricky.

Here are the references in Moussaoui's indictment to the UAE:
http://www.msnbc.com/modules/wtc/moussa ... ?p=1&cp1=1

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MSNBC', ' ') 21. On or about June 29, 2000, $4,790 was wired from the United Arab Emirates ("UAE") to Marwan al-Shehhi (#175) in Manhattan.
22. On or about July 19, 2000, $9,985 was wired from UAE into a Florida SunTrust bank account in the names of Mohammed Atta (#11) and Marwan al-Shehhi (#175).
24. On or about August 7, 2000, $9,485 was wired from UAE into a Florida SunTrust bank account in the names of Mohammed Atta (#11) and Marwan al-Shehhi (#175).
25. On or about August 30, 2000, $19,985 was wired from UAE into a Florida SunTrust bank account in the names of Mohammed Atta (#11) and Marwan al-Shehhi (#175).
26. On or about September 18, 2000, $69,985 was wired from UAE into a Florida SunTrust bank account in the names of Mohamed Atta (#11) and Marwan al-Shehhi (#175).
61. Fayez Ahmed (#175) Gives Al-Hawsawi Control Over UAE Account
On July 18, 2001, Fayez Ahmed (#175) gave power of attorney to Mustafa Ahmed al-Hawsawi for Fayez Ahmed's Standard Chartered Bank accounts in UAE.
62. On July 18, 2001, using his power of attorney, Al-Hawsawi picked up Fayez Ahmed's VISA and ATM cards in UAE.
63. Between July 18 and August 1, 2001, Mustafa Ahmed al-Hawsawi caused Fayez Ahmed's VISA and ATM cards to be shipped from UAE to Fayez Ahmed in Florida. (The VISA card was then used for the first time on August 1, 2001, in Florida.) Jarrah (#93) Travels to Germany
66. On or about July 30 and 31, 2001, in Hamburg, Germany, Ramzi Bin al-Shibh, using the name "Ahad Sabet," received two wire transfers, totaling approximately $15,000, from "Hashim Abdulrahman" in UAE.
75. On or about August 17, 2001, Ziad Jarrah (#93) undertook a "check ride" at a flight school in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Final Preparations for the Coordinated Air Attack
76. On or about August 22, 2001, Fayez Ahmed (#175) used his VISA card in Florida to obtain approximately $4,900 cash, which had been deposited into his Standard Chartered Bank account in UAE the day before.
87. On or about September 3, 2001, in Hamburg, Germany, Ramzi Bin al-Shibh, using the name "Ahad Sabet," received approximately $1500 by wire transfer from "Hashim Ahmed" in UAE.
88. On or about September 4, 2001, Mohammed Atta (#11) sent a FedEx package from Florida to UAE.
90. On or about September 6, 2001, Satam al-Suqami (#11) and Abdulaziz Alomari (#11) flew from Florida to Boston. The Hijackers Return Excess Money to Al-Hawsawi in UAE
91. On or about September 6, 2001, approximately $8,055 was wired from Fayez Ahmed's (#175) Florida SunTrust account to the Standard Chartered Bank account over which Al-Hawsawi had power of attorney.
92. On or about September 8, 2001, an Arab male retrieved the package from Mohammed Atta (#11) at FedEx in Dubai, UAE.
93. On September 8, 2001, Mohammed Atta (#11) wired $2,860 to "Mustafa Ahmed" in UAE.
94. On September 8, 2001, Mohammed Atta (#11) wired $5,000 to "Mustafa Ahmed" in UAE.
95. On September 9, 2001, Waleed M. al-Shehri (#11) wired $5,000 to "Ahamad Mustafa" in UAE.
96. On September 10, 2001, Marwan al-Shehhi (#175) wired $5,400 to "Mustafa Ahmad" in UAE.
97. On September 11, 2001, in UAE, approximately $16,348 was deposited into Al-Hawsawi's Standard Chartered Bank account.
98. On September 11, 2001, in UAE, at about 9:22 a.m. local time (the early morning hours of Eastern Daylight Time), Mustafa Ahmed al-Hawsawi moved approximately $6,534 from the $8,055 in Fayez Ahmed's (#175) Standard Chartered Bank account into his own account, using a check dated September 10, 2001 and signed by Fayez Ahmed; Al-Hawsawi then withdrew approximately $1,361, nearly all the remaining balance in Ahmed's account, by ATM cash withdrawal.
99. On September 11, 2001, in UAE, approximately $40,871 was prepaid to a VISA card connected to Al-Hawsawi's Standard Chartered Bank account. The September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attacks
108. Al-Hawsawi Flees the U.A.E. for Pakistan
On September 11, 2001, Mustafa Ahmed al-Hawsawi left the U.A.E. for Pakistan.

[Carlhole]

The dirty little secret behind the UAE port security flap

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('David Sirota', ' ')Politicians and the media are loudly decrying the Bush administration's proposal to turn over port security to a firm owned by the United Arab Emirates (UAE) - a country with ties to terrorists. They are talking tough about national security - but almost no one is talking about what may have fueled the administration's decision to push forward with this deal: the desire to move forward Big Money's "free" trade agenda.

How much does "free" trade have to do with this? How about a lot. The Bush administration is in the middle of a two-year push to ink a corporate-backed "free" trade accord with the UAE. At the end of 2004, in fact, it was Bush Trade Representative Robert Zoellick who proudly boasted of his trip to the UAE to begin negotiating the trade accord. Rejecting this port security deal might have set back that trade pact. Accepting the port security deal - regardless of the security consequences - likely greases the wheels for the pact. That's probably why instead of backing off the deal, President Bush - supposedly Mr. Tough on National Secuirty - took the extraordinary step of threatening to use the first veto of his entire presidency to protect the UAE's interests. Because he knows protecting those interetsts - regardless of the security implications for America - is integral to the "free" trade agenda all of his corporate supporters are demanding.

The Inter Press Service highlights exactly what's at stake, quoting a conservative activists who admits that this is all about trade:

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Inter Press Service', '"')The United States' trade relationship with the UAE is the third largest in the Middle East, after Israel and Saudi Arabia. The two nations are engaged in bilateral free talks that would liberalise trade between the two countries and would, in theory at least, allow companies to own and operate businesses in both nations. 'There are legitimate security questions to be asked but it would be a mistake and really an insult to one of our leading trading partners in that region to reject this commercial transaction out of hand,' said Daniel T. Griswold, who directs the Center for Trade Policy Studies at the Cato Institute, a Washington-based libertarian think tank."

[seldom_seen]

the longer this story lingers the more it's starting to stink.

[IslandCrow]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Carlhole', 'L')ast year, Washington blocked China's CNOOC from acquiring UnoCal because of National Security concerns. Objections were that CNOOC was a governement-controlled company. Now, Dubai Ports World is seeking to take charge of 6 US ports and is also government-controlled. How come we don't hear the comparison of the two deals on the news?

[rogerhb]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('CIA Factbook', '[')b]Legislative branch: unicameral Federal National Council or Majlis al-Ittihad al-Watani (40 seats; members appointed by the rulers of the constituent states to serve two-year terms)
elections: none
note: reviews legislation, but cannot change or veto

[Carlhole]

Alex Jones weighs in with a pretty good article on the subject:

[url=http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/february2006/230206portsellout.htm]The Port Sell-Out and the Dismantling of America
Globalists swallowing US sovereignty through front countries like UAE but China threat ignored[/url]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('source', 'I')t is a stated goal of the Bilderberg Group, the Trilateral Commission and the CFR to promote what they call 'interdependence' and to lobby governments to sell off key infrastructure such as roads, lakes, ports, and highways to international corporations so that corporations can grow to be bigger in size than government.

44 of the world's 100 biggest economies are not countries, they are corporations. There is no vote, there is no access to shareholder or CEO records. These corporations take over governmental functions by paying off politicians to hand over assets and then declare there to be no means of oversight of their activities...

...

...The continued weakness of the dollar allows foreign entities to step in and buy more and more infrastructure while American families work three or four jobs just to get by.

The United Arab Emirates is a British holding and the British empire is simply re-shuffling some of its marbles. Claims that the UAE has links to terrorism are a distraction. The fact is that the UAE is in the pocket of the Globalists and is simply a front for the Internationalists to swallow up more of American sovereignty.

What we have is an 'oligopoly'. What is an oligopoly? It is where, similar to the Italian mafia, cartels and different corporate owners meet to affect the same thing as a monopoly. They decide which countries will control which interests and that is how the New World Order works.

[seldom_seen]

I'm going to keep an eye out for some sort of "event" that will be used to overshadow this story and take it out of the news.

[IslandCrow]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Carlhole', 'A')lex Jones weighs in with a pretty good article on the subject:


$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('source', 'T')he United Arab Emirates is a British holding and the British empire is simply re-shuffling some of its marbles. Claims that the UAE has links to terrorism are a distraction. The fact is that the UAE is in the pocket of the Globalists and is simply a front for the Internationalists to swallow up more of American sovereignty.

[LadyRuby]

Of course we all remember how Bushco blocked CNOOC from buying Unocal due to national interests. (Dollars, that is.)

Bushco has made it crystal clear that they don't care about us, the American people, they only care about their wealthy buddies/corporate ties.