Selling us and our security up the river? Not all Republicans are for it!

Friends and neighbors, I can hardly begin to tell you how disturbed I am by George W. Bush's attitude and actions re selling control of our ports to our allies in the United Arab Emirates. As those of you who follow my blog know, this is not my first post on the topic.

However, this time, I have some promising news to report: my Congressman, a Republican, broke ranks with the seig heil party line and has actually objected – in public remarks – to the sale of our ports to the UAE. Here is my letter to him; it is followed by comments I received in an e-mail from him (surely in response to the many petitions I signed and letters I sent imploring his aid in the matter).

Please…if your Congressional officials are Republicans who show the courage to deviate from the Bush party line, please take the time to thank them. They need our support so they realize how important it is for them to represent us.

-----
February 27, 2006


Dear Congressman:

Thank you for your email of February 24, 2006, and for your comments regarding the proposed takeover of ports by United Arab Emirates.

At this difficult time in our country’s history, a time I believe our democracy is at risk, you’ve taken a bold and courageous position. It is my heartfelt prayer that the politicians in Washington will put party affiliation aside and consider the implications of this proposed takeover.

Please continue working for the welfare of America. After all, that is in everyone’s best interest, isn’t it?

If there is anything I can do regarding this issue, please contact me. It is so important that I will assist in any way I can.

Sincerely,


Dot Calm

copy to:
my Senators
Senator B. Boxer

-----
Comments from my Republican Congressman opposing the sale of our ports to the UAE:

Had it not been for the U.A.E. royal family, Osama bin Laden may have been dead two years before 9-11. very possibly averting the loss of life in New York, the Pentagon, and in Pennsylvania.

According to the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (also known as the 9-11 Commission), in February 1999 the United States had located bin Laden in a hunting camp in the desert of Afghanistan. This was not in an urban area, so the risk of collateral damage was minimal. Preparations were made for a possible strike.

But no strike was launched.

No strike was launched because when bin Laden would regularly go to the hunting camp, it was to visit with members of the Royal family of the U.A.E.! The C.I.A. received reports that bin Laden regularly went from his adjacent camp to the larger camp where he visited with Emiratis. According to C.I.A. officials, policymakers were concerned about the danger that a strike might kill an Emirati prince or other senior officials who might be with bin Laden. Former C.I.A. Director George Tenet testified that the strike was called off because in killing bin Laden, "you might have wiped out half the royal family in the U.A.E. in the process."

When confronted by U.S. intelligence officials, a top U.A.E. official vehemently denied that high-level U.A.E. officials were in Afghanistan. Evidence subsequently confirmed that high-level U.A.E. officials had been there.

By February 12th, bin Laden had apparently moved on and the immediate strike plans became moot.

The leaders of the government that controls Dubai Ports World, Inc. were regularly visited by bin Laden. When confronted about this, they lied. Their presence kept bin Laden from being killed prior to 9-11. All of this we know because of the 9-11 Commission.

Today, administration officials ask why the U.S. should treat a company owned by the government of the U.A.E. any differently than a private British firm.

Since Prince Charles was not hanging out with bin Laden in Taliban-controlled Afghanistan, I believe the answer is clear.

This decision is wrong, and it must be stopped.