1 Rusty All true - but we are still not talking about the UAE govt, the Company involved, or the country itself. As pointed out - organized crime can not be found just anywhere - but virtually everywhere. On the point of criminal activity, they will gravitate to the weakess points anywhere - and the UAE is surprisingly not one of them. For this you should look closer at South America and SE Asia. Some should do a little research on a big player behind the scenes pushing the Dems and others - the affected unions here in the US. There is a fascinating story here with a lot of history - they were once one of the largest and most powerful (and corrupt) unions in the nation. At one time, they had more power and influence over this country than the UAW or Mine Workers. The way we run and operate our ports today began slowly in the early '70s as a direct result and reaction to them.

2 Not six ports as falsely reported. It's really 21 ports! [excerpted under fair use] UAE terminal takeover extends to 21 ports By PAMELA HESS UPI Pentagon Correspondent WASHINGTON, Feb. 24 (UPI) -- A United Arab Emirates government-owned company is poised to take over port terminal operations in 21 American ports, far more than the six widely reported. The Bush administration has approved the takeover of British-owned Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation Co. to DP World, a deal set to go forward March 2 unless Congress intervenes. P&O is the parent company of P&O Ports North America, which leases terminals for the import and export and loading and unloading and security of cargo in 21 ports, 11 on the East Coast, ranging from Portland, Maine to Miami, Florida, and 10 on the Gulf Coast, from Gulfport, Miss., to Corpus Christi, Texas, according to the company's Web site. President George W. Bush on Tuesday threatened to veto any legislation designed to stall the handover. Read the rest @ http://www.upi.com/SecurityTerrorism/view.php?StoryID=20060223-051657-4981r

3 "Some should do a little research on a big player behind the scenes pushing the Dems and others - the affected unions here in the US." Oh my GOD! Why that's criminal! Imagine that. An elected US official trying to keep Americans from loosing even more jobs. tsk tsk Why can't Bush do that? Oh. That's right. He's cutting deals with foreign governments selling the US infrastructure to the highest bidders instead!

4 ITS PORT TERMINALS/BERTHINGS! NOT THE PORTS! THERE ARE (AS FAR AS I KNOW) APX 900 SUCH FACILITIES AROUND THIS NATION. THE DEAL IS FOR 21 SAID FACILITIES. What pisses me off most about all this is the deliberate (DELIBERATE) attempts to equate Port with port terminals, and port terminal operations with Port Security/Operations. I know exactly what Port entails courtesy my past years 1st hand experience in Port/Harbor operations with the USACE Harbor Operations Port of NY/NJ. And I know the BS being thrown about.

5 John Buchanan, lamented Clinton doing the same thing, back when Bill was President. {excerpted under fair use] A Chinese Naval Base -- at Long Beach by Patrick J. Buchanan March 13, 1997 "And last year, Johnny Chung, who gave $366,000 to the Democratic National Committee, showed up for a Clinton radio broadcast at the White House, with six Chinese in tow, including an adviser of Cosco. The president begged off being photographed with his guests, which raises a question: If Bill Clinton is leery of being seen with these characters, why is he giving them a Long Beach naval base?... Does anyone care about national security anymore?" Read the rest @ http://www.buchanan.org/pa-97-0313.html [end excerpt] Clinton sold the Long Beech California Port to the Chinese commies?! Those damned liberals! That adulterous slimy lying bastard Clinton! Sadly, he is not alone, in the selling of America. Here is a really incredible coincidence too. The UAE based multinational corporation, set to buy 21 Ports in the US, also gave "us" a gift also, just weeks before the UAE Ports deal was announced. Only Bush must be a better salesman than Clinton, because he got "us" 366 MILLION dollars! It supposedly went to the Katrina relief effort. Who knows. Why would a supposed conservative, hell bent on National Security and improving our economy, sell off our infrastructure? Really, it doesn't matter what foreign outfit he sells them to, or which party is involved now obviously. The question is why? Bush does not need the money, and it didn't go to him. I guess. So what the hell is going on? Could globalization have anything to with this, and does that have anything to with Globalism? Of course it does. What the hell is Globalism, and who are these guys anyway? Now that is THE question, and here is the answer. George W Bush, like his father, is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, as are both Bill and Hillary Clinton, Dick Cheney, Carl Rove, Donnie Rumsfeld, and yes of course John Kerry and other phony liberals and phony conservatives also. WHAT THE HELL! WHO ARE THESE GUYS? The Council on Foreign Relations strongly advocates such deals, referring to the practice as "proactive global interdependence", touting it also as a necessary step toward WORLD GOVERNMENT. That's right. the CFR is a Globalist organization. They want a world government, 'and' they want to 'be' that world government. How could they ever hope to accomplish this?! Well, nobody is stopping them, and they can certainly afford it, because "they" are also BIG OIL, not just here in the US but everywhere on earth. Now that is some serious economic power right there. The CFR along with the Bilderburg Group, seems to be the headship of globalization, and they have long advocated "Corporate Powerbuilding" as a means to outstrip governments in wealth, in order to then subvert governments everywhere through direct economic influence. Oh by the way. Did I mention that Bush Jr and Sr, Bill and Hillary Clinton, Carl Rove, John Kerry, and others you have heard of recently, are also members of the Bilderburg Group? SURPRISE! They are! So is the owner of FOX, and many other media owners, major newscasters, and yes even some cute and fuzzy pundits are members too. Hello, Rush? Is that why you are so well fed? How could it even be possible, for this group of super wealthy corporate heads 'and' heads of state the world over, to ever hope to take over governments all over the world? Can they do it? Well obviously, they have so much money now, they can both buy the infrastructure 'and' the political cooperation necessary. In effect they are buying the world as we speak. Both Clinton and Bush, and Reagan and Carter, and Ford, and others, have been selling our nation all along, like, well, like hotcakes. How does that make you feel? Wont it be wonderful?! Imagine the same ethic displayed by EXXON, McDonalds, "The Good Guys", WAL-MART and that place you slave at, applied mercilessly on a global scale, without the government or civil restrictions now protecting you. Wont it be great?! Do you think maybe they (repubs and dems alike), got us all so divided and blinded with partisan squabbling, thanks Rush, that we didn't notice what they were up to in secret behind our backs? Ya think? I mean do you think at all? "Fascism should more rightly be called corporatism, as it is the merging of State and Corporate power." - Benito Mussolini

6 And the Queen Of England is behind the drug trade - oh where have I've heard this before? You forgot the Free Masons, the Iluminiti - oh, lets not forget a few International Zionists now and then - there are more but I forget ...

7 Go to the CFR website and read for yourself you dork. Geez. Some people. If isn't something they see on FOX news it has to be conspiracy theory stuff. Oh wait. This info 'has' been on FOX News! CNN even went into it a bit, but it is certainly not a "conspiracy theory" by a long shot. These convenience stores have got to start checking IDs and stop selling beer to teenagers.

8 Natasha, the Larouche blog is elsewhere, mmkay? I know people who have worked for the CFR and even a couple who are on it. They're not pursuing some sinister globalist agenda.

9 That's right - I'm a dork and an illiterate moron - and your a genius. Feel better? Why don't you share your intellect with the Mensa board - doubt if anyone here is interested in your special part of the fringe.

10 Fringe? My that is an old term. You never hear that one used anymore. Funny how first we have an "expert" who managed ports or some such thing, and now there is someone who "knows people in the CFR", and of course don't worry everything is just fine. Meanwhile they will continue to sell our ports, railway system, highways, bridges and airports to foreign corporations. People are waking up though. People are beginning to realize what is going on, and they do not like it one bit.

11 Yes, funny, isn't it? In fact it's not just funny; I'd say it's hilarious. Because by your "logic" knowledge based on ignorance is more reliable than knowledge based on familiarity. Someone who knows absolutely nothing about port management or the CFR is a more reliable source of information about this question than someone who does. (Psst, Hondo, she's on to us! She's discovered that we're really part of the vast conspiracy ourselves! Call Alliance headquarters and have them execute operation "Dumbass" against "Natasha". They'll know what to do.)

12 Nah! I'm just going to have them beam her aboard the mother ship then park her in orbit. Yes, it is an old term - I'm an old guy - and it does fit.

13 excerpted from Click 2 Houston @ http://www.click2houston.com/news/7397234/detail.html?rss=hou&psp=news United Arab Emirates Donated At Least $1M To Bush Library POSTED: 7:37 am CST February 24, 2006 HOUSTON -- A sheik from the United Arab Emirates contributed at least $1 million to the Bush Library Foundation, which established the George Bush Presidential Library at Texas A&M University in College Station. The UAE owns Dubai Ports World, which is taking operations from London-based Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co., which operates six U.S. ports. A political uproar has ensued over the deal, which the White House approved without congressional oversight. Dubai Ports World offered Thursday night to delay part of the takeover to give the Bush administration more time to convince lawmakers the deal poses no security risks. The donations were made in the early 1990s for the library, which houses the papers of former President George Bush, the current president's father. The list of donors names Sheik Zayed Bin Sultan al Nahyan and the people of the United Arab Emirates as one donor in the $1 million or more category. The amount of the gift grants them recognition on the engraved donor wall in the library entrance or on the paving bricks that line the library's walkways, according to library documents. Roman Popaduik, chairman of the Bush Library Foundation that collects donations, said he could not discuss details of the gifts except to say the amount category and whether it was before or after 1997. The chief executive of the Dubai company, Ahmed bin Sulayem, did not donate individually. The hundreds of large donors include longtime Bush associates, including Vice President Dick Cheney and other administration officials as well as business titans -- such as Enron Corp. founder Kenneth Lay -- and big Republican donors. Other Arab donors include the state of Kuwait, the Bandar bin Sultan family, the Sultanate of Oman, King Hassan II of Morocco and the amir of Qatar. The former Korean prime minister and China also gave tens of thousands of dollars to the library.

14 I think I chipped in 20 bucks too - but I'd have to check my old tax records.

15 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/23/AR2006022301882.html Role of Sen. Dole's Husband at Issue By Jeffrey H. Birnbaum Washington Post Staff Writer Friday, February 24, 2006; Page A06 The lobbying of former Senate majority leader Robert J. Dole on behalf of the Dubai-owned company set to take over management of terminals at six major U.S. seaports is creating a political problem for his wife, Sen. Elizabeth Dole (R-N.C.). The chairman of the North Carolina Democratic Party, Jerry Meek, yesterday called on Sen. Dole to remove herself from "any congressional oversight" of the Dubai port deal. "The fact that Dubai is paying her husband to help pass the deal presents both a financial and ethical conflict of interest for Senator Dole," Meek said. A spokeswoman for Sen. Dole rejected the criticism as "a partisan attack" and defended the senator's role as a lawmaker and her husband's as a lobbyist. "Elizabeth Dole knows that her work is separate from Bob Dole," said her spokeswoman, Lindsay Taylor Mabry. "Bob Dole works for a law firm. Elizabeth Dole works for the people of North Carolina." Former senator Dole (R-Kan.), 82, said in a written statement yesterday that he is not going to lobby his wife or members of Congress. His law firm, Alston & Bird LLP, helped steer the application of Dubai Ports World through the federal bureaucracy over the past few months, and Dole signed on as a lobbyist for the company this week. His spokesman would not say what lobbying, if any, Alston & Bird is now doing in Congress; the firm's spokeswoman did not return telephone messages. Dubai Ports World beefed up its lobbying efforts, including on Capitol Hill, after lawmakers threatened this week to scuttle the transaction. The lawmakers said they feared that national security might be compromised by letting a Middle Eastern firm manage key U.S. ports. Dole's statement said he will confine his lobbying to the Bush administration. "I have not nor will I 'lobby' Members of Congress on this issue, not even at home," he wrote. "I have not discussed the port issue with any Senator or member of Congress or anyone working for the Congress, nor will I do so in the months to come." The controversy confronting the Doles is an increasingly common one in Washington. According to Public Citizen's Congress Watch, at least three dozen members of Congress have relatives who are professional lobbyists. Congress Watch and other watchdog groups have loudly criticized the growing trend. "What better way to buy access to a lawmaker than to hire the lawmaker's son, daughter or spouse as their lobbyist on a lucrative retainer?" said Craig Holman, a lobbyist for Congress Watch. Some of Congress's most prominent members have relatives on K Street. House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) has a son, Josh Hastert, who works as a lobbyist for PodestaMattoon. The son of former Senate majority leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.), Chester Trent Lott Jr., lobbies for the Livingston Group. A son-in-law of Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) is a lobbyist, as are the wives of both Democratic senators from North Dakota -- one for professional baseball, the other for insurance companies. In addition, sons of two senior members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.) and Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah), are lobbyists. The father of Sen. Evan Bayh (D-Ind.), former senator Birch Bayh (D-Ind.), lobbies, as does the wife of House Majority Whip Roy Blunt (R-Mo.). Blunt's connection to Altria Group Inc., the tobacco and consumer products company that his wife works for, was an issue in his unsuccessful bid to become majority leader. Lawmakers defend their connections with lobbyists as just another byproduct of the modern world in which spouses are often professionals, as are their children. Lawmakers also state that their lobbyist relatives do not lobby them personally. Blunt's wife does not lobby the House of Representatives, a Blunt spokeswoman said. Hastert's son refrains from lobbying the House Republican leadership. Amid news media scrutiny a few years ago, Reid imposed a prohibition against any lobbying in his office by relatives. Still, the issue remains sensitive. Various proposals to change lobbying laws amid the Jack Abramoff political corruption scandal have included bans on lobbying by relatives of lawmakers.

16 Not a conspiracy. Oh no. That never happens. Everything is fine. Our leader is in control. You are safe. SLEEP

17 Lawmakers assail deal giving Dubai firm control of ports BY MICHAEL MCAULIFFNew York Daily News WASHINGTON - The Bush administration gave control of six crucial ports to a Sept. 11-linked Arab nation after a flimsy investigation and with weak guarantees the company in charge can stop Osama bin Laden from infiltrating, the House homeland security chairman said. "There are conditions, which shows they had concerns, but it's all procedural and relies entirely on good faith," Rep. Pete King, R-N.Y., told the New York Daily News. "There's nothing those conditions ... nothing that assures us they're not hiring someone with bin Laden." The firm, Dubai Ports World, owned by the United Arab Emirate of Dubai, cut a $6.8 billion deal last week to buy control of the ports - including Manhattan's cruise ship terminal and Newark, N.J.'s, giant container port - from a British firm. A source with knowledge of the purchase echoed the chairman, telling The News that while Department of Homeland Security administrators rubber-stamped it, senior analysts at the agency were never told, and they don't like it now. News of the sale, approved by a secretive multi-agency panel headed by the Treasury Department, has sparked a growing outcry from both political parties. "It's unbelievably tone-deaf politically at this point in our history, four years after 9/11, to entertain the idea of turning port security over to a company based in the UAE, (which) vows to destroy Israel," Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., told "Fox News Sunday." Hearings on the deal have been called for this week in Congress, and Sens. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y, and Bob Menendez, D-N.J., have proposed a law to ban such takeovers. Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., demanded that President Bush personally intervene. "The president must act," he said at a news conference with New York Harbor as a backdrop. "Outsourcing the operations of our largest ports to a country with long involvement in terrorism is a homeland security accident waiting to happen." But the administration is defending the port transfer, pointing out that even though Dubai was an important base for the Sept. 11 plot, the emirate is now an American ally. "You can be assured that before a deal is approved, we put safeguards in place, assurances in place, that make everybody comfortable that we are where we need to be from a national security viewpoint," Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff told ABC's "This Week." But King, who was briefed on the deal by top officials last week, disagreed. "Our investigation was very superficial," he said. "We're talking 20 to 25 days of work, and that includes all the financial aspects and everything else." King said a huge blind spot was the identity of the firm's employees. "All we know are principals and people at the top level," he said. "We don't even know the midlevel guys, who are the ones who will be doing the work, really running things."

18 Yes - sleep - love it -sleep - more of it! Actually,the key staging base probably for the 9/11 operation was Homburg Germany - you can have a go with this one.

19 Was the United States sleeping when the deal was going on , or they jews were waiting because the chances were great that a Singaporean company was taking it over,the moment they backed out and Dubai got the deal suddenly the people who were sleeping woke up and started to make a noise about this deal, besides that if they are so eager for the shares why dont the U.S. government buy over the shares of P&O , USA, and let the people feel that they are at ease,,what a country with such naive people,,God help the USA

20 No, it's Dubai's don't ask, don't tell attitude about people doing business in that country. This is a bad thing?

21 I still can't believe it. People are allowing their attention to be diverted from the most important issue regarding this deal. Yes, there are obvious irregularities and "conflicts of interest" involved, in this little deal really, which are of concern surely. These are sides issues of less importance though, in comparison to the fact that ownership or control, when not both, of our entire infrastructure has already been sold to foreign corporations. It is not just our seaports which have been sold off over the last four Presidential administrations. If only that were all there is to it. No, also our airports, railways system, trucking companies, highways and toll roads, bridges, hospitals, national retail chains, shipping companies, and even most of what little domestic industrial capacity left here to us in the US, have already been sold off. For whatever reason, whether by design or by accident, the public has become aware of some of this because of the DPW of the UAR Ports deal. The electronic media however has not told even half the story. For example DPW is not buying control of a mere 6 ports, but 21 ports in fact. Thus far media coverage has focused on the sensationalist possibilities, which I am certain the Bush admin, both can and will put to rest as they proceed with the deal. Media coverage is also making this a very sensationalized partisan issue. Clearly however both US Parties have been fully complicit all along, in selling control and ownership of our entire infrastructure to the multinational corporate alliance. This same global confederation of Big Corps, doing all the buying, has no loyalty to any nation state. In fact this multinational corporate alliance, is becoming more powerful in wealth (the one true power) than all national governments put together, and they are doing it through the buying of the infrastructure within all nations, everywhere, not just here in the US. Well what can expect of the media? It too is owned and controlled by the same global confederation of corporations.

22 Someone has seen Robocop one too many times.

23 I will not rise to the bait being trolled by those who seek to divert the topic of this thread.

24 Ha ha ha ha ha Now that's funny! Fire & passion! Should hook you up with DU greg.

25 I thought it was funny too, Hondo. With all the hijacking she's done in other threads, suddenly she's taken the moral high ground. And calls others the trolls. Can't even use a real email. So far she's been unable to hold her own in a debate so now she's clamming up with some pretense of maintaining the integrity of "the thread". Take for instance the last few comments on the Jan. 9th post http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/150526.php Yes, what I just said was off-topic. Sue me. The problem is that even though there's is always some truth to any story, such as all the articles that are quoted at length and ad nauseum regarding these topics, there isn't the level of secret conspiracy implied by the commenter.

26 Oyster Similar to greg, the bulk of her(?) posts consists of credited Cut & Paste from others writing - suspect much of what is not credited is also C&P from elsewhere. Same pattern as greg - different spectrum of the "fringe". Don't bother attempting to place her(?) on right/left xy axis - this is one of the multitude of isolated z's.

27 Public icons of both the left and the right, likewise share membership together in globalist organizations like the CFR and the Bilderburg Group, and obviously they do not really take the left/right political divide seriously. Partisan politics is for weak minded emotion driven fools. They have you right where they want you. Caught up in appearances completely unaware of what they are doing.