Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Should we discriminate on ports deal? You bet! [Buchanan is right for America]
World Net Daily ^ | 2 -25-06 | Pat Buchanan

Posted on 02/27/2006 11:47:46 AM PST by ex-snook

Saturday, February 25, 2006
 



Should we discriminate on ports deal? You bet!
 


Posted: February 25, 2006
1:00 a.m. Eastern

 

By Patrick J. Buchanan
 


© 2006 Creators Syndicate Inc.

"This Dubai port deal has unleashed a kind of collective mania we haven't seen in decades ... a xenophobic tsunami," wails a keening David Brooks. "A nativist, isolationist mass hysteria is ... here."

The New York Times columnist obviously regards the nation's splenetic response to news that control of our East Coast ports had been sold to Arab sheiks as wildly irrational. In witness whereof, he quotes Philip Damas of Drewry Shipping Consultants: "The location of a company in the age of globalism is irrelevant."

But irrelevant to whom?

Why is it irrelevant, in a war against Arab and Islamic terrorists, to question the transfer of control of our East Coast ports from Great Britain to the United Arab Emirates?

Our cosmopolitan Brooks lives in another country. He has left the America of blood and soil, shaken the dust from his sandals, to enter the new Davos world of the Global Economy, where nationality does not matter, and where fundamentalists and flag-wavers of all faiths are the real enemies of progress toward the wonderful future these globalists have in store for us.

"God must love Hamas and Moktada Al-Sadr," snorts Brooks. "He has given them the America First brigades of Capitol Hill."

To Brooks, there is little distinction between Islamic mobs burning Danish consulates and America First patriots protesting some insider's deal to surrender control of American ports to Arab sheiks.

But the reflexive recoil to this transaction between transnationals is a manifestation of national mental health. The American people have not yet been over-educated into the higher stupidity. Common sense still trumps ideology here. Globalism has not yet triumphed over patriotism. Rather than take risks with national security, Americans will accept a pinch of racial profiling. Yep, the old America lives.

Like alley cats, Americans yet retain an IFF – Identify-Friend-or-Foe – radar that instinctively alerts them to keep a warier eye on some folks than on others.

But in rejecting a deal transferring control of our ports to Arabs, are Americans not engaging in discrimination? Are they not engaging in prejudice?

Of course they are. But not all discrimination is irrational, nor is all prejudice wrong. To discriminate is but to choose. We all discriminate in our choice of friends and associates. Prejudice means prejudgment. And a prejudgment in favor of Brits in matters touching on national security is rooted in history.

In the 20th century (if not the 19th), the Brits have been with us in almost every fight. It was not Brits who struck us on 9-11, who rejoiced in the death of 3,000 Americans, who daily threaten us from the mosques of East and West, who behead our aid workers, bomb our soldiers and call for "Death to America!" in a thousand demonstrations across the Middle East. And while not all Muslims are terrorists, almost all terrorists appear to be Muslim.

As Mother Church has a "preferential option" for the poor, there is nothing wrong with America's preferential option for the cousins.

Does this mean all Arabs should be considered enemies? Of course not. The folks from Dubai may detest the 9-11 murderers as much as we do, for those killers shamed their faith, disgraced their people, and bred a distrust and fear of Arabs and Muslims that had never before existed here.

Yet, just as sky marshals seat themselves behind young Arab males, not grannies taking the tots to Disney World, so Americans, in deciding who operates their ports, naturally prefer ourselves, or old friends.

Why take an unnecessary risk? Just to get an A for global maturity on our next report card from the WTO?

The real question this deal raises is what happened to the political antenna at the White House. Did it fall off the roof about the time President Bush named Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court?

Anyone in touch with Middle America, especially after 9-11 and endless warnings of imminent attacks on U.S. soil, would know this country is acutely sensitive to terror threats. Surely, before approving this deal with Dubai Ports World, someone should have asked:

"How do you think Bubba will react when he's told sheiks will take over the port of Baltimore, where in Tom Clancy's 'Sum of All Fears,' Arab terrorists smuggle in an A-bomb and detonate it?"

Apparently, no one bothered to ask, or the question was brushed off in the interests of hastily greasing the deal.

Now, this episode is going to end badly. Bush, who has denied advance knowledge of the deal, is being ripped by liberals for living in a pre-9/11 world and being out of touch with his government.

As for our remaining friends in the Middle East, they have been given another reason to regard Americans as fickle friends who, down deep, don't like Arabs.

Unquestionably, this will result in a victory for those who wish to sever America's friendships in the Arab world. But it is Bush and his unthinking globalists, not the American Firsters whom Brooks cannot abide, who are responsible for this debacle.
 

 




TOPICS: Government
KEYWORDS: 911; antisemite; bucantwinan; buchanan; congress; jooooooos; journalist; loser; patbuchanan; portdeal; ports; thirdpartyloser
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-123 next last
Hijackers - the subject is dock deal discrimination.
1 posted on 02/27/2006 11:47:49 AM PST by ex-snook
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: ex-snook

BUMP


2 posted on 02/27/2006 11:49:17 AM PST by Dante3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ex-snook

Now here's a surprise...not.


3 posted on 02/27/2006 11:49:52 AM PST by CWOJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ex-snook

I thought Pat Buchanan liked Arabs. He didn't have a problem with Saddam Hussein. I guess if the UAE is such a terrible terrorist supporting nation, we should invade them. But oh wait, Pat isn't willing to go that far with his blind chauvenism.


4 posted on 02/27/2006 11:49:58 AM PST by MikeA (New York owes America an apology for Hillary Clinton and Chuck Schumer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ex-snook
Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

I wouldn't vote for Buchanan if he were running unopposed. I don't pull the lever for raging anti-Semites.

5 posted on 02/27/2006 11:50:02 AM PST by kellynch (I am excessively diverted. ~~Jane Austen)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MikeA
"I thought Pat Buchanan liked Arabs."

The UAE does business with Israel.

6 posted on 02/27/2006 11:50:46 AM PST by CWOJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: ex-snook

AN ORGANIZED DISINFORMATION CAMPAIGN ON THE PORT DEAL

NRO.com

My friends, there is an organized disinformation campaign going on in the discussion of the Dubai Ports World deal. Draw whatever conclusions you wish about whether the deal is worthwhile, but please do not buy into these blatant misrepresentations, and please don’t spread them in your discussions.

Clearly, this is a hot-button issue, and there are plenty of reasons for concern in the UAE’s past behavior, particularly before 9/11. Of course, we’re hearing from guys like Ret. Gen. Tommy Franks and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Peter Pace that UAE is “a friend” and “very, very solid partners” in the war on terror. And Sen. John Warner observed that the U.S. military has docked more than 500 ships in the past year in the UAE and uses their airfields to perform support missions for both Afghanistan and Iraq. But some folks still feel as if they can’t trust the UAE, and/or they want a fuller review. Fair enough. I don’t begrudge someone for having concerns about this deal.

However, I do begrudge someone for not having their facts straight. And long after I, and many others, pointed out that this deal is significantly different than what we were initially told, a particular group of people continue to dramatically misrepresent – aw, hell, let’s call it what it is – continue to lie about what it entails.

There are plenty of folks on the GOP side of the aisle repeating and spreading the lies. But check out the comments on the other side of the aisle.

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton:

“Senator Menendez and I don’t think any foreign government company should be running our ports, managing, leasing, owning, operating. It just raises too many red flags. That is the nub of our complaints,” said Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., speaking via teleconference in response to Bush’s announcement.
As reported in USA Today, 80 percent of the terminals in the Port of Los Angeles are run by foreign firms. And the U.S. Department of Transportation says the United Kingdom, Denmark, Hong Kong, Japan, South Korea, Singapore, China and Taiwan have interests in U.S. port terminals. The blogger Sweetness and Light observed that the National Shipping Company of Saudi Arabia, which is partially owned by the government of Saudi Arabia as well as Saudi individuals and establishments, operates berths in the ports of Baltimore, Newport News, Houston, New Orleans, Savannah, Wilmington, N.C., Port Newark, New Jersey, and Brooklyn, New York. (The link has an inadvertently haunting photo, BTW.)

The argument from Democrats now that “foreigners” shouldn’t be operating U.S. ports is either protectionism, xenophobia, or both. And it is at least a decade late.

All over the weekend, Democrats continued to fundamentally misrepresent what the deal entails.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein:

Do we want our national security assets to be sold to foreign powers? … Do we want, let's say, American companies that own nuclear power plants to be bought out by foreign entities?
New Jersey Governor Jon Corzine:

When Americans expressed concern about turning our ports over to the government of this country…

There are those who raise false charges of discrimination when we raise genuine concerns about security — who say that no one cared when a British company ran the ports. But Dubai is not Britain — and the fact of the matter is that port security does not begin and end at the pier in Newark.

The cargo shipped here is part of a global supply chain: a container that is loaded in Malaysia or the Philippines and then makes a stop in Dubai is unloaded in Newark or Baltimore, and eventually gets delivered to Cleveland.

So there is more than just cause for concern.

We cannot afford to let this administration be stubborn in their mistakes and casual about our security. Senators Clinton and Menendez have introduced legislation to prohibit companies owned or controlled by foreign governments from buying U.S. port operations.


That’s not even the worst of Corzine’s comments. Among the reasons that he has concerns about the UAE is that, “eleven of the hijackers involved in the 9/11 attacks traveled to the U.S. through the airport in Dubai.” Got that? A terrorist catching a connecting flight within your country signifies, in Corzine’s mind, a tie to terrorists. By that standard, Portland, Maine, Logan Airport in Boston, Newark International, Dulles International, and Fort Lauderdale in Florida have “ties to terrorists” – after all, the 9/11 hijackers passed through those airports as well.

Of course, New Jersey’s genius Senator, Frank Lautenberg, also thinks that a terrorist passing through an airport within your borders makes you an enemy in the war on terror:

“Dubai has allowed terrorists to pass freely through their own country,” said Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., this week. “Why in the world should we let this rogue government control ports in the United States?”
I take it New Jersey’s state government would qualify as a “rogue government” as well? I eagerly await your call for sanctions against your home state, senator.

Rep. Steve Rothman described the deal as “security contracts.” Wrong, wrong, wrong.

Sherrod Brown, Democratic member of the House, running for Senate in Ohio, Feb. 24:

In response to the proposed outsourcing of America's port security to the United Arab Emirates…
(HT: RCP.)

From the DNC:

This isn't about holding a Middle Eastern company to a different standard, this is about turning over control of six of our nation's major entrances to ANY foreign country… For this, to hand over our port security to a foreign nation, [President Bush] is willing to break out the [veto] pen for the first time.
Elsewhere, the DNC describes the deal as “the transfer of our national security to a foreign government.”

Sad to say, Republicans have joined in what can only be described as a disinformation campaign:

“The security of America is not for sale, and I hope that President Bush will correct this mistake by suspending this deal and investigating the reasoning behind this misguided decision,” Rep. Chris Smith, R-N.J., said.
By the way, on Saturday, the Washington Post reported that the intelligence community strongly supported the deal, a tantalizing bit of information for those of us who strongly suspect there’s an intelligence-sharing aspect of this deal that has not been publicly disclosed.

A former senior CIA official recalled that, although money transfers from Dubai were used by the Sept. 11 hijackers, Dubai's security services "were one of the best in the UAE to work with" after the attacks. He said that once the agency moved against Pakistani nuclear scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan and his black-market sales of nuclear technology, "they helped facilitate the CIA's penetration of Khan's network."

Dubai also assisted in the capture of al-Qaeda terrorists. An al-Qaeda statement released in Arabic in spring 2002 refers to UAE officials as wanting to "appease the Americans' wishes" including detaining "a number of Mujahideen," according to captured documents made available last week by the Combating Terrorism Center at West Point. The al-Qaeda statement threatened the UAE, saying that "you are an easier target than them; your homeland is exposed to us."

One intelligence official pointed out that when the U.S. Navy no longer made regular use of Yemen after the USS Cole was attacked in 2000, it moved its port calls for supplies and repairs to Dubai.


For all we know, this deal may be the quid pro quo for the biggest intelligence-sharing bonanza with an Arab state since the 9/11 attacks. Look at a map of the Middle East. Check out what country is opposite the UAE on the Persian Gulf, and try to imagine why we might want intelligence-sharing or other cooperation with this state.

The UAE is, in its actions right now, an ally. The Democratic party as a whole appears hell-bent on scuttling this deal, and ruining relations with this ally. For all that party’s relentless talk about the U.S. needing allies and strong partnerships, they will urinate all over one of our comrades in order to score points against the president.

However, this is the same party urging us to continue sending aid to the Palestinians, where it can be used by the new government of Hamas.

The Democratic Party would humiliate, alienate, and punish our allies while sending financial aid to terrorists and sucking up to our enemies. Do not buy into the line that they are pushing.

UPDATE: A great, far-ranging discussion over at Winds of Change, a hangout for liberal hawks.

[Posted 02/27 06:16 AM]


7 posted on 02/27/2006 11:50:53 AM PST by MikeA (New York owes America an apology for Hillary Clinton and Chuck Schumer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ex-snook

David Brooks is a country club GOPer. But he's closer to reality on this deal than PJB.


8 posted on 02/27/2006 11:50:55 AM PST by pissant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ex-snook

Buchanan is right, as usual.


9 posted on 02/27/2006 11:51:03 AM PST by Thorin ("I won't be reconstructed, and I do not give a damn.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #10 Removed by Moderator

To: ex-snook
"How do you think Bubba will react when he's told sheiks will take over the port of Baltimore?

Buchanan is Bubba.

11 posted on 02/27/2006 11:54:21 AM PST by plain talk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Soul_of_Chogokin
LOL! Your knowledge of the UAE appears to be limited...or gained from tainted sources. Understandable.

pat buchanan, he's so far right he's now come around to the left.

12 posted on 02/27/2006 11:54:55 AM PST by CWOJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: MikeA
I thought Pat Buchanan liked Arabs

But then Pat would have to support the Port deal, and he would miss out on an opportuinity to bash and take Pot Shots at Bush, and that is his only goal in this article.

13 posted on 02/27/2006 11:55:38 AM PST by commish (Freedom Tastes Sweetest to Those Who Have Fought to Preserve It)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: kellynch

I don't pull the lever for raging anti-Semites.

How about Semites who are anti-semite???


14 posted on 02/27/2006 11:56:38 AM PST by silentreignofheroes (When the Last Two Prophets are taken there will be no Tommorrow!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: commish

I think pat makes exceptions to Arabs who have major business dealings with Israel...like the UAE. He probably thinks they sold out.


15 posted on 02/27/2006 11:56:54 AM PST by CWOJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: ex-snook
He has left the America of blood and soil

Why does Buchanan now use National Socialist terminology so reflexively?

It's approaching self-parody.

"Blood And Soil" (in German Blut und Boden) was a slogan employed by racialist agitator Walther Darre in the early 1930s and Hitler made it a staple of his speeches, where it was chanted by crowds at the Nuremberg rallies.

Buchanan knows his history, he knows the exact provenance of this phrase. Why does he use it?

16 posted on 02/27/2006 11:57:07 AM PST by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MikeA

Of course, how else would Hillary and the rest of the ravenous socialists seize and nationalize our ports. No other company in the business wants to run our ports and have to deal with the unions, who BTW would love to be members of a union working for the government.


17 posted on 02/27/2006 11:58:13 AM PST by Camel Joe (liberal=socialist=royalist/imperialist pawn=enemy of Freedom)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: ex-snook

Buchanon's off the deep end. Like those NY politicians of both parties, he cares only about the union jobs of people making 6 figures a year. End of story.


18 posted on 02/27/2006 12:00:05 PM PST by narby (Hillary! The Wicked Witch of the Left)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Thorin

Except for saying this: "control of our East Coast ports had been sold to Arab sheiks".


19 posted on 02/27/2006 12:00:20 PM PST by Rte66
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: wideawake
>>>>>>Why does Buchanan now use National Socialist terminology so reflexively?

He doesn't. Many others have used the phrase, apart from the Nazis.

20 posted on 02/27/2006 12:00:48 PM PST by Thorin ("I won't be reconstructed, and I do not give a damn.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: MikeA

why don't pat cough up some coin, and buy the ports operation deal. then there would be nothing to complain about.....oh, wait, no american company would buy them....why not???? could it be that because of the union, the operation of said ports is UNPROFITABLE????? why don't the respective cities that actually own the ports run them? could it be that becuase of the union, the operation of said ports is unprofitable???? who is actually america's enemy? THE UNION'S!!!!


21 posted on 02/27/2006 12:00:57 PM PST by joe fonebone (Woodstock defined the current crop of libs, but who cleaned up the mess they left?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: wideawake

Because, plain and simple, the man IS a Nazi.


22 posted on 02/27/2006 12:02:35 PM PST by kellynch (I am excessively diverted. ~~Jane Austen)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: joe fonebone
Yes, the irony is delicious.

At the end of WWII we had the greatest merchant fleet in world history...by the mid 70's it was pretty much dead because of the unions.

Now the creature of their own making is coming home to roost.

23 posted on 02/27/2006 12:02:56 PM PST by CWOJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: MikeA

Thanks for sticking to the topic and posting something worthwhile.


24 posted on 02/27/2006 12:05:08 PM PST by ex-snook (God of the Universe, God of Creation, God of Love, thank you for life.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Thorin
Many others have used the phrase, apart from the Nazis.

Of course.

Give us the list of those who have used the phrase.

You'll see it amounts to a list of proto-fascists (Spengler), Nazi fellow travelers (Darre, Mauras) and Nazis proper (Rosenberg, Himmler).

No one uses this phrase outside scare quotes since the Nuremberg trials.

25 posted on 02/27/2006 12:06:18 PM PST by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Soul_of_Chogokin

"A lot of people have a kneejerk reaction to defend Bush. Since most criticisms against him are lies or down right laughable."

I can't speak for others, but my defense of Bush on this is entirely informed, not knee jerk. I have no hesitancy critiquing Bush's handling of borders and budgets.

The problem is, the reasons why some oppose this keep morphing. It's like quicksilver. You squash one piece of disinformation and the opposition slips into something else. First it's that the UAE is somehow connected to Al Qaeda. When that's disproven, then suddenly the objection shifts to being the UAE is not friendly enough with Israel. They actually trade with Israel. And I might point out that much of Europe is advocating a postion of dealing with Hamas and has been less than friendly to Israel's interests as well.

So since P&O has been sold, who else is there then to take over these operations? Any nation you point to as being a potential alternate is going to have something objectionable you could point to in order to oppose this deal. And if the latest iteration of the port deal opposition is lack of friendliness with Israel, then you'll have a hell of a time finding a nation whose port operation companies qualify under this standard.

The fact is, Arab-Israel conflict go back many decades but we've always managed to deal with Arab regimes friendly to the US even if not friendly to the US including on top secret national security issues including selling them top US weapons systems and yes, even allowing them to operate in US ports. The National Shipping Company of Saudi Arabia, which is partially owned by the government of Saudi Arabia as well as Saudi individuals and establishments, operates berths in the ports of Baltimore, Newport News, Houston, New Orleans, Savannah, Wilmington, N.C., Port Newark, New Jersey, and Brooklyn, New York.

So this "they're not nice to Israel" line is laughably disengenous if it's coming from Pat Buchanan, America's greatest Israel basher, and his supporters (I don't know whether you are a Buchanan supporter or not, I'm just saying.) The UAE has never been particularly ugly or rancid toward Israel in any event. And somehow I doubt they're going to risk losing their country and their economic progress by using the ports to somehow further some anti-Israeli agenda.

Anyway, this shape shifting of the opposition to the ports deal just shows how weak really the substance of the opposition really is. If you want to talk knee jerk, look to the opponents of this thing and how their reasoning shifts by the day.


26 posted on 02/27/2006 12:06:21 PM PST by MikeA (New York owes America an apology for Hillary Clinton and Chuck Schumer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: ex-snook

So touching to see the leftists warmly embracing the concept of national security. Now would be a really good time for someone to bring up the importance of profiling at, say, airports. . . .


27 posted on 02/27/2006 12:06:37 PM PST by MissNomer (This space intentionally left blank)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #28 Removed by Moderator

To: Soul_of_Chogokin

I hate when these threads turn into Anti-Buchanan rants rather than a serious debate of the issue at hand. I'm not saying that Buchanan is necessarily right on this issue, but he is right about alot of other things, and these personal attacks on him sometimes seem a bit undeserved and inappropriate.


29 posted on 02/27/2006 12:08:37 PM PST by SC33
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: ex-snook

I can't think of a single topic on which I would turn to Pat Buchanan for a rational, unbiased point of view.

As always his view in this are based on broad generalizations.

Yes the terrorists we are fighting are Muslims. That does not mean that all muslims are our enemies. The majority of the muslim terrorists come from Arab and many are supported by governments of some Arab countries.

That does not mean that all Arab countries support terrorism.

At first glance, there is evidence for concern and a need to look closer at the facts.

The facts show that the UAE has been an important ally in the war against Islamic terrorists. Our military which works with their government calls them an ally. Our troops that visit there say that country is different that other parts of the Middle East. Our customs officials tell us this is a respected company with a good track record.

There's also the fact that this is a 6.5 billion dollar investment by a company, and terrorism is an absolutely horrible business investment. There's not evidence of the UAE directly supporting terrorism, and using a state owned business to support terrorism would be suicidal is they were going to start doing so.

Buchannan ignores all the details and after making broad generalizations asks why we should take the risk? However, he can only support his accusations that there are risks with broad generalizations and fearmongering.

Buchanan is definately NOT right for America.


30 posted on 02/27/2006 12:08:44 PM PST by untrained skeptic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ex-snook

I am sure buchanan is useful... but so is Charmin!

LLS


31 posted on 02/27/2006 12:08:52 PM PST by LibLieSlayer (Preserve America... kill terrorists... destroy dims!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Soul_of_Chogokin

Not to anyone with knowledge of the issue and not hindered by a blind agenda.


32 posted on 02/27/2006 12:09:04 PM PST by CWOJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: kellynch
I don't pull the lever for raging anti-Semites

Pat Buchanan "rages"?

33 posted on 02/27/2006 12:10:19 PM PST by Mr. Brightside (I know what I like.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Soul_of_Chogokin

"They helped obl escape. One of the hijackers was from UAE."

There's zero evidence of the former charge, and the latter is laughable. The London subway bomber was a British citizen. I guess we should classify the UK as a terrorist regime. Tim McVeigh was American. I guess the American govt. is a terrorist regime. See where this is going? Unless you can show the hijacker was somehow connected to the UAE's govt. or sponsored by them, merely pointing out the person's nationality does not make the entire govt. or nation guilty or complicit. There is no evidence the UAE's govt. had any connection to that hijacker.

Sorry, but innuendo and slander is not a good enough reason for alienating an important ally in the war on terror.


34 posted on 02/27/2006 12:11:03 PM PST by MikeA (New York owes America an apology for Hillary Clinton and Chuck Schumer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: wideawake

Herzl


35 posted on 02/27/2006 12:11:15 PM PST by junta (It's Jihad stupid! Liberals, Jihadis and the Mexican elite all deserving of "preemption.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: MikeA
“Senator Menendez and I don’t think any foreign government company should be running our ports, managing, leasing, owning, operating. It just raises too many red flags. That is the nub of our complaints,” said Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y."

This is how I feel about Hillary carpetbagging her way into NYS.

36 posted on 02/27/2006 12:11:52 PM PST by sageb1 (This is the Final Crusade. There are only 2 sides. Pick one.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: kellynch
I don't think it's that simple.

I think it's that Buchanan and the rest of those who style themselves "palaeoconservatives" are basically embracing an idealized form of national socialism.

They strenuously support unions and protectionism and others forms of socialism while embracing nationalism instead of internationalism like other socialists do. This nationalism seems to be vaguely based on race, but they refuse to be pinned down on this (exceptions to this vagueness are Jared Taylor and the late Sam Francis).

37 posted on 02/27/2006 12:12:15 PM PST by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Soul_of_Chogokin
They forbid Israelis in their country, they support hamas.



Well......Buchanan himself isn't exactly against Hamas either. Here's what he wrote:

"For almost a year, Hamas has held to a truce with Israel and not engaged in attacks. Let America and Europe send word that if the truce holds, if Hamas does not attack Israeli civilians, if Hamas show its first concern is, as it claims, bettering the life of the Palestinian people, we will let the aid flow. But if Hamas reignites the war, we will not finance the war. We will terminate the aid. Make Hamas responsible for continuing the aid. And make Hamas responsible for terminating it, if it comes to that."
38 posted on 02/27/2006 12:13:14 PM PST by macamadamia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: wideawake
The phrase is used in this ad for the latest book from Tom Fleming, of Chronicles: chroniclesmagazine.org/www/Books/index.html

Fleming is an Aristotelian, not a Nazi. And Buchanan subscribes to Chronicles.

It is always amusing to see Catholics attack Buchanan, just because he has consistently opposed the anti-Catholic neocon philosophy which they have embraced. Buchanan is an American patriot and a traditional Catholic, not a "Nazi."

39 posted on 02/27/2006 12:14:33 PM PST by Thorin ("I won't be reconstructed, and I do not give a damn.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: junta
Wrong.

Herzl never used the phrase.

However, every neo-Nazi website describes Zionism as a mirror philosophy to nazism and uses this phrase in connection with Herzl's name for propaganda purposes.

they hope that dupes will fall for it and create a moral equivalence in their tiny brains between nazism and Zionism.

You are apparently just such a dupe.

40 posted on 02/27/2006 12:15:31 PM PST by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: joe fonebone

"who is actually america's enemy? THE UNION'S!!!!"

Someone needs to really take the time and sit down and do a wide ranging piece on the amount of damage union extremism has done to the economy and interests of this country. I think such a piece would be tremendously valuable and enlightening. I have no doubt we would be shocked at the tremendous damage unions have done to the US economy in recent decades. whether it's the loss of a manufacturing base in this country or the slow death of GM and Ford and yes, if you think foreign companies doing operations work in US ports is bad, then add that to the list of negative results from excessive union power and why US companies don't do this kind work. But Pat Buchanan is a union suck-up and will never admit that it is his beloved labor unions that have brought us to this point.


41 posted on 02/27/2006 12:15:54 PM PST by MikeA (New York owes America an apology for Hillary Clinton and Chuck Schumer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Soul_of_Chogokin
"This deal STINKS "
So, give us a list of the other bidders, and their ranking on the bidding and homeland security list.........oh, wait...you cannot do that, becaus NO ONE ELSE BID!!!! so if we use your logic, we should either (a) force a company to continue to operate at a loss, when they clearly want to sell the operation, noting that disgruntled employees usually are the most dangerours, or (b) shut down said ports until someone else decides they want to lose money running the unprofitable ports, or (c) let the respective cities run their own ports ( oh, wait we already discussed this, THE UNION makes the running of the ports unprofitable ) sooooo.....since you are so vastly more intellegent than the president and his advisors, what is YOUR solution...........I anxiously await your reply and solution....both please, not just one
42 posted on 02/27/2006 12:16:05 PM PST by joe fonebone (Woodstock defined the current crop of libs, but who cleaned up the mess they left?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: ex-snook

No problem. Thanks for your kind words. Civility!! What a breath of fresh air on FR!


43 posted on 02/27/2006 12:16:48 PM PST by MikeA (New York owes America an apology for Hillary Clinton and Chuck Schumer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: wideawake
>>>>>>They strenuously support unions and protectionism and others forms of socialism

Strenuous supporters of protectionism in American history include George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, Abraham Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, Calvin Coolidge, and Robert A. Taft.

Strenuous supporters of free trade include Woodrow Wilson, FDR, and Bill Clinton.

Attacking protectionism as "socialism" betrays a monumental ignorance of American history, if not an actual hatred of America.

44 posted on 02/27/2006 12:17:23 PM PST by Thorin ("I won't be reconstructed, and I do not give a damn.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: ex-snook

Old Buck's ability to be on both sides of a fence at once is truly astounding.

Even for a politician.

Trouble is even when he's right he's wrong.

What was that line from Claude Rains in Lawrence of Arabia?


45 posted on 02/27/2006 12:17:53 PM PST by the Marshal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Thorin

Pat's Catholicism shows well in his attacks on Mexicans and other Latins not being part of Western Civilization. What a guy!


46 posted on 02/27/2006 12:21:49 PM PST by elhombrelibre
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Thorin
"It is always amusing to see Catholics attack Buchanan, "
a Catholic basher, ehhh.....nowhere in this thread have i seen the word chatolic, except by you.....I personally do not attack Buchanan because of his religious beliefs, I attack him because he is a moron. As are you, sir.
47 posted on 02/27/2006 12:24:11 PM PST by joe fonebone (Woodstock defined the current crop of libs, but who cleaned up the mess they left?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: MikeA
"" The FBI conducted a detailed financial investigation/analysis of the 19 hijackers and their support network, following the September 11th attacks. This investigation initially identified the Al Qa'ida funding sources of the 19 hijackers in the UAE and Germany."

Senate Committee Statement by FBI'S John Pistole, 31 July 2003

>>>>After all, it was a citizen of the UAE, Marwan al Shehhi, who piloted United Airlines Flight 175 into the second World Trade Center tower, and it was through the banks of this country that the 9/11 attacks were partially financed.
Mansoor Ijaz NRO Online 2-22-2006

"On September 11, 2001, a few hours before the Twin Towers were attacked in New York, one Mustafa Ahmed al-Hawsawi landed in Karachi. A Saudi nation, Hawsawi was the finance manager of 9/11 operations. There is clear evidence that he moved several thousand dollars from a Standard Chartered Bank account in the UAE to Florida’s SunTrust account operated by Atta and others. Working from Dubai, he had couriered ATM and credit cards to Atta and his group in the US for paying flight training schools, buying simulators and equipment like the Global Positioning System and for booking tickets on flights taking off from various destinations early September 11."

John Wilson: Observer Research Foundation

There is Dubai's Sheik Mohammed bin Rashid al Maktoum.
Al-Maktoum, Defense Minister of the United Arab Emirates, is also Crown Prince of Dubai-an Arab Muslim country that strongly supported and recognized Afghanistan's Taliban, one of only three countries to do so. According to "From the Desert to the Derby," by Jason Levin, 10 of the 19 September 11th hijackers carried documents and identification from Dubai, a country which also has no laws against money-laundering. Why? Maybe, because money to fund September 11th's terrorism was laundered to ringleader Mohammed Atta, directly from Dubai's banks.

Debbie Schlussel.com

"Opponents of the deal also argue that the FBI found that the UAE's banking system filtered much of the money used for the operational planning before the Sept. 11 attacks, and many of the hijackers traveled to the United States through the UAE. On top of that, the UAE was an important transfer point for shipments of smuggled nuclear components sent to Iran, North Korea and Libya by a Pakistani scientist."

Fox News, February 20, 2006 ******************************************************************

September 8-11, 2001: Last-Minute Money Transfers Between Hijackers and United Arab Emirates
The 9/11 hijackers send money to and receive money from a man in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) who uses the aliases "Mustafa Ahmed," "Mustafa Ahmad," and "Ahamad Mustafa." [MSNBC, 12/11/01] This "Mustafa" transfers money to Mohamed Atta in Florida on September 8 and 9 from a branch of the Al Ansari Exchange in Sharjah, UAE, a center of al-Qaeda financial dealings. [Financial Times, 11/30/01] On September 9, three hijackers, Atta, Waleed Alshehri, and Marwan Alshehhi, transfer about $15,000 back to "Mustafa's" account. [Time, 10/1/01; Los Angeles Times, 10/20/01] Apparently the hijackers are returning money meant for the 9/11 attacks that they have not needed. "Mustafa" then transfers $40,000 to his Visa card and then, using a Saudi passport, flies from the UAE to Karachi, Pakistan, on 9/11. He makes six ATM withdrawals there two days later, and then disappears into Pakistan. [MSNBC, 12/11/01] In early October 2001, it is reported that the financier “Mustafa Ahmed” is an alias used by Saeed Sheikh. [CNN, 10/6/01] It will later be reported that Saeed wired money to Atta the month before. These last-minute transfers are touted as the “smoking gun” proving al-Qaeda involvement in the 9/11 attacks, since Saeed is a known financial manager for bin Laden. [Guardian, 10/1/01]

The Center for Cooperative Research

48 posted on 02/27/2006 12:27:03 PM PST by Reagan Man (Secure our borders;punish employers who hire illegals;stop all welfare to illegals)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: wideawake

"Blood And Soil" (in German Blut und Boden) was a slogan employed by racialist agitator Walther Darre in the early 1930s and Hitler made it a staple of his speeches, where it was chanted by crowds at the Nuremberg rallies."
______________________________________________

Buchanan is a closet Nazi...no doubt about it.

What a Moonbat!


49 posted on 02/27/2006 12:28:37 PM PST by fizziwig (Democrats: so far off the path, so incredibly vicious, so sadly pathetic.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: wideawake

I kind of imagine him painting on a little hitler moustache and goose stepping around his bedroom while Mrs. Buchanan chants "Seig Heil, Geig Heil."


50 posted on 02/27/2006 12:29:25 PM PST by stop_fascism
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-123 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson