Garrett falsely reported that DPW head "didn't know" of UAE's Israel trade embargo
SUMMARY: Fox News' Major Garrett reported that "[t]he head" of Dubai Ports World (DPW) said he "didn't know" that the United Arab Emirates enforces a trade embargo with Israel, even though he testified at a Senate committee hearing that he believed the boycott was being enforced at the company's ports in Dubai.
On the February 28 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume, Fox News correspondent Major Garrett reported that "[t]he head" of Dubai Ports World [DPW] said he "didn't know" that the United Arab Emirates (UAE) enforces a trade embargo with Israel. DPW, which is owned by the government of Dubai, a UAE member state, struck a controversial deal with the Bush administration to assume operations at six major U.S. ports. In fact, DPW's retiring chief operating officer Edward H. Bilkey was aware of the embargo and confirmed as much at a February 28 Senate Commerce Committee hearing.
From the February 28 edition of Special Report:
GARRETT: One other issue arose today. The United Arab Emirates enforces a trade embargo against Israel. The head of Dubai Ports World said he didn't know that, but lawmakers now do, and they don't like it one bit.
In fact, as the Los Angeles Times reported on March 1, at a February 28 Senate Commerce Committee hearing, Bilkey "confirmed that the same UAE-owned holding company that owns Dubai Ports World also owns a Dubai customs office that enforces the nation's participation in an Arab League boycott of products made in Israel." The New York Times further reported on March 1 that Bilkey initially denied that DPW was "involved in matters of state-to-state policy," but, when pressed, eventually confirmed that the boycott was being enforced.
From the March 1 New York Times article:
At a hearing of the Senate Commerce Committee, Edward H. Bilkey, the chief operating officer of Dubai Ports World, was pressed by several Democrats about Dubai's position on the Arab boycott of Israel, following up on a report in The Jerusalem Post that said the holding company that controls Dubai Ports participated in the boycott.
Mr. Bilkey first said the company was not involved in matters of state-to-state policy. Under questioning, he conceded that he believed the boycott was in force at company ports in Dubai.
However, he added later: "The largest Israeli shipping company is one of our largest clients. We serve everyone in many of our terminals around the world."
The participation in the boycott against Israel by DPW's parent company would apparently be illegal if it were a U.S. company. A March 1 United Press International article noted: "It has been illegal since 1977 for U.S. companies to comply with the boycott, by agreeing not to do business with Israel, or by certifying that their products do not contain any Israeli materials." UPI further noted that in 2005 "two firms were fined for issuing certifications 'in connection with requests by entities in the United Arab Emirates to support the Arab League boycott of Israel,' according to a Commerce Department official authorized to speak to the media."
Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) was quoted in The New York Times March 1 article saying: "This boycott not only violates at least the spirit of U.S. law ... it is inconsistent with everything we believe in as Americans." UPI quoted a spokesman for Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL) saying that the "spirit and intent of the law" were at stake, and "[t]he reason it is illegal (to comply) is because we oppose the boycott."
George Bush, Dick Cheney, and Donald Rumsfeldt all spoke in terms of "enemy combatants" as though they were non-persons, as well as not human enough to afford the Geneva Conventions, all the while telling tall stories of a Sadam conspiring with Al Queda, and miraculously re-constituting his nukes for that famous mushroom cloud. Morelike they were eating mushrooms.
We have to face the fact that besides a port, oil, and a place to rendition our torture victims, we have no reason to trust these people with anything.
We need to focus more intently on the most important issue in front of the Senate, the Patriot Act.
“Give me liberty, or give me death” Patrick Henry, March 23, 1775 "Civil liberties do not mean much when you are dead," Sen. Jim Bunning, R-Ky., told the Senate. 02/28/06
In the day Patrick Henry was a respected revolutionary leader, Quaker, and spokesman for the greatest human experiment that we call the United States of America, risked all to help invent, protect, and then preserve civil liberties of men as a matter of principle. He presumed from centuries of religious fervor and greed of a aristocracy in Europe which produced the Dark Age, that government should now and forever be subservient to it’s citizens if it were to be anything like civilized.
Today; we have a hard throwing, pampered baseball player, with all the privileges society could possibly offer, drop to his knees to tell the nation of civil liberties should be to sacrificed because he is to frightened to protect and preserve these same liberties that his counter part, but certainly not equal, presumed to lay his life. Patrick Henry would presume that a future of a nation without liberty is not a future worth having.
I want to know what in the Patriot Act has served to protect us so much better than the 230 years we lived without it.
I want to know what security we are getting for our surrender of civil liberties that make a life worth living. I want to know why a pair of draft-dodgers should be allowed to fabricate cause for a foreign war for political gain, and use this very crime to undermine our civil liberties earned with the blood of true patriots of the past, present, and if some of our Congressional & Senate leaders should grow a spine, future.
I want to know where our patriots are. I want to know how cowardice and greed became such a virtue of our American Democracy.
I want to know what the Republican does with their conscience when they go to the polls to cast a vote to end American Democracy. I want to know how a Republican can live with themselves when our form of government is indistinguishable to a Franco Dictatorship.
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
So when exactly did our leaders become bottom-feeders?
History, if it exists in a post-neo-con future, will be oh so unkind to this regime.
I think you will want to see this column, an informed indictment of the Bush II years, which makes your case in some detail: [link to www.shns.com]
Where are our patriots today? Surely not in the leadership of our country. What a comparison, Jim Bunning and Patrick Henry. I don't see anyone around today, who might be worth more than a mention in any future history book. The heros of today are the ones who question the heroism of those who have served. Patriotism has been turned on it's head. Samuel Johnson's words were never more true than today. "Patriotism IS the Last Refuge of a Scoundrel."
Dan Grady posted:
We have to face the fact that besides a port, oil, and a place to rendition our torture victims, we have no reason to trust these people with anything. ....
We need to focus more intently on the most important issue in front of the Senate, the Patriot Act......
I want to know why a pair of draft-dodgers should be allowed to fabricate cause for a foreign war for political gain, and use this very crime to undermine our civil liberties earned with the blood of true patriots of the past, present, and if some of our Congressional & Senate leaders should grow a spine, future. ...." ------------------------------------------------------------------------
O.K. Dan I'll bite. Which is it? Are the UAE trustworthy or not? Clinton trusted them in 2000 with the sale of the premier fighter/bomber of our arsenal (we don't even fly this version), but now they can't be trusted? Our torture victims? Fact check time. Last I checked we didn't have any torture victims in the UAE. You want to know about torture, read Jeremiah Dentons book about Vietnam. It will add some "perspective" to your world.
The Patriot Act. Didn't I see you dems stand up cheering when they voted it down. Now you want to know how it is going to protect you? You guys are choice. You can't have it both ways. You have been on the wrong side of securing America and now you're up in arms about a port deal you obviously know nothing about, but think you can make political hay over.
The draft dodgers. Would you like to read about a draft dodger? I can link you to Bill Clinton's letter to Col. Holmes were he thanks the good Col. for "saving me from the draft" and then the little gem of him "loathing" the military. Those pesky letters from the hazy smoke filled 60's. Party on Bill.
who totally ignored all the warnings in the summer of 2001? bush. who held weekly, sometimes daily, meetings solely on terrorism? clinton. who got an f from the 9-11 commission on securing our ports? bush.
Who was president when the WTC was bombed the first time? Clinton.
Who is the president working with Dubai to get the current port deal passed while his wife is ripping the republicans a new one? Yep, good old slick Willie.
He had been president for WHAT 8 weeks or so? you have such a Clinton fixation. He hasnt been president for 5 years get over it
That's my parrot squawking. He watches too much Fox News.
Let me do some simple math for you.
The former and thoroughly armed to the teeth well trained military, and militias of Bosnia pacsified without an American Casualty, that barely cost us a dime, WINNER!
Fabricated threat of a demoralized, starving army of a bottled up despot in a boiling pot between Iranain Shia population & the Arab Sunni world to the west, costing the taxpayer 1 trillion dollars, 2900 dead / 40,000-50,000 wounded, Iraqi dead 100k or more, and an almost complete bankruptcy of American Honor overseas, LOSER!!!!!!!
Clinton dodged the war by studing in Cambridge, and protested the war.
Bush dodged the war by spending taxpayer dollars to learn to fly a fighter jet for fun, then AWOL to party in Alabama for the Repressives, and was a supporter of the war policy.
Add it up!
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
the 50k civvies has held for over a year so we are no longer injuring the right?
that number is a ploy anyway
Once again Dan your facts need a refresher. Bosnia had casualties. I was there. Clinton had a nice tidy little gunnery in Bosnia (he didn't go to the UN by the way). Those armed to the teeth Serbs didn't put up much of a fight. Steady pounding of a bombing campaign in the bowl with no escape will do that. Little different fighting in the streets of Iraq.
You say Bush was AWOL? Do you want to retract that or will you please show me AWOL charges on the president? If you can produce those papers, I sir will humbly eat crow.
I most certainly can produce the Col. Holmes letter Bill wrote while puffing on a ganja stick in the UK. I still can't believe you will defend this argument.
IF they tried to bomb us we would shoot them out of the sky before they got within 100 miles of our shoreline. We cannot trust them with our ports because if they help al Queda smuggle in a biotoxin it will kill 100,000 of so before we figure out we got screwed. Gee, this isnt that hard to figure out. Do you guys give this stuff 10 seconds of thought before you change your propaganda parrot setting from record to regurgitate to see if it makes any sense at all?
do you think they couldn't dress like a mexican and run it across the border? Or bribe a chinaman to bring it in through the ports in L.A. that China controls?
Why is Bill Clinton working so feverishly to help them?
That is irrelevant. I mean are you saying we may as well give up on security altogether because YOU can think of ways it can be done? Bottom line your snivelling about the sale of f16s which could NOT be used against us and having a questionable entity controlling our ports CAN be.
I've replied to your accusation about Clinton, the UAE, and the F-16's twice now - you have not responded.
Again, the sale was an incentive to keep the UAE as a counterweight to Saddam, and to get them away from the Taliban. The UAE believed that the Taliban served to keep the Iranians in check, and Clinton needed to give them some sort of military assurance that they would be protected if the Taliban fell: hence, the F-16's.
Clinton needed the support of the UAE and other Arab states of he was going to launch the incredibly successful "Operation Desert Fox." That action - which has disappeared down the memory hole of the American right-wing - was responsible for the elimination of WMD in Iraq.
But Clinton NEVER endangered the security of the US by putting vital ports under the control of nations that had shown leanings toward the Taliban or bin Laden. The F-16's were never a serious threat to the US (granted, they may have been to Israel - that's another story). Clinton was a serious man who looked at the world in a serious way, gauging what the repercussions of his actions may have been. Unlike other presidents...
Again, you've got to get better sources than Newsmax. It's a complicated world out there - if you want to understand it, don't just accept what they feed you.
Bill Clinton helped Dubai on ports deal >By Stephanie Kirchgaessner in Washington >Published: March 1 2006 23:50 | Last updated: March 1 2006 23:50 >> Bill Clinton, former US president, advised top officials from Dubai two weeks ago on how to address growing US concerns over the acquisition of five US container terminals by DP World.
It came even as his wife, Senator Hillary Clinton, was leading efforts to derail the deal.
Mr Clinton, who this week called the United Arab Emirates a “good ally to America”, advised Dubai’s leaders to propose a 45-day delay to allow for an intensive investigation of the acquisition, according to his spokesman.
On Sunday, DP World agreed with the White House to undertake the lengthy review, a move which has assuaged some of the opposition from the US Congress.
However, Mrs Clinton remains a leading voice against the deal, and this week proposed legislation to block it, arguing that the US could not afford to “surrender our port operations to foreign governments”.
> Tide of populist anger swells in US heartlands >Click here > Mr Clinton’s spokesman said: “President Clinton is the former president of the US and as such receives many calls from world leaders and leading figures every week. About two weeks ago, the Dubai leaders called him and he suggested that they submit to the full and regular scrutiny process and that they should put maximum safeguards and security into any port proposal.” He added that Mr Clinton supported his wife’s position on the deal and that “ideally” state-owned companies would not own US port operations.
Mr Clinton’s contact with Dubai on the issue underscores the relationship he has developed with the United Arab Emirates since leaving office. In 2002, he was paid $300,000 (€252,000) to address a summit in Dubai.
The backlash against Dubai’s takeover has seen some lawmakers in Washington highlight the UAE’s alleged role in helping to finance September 11.
>
Ellington, this is the third time I've tried to answer. My responses may have been cut (as they so often are on this here bitch board) but I will try again.
Ellington posted:
"Again, the sale was an incentive to keep the UAE as a counterweight to Saddam, and to get them away from the Taliban. The UAE believed that the Taliban served to keep the Iranians in check, and Clinton needed to give them some sort of military assurance that they would be protected if the Taliban fell: hence, the F-16's. "
Is this conjecture on your part or is this first hand knowledge? As I've previously posted, Clinton sold, gave away, or approved more weapons sales in his first five years in office than any other president. The UAE is a strategic area. We have flown sorties out of there since the first Gulf war. I'm not knocking the sale of the F-16's. I'm sure there was a good reason for it.
As for the incredible success of ODF, yes by all accounts it was great. The timing of ODF is what has people scratching their heads. Remember Pres. Clinton launched ODF on the eve of his impeachment hearings if my memory serves me well. Maybe that is why it not remembered in the terms you'd like it to be.
Oh, one more thought on ODF. Didn't we launch that to contain Saddam's WMD? You guys have been saying there was no WMD. Was there or wasn't there? President Clinton thought there was. Or was he bluffing?
I have served under four presidents. I served under Bill. I worked on some of these operations we speak of. I can assure you I don't need to get my facts from Newsmax. I was there.
My knowledge of this comes from the 9/11 Commission report, Chapter 4:
Your argument is this: Clinton trusted the UAE with the sale of F-16's; therefore, Bush should trust them with the sale of our port operations.
My counterargument is this: Clinton DIDN'T trust them; he made a STRATEGIC decision (you seem to agree with me on this when you say, "I'm sure there was a good reason for it [the F-16 deal]").
Bush can't claim he made the same sort of decision if he didn't even know about the deal, as he claims. The Clinton deal, therefore, is IRRELEVANT to the ports deal, especially since the F-16's were no threat to us, and our ports remain vulnerable (again, the 9/11 Commission is my source).
As for the incredible success of ODF, yes by all accounts it was great. The timing of ODF is what has people scratching their heads. Remember Pres. Clinton launched ODF on the eve of his impeachment hearings if my memory serves me well. Maybe that is why it not remembered in the terms you'd like it to be.
And do you remember what Clinton said about just that?
Ellington posted:
"My knowledge of this comes from the 9/11 Commission report, Chapter 4:
In July 1999, UAE Minister of State for Foreign Affairs Hamdan bin Zayid threatened to break relations with the Taliban over Bin Ladin.166 The Taliban did not take him seriously, however. Bin Zayid later told an American diplomat that the UAE valued its relations with the Taliban because the Afghan radicals offered a counterbalance to "Iranian dangers" in the region, but he also noted that the UAE did not want to upset the United States.167 " _______________________________________________ Ellington, don't missunderstand, not trying to sharp shoot you here, just making sure we're talking about the same thing. I haven't read the whole commision report. Just reading the above though, I'm not sure if it is in full context or not. I agree the UAE once was one of only three countries to recognize the Taliban. Following 9/11, the UAE cut off ties with the Taliban. President Sheik Zayad bin Sultan al-Nahyan told President Bush that the UAE was ready to join a campaign against terrorism and has cooperated fully with the US since.
The UAE has provided basing and over flight permission for all US and coalition forces dating back to the first Gulf war. UAE C-130 aircraft have supported humanitarian assistance operations into Central Asia, but the missions have all been transport class aircraft aquried from the US in the 70's.
The UAE a member of the GCC, has been working on an air defense system since the mid 90's. That is why we saw the deal with the 80 Desert Falcons. The UAE has been very aggresive in negotiating and acquiring top military hardware, not just the usual low end stuff that the defense industry typically pawns off to these countries. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
'Your argument is this: Clinton trusted the UAE with the sale of F-16's; therefore, Bush should trust them with the sale of our port operations.
My counterargument is this: Clinton DIDN'T trust them; he made a STRATEGIC decision (you seem to agree with me on this when you say, "I'm sure there was a good reason for it [the F-16 deal]"). " ______________________________________________
Clinton did trust them. If you can show me how he didn't I'll conceed the point. As I've posted before, Pres. Clinton sold, gave away or appoved more weapons sales in his first five years in office than any president since WWII. I think we can agree that in this case it was a good move. _______________________________________________ "since the F-16's were no threat to us, and our ports remain vulnerable (again, the 9/11 Commission is my source). " -------------------------------------------------------------------------
This has come up a couple of times. I've never claimed the 16's would ever be used against us! Just wanted to clear that up. A side note to this though. During the deal, there was some concern about the avionics codes for the fighters. This would allow UAE aircraft to track Israeli aircraft. The UAE managed to negotiate the codes, but in returen they will develop a joint UAE/US partnership on satelite relay station. ______________________________________________ "ODF was launched in 1998! It was a limited, well-considered response to what was perceived as a threat. It involved no loss of American life, targeted weapons programs, and was run with at least tacit support from the rest of the world. " -----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clinton impeachment hearings started in 98 also. On the eve of ODF. I think this is what you were questioning? ------------------------------------------------------------------------- "You want me to say whether there were WMD or not. Obviously, there weren't, but no one knew for sure - even those who suspected he had anthrax or smallpox or sarin didn't know how much, or how it was weaponized. THAT'S why Dems wanted inspections: to find out. " _______________________________________________ Saddam was interfering with inspectors at every turn. How many times do you play the game? Inspectors were kicked out of the country before ODF. There was no more you could have done. _______________________________________________"I thank you for your service. But I do not defer to you on this issue. "
______________________________________________ You're welcome. Thank you for debating and not name calling. I never expect you to defer, just debate. :)
ps sorry about all the lines, but I haven't fiquered out how to use the quotes and highlights on this board. Feel free to pass the gouge! ;)
When having no other argument, always use Bill Clinton!
for message board wind bag.
Comparing the Patriot to a dictatorship? That's a good one. The vast majority of your side voted for it.
You really one have one "hero" and that is Russ Feingold. He might carry Madison in Wisconsin if he ran for president.
The rest of the country realizes you have to give up some freedoms to protect ourselves. The question is of balance. So far, except for some pissed off librarians, there has been virtually nothing affecting the average american except a hell of alot of extra paperwork. You don't want war and you don't want sensible protections to protect American citizens. And yet you wonder why the left is perceived as weak on national ddefense.
Only that cowardly portion of people on the rightwing cowering under their beds. Most of us think Franklin was right that those who would give up essential liberty for temporary security deserve neither, YOU deserve neither. There is NO SUCH THING as absolute security. We were under much more threat by the Soviet nuclear arsenal I didnt see us rushing to give up our bill of rights then. Nor should we now.
We didnt want war against a country that had NOTHING TO DO WITH THOSE WHO ATTACKED US. We were all for going after al Queda. Unfortunatly ADD President Gump lost interest in those who actually attacked us and decided on a more profit friendly war Operation Halliburton needs a new Parking Lot
The new left talking point is to call the right cowards.
Some of us prefer Lincoln's approach, after all, he actually led the country as president, unlike Franklin.
"Must [the laws] be allowed to finally fail of execution even had it been perfectly cleart hat by the use of the means necessary to their execution some single law, made in such extreme tenderness of the citizen's liberty that practically it relieves more of the guiltythan of the innocent, should to a very limited extent be violated? To state the question more directly, are all the laws but one to go unexecuted, and the government itself go to pieces less that one be violated?"
The Patriot Act is barely more than the cameras they place at the intersection to catch people running red lights. That is why the right is calling the left whiners, since the Patriot Act provides great safeguards at minimal loss of liberty.
That tells me I need to give up MY rights because he is scared and wants to be protected. IF you could give up YOUR rights without me giving up mine that would be fine but you cannot. SO you in your FEAR want ME to give up MY rights so YOU can feel more protected. I say Franklin was right, you deserve neither freedom nor security
I would have liked to have seen the rest of the clip or transcript so we would know whether it was falsely reported that "The head of Dubai Ports World said he didn't know that" or whether "The head of Dubai Ports World falsely TOLD Fox that he didn't know that. Fox falsely tells us enough stuff to make it difficult to distinguish, but I'd like to know if the Ports World Head is lying about a materially significant fact to anyone, to serve as yet another reason why we shouldn't be paying them (or, in my view, any foreign state, foreign corporation, or domestic corporation) to be running what should be a federal or state governmental function.
p.s. - amen to the Patriot Act comments above.
Up until now Bush and Cheney have been pretty clear that their policy is based on the assumption that sanctions don't work. Cheney voted against sanctions on South Africa in the 80's, set up Cayman Island shell subsidiaries to let Halliburton do business in Iran during the 90's and both Bush and Cheney used ineffectual sanctions as one of their justifications for invading Iraq.
Why the flip-flop?
Hey Repressives;
The fact is that all shipping companies, or a company in the business of world trade at any level is completely dependant on a U.S. Naval Force for safe passage.
One of the most definitive, but least recognized facts, and benefits to a 500 billion dollar a year defense budget is that the World's trade routes are made safe by the U.S.N. and no other.
So, why do we have to ask them to do anything, should it not be a blessing for them not to be the latest territory of the USA?
After participating in the funding, and maning the 9-11 attacks themselves, for which we invaded Iraq for far less, they should expect anything but to be very happy to be of any use to us?
We should be concerned publicly, or privately what the emirs think, or what they do with their money. They should be happy they stil have a country, or money at all, and spend all their sleepless nights dreaming of ways to apease us.
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
Fox clearly dropped the ball here -like they've ever really had the ball?
The Anti-Israeli boycott was a known fact and they chose to play dumb. Just another blatant attempt by FNC to protect this Admin.
Hey Dan Grady: Nicely done. I've printed a copy to remind me that there are people still out there with a sense for history and the real meaning of Democracy.
I would prefer to know when the deal closes and what do they own per contract/title. The Rumsfeld joke (???) "I don't know what I don't know.....etc " is wearing a little thin for guys on public employment at exhorbitant wages.
that when cheney was head of halliburton he pushed for the end of sanctions on iran. they care about money.
now media matters supports israel? and when did the uae ever fly planes into us?
Perhaps you forgot two of the highjackers were from the UAE