Follow The UAE Ports Money Right To FOB (Friends/Family of Bush)…
by Bill Simon
I said it in an earlier post that there was something mighty fishy about Bush’s stance on threatening the veto on a possible bill that might block the takeover of American ports by the UAE. There was way too much passion in his reaction.
That, combined with the fact that he didn’t even know about the impending deal until it hit the newspapers, tells me, again, that something’s up.
And, you know what? Turns out I was right to be suspicious. Why? Because there is a money trail relationship between the Bush family and the United Arab Emirates.
Here’s the story, as excerpted from the transcript of the Lou Dobbs Show earlier this week:
“The oil-rich United Arab Emirates is a major investor in The Carlyle Group, the private equity investment firm where President Bush’s father once served as senior adviser and is a who’s who of former high-level government officials. Just last year, Dubai International Capital, a government-backed buyout firm, invested in an $8 billion Carlyle fund.
Another family connection, the president’s brother, Neil Bush, has reportedly received funding for his educational software company from the UAE investors. A call to his company was not returned.
Then there is the cabinet connection. Treasury Secretary John Snow was chairman of railroad company CSX/. After he left the company for the White House, CSX sold its international port operations to Dubai Ports World for more than a billion dollars.
In Connecticut today, Snow told reporters he had no knowledge of that CSX sale. “I learned of this transaction probably the same way members of the Senate did, by reading about it in the newspapers.”
Another administration connection, President Bush chose a Dubai Ports World executive to head the U.S. Maritime Administration. David Sanborn, the former director of Dubai Ports’ European and Latin American operations, he was tapped just last month to lead the agency that oversees U.S. port operations.”
In short, I believe George Dubious Bush’s friends/family stand to reap a pile of cash from this deal if it goes through. AND, all those claims from Gonzales and Chertoff about “information being classified” on the research into this deal has more to do with the Bush Family/Friends connection to reaping financial rewards than ANYTHING related to “national security” bullshit.
Technorati Tags: money trail relationship, Bush family, United Arab Emirates
February 24th, 2006 at 12:18 pm
Bill,
The tragic part it seems since President Bill Clinton famous “is” answer , both parties have increased double talk to the public with no shame.
February 25th, 2006 at 12:20 pm
Curious to see Lou Dobbs is now considered a credible source for information. What next, Michael Moore?
Follow the money…OK:
— USA and UAE enter into a Trade and Investment Framework Agreement (TIFA) in 2004 with long term goal of extending it to a full Free Trade Agreement. Where was the protest then?
— President Bush has been working on a Middle East Free Trade Agreement for years with the UAE a critical ally in the process.
— USA enjoys a large trade surplus with UAE.
— UAE is a Top 30 importer of USA goods and services growing its economy annually.
— Basic terms of the agreement between P&O and DP World were consummated in November…where was the outrage then?
President Bush by action believes free trade to be a positive influence on advancing liberty and freedom worldwide. While I disagree with the president on many spending decisions, this appears to be a visionary plan to avoid future wars/conflicts by establishing free societies through spread of free trade.
One can disagree with the philosophy while conjuring up all kinds of erroneous conspiracy theories, but there is no “there there” when one actually studies this issue beyond watching fat Lou do his daily Bush Bash.
bb
February 25th, 2006 at 12:33 pm
Bart,
Lou Dobbs is a Republican.And many Republicans support Lou Dobbs view on the trade and immigration problems in America. Bart ,one of the first person showing support of the UAE deal is Jimmy Carter.
February 25th, 2006 at 12:57 pm
John,
I could care less if fat Lou claims to be a Republican, so do Lincoln Chafee, Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins and you.
Jimmy finally got something right, good for him.
Now that we have addressed the emotional side, let’s discuss facts. So far you have avoided facts in your haste to be the Paul Revere of 2006; “the arabs are coming, the arabs are coming”. I presented facts about the deal, counter those and we can possibly have a discussion.
Bart
February 25th, 2006 at 2:38 pm
Bart,
Are you on the FAX list of White House Talking Points? Sure sounds like you are.
The fact that the deal was “consummated” in November is irrelevant. I’m not privvy to all these deals unless the press reports on them, so THAT part of your rebuttal is irrelevant.
On the concept of “free trade” with UAE, the management of our ports is not a “free trade” issue. We HAVE “free-trade.”
The ports are merely the mechanism by which the trade is transferred to and from our economy. Stopping UAE from controlling our ports will NOT stop “free trade.” DUH!
February 25th, 2006 at 3:01 pm
Bart,
What about this article from the New York Post.
QAEDA CLAIM: WE ‘INFILTRATED’ UAE GOV’T
By NILES LATHEM
——————————————————————————–
February 25, 2006 — WASHINGTON — Al Qaeda warned the government of the United Arab Emirates more than three years ago that it “infiltrated” key government agencies, according to a disturbing document released by the U.S. military.
The warning was contained in a June 2002 message to UAE rulers, in which the terror network demanded the release of an unknown number of “mujahedeen detainees,” who it said had been arrested during a government crackdown in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks.
The explosive document is certain to become ammunition for critics of the controversial UAE port..
February 25th, 2006 at 4:31 pm
Bill,
The UAE is not attempting to “control our ports” DUH! Spend a few moments researching Bill instead of relying on biased news reports slanted against this administration.
Bart
February 25th, 2006 at 5:01 pm
John,
True to form, you avoid discussion of facts. Instead you submit a partial story leaving out critical info. Come on John, can’t you do any better than that?
What do I think you ask. I think if there was any credibility assigned to the material referenced by Niles Lathem, it would have remained classified. Also any reasonable view of the data presented results in a conclusion that this was an effort by Al Qaeda immediately following 9/11 to scare Middle East countries from supporting the US war on terror. Go figure…or to use Bill’s term, DUH!
But who knows John, you could be right while all of the govt. review personnel simply failed to notice Osama hanging around DP World headquarters formulating plans to take over US ports. The same ports that Al Qaeda could enter with all forms of weaponry right now no matter who runs the terminals.
BTW, should we also cutoff all business relations with Citigroup which is part of the P&O / DP World transaction team and whose largest single shareholder is a Saudi Prince and member of the Royal Family (also mentioned in your story as being infiltrated by Al Qaeda)? How far does this vast terrorist conspiracy go…maybe America should just close its borders and hope for the best.
For the rest of the NY Post story, click here: http://www.nypost.com/news/worldnews/64126.htm
February 25th, 2006 at 5:04 pm
Bart,
“Operational management” is akin to “controlling” some of the flow of goods. That means that they WOULD be in control of some of the vital operations and could very easily screw it up and screw us over.
Don’t try to get in a pissing match with me over semantics. You’re a damn fool if you cannot see beyond the end of your nose.
February 25th, 2006 at 5:32 pm
Bart,
That was a strange way to look at the last article I posted.
How about this one.
DIRTY DUBAI DEALERS HELP FINANCE TERRORISTS
By NILES LATHEM Post Correspondent
February 21, 2006 — WASHINGTON — Tens of billions of dollars are laundered every year through banks in the United Arab Emirates, financing evildoers like al Qaeda, Afghan drug lords and even Iran’s outlaw nuclear program, according to U.S. intelligence reports.
The controversy over the takeover of ports in New York and five other U.S. cities has shed a white-hot spotlight on the UAE, a country long considered the arms-smuggling and money-laundering capital of the Middle East. U.S. officials say it has an improving — but still shady — record in the war on terrorism.
“It’s a mixed and questionable record. They are making progress but not enough to allow a contract like this to go through without the most thorough and complete vetting,” House Homeland Security chairman Rep. Peter King (R-L.I.) told The Post.
The country’s notoriously lax banking laws, poor control over its legendary gold brokers and low taxes have made money-laundering a $30 billion-a-year business in the UAE.
U.S. intelligence officials said some financing for terrorists in Iraq moves through banks and informal transfer centers known as hawalas in the UAE.
The port in Dubai — managed by Dubai Ports World — has been used as a transshipment center for the movement of arms and guerrillas into Iraq, King said. He added there is no evidence of complicity in this scheme by Dubai Ports World.
niles.lathem@nypost.com
February 25th, 2006 at 5:41 pm
Bill,
Semantics matter…initially this story was reported in big, scary headlines, “UAE to take over security at US ports”. Then scaled back to “UAE to control some US ports”. Finally some outlets got around to correctly reporting the UAE will take over a few terminals at 6 ports.
The facts have been presented without rebuttal Bill. UAE is a vital ally in trade and the war on terror (just found out the UAE hosts more U.S. Navy ships than any other country in that area). What is to be gained by alienating a Middle Eastern ally for some BS xenophobic political agenda?
Bart
(Pardon me while I figure out how to swig a brew around my long damned fool nose).
February 25th, 2006 at 5:59 pm
Bart,
As I said in the title of this thread, Bart, the main reason why Bush & Company want this deal to go through is that someone very close to the Administration stands to make a ton ‘o money in this deal.
Bush doesn’t give a rip about anything but shoving his Socialist spending and religious sociaist agenda down America’s throat, all the while painting himself as a “faith-based American.”
February 25th, 2006 at 5:59 pm
John,
Ambiguous, unsubstantiated data from unnamed sources.
I refer back to my original list of incontrovertible facts:
– USA and UAE enter into a Trade and Investment Framework Agreement (TIFA) in 2004 with long term goal of extending it to a full Free Trade Agreement. Where was the protest then?
– President Bush has been working on a Middle East Free Trade Agreement for years with the UAE a critical ally in the process hoping to complete it by 2013.
– USA enjoys a large trade surplus with UAE.
– UAE is a Top 30 importer of USA goods and services growing its economy annually.
Do you believe we should stop this progress and go back to an adversarial relationship with Muslim Middle East countries that are currently moving in the right direction?
Bart
February 25th, 2006 at 6:06 pm
Bart,
Hey, Bartman, are you going to put the country of Iraq in that “right direction” basket?
February 25th, 2006 at 6:07 pm
Bart,
Are saying we are risking the security of our country to increase trade with a country of 2.5mm population?
February 25th, 2006 at 6:30 pm
John,
Are you saying you are scared of a country with 2.5M population?
February 25th, 2006 at 6:31 pm
Bill,
Hopefully soon, but there is no comparison between the two right now other than both have majority muslim populations.
February 25th, 2006 at 6:35 pm
Bill,
One other note about your follow the money theory…it might be correct in that a Singapore company lost out in the bidding process to DP World for P&O. Wonder who would benefit if the Singapore company through nefarious means caused DP World to be dropped from consideration?
Check back later, time for the race.
February 25th, 2006 at 8:44 pm
Singapore? I didn’t know Singapore was known to either A) launder terrorist money, or B) refuse to recognize the state of Israel.
February 26th, 2006 at 12:21 pm
Bill, Singapore finished second in the attempt to acquire P&O. It would make sense for them to create a media frenzy about the UAE “taking over security of American ports” as it was originally misreported…have the deal negated then be able to acquire P&O for much less than the current $7B price tag. It would be interesting to know who lobbies for Singapore (or the company based in Singapore), which of the “idiots” (Bill Kristol’s description) voicing opposition rec’d support, etc. Just a thought.
Bart
February 26th, 2006 at 1:33 pm
Bart, from what I understand, P&O is a British-owned company. That is quite a bit different than a company owned by the British government.
The same cannot be said for the company trying to buy P&O. It is a company owned by the UAE government.
Read much about Communist or Fascist-governments lately? Ahhh…didn’t think so. You and Dubious have a lot in common: a waste of time in a school of higher learning.
February 26th, 2006 at 5:12 pm
Bart,
To answer your question about my concern about the UAE, read this article. This was in Newsweek if you want the full article.
To be sure, Al-Maktoum had a useful tradition to build on. Dubai was, is, and ever has been a place for traders, entrepreneurs, moneymen, intriguers, smugglers and spies. In a region of notorious bureaucracy and protectionism, Dubai looked quite lawless because its rulers wanted, well, less law. Even before independence in the 1970s, when the British were supposed to be running the show in what were then called “The Trucial States,†Dubai’s big industry was shipping contraband gold to India so brides there could avoid the heavy taxes on their glittering dowries.
In a region of constant war during the 1980s, Dubai made itself a vital neutral ground, and stayed at peace. Back when I was hanging out at Pancho’s, the Ayatollah Khomeini and Saddam Hussein (backed by the United States in those days), were attacking each other’s shipping with a vengeance. But at Pancho’s, it was said, you could hoist a beer with the crew off a tanker just shelled by an Iranian gunboat—and throw darts with the Iranian shooters, too.
You don’t create a wide-open trading environment, of course, without attracting some controversial, even dangerous, customers. If Somerset Maugham’s description “a sunny place for shady people†was apt for Monaco, he should have seen the sun and shadows in Dubai. The nuclear network of renegade Pakistani scientist A.Q. Khan ran some of its black-market trade through there. Part of the money underwriting the 9/11 attacks on the United States went through Dubai’s banks and moneychangers. Iran’s government and the Iranian people have often used the emirate to bypass the embargos and boycotts imposed on them.
February 26th, 2006 at 10:18 pm
Before responding to Bill and John, got to pass along this great quote from Bill Kristol, Editor of The Weekly Standard: “The 45 days is to give cover to the idiots in Congress who jumped on this without knowing anything about it….Sue Myrick’s letter is idiotic.”
February 26th, 2006 at 10:28 pm
Bill,
The Singapore company (PSA Int’l) that finished second to DP World is also state owned. Singapore has a 14% Muslim population and in the past has been a major exporter of heroin. It is the home of the SARS virus. Would you prefer Singapore over the UAE because one of the two will ultimately end up acquiring P&O.
Sorry you don’t get it, but not surprising.
Bart
February 26th, 2006 at 10:48 pm
John, Bill,
It seems to boil down to one thing with the both of you….religious based xenophobic racism. You fall right in line with the “idiots” in congress who put political gain before what is best for the country. Idiots like Hillary who called for an end to all foreign involvement in US ports.
45 days from now the deal will be approved with little fanfare. The UAE will continue to allow US Navy ships to dock at their ports, US Air Force planes to use their airfields and US Army troops to be stationed at various locations. They will grow as a key ally in the Middle East…
Bart
February 27th, 2006 at 12:07 am
Bart,
You’re a funny guy. Really. You call me a “racist” when you are a lieutenant in Mike Byrd’s neo-Klansman movement in Cherokee County.
I’ll bet you and Dick Hall are just salivating at the prospect of Mary Wilhite running again. Going to don your white hoods and go tear down her signs? Maybe you’ll jump in an SUV and trench her yard this year, eh? Maybe you’ll stock-up on spray paint and go spray-painting her garage while Sheriff Roger Garrison stands there and watches you guys, huh?
Bart, again, I don’t recall Singapore being connected with terrorism. I do recall UAE as being connected to terrorism. You and Dubious and Kristol are perfectly willing to allow the terrorists to come even closer to this country.
You know, even if Dubious HAD known about the plans by the 19 terrorists on September 10, I doubt he would have moved on it. He would have just sat there and said “A bunch of these guys are coming from Saudi Arabia! The Saudis are our friends! You CIA people have the intelligence all wrong!”
February 27th, 2006 at 7:03 am
Bart,
The Race Card
People like you from both parties use the race card when you have no argument.
If we speak out against about immigration reform people like you use the race card. Caesar Chavez was the first to point out how immigration is a tool to drive down wages. Is Caesar Chavez a racist?
The Minutemen were called racist by both parties. The first Minuteman project was led by Caesars Chavez’s brother Manuel. MLK successor Robert Abernathy, Walter Mondale and the Chavez brothers all did a march at the borders to stop illegal immigration in 1969. Are all of them racist?
Ross Perot spoke out against NAFTA being a bad trade deal, yet guys like you called him a racist.
The UAE is well known as a haven for thugs to do lawless business. The question is, do we think our country it is safe to have a fascist country that does business with anyone from Iran to Bin Laden running our ports?
February 27th, 2006 at 9:31 am
John,
That got the feathers ruffled…must be some truth in the statement. Sounds like you have some sick thoughts about treatment of minorities in your area, count me out.
Did you write that last paragraph or plagarize from Cynthia McKinney’s website? It gets harder and harder to tell the difference between you two.
Bart
February 27th, 2006 at 9:37 am
Bart,
Cynthia McKinney, like you, is pro-everything connected with Arabs, regardless of the facts. You display your profound ignorance of the truth by continuing to post.
February 27th, 2006 at 9:48 am
Bill,
Yes the race card…I stand by it. There is no other rational explanation for you and John to be so adamantly against this transaction, at least nothing that you have posted so far.
You wrote, “The question is, do we think our country it is safe to have a fascist country that does business with anyone from Iran to Bin Laden running our ports?”
McFly…semantics matter…the premise is incorrect as the deal does not allow the UAE to “run our ports”. When approved sometime in March, DP World will take over P&O TERMINAL LEASES. State Port Authorities, the Coast Guard, U.S. Customs, Longshoreman unions and all the other govt. entities will still “run the ports”. DP World which has an American mgmt. team slated to oversee operations will unload containers into the terminals.
Bart
February 27th, 2006 at 10:01 am
Bart,
February 21, 2006, 10:08 a.m.
Port Insecurity?
On the Dubai port deal.
Is the multimillion dollar deal that would hand over operations of six major United States ports to a company from the United Arab Emirates a major misstep from the Bush administration? We asked a few national-security experts. Here’s what they had to say.
Alex Alexiev
Washington claims that the United Arab Emirates is a reliable friend and ally of the United States in the war on terror. To the extent that Dubai Ports World is a UAE state-owned company, this may in fact be the key question to ask. The answer is not hard to find if you start looking at the role played by the UAE as an eager financier of the huge worldwide infrastructure of radical Islam built over the past three decades by Saudi Arabia. An infrastructure that’s the main breeding ground of extremism and terrorism.
From the very beginning in the 1970s, the UAE has been a key source of financial support for Saudi-controlled organizations like the Islamic Solidarity Fund, the Islamic Development Bank (IDB), World Council of Mosques, and the Muslim World League (MWL) as documented in The Muslim World League Journal, an English-language monthly. The IDB alone, for instance, spent $10 billion between 1977 and 1990 for “Islamic activities†and at least $1 billion more recently to support terrorist activities by the Palestinian Al Aqsa and Intifada Funds.
One of the most successful Islamist operations in the U.S. early on involved the Wahhabi ideological takeover of the Nation of Islam after the death of its founder Elijah Muhammad. Of the $4.8 million “presented†to W. D. Muhammad, Elijah’s son and successor, in 1980 alone, one million came from UAE’s president Sheikh Zayad, according to the August 1980 issue of the MWL Journal. Zayad continued his “philanthropic†activities by donating $2.5 million for a Zayad Islamic Center at Harvard University’s divinity school of all places. The donation had to be returned after it became known that a similar Zayad Center in the UAE was closed because it had become a hotbed of Islamic extremism. And this is likely just the tip of the iceberg. A reliable friend and ally? Perhaps, but hardly one of ours.
— Alex Alexiev is vice president for research at the Center for Security Policy.
February 27th, 2006 at 10:51 am
John, John, John…don’t bait Bart. He cannot handle analyses from people in the intelligence community who know more about this stuff than he does. Granted, that isn’t a very high bar to jump over…
February 27th, 2006 at 11:15 am
Hey, Bart…are you trying to get a job at Homeland Security?
February 27th, 2006 at 11:18 am
We can all dig up “expert analysis” to fit whatever position we take…the difference being that some of us can think for ourselves after reviewing both sides of an issue.
You want analysis, here you go and this is actually relative to the current topic:
A layered approach to cargo security
TODAY’S COLUMNIST
By Michael Chertoff/ John W. Snow
February 27, 2006
Since September 11, our nation has taken unprecedented steps to ensure that the cargo arriving at our ports is fully screened, passes through multiple layers of security on its journey to the United States and meets tough national and international security requirements.
Port security begins overseas, before a container is even loaded onto a ship. First, 100 percent of all cargo destined for the United States is screened using the specific manifest data our Customs and Border Protection officials receive 24 hours in advance of loading the cargo on a ship. This screening system uses an advanced set of algorithms to detect anomalies and target shipments against corporate histories, parties to the transaction, intelligence and other information.
Additionally, Customs and Border Protection inspectors stationed in more than 40 international ports — representing some 80 percent of the container traffic bound for the United States — conduct a thorough review of shipping and cargo manifest information, company histories and intelligencetodetermine whether the contents of a container pose a risk to our country and require additional scrutiny. Once cleared, that cargo then passes through a series of security checks while in transit, including automated, risk-based targeting, scrutiny of the vessel and crew by the Coast Guard, and in some cases, physical inspection of the cargo when it arrives at our ports, including X-ray and radiation-detection screening.
At no point during this entire process is a private company responsible for our nation’s port security. Our Coast Guard and Customs and Border Protection agents are always in charge of the all-important security responsibility.
In fact, companies that operate in our ports are subject to an extensive range of federal port and maritime security laws and regulations, and are required to work closely with U.S. security agencies to ensure the highest standards of port security. These are facts that cannot be changed and will not change with the purchase of a British company — Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co. — by the Dubai Ports World, a holding company based in the United Arab Emirates that would take over certain container terminal operations and services in a number of U.S. ports.
Let us be clear: Dubai Ports World is not buying U.S. seaports and Dubai Ports World will remain subject to our Coast Guard and Customs officials. Dubai Ports World is proposing to purchase only operating interests in the ports in question — that is, the right to operate container terminals and provide logistical services, such as unloading cargo. This is not uncommon. Many foreign companies conduct commercial operations in U.S. ports and we have similar arrangements with our foreign counterparts, including the Port of Dubai, which is a key partner in our overseas Container Security Initiative. Indeed, the Port of Dubai allows our American inspectors to check cargo before it leaves their port. In addition, local port authorities will continue to retain ownership of our ports and the employment base at these ports will not change as a result of the purchase.
Furthermore, whenever a foreign entity notifies our government of its intention to purchase a foreign firm operating in the United States, and where national security interests may be touched, a multi-agency committee called the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States rigorously reviews the transaction. As participants in this process, we cannot state strongly enough that our first and foremost priority in analyzing this transaction — and all transactions — has been the security of this nation.
The committee includes representation of the primary national security agencies of the federal government: the Departments of Defense, Homeland Security, Justice, Treasury, Commerce and State, and the National Security Council staff, among others. This process allows each member of the committee to carry out its own independent analysis of the potential transaction and review any national security concerns. In the case of the Dubai Ports World purchase, as with others, the Departments of Transportation and Energy also participated in the review to provide a more thorough examination and broaden the scope and expertise of the agencies involved.
The intelligence community also provides the committee with an independent assessment of whether the foreign company poses a threat to U.S. national security and did so in this case. Based on that assessment, the committee’s 12 member agencies unanimously concluded that the purchase of Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co. by Dubai Ports World would not pose a threat to U.S. national security.
But going even further, in this case the Department of Homeland Security negotiated a strong and unprecedented set of security and other commitments from Dubai Ports World to enhance that company’s security profile and to increase our ability to monitor and enforce security beyond what the law requires. With these assurances, which go far beyond what the companies are otherwise legally obligated to do, Homeland Security and all other members of the committee agreed that national security requirements would be fully addressed and the transaction could proceed pending other regulatory hurdles.
All of us involved in this process know that protecting America from terrorist threats involves a comprehensive effort, whether taking the fight to terrorists in Afghanistan and Iraq, locating and capturing supporters of terror at home and abroad or protecting our borders and transportation hubs and ports. We reached approval of the Dubai Ports World transaction with all of that in mind and indeed to further that goal.
A key component of winning the war on terror is consistent and principled leadership. On this issue, the United States has a responsibility to act according to established procedures and to act without bias. As the president said on Tuesday, “it sends a terrible signal to friends around the world” if we hold an unfounded prejudice against a country that has played by the rules and acted as an ally. We and our colleagues in the administration are confident of our decision, and we believe that the facts bear out our decision.
Michael Chertoff is secretary of the Department of Homeland Security. John W. Snow is secretary of the Department of the Treasury.
February 27th, 2006 at 2:28 pm
Chertoff? There’s a guy we wanna trust on security! LOL!