Dennis the Peasant

The Dubai Ports World Controversy and the Conundrum of the Pro-War Right

I’m going to shift back to the subject of Dubai Ports World, the United Arab Emirates, and the role of the blogosphere in controversy over Dubai Ports World’s purchase of Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co. (a/k/a P&O Group). I realize that for the vast majority of the blogosphere (and my few readers within it), the issue of “Arab control of our ports” has faded into the background of current events. Two weeks ago it, as well as ports security – and by implication, national security – were the most important things in the world.

But then again, that was two weeks ago...

I am revisiting the issue for a variety of reasons. First, I want to examine in some detail the specifics of the issue itself. This is something that really didn’t happen in either the mainstream media or the New Media of the blogosphere. I have yet to see an analysis of the issue that pulled together the information needed to actually pass judgment in a rational and informed manner. Secondly, I want to examine the conundrum of the Pro-War Right. If the Dubai Ports World controversy highlighted one thing, it was the essential contradiction of the worldview put forth by many (but not all) within the ranks of those supporting U.S. military action in Iraq; that is, how can one maintain that Arabs and Muslims are to be feared, and our Arab/Muslim allies in the Middle East distrusted, while simultaneously justifying, in part, the use of force in Iraq as the start of a process of bringing freedom and democracy to an Arab, Muslim Middle East.

The Issues Involved in the Dubai Ports World Controversy

The Dubai Ports World controversy offered the blogosphere the opportunity to muster its resources to deliver exactly what it promises it can do: provide timely, factual, in-depth, objective multi-disciplinary reporting on issues both important and complex enough to warrant something beyond the level of coverage mainstream media can offer. For all the chest-thumping by the Blogging Establishment that the blogosphere can deliver a news product both unique unto itself and clearly superior to the offerings of mainstream media, it seems clear that in the case of the Dubai Ports World controversy the New Media paradigm failed miserably. Simply put, neither the New Media – as represented by, for example, Pajamas Media – nor the Blogging Establishment – as represented by high profile bloggers ranging from Michelle Malkin to Markos Moulitsas – provided anything of worth for use in examining the controversy or judging the merits of either side’s case. Certainly they provided nothing in the way of factual, in-depth analysis or reporting. In many ways, the performance of both New Media and the Blogging Establishment was worse than that of the mainstream media... which was quite bad indeed.

The Controversy

Simply put, it is the contention of many that the purchase of P&O Group’s U.S.A. operations by Dubai Ports World would pose an unacceptable to national security by compromising port security at those United States ports impacted by the purchase. The threat to national security generally and ports security specifically is that business operations (import/export) under the control of a company wholly owned by an Arab, Muslim, Middle Eastern government would weaken the present state of ports security and facilitate terrorist operations either at or working through U.S. port facilities. An additional contention is that the Arab, Muslim, Middle Eastern government in question – that of the United Arab Emirates – is neither a reliable ally in the War on Terror nor a nation whose governmental interests intersect the interests of the United States.

The Issues

To be able to evaluate the reasonableness of the above contention, it will be necessary to gather and evaluate information on the following issues:

1. Ports operation and security in the U.S.A.
2. Ports operation and security worldwide.
3. P&O Group’s operations in the U.S.A.
4. Dubai Ports World’s operations, and history of operations.
5. Dubai Ports World’s record on security issues related to operations.
6. The United Arab Emirates’ relationship within the Middle East.
7. The United Arab Emirates’ role in terrorism and the War on Terror.
8. The United Arab Emirates’ historical relationship with the United States.
9. The United Arab Emirates’ present relationship with the United States.

The Necessary Background

In order that the above issues to be examined thoroughly, it will be necessary to compile background information on the following:

1. The United Arab Emirates’ political structure.
2. The United Arab Emirates’ economy.
3. The United Arab Emirates’ national security.
4. The United Arab Emirates’ national interests as they relate to the DPW purchase.
5. Ports ownership and operation in the United States.
6. Business activity at ports.
7. Foreign ownership of business activity at ports.
8. Port security measures and standards – worldwide.
9. Port security measures and standards – United States.

Intent

It will be my intention to examine each issue identified above to see if the arguments put forth by those opposing the Dubai Ports World have any actual (as opposed to political) merit. To do this, I will first provide background information on the following:

1. The United Arab Emirates, then
2. Port ownership, operations and business activities in the United States, and then
3. Worldwide and nationwide port security standards and measures.

I will then use that information to examine each of the 9 issues identified above within the context of the contention that the United Arab Emirates is a demonstrably unrelialbe ally in the War on Terror, and that the purchase of P&O Group's U.S. assets by Dubai Ports World would comprise ports security.

Part One, which will be on the United Arab Emirates, will be up in the next day or so.

But Race Has Nothing To Do With It...

From MSNBC:

Once again, the National Security angle is obvious. Isn't it?

Playing the Muslim Card: Charles Johnson, Wall Street Guru

Over at LGF, the brain that is Poodle Chaz come up with yet another reason for the Dubai Ports World deal to be scuttled:

Dubai Ports Deal Misperceptions and Mysteries

At National Review, Barbara Lerner has another disquieting fact to throw into the mix, in the Dubai Ports deal controversy: Misperceptions & Mysteries.

We should reject the Dubai Ports deal, not just because it is risky to have a hostile country managing critical parts of our infrastructure, but because the claim that the UAE’s desire to do so is “just business” presents us with a mystery. At the very least, those who make this claim need to explain why the UAE agreed to pay P&O a 70-percent premium over existing share prices to buy the company. If P&O is really worth $6.8 billion, why didn’t any other international shipping company offer anything remotely like that? Apologists for the deal say the problem is that few privately-owned companies have pockets deep enough to pay that much. Maybe, but DPW is hardly the only deep-pocketed, government-owned international shipping giant, and none of the others made any attempt to outbid DPW either. Apparently, no one else thought they could pay that kind of money to manage our ports and still make a profit. Perhaps DPW knows something no other shipping company does. Then again, it may be that DPW has some other motives for wanting to take over the management of key American ports.

Everything's a mystery, Barbara, when you're dumber than a box of dead crabs.

Actually, I’m somewhat surprised the Poodle went for this one – it’s a lot more complex than simply claiming Arabs are plotting to take over the world and turn us all into underage camel jockeys – but nonetheless it’s pretty lame. Well, it'd be lame for someone other than Chaz, that is...

Let’s see if we can get to the crux of the biscuit here:

1. Barbara Lerner, whose Wall Street creds aren’t posted at NRO, claims that DPW is wildly overpaying for P&O.
2. Because DPW is overpaying for P&O, DPW must have [insert dramatic pause here] other reasons for wanting to by P&O.
3. And since they’re Arabs and Muslims, the only reason we can think of is...

Makes perfect sense, doesn't it?

Actually, if either Barbara Lerner or Charles Johnson was worth a shit, they’d have bothered to follow the story in the financial press (you know, like the Wall Street Journal and the Financial Times)... and rest assured, neither has. Had they done that, they’d know:

1. DPW bought P&O for several reasons, first and foremost was P&O’s extensive presence in Europe. P&O’s business centers around its European operations, not the American ones.
2. The premium paid by DPW wasn’t considered outrageous in the financial press. Nor was it thought to be strange within the markets. Bottom line? There was a bidding war for P&O, DPW decided to up the premium to get the acquisition done, and done quickly. But you’d have to be adult enough to understand how business works to grasp that.

There’s something else to note here: The last sentence the Poodle presents of Barbara Lerner’s post.

Then again, it may be that DPW has some other motives for wanting to take over the management of key American ports.

It has been how many weeks? And yet the Poodle and Barbara Lerner still don’t have a basic understanding of what the deal actually entails.

But this is really about National Security, right?

Playing the Muslim Card: The U.A.E, the Taliban and the Democrats (Part 2)

As many of you know, during the Taliban’s five years of rule in Afghanistan there were exactly three countries on the face of the Earth that extended diplomatic recognition to that regime. For the record, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia did so in May, 1997, and the United Arab Emirates followed shortly thereafter. On the face of it, this fact seems to suggest to certain elements of the Democratic/Progressive/Leftist axis that the Bush Administration’s embrace of each of these nations in the War on Terror can only be explained by something... sinister.

The reasoning behind this amongst these DLP-ers is that if Bush (and his “cronies”) were really serious about National Security and the War on Terror, etc., etc., etc., the United States would punishing, rather than allying with, these nations. This is particularly true when discussing the prospect of Dubai Ports World taking over the U.S. operations of Peninsular and Oriental. This, so the argument goes, is the real reason for objecting to the presence of DPW in the U.S.; that DPW is the state-owned creature of a nation that backed the Taliban and has proved “demonstrably unreliable” in the War on Terror.

Of course, for those of us who have been watching closely, we would note that the “Taliban” argument only came forth after it was pointed out that state-owned companies from Singapore and the People’s Republic of China have a far greater presence at U.S. ports (and terminals) that DPW would be granted. But that hasn’t mattered much to this particular DLP faction... What matters is advancing the storyline that this is all about Bush enriching his Arab friends by whatever means possible and demonstrating, once again, that he isn’t serious about National Security.

Unfortunately, I don’t think this storyline is going to wash. It certainly doesn’t stand up to the facts as related by the Grimmett Report. Here are a sampling of facts from that report:

• From 1996-1999, Saudi Arabia signed purchase agreements for $4.6 billion in U.S. defense equipment and services. Saudi Arabia trailed only Egypt ($5.8 billion) in total purchases during that time frame.

• From 2000-2003, the United Arab Emirates signed purchase agreements for $7.1 billion in U.S. defense equipment and services, the most of any country on Earth. Saudi Arabia purchased $2.7 billion in that same time frame, and ranked seventh in the world.

Note that between 1996 and 2000, the United States had a Democratic President. Also note that Saudi Arabia and the U.A.E. had diplomatic relations with the Taliban regime in Afghanistan from mid-1997 through Sept. 2001.

In the first full year after both Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates had recognized the Taliban – 1998 – the Clinton Administration notified Congress of proposed U.S. arms export agreements totaling $2 billion to the United Arab Emirates and $946 million to Saudi Arabia.

It is worth noting that under the 1976 Arms Export Control Act, Congress must be notified of the following:

1. the proposed sale of what is defined as “major defense equipment” that equals or exceeds $14 million, or
2. the proposed sale of what is not defined as “major defense equipment” that total $50 million or more, or
3. the proposed sale of design and/or construction services equal to or greater than $200 million.

It is also worth noting that under the 1976 act, Congress had 30 days after notification of any proposed sales to Saudi Arabia or the United Arab Emirates to block those sales via a joint resolution of disapproval. Congress put forth no such resolution. In fact, Congress has never once issued a joint resolution of disapproval to a proposed arms sale to either the Saudis or the U.A.E. in the 30 years since the act became law.

The fact of the matter is that the Carter and Clinton Administrations sold weapons to the U.A.E. and Saudi Arabia just as fast as did the Reagan, Bush Senior or Bush Junior Administrations. The F-16 C/Ds sold by the Clinton Administration to the United Arab Emirates, with the full approval of the Republican Congress, are more advanced than the F-16 C/Ds in our own nation’s service. This was done during the years that the United Arab Emirates openly recognized the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, and whatever moral and ethical qualms the Administration and Congress had – if any – about handing over 80 advanced fighters (with complimentary weapons systems, radar and munitions) to such a nation seem to have been easily overcome by geopolitical (and economic) interests.

Certainly no-one of prominence with the Democratic Party – from President Clinton to Vice President Gore to Senators Schumer, Kerry and Feinstein – felt it necessary to voice any doubts about the wisdom of handing the United Arab Emirates or Saudi Arabia all the weapons they could buy while those two nations gave diplomatic recognition and (in the case of Saudi Arabia at the least) material support to the Taliban.

So we come back to my first series of questions: Why now? Why Dubai Ports World?

Any Democrats want to take a stab at explaining away the Clinton Years when it comes to relations with the United Arab Emirates?

Playing the Muslim Card: The U.A.E., the Taliban and the Democrats (Part 1)

Do any of the bloggers running the larger web sites in the political blogosphere ever do pre-spouting research?

From Markos Moulitsas (Daily KOS) on February 21, 2006:

United Arab Emirates

We see Orrin Hatch and countless of Republican apologists continue to pretend that Iraq had something to do with Al Qaida [sic] in order to justify the clusterfrack in Iraq.

Then there's the United Arab Emirates. And what's the UAE record on terrorism?

• The UAE was one of three countries in the world to recognize the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan.
• The UAE has been a key transfer point for illegal shipments of nuclear components to Iran, North Korea and Lybia [sic.].
• According to the FBI, money was transferred to the 9/11 hijackers through the UAE banking system.
• After 9/11, the Treasury Department reported that the UAE was not cooperating in efforts to track down Osama Bin Laden's bank accounts.

We bomb Iraq which had nothing to do with 9/11, yet we hand UAE the keys to our ports.

That's the Bush Administration in action.

From Duncan Black on February 19:

Jolly Old Pals

From March, 2004:

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.

I don't see how it's a good idea to hand over ports to Bin Laden's pals.

Again, this is not about an "Arab company," this is a company owned and controlled by the hereditary oligarchy of the UAE, many of whom, apparently, were Bin Laden's jolly old pals.

You know boys, you may just want to let this issue drop altogether...

Here is why (for starters):

The text of a White House press release by then Vice President Al Gore.

Note the date.

THE WHITE HOUSE Office of the Vice President

March 05, 2000

VICE PRESIDENT GORE LAUDS LOCKHEED MARTIN SALE OF F-16s TO THE UNITED ARAB EMIRATES

Washington, DC -- Vice President Al Gore today congratulated Lockheed Martin and the United Arab Emirates on Sunday's announcement from Abu Dhabi that they have completed terms on the sale of 80 F-16 fighter jets to the UAE -- finalizing a purchase announced at the White House in May of 1998 by UAE Crown Prince Khalifa and Vice President Gore.

The sale of the 80 F-16s at an estimated cost of more than $6 billion will generate -- according to company data -- 100,000 man-years of direct employment at Lockheed Martin; at Northrop Grumman, which supplies some of the F-16's most sophisticated technology; and at the hundreds of companies in 40 states who supply parts for the advanced fighter jet. At the same time, the sale will enhance the UAE's defense capability and the U.S.-UAE security partnership.

"This sale is just the latest in a long line of acknowledgments of the skill, ingenuity, and excellence of Lockheed Martin employees and their suppliers," Vice President Gore said. "It shows us again how American mastery of high technology is essential to both advancing our economic growth and protecting our national security."

Vice President Gore was part of a White House team that encouraged the UAE to purchase the F-16 as the Gulf country was considering bids from international competitors. In May of 1998, the Vice President and Crown Prince Khalifa announced at the White House the UAE's intention to purchase 80 F-16s. That same week, the Vice President joined UAE officials at the Lockheed Martin plant in Fort Worth to celebrate the announcement. Early this year, the Vice President was in contact with the Crown Prince during the final push for an agreement.

The sale is part of U.S. efforts to help Gulf allies defend their interests in the region. Just before Iraq invaded Kuwait in August of 1990, Saddam had threatened the UAE along with Kuwait for overproduction of petroleum. The UAE then played an integral role in the Allied coalition against Iraq.

"The UAE will reap immense national security benefits from the F-16, and from the close relationships it will bring them with the finest Air Force and finest defense contractors in the world," Vice President Gore said. "The sale also advances U.S. interests by equipping an important Gulf ally with an advanced fighter jet that can help deter aggression in the region."

What is important to remember is that as of the date of that particular announcement, March 5, 2000, the United Arab Emirates was one of only three countries on Earth that had recognized the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan. Also note that as of the date of the announcement, that diplomatic recognition had been in place for three years.

The. Taliban.

Osama.bin.Laden.

I'm not sure Markos or Duncan are going to get much mileage out of claiming the U.A.E. were Osama bin Laden's "jolly old pals" when it appears President Bill Clinton and Vice President Al Gore were the U.A.E.'s "jolly old pals"...

But that's just me.

Note: This doesn't even touch on the fact that the Financial Times reported on Saturday that Bill Clinton collected $450,000 in speaking fees in Dubai in 2002, or that the U.A.E. donated between $500,000 and $1,000,000 to help fund Clinton's presidential library.

Playing the Muslim Card: Dubai Ports World, the U.A.E. and Rep. Duncan Hunter

No doubt a number of you read last week that the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-CA) has decided to oppose the Dubai Ports World acquisition of Peninsular and Orient.

“I intend,” he thundered, “to do everything I can to kill the deal.”

Hunter went on to say, among other things, that “Dubai cannot be trusted” and that the United Arab Emirates was “a bazaar for terrorist nations”.

And finally, demonstrating that his understanding of ports security rivals that of, say, Michelle Malkin, Hunter declared "We need to have American ports in the hands of and operated by Americans."

Hunter then stated that he intends to introduce legislation barring foreign ownership of any transportation infrastructure, including ports that the Department of Homeland Security deemed critical to National Security.

Pretty strong stuff, coming from the chair of the House Armed Services Committee, and a Republican noted for being a staunch supporter of President Bush. I was particularly struck by his statement that the United Arab Emirates was “a bazaar for terrorist nations”. Given his service on the House Armed Services Committee, Rep. Hunter would no doubt be well aware of the following facts:

During the 8 year period of 1994 to 2001, when Rep. Hunter was on the House Armed Services Committee, the United States approved the weapons sales of $16 billion to the United Arab Emirates. In fact, over those 8 years, the United Arab Emirates bought more weapons from the United States than any other country on the face of the Earth.

Of that $16 billion, $6.4 billion was in 2000, when the United States sold 80 F-16C/D fighters to the United Arab Emirates.

In the first year of Rep. Duncan Hunter’s chairing the House Armed Services Committee, 2002, the United States sold $2.145 billion worth of weapons to the United Arab Emirates. Here is a sampling of the weapons involved:

• 5 refurbished E-2C Hawkeye 2000 early-warning aircraft with radars.
• Upgrades(!) to 30 AH-64A Apache attack helicopters to the AH-64D version.
• 32 AN/APG-78 AH-64D Longbow Fire Control Radars.
• 32 spare engines.
• 32 night vision sensors.
• 240 AGM-114L3 Hellfire missiles.
• 49 AGM-114M3 Hellfire blast fragmentation anti-armor missiles.
• 90 M299 Hellfire missile launchers.
• 237 Sea Sparrow ship-to-air missiles.

Naturally, I expected to find a wealth of dissent over U.S. weapons sales to the U.A.E. from Rep. Hunter, but strangely enough there seems to be none. Although weapons sales dropped to a mere $110 million in 2003, I can find nothing on his web site about the issue, or in his voting record, or in his statements on the floor of Congress or to the press to indicate that Rep. Hunter had reservations about selling the above weapons to the U.A.E..

Just as interesting, given that Rep. Hunter considers that Dubai “cannot be trusted”, is the fact that the U.S. Navy calls on the port of Minas Jebel Ali more than 200 times per year. Jebel Ali, the largest manmade port on Earth, is the most visited port outside the United States by our Navy. In fact, the port has an extensive naval repair facility, even larger naval logistics facilities (it is the surface hub logistics site for NAVCENT AOR – Naval Forces Central Command Area of Responsibility – in the U.A.E.) and serves as a liberty port for U.S. Naval personnel (the Kasbah Liberty Center). The port of Minas Jebel Ali, by the way, is operated by Dubai Ports Authority, a state owned company. As with U.S. arms sales to the U.A.E., I can find no record of Rep. Duncan Hunter questioning the wisdom of the U.S. Navy using Jebel Ali.

It should be noted that the U.S. military has other facilities within the U.A.E., several of which are of the highest strategic importance to the United States. These would include the Al Dhafra Air Base, Fujairah and Port Rashid. Al Dhafra, for example, houses the 763rd Expeditionary Air Refueling Squadron, which conducts operations in support of Operation Southern Watch throughout Southeast Asia. Fujairah is the hub logistics site for air cargo in NAVCENT AOR, and handles both Navy and Air Force cargo aircraft. Port Rashid is both a logistics and liberty facility. It should be mentioned that the Navy opened a remote operating base – Arkansas Anchorage – near Port Rashid in the Persia Gulf. Arkansas serves as the primary base for Military Sealift Command’s Afloat Prepositioning Squadron. Rep. Hunter doesn’t seem to be on record having concerns about these facilities being in the U.A.E., either.

Nor does Rep. Hunter mention the fact that the U.A.E. (which receives no foreign assistance from the United States) has contributed, on average $15 million a year (most as fuel and facilities) to support U.S. military operations within the U.A.E.. These contributions ran from 1992 through 2003; a total of $180 million donated...

Strange, isn’t it?

Then again, all that seems to pale when set next to the assessment of the United Arab Emirates offered by General Peter Pace of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Here is a selection of what he had to say at a Pentagon briefing on February 21:

“The military-to-military relationship with the United Arab Emirates is superb. In everything that we have asked and work with them on, they have proven to be very, very solid partners.”

“They’ve got great seaports that are capable of handling, and do, our aircraft carriers. They’ve got airfields that they allow us to use, and their air space, their logistics support. They’ve got a world-class air-to-air training facility that they let us use and cooperate with them in the training of our pilots.”

Then there is Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld:

“We have a port there where they help us. They have an airfield. We share intelligence and have a partnership that has been very, very helpful to the things we do in that part of the world.”

So how do we account for Rep. Duncan Hunter? There is always the possibility that he is a complete moron (he is, after all, in Congress) and therefore is unaware of the facts related above. But if we assume that Rep. Hunter is in possession of the facts of the military relationship between the U.S. and the U.A.E. – not unreasonable given his 26 years on the House Armed Services Committee – we must then assume that neither ignorance nor stupidity are guiding his opposition to the Dubai Ports World deal. If that is the case, what is guiding his opposition?

Try self-preservation.

For those outside the San Diego area of California, it would seem Duncan Hunter would have no problems getting re-elected in 2006. He’s been in Congress for 13 terms, chairs an important committee, and won in 2004 with about 70% of the votes cast.

But there is a problem in 2006 for Rep. Duncan Hunter: His personal friend and colleague, ex-Congressman and newly minted felon Randy “Duke” Cunningham.

It turns out the Rep. Duncan Hunter was Duke Cunningham’s political mentor, working hard to get him elected to Congress, and then taking him under his wing once in Congress. In fact, he was in the courtroom when Cunningham received his sentence of 8 years and 4 months. Hunter had written a plea of leniency that was filed in court.

Then there is the money from Cunningham’s alleged co-conspirators, Mitchell Wade, president of MZM, Inc. and owner Brent Wilkes of ADCS, Inc.. In Hunter’s case, substantial donations came from both men, as well as the surrogates of both. The amounts received totaled $45,950. He has since donated those monies to the Injured Marine Semper Fi Fund.

So it would seem that Rep. Duncan Hunter has a problem on his hands; he’s up for re-election in the same year that his closest political ally was sent to prison. Sent to prison for taking bribes, as a matter of fact, from the same people Rep. Hunter took campaign donations. It’s enough to have stirred up some dissatisfaction... there are several “Dump Duncan” initiatives afoot these days.

So what do you do when you’re a 13 term Congressman who’s worried about becoming an ex-Congressman? What do you do when your problems revolve around your personal ethics and those of your friends?

You find an “issue”... And an enemy.

You find a boogey-man and you offer yourself as Protector.

You play the Muslim Card for all it’s worth.

Anyone want to argue that Rep. Duncan Hunter is motivated by “National Security” concerns?

Even More Mail...

I received this email Sunday morning from a gentleman in Saudi Arabia:

Hey Dennis, Brilliant site, thoroughly enjoy it! Sorry dont have a blog of my own so cant register any comments.

I did see the comment the American fellow from Kuwait wrote about Dubai, well let me tell you, I visit the place every now and then and its much more than that! (I'm a Saudi, so its a convenient 45 minute plane ride from where I live in the Eastern Province). The place is the Middle-easts sin city! There are prostitutes all over the place (mostly from the former Soviet republics, East Bloc countries and China). There are pubs, nightclubs and discos, girls in miniskirts soliciting customers in the malls, man it would probably put some American cities to shame even!

Check out the International Sex Guide section on the Middle-east, Dubai is under the UAE:

http://www.internationalsexguide.info/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=215

Compare the activity of Dubai to that of Israel, a "Western" democracy. You'd be hard pressed to think it was a Muslim place let alone conservative. Other Muslim countries that have active nightlife and are major prostitution venues are Indonesia and Malaysia. Info that certainly wont help the arguments of the LGF Lizard who says we're all mindless fanatics bound by the strict interpretation of the Koran, lol.

Again, great blog you have. Take care.

Well, well, well... Now I'm really confused!

From The Mailbag...

Here's a portion of an email received last week:

I saw your article at Reason, and then went from there to your blog. I just wanted to say that you're doing a great job with this issue. I'm not really following it that much, but I'm an American Muslim living in Kuwait, and I've been to Dubai many times. The idea that it's some sort of fundamentalist/Islamist state is laughable. The place is a monument to capitalism; their reason for being has been shopping, but now they're branching out into just about any business you can imagine - "seven-star hotel", mall with a ski slope in it, island developments built out of the sea, etc. Their tourism advertisents always include shots of women in bikinis and couples enjoying romantic glasses of wine, etc. (Some of the other, more conservative emirates don't allow alcohol, but in Dubai, it's legal.)

Their "reason for being has been shopping"? But Charles and Michelle says it's terrorism.

I'm so confused...

Playing the Muslim Card: Hillary, Michelle and Charles Get Bad News

Yesterday brought some bad news for those serious souls who want to scuttle the DPW deal because of National Security Concerns™.

As many of you know, in the mad dash to justify their opposition to the deal, an objection was raised based on the “boycott” of Israel by the United Arab Emirates. Now I don’t need to point out the obvious link between port security in the United States and a product boycott in the Middle East, so I won’t. All I’ll do is point to fact with regards to said boycott. Here is the text of a letter from Idan Ofer of Zim Intergrated Shipping Services to Senator Hillary Clinton:

February 22, 2006

Dear Senator Clinton,

We are the owner of the largest Israeli shipping line in the world, Zim. In light of the concerns and misinformation about DP World in the US media, we want to put on record our support for the company.

For the past many years we have been pleased to have DP World as our business partner, supporting our operations by providing services at key marine terminals around the world, including in the UAE.

As an Israeli company, security is of the utmost importance to us and we require rigorous security measures from terminal operators in every country in which we operate, but especially in Arab countries, and we are very comfortable calling at DP World’s Dubai ports. During our long association with DP World, we have not experienced a single security issue in those ports or in any of the terminals operated by DP World and have received exemplary service that enhances our efficiency and the smooth running of our operations.

DP World has been an industry leader with regard to security and works closely with us on an on-going basis to maintain the highest security standards in all its terminals around the world.

We are proud to be associated with DP World and look forward to working with them into the future.

Yours Truly,

Idan Ofer
Chairman of the Board

If you’re interested, you can find a PDF file of the actual letter over at CNN.

I guess this explains why Poodle Chaz has shifted his objection to the DPW deal to the repatriation of under-age camel jockeys...

No word yet from either Hillary or Michelle.

Playing the Muslim Card: Charles Johnson Hits Bottom and Continues Digging...

Seven Million Dollars of New Media, Baby!

Charles Johnson takes both Pajamas Media and the issue of “port security” to new lows:

...............

UAE Repatriates Abused Children

The United Arab Emirates is really a wonderful place. I say we let them run our ports! UAE repatriates over 1,000 under-age camel jockeys.

Dubai- The interior ministry of the United Arab Emirates (UAE) has repatriated more than 1,000 young camel jockeys, most from the Indian subcontinent, over the past year, a local newspaper reported Thursday.

‘Some 1,073 former camel jockeys aged up to 15 years were repatriated. Twenty more jockeys are still in shelters run by the interior ministry’, the Gulf News daily said.

The families of 11 under-age jockeys were involved in lawsuits in the UAE, but any young racers remaining in the UAE would be repatriated soon, the paper said quoting an official source.

‘This problem will become history,’ said the official.

Camel jockeys must now register with the interior ministry before being able to participate in races.

The emirs are replacing these stolen and purchased children with robots. As I wrote last year:

Robots are just more convenient all around. They shut up the critics, they don’t need food, and they don’t cry for their mommies in the middle of the night.

...............

Before discussing the obvious implications under-age camel jockeys in the UAE has on port security in the United States, let’s take a look at a part of the Deutsche Presse-Agentur article that Charles Johnson cut out of his post:

Last year, UAE President Sheikh Khalifa bin Zayed Al Nahyan ordered a ban on children under 18 taking part in camel racing with jail terms of up to three years and fines of $13,700 for transgressions.

So let’s think this through, shall we?

Human rights groups identify a problem of child exploitation/abuse linked to camel racing in the UAE. The government of the UAE takes the correct steps to end the exploitation/abuse and then returns the exploited/abused children to their homes.

Charles Johnson thinks this is horrible.

Of course, if the UAE allowed the exploitation/abuse to continue...

Charles Johnson would find that horrible, too.

At least in theory. In actuality he’d be overjoyed, as it would simply provide one more example of the perfidy of Muslims. Not that Charles is biased, or anything.

In Charles’ world, there is no correct thing a Muslim can do: If they end the exploitation, they’re savages. If they don’t, they’re savages.

But mind you, Charles isn’t Islamophobic... Oh, no, no, no! Charles is a realist!

Oh yes, I almost forgot: The National Security implications of underage camel jockeys on port operations and security in the United States. Well...