George Bush's Dubai Ports World deal vs. Al Gore's Al Jazeera deal

Dubai, United Arab Emirates (UAE) is a mere 236 miles east of Doha, Qatar, where the headquarters of Al Jazeera is located. After the sale of Al Gore's Current TV to the Arabic news network, Al Jazeera America is expected to broadcast from New York.

Via World Atlas:

In 2006, the Dubai Ports World (DPW) controversy involved a deal - supported by then-President George W. Bush - that would allow the sale of Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company (P&O), a British Company, to DPW. Such a deal would have put the operation of six U.S. ports under the control of DPW. One of those ports was in New York. Ironically, while Bush supported the deal, then-Senator Barack Obama opposed it and said the following:

"Over four years after the worst terrorist attack in our history, not only are we failing to inspect 95% of the cargo that arrives at U.S. ports, but now we’re allowing our port security to be outsourced to foreign governments. Clearly, more time should have been spent investigating this deal and consulting with homeland security experts and local officials. I support my colleagues on both sides of the aisle who are seeking a full review of this deal." - Barack Obama in 2006

As news of the deal grew, so did opposition. Then Senate-Majority leader Bill Frist, House Speaker Dennis Hastert, U.S. Senator from New York Chuck Schumer (D-NY), New York mayor Michael Bloomberg, and New York Governor George Pataki all expressed opposition to the deal. In fact, at one point, the prospect of legislation to halt the deal was gaining serious momentum and Bush seemed to play the Islamophobia card while talking to a gaggle of reporters on Air Force One. Via New York Times:

"I want those who are questioning it to step up and explain why all of a sudden a Middle Eastern company is held to a different standard than a Great British company. I am trying to conduct foreign policy now by saying to the people of the world, 'We'll treat you fairly'." 

Another prominent politician to express opposition to the deal was none other than the opportunistic Senator from New York, Hillary Clinton. The MSNBC link that included the following excerpt is now a dead one but the text is available elsewhere. Check this out:

Mrs Clinton's tough stance that the deal represented an "unacceptable risk" to national security has caused UAE officials some consternation. 

Regarded as the leading Democratic candidate for the 2008 presidential elections, she has used the deal – which polls show is disliked by most Americans – and the anti-Arab sentiment it sparked to attack the Bush administration on national security, an issue that has been seen as a weak point for Democrats.

Essentially, Democrats rightfully opposed the deal for the wrong reasons. Those reasons involved going after Bush. That is, unless we are to believe that the likes of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are Islamophobes (yeah, laughable, isn't it?).

In fact, Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Rep. Edward Markey (D-MA), Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ), Senator Robert Menendez (D-NJ), and other prominent liberal Democrats opposed the deal, along with Republicans like Rep. Peter King (R-NY), chairman of the Homeland Security Committee.

When it comes to the Dubai Ports deal and the sale of Current TV to Al Jazeera, there is one primary difference when it comes to American political leaders; Bush received bi-partisan opposition and Gore is receiving only conservative opposition.

Taken further, none other than Senator Chuck Schumer is regarded as being the prominent politician most responsible for bringing the Dubai Ports deal to light. Had he not done so, it's quite possible that the deal would have gone through; it didn't.

Check out this excerpt from an NPR report:

On the Banking Committee and representing a major seaport, and he was media savvy to boot. It was Democrat Chuck Schumer of New York. Schumer's office heard from Muldoon, from Eller & Company lawyer Michael Kreitzer, and from an Associated Press business reporter who had been talking with Muldoon and Kreitzer. In a period of four days, the AP reporter's story ran nationwide, Schumer called for a review by the Department of Homeland Security, and he held a press conference with 9/11 families. He called on President Bush to step in. DP World hired teams of lobbyists.

In essence, Schumer started the snowball that ultimately led to the defeat of the Dubai Ports deal.

This begs what should be a very obvious question. Who on the Republican side of the aisle will raise cain over Al Gore's sale of Current TV to Al Jazeera like Schumer rightfully did with Bush's desire to see P&O sold to Dubai Ports World?

Republicans are at a disadvantage in a couple of respects. For starters, the Republicans who opposed Bush in 2006 did so based on principle. They broke with their party because it was the right thing to do. Democrats JUST. DON'T. DO. THAT. If Al Gore wants to sell Current TV to Al Jazeera, Democrats support him because, well, he's a Democrat.

Conversely, when George Bush wanted to allow DPW to control U.S. Ports, prominent Republicans opposed him and sided with Democrats. Conservative Republicans are far more inclined to do that when it's the RIGHT. THING. TO. DO.

That said, who has the responsibility to be the anti-Schumer relative to Current TV's sale to Al Jazeera?

Unfortunately for conservative Republicans, the man who has the gavel is also the man who is dis-inclined to take the role.

In short, instead of crying after being re-elected Speaker, Rep. John Boehner (R-OH) should be screaming about the Al Jazeera sale like Schumer screamed about the DPW deal...

...or he should resign.

Al Jazeera's Doublespeak

A common refrain we here from those who defend Al Jazeera's purchase of Current TV is that over the last decade, it is an entity that has decided it wants to become a legitimate news organization and that Al Jazeera English is nothing like Al Jazeera Arabic. Is that not the recipe for doublespeak, where Islamists say one thing in English but something else completely different in Arabic?

Have we learned nothing from Yasser Arafat and Feisal Abdul Rauf?

In applying this test to Al Jazeera, consider two examples taken from Al Jazeera Arabic. One is Muslim Brotherhood spiritual leader, Yusuf Al Qaradawi. The other is the cousin of Barack Hussein Obama, Musa Ismail Obama.

Yusuf Al Qaradawi
Perhaps the most prominent Muslim Brotherhood cleric, Qaradawi had been jailed in Egypt three times for his ties to the radical Islamic group. He ultimately fled to Qatar in 1961 and has been based there ever since. Something else that is based in Qatar is Al Jazeera, which is owned by the government there. As if that isn't disconcerting enough, Qaradawi has his own show on the network. Ironically, Qaradawi is banned from the United States, though the network that airs his program, which is seen by millions of people, will now have a base in New York, 9/11's ground zero.

For those who might be willing to believe that Al Jazeera had already completed its transformation into a legitimate news outlet by 2009, here is Qaradawi on Al Jazeera from that year (h/t Daily Caller):



That's right, Qaradawi has expressed praise for Hitler. He's consistently done so on Al Jazeera, which has given him his own show. How about this excerpt from one of his speeches that aired on the network that aired his show and is owned by the government which continues to provide him a platform:

"Throughout history, Allah has imposed upon the [Jews] people who would punish them for their corruption. The last punishment was carried out by Hitler. By means of all the things he did to them - even though they exaggerated this issue - he managed to put them in their place. This was divine punishment for them. Allah willing, the next time will be at the hands of the believers."

In 2002, Al Jazeera aired an interview with David Duke and featured him as a credible western speaker who made the claim that the Mossad knew about 9/11 in advance and warned the Jews. If one is to believe that Al Jazeera changed its stripes since then, how does one explain Qaradawi's rhetoric as recently as 2009 being featured prominently on the network?

This would be akin to Al Gore selling his network to an entity that gives the KKK's grand kleagle his own show as part of its offering.

Musa Ismail Obama
In 2011, Barack Obama's cousin Musa was interviewed - in Arabic - on Al Jazeera. During that interview, Musa delivered several bombshells. One of them involved the Mama Sarah Children Foundation, which was named after Barack's step-Grandmother. Ostensibly, the intention of the foundation was to provide for underprivileged children.

However, in his interview with Al Jazeera, Musa explained that contributions, much of which comes from the United States, is used to send Kenyan students to Saudi Arabian schools to be educated in Wahhabism.

Check out this excerpt from Walid's piece on the Obamas' Wahhabist Fundraising Empire:

As a result of the flood of students into the Wahhabi Sharia universities in Saudi Arabia, the interviewer then asks regarding the excess: “So you are opening an avenue in other universities?” Musa then explains he had to send the excess to nearby Doha in Qatar, where he visited and arranged everything. When Al-Jazeera asked, “Do all these scholarships involve studying Arabic and Sharia?” Musa explained, “Some of those do not involve Sharia, like medicine or engineering.” Al-Jazeera then asks, “…but the majority involves what?” Musa answers: “Uuuhhh…. The majority of course is Sharia schools,” adding, “because my connection to the institutions is with Sharia schools.”

This necessarily means that an entity owned by the government of Qatar interviewed someone who claimed that Qatar was home to students who were being educated in the most virulent strain of Islam - Wahhabism - under the false pretense that the money contributed to the foundation responsible for sending those students to Qatar, was being used for humanitarian purposes.

Is it not a fair question to ask how many contributors had no intention to contribute to giving students a Wahhabist education? If they didn't know, they were defrauded. If fraud took place, Al Jazeera looked the other way, at best. Did Catholic Relief Services (CRS) know who it was partnering with when it did so with the Mama Sara Foundation?

Isn't all of this a glaring symptom of doublespeak? Didn't Ground Zero mosque Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf do this when he spoke peace and tolerance to English audiences but said the following to Arabic audiences when advising them how to treat westerners:

“Deal with them as one courts a pretty girl he wants to date; stop thinking like a typical Muslim. Then you can engage.”

The truth is that Al Jazeera America (the proposed name for what used to be Current TV) is an extension of Al Jazeera, which is an extension of the Qatari government, which owns the Arabic network. Essentially, this makes Qatar ground zero for Al Jazeera.

In reality, the possibility that Al Jazeera hasn't changed at all since its days in the months and early years after 9/11/01 is very real.