PhotoDude.com

I know I’ve “gone dark” but Reid: THAT WAS ONE OF THE BEST POSTS ON THIS ISSUE I’VE EVER READ!

Now throw-in the other MAJOR-story of the Day: the acceleration of ‘classification’ with the deceleration of releasing documents that DO NOT BELONG TO W(!) but are the property of “WE, the PEOPLE!”

While I’m sure this is mere fantasy here in Feb 06, it’s easy to see that a President gathering all the reins-of-Control is no cause for alarm.

Under Freedom of Information Act, send a request and ask what the gov’t considers relevant-to-you; six to 9 months later, you’ll (hopefully) receive what I did:

SOMEBODY ELSE’s PROFILE!

Like Leno said:
“Hey Al Queda! If you’ve run out of tall-building targets, LOOK TO THE PORTS! We’ll leave a light on for you!”

I am reluctant to criticize the president and his administration, in part because those-in-charge have access to information I don’t. But I have to agree that my opinion of this administration changed over the last few months.

The port-business is a kind of last-straw for me. “What where they thinking?” is my first thought. Maybe it made good business sense to make this change. But after all the trouble in the mideast I have to wonder how they thought they would ever sell this to the people of the U.S.

Yes, the emirates are kind-of good guys. They haven’t appeared on any of the trouble lists. But, they are solidly located in the mideast and who knows what they really think of Americans. I often have the feeling that all of those countries hate us but love out money. That may be irrational, but I do think it now and again.

“We have information that you don’t” is usually a smokescreen. If they didn’t have the information on 9/10, there’s no reason to think that they have it now. I’m more worried about things the government inexplicably doesn’t know that pracically everybody else does— (e.g. “We’re not aware of any problems at the convention center.”)

So, I’m not the least bit reluctant to criticize anybody’s administration. But somehow this port thing doesn’t really bother me. Dubai doesn’t want to be Tehran. It wants to be Zurich (or, perhaps, Disneyland.) Any problem with terrorists on their watch would substantially interfere with those aspirations – Ironically, these guys may be more viligant than anybody we could get in keeping the baddies out.

On the other hand, I do have some doubts. But nobody seems to be talking about the real issue here: Should we give control of our ports to a country with such close ties to Michael Jackson?

ruminator: “Yes, the emirates are kind-of good guys. They haven’t appeared on any of the trouble lists”

Sort of. Other than that time in 1999 that the CIA had to abort a near surefire attack on bin Laden’s farm outside Kandahar … because they realized that in killing bin Laden they would also kill princes and emirs from the royal family of the UAE, who were visiting bin Laden that evening.

Has anyone mentioned that Dubai Port Worlds is not a private company … it’s owned by the government? The one run by a royal family, some of whose members were apparently chummy with bin Laden seven years ago?

It’s not proof of anything. But it certainly is concerning to me.

There there this. Let’s assume that the deal is above board, and that security would not actually be impacted by this change. If I were an enemy strategist, I would be making immediate plans to blow up a container in a US port with anything ... half a stick of dynamite. Just something to go “boom,” and let the hyper-sensationalist media do the rest (you can just imagine, can’t you?)

What would the response be if the port deal with Dubia goes through, and a bomb goes off in a container, even an explosion of near zero consequence? You would create a deep internal fracture in this country, further shattering public confidence in its government’s ability to protect them.

Even if it’s entirely safe, this deal creates that opportunity.

emcee: “But nobody seems to be talking about the real issue here: Should we give control of our ports to a country with such close ties to Michael Jackson?”

Actually, I think he’s a CIA plot to destabilize the region. You think the cartoon protests were bad? Wait til he dangles another baby out the window in Dubai.

There’s no UAE royal family. There are royal families of the individual emirates which form part of the UAE. DPW seems to be owned by the Dubai folk. The question is who were the friends of Bin Laden. I haven’t seen any details on that beyond “Emirati princes”.

You’re right. I guess it would be more correct to say the royal families (plural) of the United Arab Emirates (plural).

Tenet’s exact words in testimony before the 9-11 commission: “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.”

That’s probably where that phrase came from, and has likely been picked up and spread without the underlying details; multiple royal families from 7 emirates.

An article from 2004 says:

“During the winter of 1998-99, the CIA learned that a large party of Persian Gulf dignitaries had flown into the Afghan desert for a falcon-hunting party. The report from CIA field agents said bin Laden had also joined the party.

The agency called for an attack on their encampment until Richard Clarke, President Clinton’s counter-terrorism aide, discovered that among the hosts of the gathering was royalty from the United Arab Emirates.”

...and we’d just sold them 80 F-16’s, so they apparently decided it would be poor form to kill some of your customers’ family.

But I don’t know of any source that details exactly which family members from which emirate.