The UAE: Bush's Done Dubai Deal

The UAE: Bush's Done Dubai Deal
mumin_bey@yahoo.com

10:26 AM 2/26/06 Sun

With the Moon and Neptune in exact conjunction overhead Penn's Landing, I thought this would be a perfect time to write this essay...

This week's column by Charles Krauthammer accurately frames the issues swirling around the now held-up ports deal brokered between the Bush Administration and the United Arab Emirates, which is the home of the shipping giant Dubai Ports World. As we all know, some 6 key ports in the USA are up for grabs, with the former outfit being British-run, out of the picture, and the UAE's boys in. But, not so fast - both the loyal opposition Democrats, AND not a few Republicans, are bent on at least slowing the deal down, if not killing it outright. For now, they have the first round. It remains to be seen whether they will, however, win the bout.

Krauthammer is correct in saying that the very same people who made such a stink about Racial Profiling in airports and subways, are the ones who now demand that out ports be run only by folks who look like Americans - and since not many Americans run ports these days, the Brits would do (as long as they were White, or at least not Arab looking). He's also correct, on the other hand, to point out that not only would DPW, but ANY ports outfit would by definition have access to critical security information. Of course, and these are my thoughts here, the fact that DPW has successfully run ports for other countries around the world without incident (while countries like uh, the UK have had subway bombings in "Londonistan") doesn't matter in the slightest; lest we forget, we mustn't be confused by the facts. Forget the fact that the UAE has been one of the USA's largest allies in the Middle East and Islamic World against Terrorism; true, they aren't as democratic as we'd like them to be - but then again, Pakistan isn't a paragon of free electoral virtue either, and yet, President Musharraf has literally risked his life on more than one occasion to help the USA out.

Still though, the fact remains that out of some 4 million people in the UAE, only two have been involved in the Terror Attacks on Sep 11 (compared with at least 5 times as many who hailed from Saudi Arabia, the birthplace of Osama Bin Laden - oh, and by the way, the Saudis have really gone out on a limb to fight Terror, too.). Not to make light of the situation, but really, come on folks - two people don't a Terrorist State make.

While conspiracy theorists, party loyalists, nativists, stomp-down racists, hard-core leftists and Islamophobes, astrological or non, yammer on about this wholle thing, it might be useful for the rest of us free and clear thinkers to consider the astrological evidence:

United Arab Emirates Dec 2 1971 12PM USZ3, Dubai; Placidus 27 Aqr 44, Campion

This chart represents the founding of the UAE, and plays a crucial role in our examination of the DPW ports deal. It's interesting to note that this chart, like so many charts representing the Middle Eastern countries, has significant planetary activity in the Mutuable Signs; in this case, that of the UAE, no less than 7 planets are in Mutuable Signs. Which means that the UAE, for better or worse, would be effected in a big by the transits of Pluto, Uranus and eventually, Saturn.

According to The Rulership Book by Rex Bills, the Moon and Neptune represent "ports"; by extension, we can add the 4th House as well. In the UAE chart, we can see the Full Moon in Gemini (the UAE being a conglomeration of smaller kingdoms) in the 4th House, opposing Neptune and Jupiter, and square Mars, rising in the 1st House in Pisces. Mercury, the ruler of the 4th, is placed in the 10th at the 28th degree of Sagittarius - the Pluto transit in conjunction is right around the corner.

The radical jihadist elements in its midst can be seen by noting the planet ruling the 12th House of secret enemies and terrorists; here it is Saturn in Gemini, which, if we go back to the astrological moment when the WTC was struck, had Saturn in Gemini. There's our tie-in of the UAE, in the form of a few of the hijackers, coming from that particular country. Pluto would play a role as well, since Saturn makes an easy trine to Pluto in the 7th House, itself at the Aries Point. The terrorists want their cause and deeds to be well known. And we can't forget Neptune, in the 9th House of Religion, in opposition to this Saturn placement - again, the terrorists act out of warped understandings of Islam.

However, note that the terrorist element in the UAE is not only a minority (Gemini symbolism, small) but so too it is vehemently in opposition to the UAE government - Saturn opposes the UAE Sun!!! AND, Saturn in this chart is not in conjunction with the UAE Moon, which moves away from Saturn. Saturn itself is Rx...suggesting a degree of isolation, of being outcastes. This is hardly a chart that would condone Terrorism.

Now, contrast that with the chart of Iran: Feb 1 1979 9.50AM IRT, Tehran; Placidus 11 Ari 30, Campion. As we all know, Iran is a terrorist-sponsoring State, giving aid and comfort to such groups as Hezbollah and others. Note Uranus, ruling the 12th House, again of secret enemies and terrorists, disposing of the Iranian Sun, Mars, and Mercury - the seat of power (Sun), the military (Mars) and media apparatus (Mercury) all explicitly help the terrorists! Note too the Iranian Moon IN the 12th House, with Uranus itself Peregrine (Tyl), running wild in the chart, dominating it in terms of its symbolism ("the revolution", etc.). Iran's astrology clearly and emphatically points to a State Sponsor of Terror. The UAE, on the other hand, clearly is not.

If you consider the charts of Syria and Libya, you'll see similar things with regard to their 12th Houses and the tie-ins they make to either the 10th House and/or Sun.

Now that we've got that out of the way, let's consider the big question: will the UAE deal go through?

Going back to the UAE's chart, it would appear so: SA Venus=Jupiter/Pluto last month, a major signal of financial success, and could indicate that that was the time when the ports deal was greenlighted by the Bush Administration (deals being signed - Venus rules the 3rd); and coming up in Apr, SA Pluto=Sun/Venus, yet another strong signal of success in business, this time with clear reference to international business (Pluto ruling the 9th). The current stink about Arabs running American ports shouldn't last much longer - remember, all this happens as Uranus squares the UAE Full Moon axis. Uranus isn't a flood like Neptune or longstanding plauge like Pluto, it's more like a twister. It'll hit and be gone, as swift as it came. The UAE has been gracious in allowing US lawmakers and so on time to review the deal, but in the end, it'll go through.

But back here at home, the American public is all in a tizzy over the whole thing, and it smacks dangerously close to Racism to me. Using the Sibly chart for the USA, we see that Neptune, representing phobias, is in the 9th House of "other people", religions and cultures. Mars, ruling the 4th - ports - squares this Neptune position from the 7th, and there you go. However, big money is on the line, shown by the upcoming arcs of Pluto=Uranus/Neptune and Mercury=Asc, both coming due in Apr. Mercury and Pluto are in the 8th and 2nd Houses respectively, and with the exactness of these Solar Arcs near, we can be sure that the deal is likely to go thru around that time, if not sooner.

As for the American public's phobia of Islam in general and Arabs in particular, we can expect to see all of that come to head around the sametime, Spring of this year; there will be much conversations, tv & radio shows, internet discussions and roundtable forums, on exactly what Islam is and isn't, and how that goes to distinguish between folks just trying to live their lives and those who want to snuff out ours (Mercury co-ruling the 9th, in opposition to Pluto natally, ruling the 7th).

Now, take a deep breath...relax...and carefully read Charles Krauthammer's article. It makes a lot of sense.

Salaam,
Mu

Harbour exit
Feb 24, 2006
by Charles Krauthammer ( bio | archive | contact )

Email to a friend Print this page Text size: A A WASHINGTON -- If only Churchill were alive today, none of this would be happening. The proud imperialist would have taken care that the Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co., chartered in 1840 by Victoria ("by the grace of God ... Queen defender of the faith'' on "this thirty first day of December in the fourth year of our reign''), would still be serving afternoon tea and crumpets on some immaculate Jewel-in-the-Crown cricket pitch in Ceylon.

The United Arab Emirates would still be a disunited bunch of subsistence Arab tribes grateful for the protection of the British Navy in the Persian Gulf.

And we hapless Americans -- already desperately trying to mediate, pacify and baby-sit the ruins of Churchill's Empire: Iraq, Palestine, India/Pakistan, Yemen, even (Anglo-Egyptian) Sudan -- would not be in the midst of a mini-firestorm over the sale of the venerable P&O, which manages six American ports, to the UAE.

This has raised the obvious question of whether we want our ports, through which a nuclear bomb could come, handled by a country two of whose nationals flew into the South Tower on 9/11 and which has a history of laundering money and nuclear secrets from bad guys to worse guys.


Congress is up in arms. The Democrats, in particular, are in full cry, gleeful to at last get to the right of George Bush on an issue of national security.

Gleeful, and shamelessly hypocritical. If a citizen of the UAE walked into an airport in full burnoose and flowing robes, speaking only Arabic, Democrats would be deeply offended, and might even sue, if the security people were to give him any more scrutiny than they would to my sweet 84-year-old mother.

Democrats loudly denounce any thought of racial profiling. But when that same Arab, attired in business suit and MBA, and with a good record 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.)

On this, the Democrats are rank hypocrites. But even hypocrites can be right. There is a problem. And the problem is not just the obvious one that an Arab-run company, heavily staffed with Arab employees, is more likely to be infiltrated by terrorists who might want to smuggle an awful weapon into our ports. But that would probably require some cooperation from the operating company. And neither the company nor the government of the UAE, which has been pro-American and a reasonably good ally in the war on terror, has any such record.

The greater and more immediate danger is that as soon as the Dubai company takes over operations, it will necessarily become privy to information about security provisions at crucial U.S. ports. That would mean a transfer of information about our security operations -- and perhaps even worse, about the holes in our security operations -- to a company in an Arab state in which there might be employees who, for reasons of corruption or ideology, would pass this invaluable knowledge on to al Qaeda-types.

That is the danger and it is a risk, probably an unnecessary one. It's not quite the end of the world that Democratic and Republican critics have portrayed it to be. After all, the UAE, which is run by a friendly regime, manages ports in other countries without any such incidents. Employees in other countries could leak or betray us just as easily. The issue, however, is that they are statistically more likely to be found in the UAE than, for example, in Britain.

It's a fairly close call. I can sympathize with the president's stubbornness in sticking to the deal. He is responsible for our foreign relations, and believes, not unreasonably, that it would harm our broader national interest to reject and humiliate a moderate Middle Eastern ally by pulling the contract just because a company is run by Arabs.

This contract should have been stopped at an earlier stage, but at this point doing so would cause too much damage to our relations with moderate Arab states. There are no very good options. The best exit strategy is this: (1) Allow the contract to go through; (2) give it heightened scrutiny by assigning a team of U.S. government agents to work inside the company at least for the first few years to make sure security is tight and information closely held; (3) have the team report every six months to both the executive and a select congressional committee.

Not nearly as clean as the Harriet Miers exit. But as I said, there are no very good options. There have not been very many since Britannia stopped ruling the waves, and it all fell to us.

Charles Krauthammer is a 1987 Pulitzer Prize winner, 1984 National Magazine Award winner, and a columnist for The Washington Post since 1985.


http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/charleskrauthammer/2006/02/24/187679.html