bustardblog

wrong again.

Not wanting to claim that I'm particularly prescient these days, but please look at yesterday's post regarding the fury of Dubai, and then check out today's New Yorker magazine.

In the New Yorker's Talk of the Town section a  piece described the recent visit by 20 students of the Dubai Women's College to New York University's Tisch school.  At a job fair in Dubai, one of the students approached the Crown Prince of the Emirate, suggesting that he personally pick up the tab for the trip. He agreed to do so on the spot!

In spite of Bush's flip-flop of a decision not to veto any bill that prevented the Dubai Ports World deal going through; it seems that the fury of the Emir we so offended has calmed down enought for him to send 20 young women to New York.

Is Bush ever right?

Deafening

I must be suffering from some serious hearing loss. I know  there's a lot of noise about some very important subjects, but I just can't hear it:

1. The keening in the Arab Street about the Dubai ports deal: I don't hear it! Remember how damaging Bush said that our renegging on the deal would be to our relations in the Muslim world?  Since we did back out of the deal, another company owned by the Emir has closed on two large buildings that he was scheduled to buy in New York.
2. The cries;the wails of outrage from Republican bloggers on the grave injustice suffered by that greatest of all Americans - Tom Delay. I am deaf to all of the calls for him to keep on serving in Congress.  If you remember, he was unfairly accused by out of control, profoundly partisan prosecutors. Finally, just this week, he has even been hounded from office.  Bush, Cheney, Rove, Norquist, and Abramoff (assuming his parole officer allows it) will be holding a "Prayers of Protest" service in the National Cathedral on Tuesday.  The villainy of those opposing the Hammer must be confronted.  Former DeLay employees Scanlon and Rudi do plan to attend.  There is an expectation that the Cheney girls, Mother Lynne and daughters Elizabeth and Mary, will sing The Supremes'  "Back in My Arms Again": "I've listened once to their advice, and I'm not going to listen twice."

I hope Bush will just stop the line dance, and listen to advice. Listen.

Brooks & Reality:D-I-V-O-R-C-E

True naked ambition. (well, not actually naked)

(h/t blog.reidreport.com)

When David Brooks takes a break from bragging about his superior education, instructing us on precisely which of Plato's dialogs we should be reading, and asserting his masculinity, he should spend a little time with Rand McNally.

The crumbling edifice of Brooks' brain is in serious need of a reality restoration.

In today's op-ed for the Times, Brooks attacks Hillary for being a "nakedly ambitious demagogue" because of her stance on Dubai operating our ports.  He is happy to report that Hagel and McCain passed the test of character that this issue presents. But Brooks does not seem to know that one of the ports in question is in New York, the state Mrs. Clinton represents.  A cursory glance at a map of the U.S. might remind Mr. Brooks that neither Arizona nor Nebraska have a lot of ports.

He denounces Hillary because her husband's library accepted "up to a million dollars" from the U.A.E., but neglects to mention that George H.W. Bush's library accepted "at least a million."  Generally, "at least" is bigger than "up to" a million. Brooks also complains of money that Bill earned from the U.A.E. in speaking fees, but forgets those collected by the Bush family.

He is even more scornful of Hillary's  playing to the "rawest form of xenophobia." To Brooks, all Arab states are the same. He cannot make even the gross distinctions that Condi Rice's State Department can. Not all Muslim nations have been designated Level III human traffickers. (the worst level) But Dubai has. In not all Arab states are only 10% of the residents considered citizens. But that's how it is in Dubai. 

Her stance reminds him of the "Clinton years at their worst: the me-me-me selfishness." How he can write a sentence like that after years of Republican corruption and thievery is utterly beyond me.

Brooks trashes her Presidential ambition in part because she "is the only presidential candidate who does not offer a break from the current polarization and bitter partisanship." He admits that "a lot of the bitterness would not be her fault," but goes on to say that "she is happy to be a crude partisan." So, who is to be blamed for the bitterness? Brooks fails to ask. Both Hillary and Bill are far closer to the center than the current Republican party. And opposition to Dubai's operating our ports is about as bi-partisan an issue as we have seen in five years of Bush's divisiveness.

His pompous conclusion is that "over the long run, people vote on character." Yes, he wrote that during the second term of George W. Bush's Presidency.

 

 

Good By Doo Bai

A short while ago, Sen John Warner announced on the Senate Floor that Bush had completely capitulated, caved-in, and buckled.  DuBai will not be operating any ports in the U.S. Tom Oliphant reports that the surrender is not just a shell game: it's total.

These bastards do not always have to win.

Rightist Racists.

David Brooks did it again yesterday. He repeated the absurd argument frequently made by the administration, that being against Dubai operating our ports is the same as being against Arabs doing so.

These accusations of racism is of course racist.  Dubai is an unusual country. It is a monarchy. Only about 12% of the residents of the country are citizens. The State Department has classified it as being amongst the worst nations for trafficking in human beings.  It recognized the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan. Unlike Jordan, Egypt and Saudi Arabia it has not been attacked by Al Qaeda.

It is Brooks and this administration that are saying that all Arabs are like those who run Dubai. They are the racists.

Profiling Republican Racists

In today's WaPo, Charles Krauthammer writes complete Bull Shit.
"Democrats loudly denounce any thought of racial profiling. But when that same Arab, attired in business suit and MBA, and with a good record of running ports in 15 countries, buys P&O, Democrats howl at the very idea of allowing Arabs to run our ports. (Republicans are howling, too, but they don't grandstand on the issue of racial profiling.)"

He essentially takes the same position that Tom Friedman in today's Times: that to question the right of an Arab to take control of port operations is to question the right of any Arab to take control.

Al Qaeda has no problem distinguishing between Muslim nations. They have set off no bombs in Dubai. They have bombed Jordan and Egypt.  Al Qaeda has attacked targets in Morocco, Tunisia, and Saudi Arabia. It has hit no targets in Dubai. Clearly, Al Qaeda sees differences between Dubai and many other Arab and Muslim nations.

For the administration and it's supporters to describe opposition to Shaikh Mohammed operating our ports as racism or profiling is false. It is also incredibly racist and stupid. For it is the administration that is saying that Shaikh Mohammed is representative of  all Muslims. It is the administration who have turned this into a issue of race - and thus offensive to many Muslims around the world.

Shaikh Mohammed also can make distinctions between Muslims. As I have mentioned here and here, Dubai has been categorized as a "Tier III" level trafficker of humans by the State Department. (This is the worst level) When Dubai abducts children into slavery to be camel jockeys - it does not enslave it's own children. It can tell the difference. So it is to Pakistan that "400 underage boys" were repatriated in 2004.(Human Rights Report)

No, it is Bush who thinks a billionaire despot is the only type of Arab with whom to do business.

 

 

All the Shaikh's Boys

Remember early last year when you thought that Bush was finally doing something right with his strong condemnation of human trafficking? His Under Secretary of State quoted the President in June 2005, as saying "No one is fit to be  master, and no one deserves to be a slave" and then went on: "Because of the stain of slavery on our own history, these words have special meaning to us. And they guide our efforts against trafficking in persons."

Well never mind.

In June of 2005  the U.S. State Department did "publish it's fifth annual Trafficking in Persons Report," in which countries are categorized as to whether or not they are applying minimal standards to prevent slavery in their countries. The U.A.E.got the worst possible rating - Tier III. Ambassador John Miller, the Senior Adviser to Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice on human trafficking, noted that "if a country stays in Tier III, it will require sanctions."

The report read "The U.A.E. Government's efforts to provide protection and assistance to victims of trafficking were minimal....Despite the ongoing trafficking and exploitation of thousands of children as camel jockeys and women in sexual servitude, the government made insufficient efforts in 2004 to criminally prosecute and punish anyone behind" it. This report was issued by Condoleeza Rice's Department of State.

That same Department of State issued a Human Rights Report for 2004: "trafficking ....in very young boys used as camel jockeys continued to be serious problems." It reported that the "ABWTI estimates approximately 5,000 boys are still in the country as camel jockeys."

Camel jockeys of course race camels.  They are young boys who were been kidnapped or sold into slavery. Some of them have been obtained as young as at 6 months, and start racing at 4 or 5 years old. By the time they are ten the boys have generally gained enough weight (despite the best efforts of their owners) and are too heavy to be a jockey. They also become a bit jaded. As the Economist put it; the "children scream loudly at the starting line, shreiks of pure terror.  This is part of the plan. Their startled cries excite the camels, pushing them to top speeds. Trainers say it is impossible to find Arab children who will scream with such fright at the camels." The younger ones often cannot hold on themselves, so they are velcroed or strapped onto the animal. Injuries, and even death, are not uncommon.

Shaikh Mohammed, who will soon be handling our ports, says that the camel "is part of [his] heritage, part of the Arab environment." He personally owns about 5,000 camels - 2,000 are for racing, and 3,000 for breeding. His brother, Shaikh Hamdan owns about 2,000. In trying to describe the Shaikh, Forbes asked it's readers to "think of Dubai as a corporation and Mohammed its chief executive - without a board of directors getting in his way."

His Highness, the Shaikh, has repeatedly said that the use of young slave boys  as jockeys was being stopped, but the U.S. State Department disagrees. (Photos from 2004, here)

So if His Highness, the President, is able to force the sale through, you can sleep well knowing that the profits made in our ports will be used to buy more camels, and to buy the young boys who will ride them.

** This post has been slightly revised, mostly to clear up some links.

Dubai: A Retirement Community?

The Dubai deal that Bush is promising to push through, even if it requires violating his virginal veto power, is at least as stupid as everyone says.

Dubai, the fastest growing city in the world, is also one of the most ridiculous. It has a Taj Majal that is 3/4 as big as the original. It has snow-skiing in a huge indoor stadium, with five runs, one of them a black diamond. It dredges the ocean floor to get sand to build islands in the sea that will house more condos, hotels and office buildings. One developer is creating islands that imitate the geography of the earth. Recently he hired a famed golfer to hit a ball from 'Greenland' to 'Iceland' as a promotion. It's in the process of constructing the tallest building in the world. In order to attract the tourists it wants to  cultivate, prostitution is rampant. Famous for it's camel racing, it doesn't admit to still using young slaves, boys generally under 10 years old, as camel-jockeys. But photos of the young slaves were taken in Dubai in 2004 by anti-slavery.org.  UAEPrison.org reports that "Abuses also happen in Dubai,which human rights activists say is the center of the child slave trade."

And it's  a monarchy. An oligarchy of five families controls everything that goes on. If the deal goes through, the ruling family, the Maktoums, would be running our ports.The Christian Science Monitor notes that "it is arguably less democratic than even neighboring Saudi Arabia."  There is a native population of about 150,000, out of a total population of about 1.3 million - the vast majority of which are foreign nationals; laborers from Asia earning horrible wages in construction and as domestics.

The Guardian noted that the ruler, Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum, runs Dubai "like a private enterprise. The Maktoums own everything and there is virtually no political or press freedom." The family is staking their future on making the city a banking, shipping, and tourist mecca. They envision themselves as the New World capital.

Bush calls Dubai an ally in the war on terror.  Yet in July 2001, after the embassy bombings in Nairobi and Dar and shortly before 9/11 - where did Osama go to get medical treatment? Dubai. (AFP, LeFigaro *)

In fact, it is curious that after bombing Saudi Arabia several times; Egypt and Jordan this year as well, Bin Laden has not attacked the muchmore heretical Dubai. Alcohol is everywhere, as well as prostitution, and bikinis are almost required on the beachs. It also has much less security. The C.S. Monitor states that one reason for this is "that Dubai is still a useful place for the illicit transfer of funds - for example through the hawala system"... "referring to the traditional paperless money-transfer system believed to play a key role in terrorist financing."

So Bush is once again putting his faith into an unelected, anti-democratic dictator - a man who depends on the kindness of Bin Laden. Dubai is far more reliant on tourism, the West, and the appearance of stability than Saudi Arabia or Jordan.  Both Bin Laden and  Sheikh Mohammed Maktoum know that a little  bombing at a building a little higher than the World Trade Centerwould do immense damage. Bin Laden has the capacity to destroy the City State of Dubai if it did not cooperate with him.

Although many consider the Sheikh a genius for all of the wealth he has brought to his tiny kingdom, I question his judgment in this deal.  He has to know that the next administration in Washington will not be nearly as feckless as Bush's. Is it smart to maneuver your country/company right smack into the middle of a war?

The only possible logical explanation is that both Bush and Bin Laden have decided to retire there. It has a really luxe life style, and is sort of the ultimate gated community. Bin Laden could buy Iceland, while W goes for Greenland. They can chip shots across the sea at each other. They could also be sure that the U.S. would not bomb a city where a former President lived, and no Arab State could attack Bin Laden's home.  War Crime Tribunals are very unlikely in Dubai.

(Sorry this is not the original link, but it does refer to the article)