Skip to main content

Many of us, I'm sure, are a bit confused by why Bush is so steadfast in his support of the deal involving the company from the United Arab Emirates taking on oversight of US port security. Most of us think it doesn't make sense, I'm sure.

But the other day, I saw Steve Forbes defending the idea. The report introduced him as a "prominent businessman who thought it was a good idea," except that this prominent business man happens to be a member of my favorite neo-con think tank, the the Project for the New American Century. That's the one to which Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Jeb Bush and others belong to, whose policies the Bush Admin has been advancing in Iraq, Iran, etc. Their main stated goal is American imperial dominance over the world (follow those links), and the indications are that they have fascist leanings.

So... Obviously, when I noticed that they trotted out Steve Forbes, out of all "prominent businessmen," to defend this craziness, I realized that the plan probably has P.N.A.C. origins.

So, I pose this to the board's more seasoned conspiracy theorists: why in the world would this organization want an Arab State-owned company in charge of this extremely sensitive area? Why, to the point of this kind of exteme defense you hear from Rumsfeld and Bush? What goal, knowing what we know about this organization, is being served here?
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

Conspiracy Theorists #1's response:

To facilitate another "galvanizing Pearl Harbor event." And, I'm talking about a big "event." [BTW, I searched PNAC's website, it appears they have redacted the Pearl Harbor reference] It's a helluva lot easier to slip a dirty bomb, or even a nuc, in a place if your the one guarding the door.

But I think the strategy is not so much to lead us into another military adventure, which I am sure that will follow; but rather to lead to the establishment of an open police state, i.e., dictatorship.
The neo-cons have no love for the American people. They are not even "Americans". Patriotism is a tool they use to trick the masses. They are all staunch globalist. This current episode should make this perfectly clear to the astute. Why couldn't these jobs have been given to Americans? Sadly most Americans won't "get it" until we are all being shipped into concentration camps.
Originally posted by Kweli4Real:
Conspiracy Theorists #1's response:

To facilitate another "galvanizing Pearl Harbor event." And, I'm talking about a big "event." [BTW, I searched PNAC's website, it appears they have redacted the Pearl Harbor reference] It's a helluva lot easier to slip a dirty bomb, or even a nuc, in a place if your the one guarding the door.

But I think the strategy is not so much to lead us into another military adventure, which I am sure that will follow; but rather to lead to the establishment of an open police state, i.e., dictatorship.

The "new Pearl harbor" reference is still there, Kweli... It's on page 63 of the PDF file, page number 51 by the document's actual count.

But I just wanted to make sure that I was on a reasonably logical path with this. If the rest of the people in Congress allow this to happen, it is my cue that these wackos have taken complete control of the government.

What kind of country will be left for them to control? Like Blaqfist insinuates, do they even care?
Okay ... I was hurried and didn't read the whole document again; rather, I tried the site's search function. Bowing his head in intellectual laziness shame spank

If the rest of the people in Congress allow this to happen, it is my cue that these wackos have taken complete control of the government.

What kind of country will be left for them to control?

I see these "elected representatives" that are allowing this to happen in the same light as I see Black Conservatives [those that merely parrot white conservatives, as opposed to the Black Conservative that actual promotes a conservative agenda supportive of the Black community ... I'm sure there's one out there ... somewhere] or the poor or middle-class Free-Market Globalist ...

They have deluded themselves into believe that they are the "US" and "WE" that the "powers that are" are speaking of. When in actuality, they are just us ... a part of the masses to be exploited.
Originally posted by Vox:
Perhaps, Blaqfist, Arab companies should have been allowed to rebuild Iraq, and American companies should have been contracted to protect US ports.

While that makes sense, allowing arab companies to have a hand in rebuilding Iraqi does not allow for companies like Halliburton to get the millions of dollars that the reconstruction would surely generate.
I overlooked this forum, and started a similar topic on the board

(This would really give good cause for the levee's to be broken in New Orleans and the 9th ward not being rebuilt right now..The most lucrative port, The port of New Orleans, just so happens to be part of the deal. Oh, also did you notice the regions, seems like all the minority ports to me.. Philly, New Orleans, Miami, Baltimore, New Jersey and New York!!!!!! Things that make you go hummm)

Associated Press Writers


The Bush administration on Thursday rebuffed criticism about potential security risks of a $6.8 billion sale that gives a company in the United Arab Emirates control over significant operations at six major American ports.

Lawmakers asked the White House to reconsider its earlier approval of the deal.

The sale to state-owned Dubai Ports World was "rigorously reviewed" by a U.S. committee that considers security threats when foreign companies seek to buy or invest in American industry, National Security Council spokesman Frederick Jones said.

The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, run by the Treasury Department, reviewed an assessment from U.S. intelligence agencies. The committee's 12 members agreed unanimously the sale did not present any problems, the department said.

"We wanted to look at this one quite closely because it relates to ports," Stewart Baker, an assistant secretary in the Homeland Security Department, told The Associated Press. "It is important to focus on this partner as opposed to just what part of the world they come from. We came to the conclusion that the transaction should not be halted."

The unusual defense of the secretive committee, which reviews hundreds of such deals each year, came in response to criticism about the purchase of London-based Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co.

The world's fourth-largest ports company runs commercial operations at shipping terminals in New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia.

Four senators and three House members asked the administration Thursday to reconsider its approval. The lawmakers contended the UAE is not consistent in its support of U.S. terrorism-fighting efforts.

"The potential threat to our country is not imagined, it is real," Rep. Mark Foley, R-Fla., said in a House speech.

The Homeland Security Department said it was legally impossible under the committee's rules to reconsider its approval without evidence DP World gave false information or withheld vital details from U.S. officials. The 30-day window for the committee to voice objections has ended.

DP World said it had received all regulatory approvals.

"We intend to maintain and, where appropriate, enhance current security arrangements," the company said in a statement. "It is very much business as usual for the P&O terminals" in the United States.

In Dubai, the UAE's foreign minister described his country as an important U.S. ally but declined to respond directly to the concerns expressed in Washington.

"We have worked very closely with the United States on a number of issues relating to the combat of terrorism, prior to and post Sept. 11," Sheik Abdullah Bin Zayed al-Nahyan told The Associated Press.

U.S. lawmakers said the UAE was an important transfer point for shipments of smuggled nuclear components sent to Iran, North Korea and Libya by a Pakistani scientist, Abdul Qadeer Khan. They also said the UAE was one of only three countries to recognize the now-toppled Taliban as Afghanistan's legitimate government.

The State Department describes the UAE as a vital partner in the fight against terrorism. Dubai's own ports have participated since last year in U.S. efforts to detect illegal shipments of nuclear materials.

Rep. Vito Fossella, R-N.Y., urged congressional hearings on the deal.

"At a time when America is leading the world in the war on terrorism and spending billions of dollars to secure our homeland, we cannot cede control of strategic assets to foreign nations with spotty records on terrorism," Fossella said.

Critics also have cited the UAE's history as an operational and financial base for the hijackers who carried out the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

"Outsourcing the operations of our largest ports to a country with a dubious record on terrorism is a homeland security and commerce accident waiting to happen," said Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y. "The administration needs to take another look at this deal."

Separately, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey said Thursday it will conduct its own review of the deal and urged the government to defend its decision.

In a letter to the Treasury Department, Port Authority chairman Anthony Coscia said the independent review by his agency was necessary "to protect its interests."

The lawmakers pressing the White House to reconsider included Sens. Schumer, Tom Coburn, R-Okla., Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., and Chris Dodd, D-Conn., and Reps. Foley, Fossella and Chris Shays, R-Conn.
Originally posted by Texas Star:
I overlooked this forum, and started a similar topic on the board

(This would really give good cause for the levee's to be broken in New Orleans and the 9th ward not being rebuilt right now..The most lucrative port, The port of New Orleans, just so happens to be part of the deal. Oh, also did you notice the regions, seems like all the minority ports to me.. Philly, New Orleans, Miami, Baltimore, New Jersey and New York!!!!!! Things that make you go hummm)

I wonder why not the port in Houston. Are we too close to Crawford? Might this be one good thing about living in Texas? W's backyard and home to so many of his cronies, he won't let nothing major will happen here! Razz
It starts:

09/08/05 "ICH" -- -- Neither the Mainstream media nor the alternative-Leftist web sites have told the true story of what really happened in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. For the people of the region it was the greatest natural catastrophe they'd ever faced. For the Bush administration it was just another opportunity to use fear and anarchy to advance their global agenda.

The administration intentionally withheld desperately needed aid to the city to force Governor Kathleen Blanco into surrendering control of the National Guard and local police to federal authority. This explains why neither FEMA, nor Homeland Security nor the Pentagon lifted a finger to help the distraught townspeople for 4 full days. The administration was using vital supplies as bargaining chips to bribe the governor into submission. The goal was to dismantle regional defenses and militarize a major port city; an ambition that persists to this day.

The Katrina disaster provided the cover for the Pentagon to launch military operations against US citizens for the first time in modern history. Their effort was badly bungled, but the attempt is chilling nonetheless.

The strategy that was applied to New Orleans has been used across the nation, although to a lesser degree. Rumsfeld has consistently tried to undermine local preparedness and state control so that he can insert the military into domestic affairs. Within this schema, we can see how the calculated destruction of the National Guard (40% of who are overseas) works perfectly with the goals of the defense establishment and the corporate oligarchy it represents.

In the next few days we can expect to see an intensive media campaign to divert attention from the activities of the Pentagon, but the facts are clear. As Mr. Aaron Broussard, president of Jefferson Parrish, LA said on Meet the Press:

"We had Wal-mart deliver three trucks of water. Trailer trucks of water. FEMA turned them back, said we didn't need them. This was a week go. We had 1,000 gallons of diesel fuel on a coast guard vessel docked in my parish. The coast guard said come get the fuel right way. When we got there with our trucks, they got a word, FEMA says don't give you the fuel. Yesterday, yesterday, FEMA comes in and cuts all our emergency communications lines. They cut them without notice."

FEMA, which is supposed to work as a federal relief agency for major natural disasters, was functioning entirely as an intermediary for the Defense Dept to subvert relief efforts to force the Governor to capitulate. It is as close to a military-coup as we have ever seen in America.

The stories of how FEMA tried to sabotage aid and communications are too numerous to record here, but they will undoubtedly surface over time on the internet. The fact is, however, that FEMA was simply executing a larger plan to undermine operations and pave the way for a military take-over of all relief-related activities. That would serve as a tacit invitation for the first military occupation of an American city.

(Disrupting communications from the city was a major part of the operation. This explains why FEMA "cut all the communication lines" as Broussard notes above. The Pentagon clearly planned to draw a protective curtain around New Orleans so that it could execute their strategy without media scrutiny. I believe that they intended to forcefully evacuate the city to clear away vast swaths of the area earmarked for future private development without local resistance.)

The media analysis of the events following the hurricane has been superficial and diversionary. The emphasis on looting is a particularly heinous "racist" invention of the Bush administration to shift blame away from their criminal behavior. Even well-meaning liberal pundits and journalists, who have lambasted the administration for "lacking leadership" or for their ham-fisted methods of addressing the tragedy, are missing the point. New Orleans was the site of a massive military operation designed to seize and pacify a major port city in the American heartland. The people, who died waiting for federal assistance while the Governor jousted with the administration, are the casualties in the Pentagon's plan.

The Red Cross has already admitted that they were deliberately prevented from going into the city where they could have attended to the sick and hungry. So, too, the National Guard was ordered not to give the people food or water. One Guardsman who appeared on national TV admitted to giving water to an elderly woman who refused to evacuate her home said on camera, "It's against the rules, but I gave her water".

FEMA deliberately withheld water to the people at the convention center because (and I paraphrase the head of the Red Cross) "If we give them water they won't leave."

(A note on FEMA: FEMA has been effectively gutted and has neither the ability nor the resources to address major natural catastrophes. It has been subsumed into a bureaucracy that has no intention of saving American lives or property when disaster strikes. The money has been sluiced off into other areas of Homeland Security where it is used to spy on American citizens or pay-off the constituents of the administration. This explains why Bush put an incompetent bungler like Michael Brown in charge. He has no real power. The real authority over disaster-management now falls under the Defense Dept.)

The orders from Washington (which were articulated on many of the major TV news feeds) were to "Empty the city, Cut off communications between the citizenry, and Protect private property." Much of this has already been confirmed in the Broussard statement.

The zeal with which the Defense Dept approached the siege of New Orleans is impressive. Journalist Wayne Madsen reports that the military was involved in jamming New Orleans's communications. "The emitter is an IF
(Intermediate Frequency) jammer that is operating south-southwest of New Orleans on board a US Navy ship, according to an anonymous source. The jamming is cross-spectrum and interfering with supereterodyne receiver components, including the emergency radios being used in New Orleans relief efforts."

Madsen's report coincides with another report from Democracy Now's Sharif Abdel Kouddous in New Orleans:

"Well Amy, Saturday and Sunday, there was a large number of troops here: Marines, U.S. Coast Guard, National Guard, there's hummers everywhere, everyone is armed with assault rifles. And I think that what many people don't realize is that New Orleans has really become a militarized zone. I think this is the fault and the major error that has occurred with many of the relief operations here is that they weren't relief operations. They were militarized -- you know, there's a curfew set at 6:00 p.m. in New Orleans and especially in the poorer neighborhoods. If you walked out after 6:00 p.m., you would get shot."

Kouddous report provides an alarming insight into the reality of the New Orleans siege. The operation currently taking place is only slightly different from similar maneuvers in Baghdad or Kabul; the fundamental principles are the same. If we were to see some indication of coordinated resistance, like an armed uprising of New Orleans drug addicts firing on troops, the situation would quickly degenerate into a Falluja-type scenario, with Rumsfeld closing down the entire region to the media and devastating vast swaths of the city to crush the "indigenous terrorists".

There's nothing accidental about the current developments on the ground.

The orders are clear: "Empty the city, Cut off communications between the citizenry, and Protect private property." The result is a massive ethnic cleansing operation that will displace tens of thousands of poor, black residents and pave the way for Halliburton and other major Bush contributors to rebuild the city at taxpayer expense. This is the clearest illustration of class-based warfare we have seen to date, but we expect more will follow.

The Bush administration has established its first domestic beachhead in the "Big Easy", where 50,000 fully-armed troops now patrol the streets giving us our first unobstructed-view of New World Order.
I've got ta get faster at posting sh!t when I first find it.

Someone posted an article on Fox News' website about Bush's support of the UAE deal. Linked to the story was a "Related Stor[y]" captioned "Bin Laden May have UAE Ties."

The article talked about UAE being owned by the Dubai Government, one of 3 world governments that recognized the Taliban rule of Afghanastan and OBL's connection to the Taliban as well as his personal connection to the Dubai ruling family.

Shortly after the post, Fox News changed the orginal story and removed the link.

Here's the post that got me going. It's a screen shot of Fox's website from yesterday. [Just so ya'll don't think I made this all up, like some of our less intellectually vigorous members do when trying to make a point]

Here's Fox's website today

Like I said:

It's a helluva lot easier to slip a dirty bomb, or even a nuc, in a place if your the one guarding the door.

Problem is they jumped the gun on this story, it was supposed to come out shortly after "the event"; thus racheting up the need to continue "war on Terror", i.e., disregard for the Constitution, and a continuation of imperialistic military [mis]adventures.
Last edited {1}
Updated Title: The Dubai-Al Qaeda Connection: Smoking Gun for Bush?/poll
by Hummingbird
Tue Feb 21, 2006 at 10:10:30 PM PDT
Lots of stuff has been going back and forth over the whole Dubai Ports scandal, but one thing that has been neglected has been the phrase in the media:

"There are connections between the United Arab Emirates and Al Qaeda" but it's been vague and hasn't really said much, other than some people from the Emirates participated in 9/11. Considering that any independent person from there could have been involved, that's not much of an indictable offense.

Well, I decided to start googling and this is what I came up with.

The Emir of Dubai, and the head of the family that owns Dubai Ports is an associate and hunting companion of Osama Bin Laden.
Hummingbird's diary :: ::
I kept having this niggling feeling that I had heard this a while back and I had, because MSNBC had reported it on 9/5/03. No one has talked about this yet in the news, though Peter King, has said:

"By having a company right out of the heartland of al-Qaida managing those ports without being properly cleared or investigated, to me is madness," Rep. King told ABC News.

King cited "a number of reports about the port of Dubai itself, about weapons going through that port, to Iran, about corruption, and again about an al-Qaida presence. And I know there was no real investigation done on this matter."

This bothered me. Surely there must be more. And with a little bit of effort, I found it at

Between 1995-2001 the Arab Elite went hunting with Bin Laden:

According to Wikipedia, Sheik Mohammed ibn Rashid al Maktum is the Prime Minister of the Entirety of the UAE, and recently become the Emir of Dubai after the former Emir, Maktoum bin Rashid Al Maktoum, died of a heart attack this month in Queensland, Australia.
After the Taliban takes control of the area around Kandahar, Afghanistan, in September 1994, prominent Persian Gulf state officials and businessmen, including high-ranking United Arab Emirates and Saudi government ministers, such as Saudi intelligence minister Prince Turki al-Faisal, frequently secretly fly into Kandahar on state and private jets for hunting expeditions. [Los Angeles Times, 11/18/01] General Wayne Downing, Bush's former national director for combating terrorism, says: "They would go out and see Osama, spend some time with him, talk with him, you know, live out in the tents, eat the simple food, engage in falconing, some other pursuits, ride horses. One noted visitor is Sheik Mohammed ibn Rashid al Maktum, United Arab Emirates Defense Minister and Crown Prince for the emirate of Dubai." [MSNBC, 9/5/03] While there, some develop ties to the Taliban and al-Qaeda and give them money. Both bin Laden and Taliban leader Mullah Omar sometimes participate in these hunting trips. Former US and Afghan officials suspect that the dignitaries' outbound jets may also have smuggled out al-Qaeda and Taliban personnel. [Los Angeles Times, 11/18/01] On one occasion, the US will decide not to attack bin Laden with a missile because he's falconing with important members of the United Arab Emirates' royal family (see February 1999).
George Tenet actually confirmed this in his testimony in front of the 9/11 commission. Hollywood Reporter pointed this out today on the tjf1977's diary:

FIELDING: Well, yesterday we talked about the three events in '98 and '99 where there were occasions that it looked like there might be an opportunity which then, in each instance, was deemed not to be operational. And the one that I find the most intriguing and the one that's been labeled as perhaps the lost opportunity more than any was the February '99 hunting camp -- I guess it's been described -- the desert camp.

And yesterday in the staff statement that was read, we're told about that and we were told that the intelligence seemed pretty strong and that the preparations were made and then the strike was called off. And the lead CIA agent in the field felt that it was very reliable intelligence.

I guess, was there anything unique about the intelligence or the circumstances that necessitated that decision?

FIELDING: And who made that decision?

TENET: I don't have a recollection of the uniqueness of the intelligence in question at the time. I can go back and provide that for you. In fact, I'd like to go back and try and package up all the data at my disposal when we were thinking about these issues.

I believe this was a collective decision. I also believe this target went away because the camp was ultimately dismantled. So in reading through your staff inquiry -- your staff notes on this, I can't recall who made the call, but I know we were all in the same place about it, Mr. Fielding.

FIELDING: I would appreciate that on behalf of the commission, if you could do that because it seemed that this -- when the intelligence was so good and that by the time the camp was dismantled, days and days had passed. So I would appreciate that.

TENET: It's also a question, I believe, as to whether bin Laden was inside or outside the camp...

FIELDING: Of course.

TENET: ... the complicating issue in this whole thing and whether he was there or not. So there's a second complicating factor here.

The third complicating factor here is you might have wiped out half the royal family in the UAE in the process, which I'm sure entered into everybody's calculation in all this.

Wow, looks like between all of us, we can come up with a real connection between this Dubai and bin laden, and this is heavily indicting on Bush considering his insistence that he will VETO any attempt to stop this deal. He's squirming on this hook and with his connections to the House of Saud, and the Bin Ladens, this is looking even worse. Selling us out to the terrorists? theory could be the logistical and strategically benefit of surrounding Iran in preparation for an attack on that nation. Iran can strangle the free flow of oil by blocking a key channel of water that is bordered by the UAE to the South and Iran to the North. Thus, If Iran is attacked; it could block or attack tankers carrying oil to the world, causing oil prices triple and sending world economies into recessions, if not depressions. Thus, if the USA had a strong military base and presence in the UAE, they could counter Iran's ability to control this shipping channel. Hence, the Quid pro quo would be these port deals, as well as other concessions we don't know about, for the right of the USA military access to their air bases and naval areas.

This may have already been mentioned by some on this forum. I have not read all the replies.

Add Reply

Link copied to your clipboard.