After a threatened veto of any blocking of the port deal, Bush then claimed that he was unaware of the deal that he had just spent 48 hours truculently defending. From Associated Press coverage: “WASHINGTON (Feb. 22) - President Bush was unaware of the pending sale of shipping operations at six major U.S. seaports to a state-owned business in the United Arab Emirates until the deal already had been approved by his administration, the White House said Wednesday.”

Similarly dubious claims of ignorance soon followed, from Donald Rumsfeld and many other Bush officials, rushing to distance themselves from the matter with immediate plausible denial and a variety of excuses.

It is typical of the openly criminal Bush inner circle, that Bush and his operatives have even tried to deny knowledge of a port deal that they “thoroughly vetted," and over which a secret deal was already negotiated. But the criminal nature of the Bush administration, and its slow motion stumbling, is not news.

Bush Weakness Fuels Intensified 9/11 “War on Terrorism” Fear Mongering

Whether it is the result of purposeful disinformation, calculated political motive, or genuine stupidity, top Washington officials, as well as pundits from both “progressive” and conservative circles, have tripped over themselves to scream about the “national security” threat posed by the DP World port deal.

Officials continue to obsessively recite the original 9/11 “war on terror” myth, including the bogus 9/11 hijacker legend (the “two 9/11 terrorists from Dubai”) and other known fallacies. The myth of the “outside enemy” and “Islamic terrorism” remain the propaganda cornerstones of this Empire, and it is a bipartisan agenda, as well as around the clock material for the media.

The DP World story, complete with its 9/11 red herrings, half-truths, and out of control “terrorism” fear, is more of the same. It is one of many emerging battles to control the future of the “war on terrorism” itself.

The scandal-ridden Bush administration seems to have lost control of its own “war on terrorism” fabrication. A typical New World Order business deal, that would have sailed through a few years ago, is on the verge of being aborted, in bitter irony, by the “war on terrorism” fiction itself, which is being wielded like a weapon against Bush, by both Bush political foes and allies alike. Corrupt-beyond-redemption members of Congress, from both parties have moved in “solidarity” to attack Bush. Even Bush’s own Republican suck-ups (Bill Frist, Dennis Hastert, George Pataki, Rick Santorum, even Tom DeLay) are in full mutiny mode.

Commenting on the political foolishness, George Friedman of Stratfor noted, “I find it amazing to watch the Democrats who have consistently argued that the Bush administration holds a simplistic understanding of the world and treats all Muslims as equals, to take this position. Republicans have the virtue of being both wrong and consistent. They have consistently taken the view that the Islamic world should be regarded as a universal threat. The Democrats sudden discovery of how dangerous this particular purchase is, is inconsistent, as well as wrong."

Dems & Progressives Push “Port Security” Pretext for Further Militarization of the US

It is no surprise that congressional Democrats are attacking the Bush administration for another “incompetent failure” to “protect the US from another Arab terror attack," and even blasting Bush, for “not doing enough." The controversy has also sparked a new and coordinated braying from progressives, from the intellectual consent creators to activist groups, screaming about the privatization and corporatization of “our infrastructure," screaming for Bush to “make us safe." (According to John Nichols of The Nation, “the problem with the Ports situation is not that the corporation in question is Arab-owned. The problem is that Dubai Ports World is a corporation.”)

Democrats have been fully complicit with the Bush administration in maintaining 9/11-related propaganda, and the expansion of the US war of conquest to Iran, and beyond, as well as the deepening militarization of the civilian infrastructure of the United States. As pointed out by Michel Chossudovsky in America’s “War on Terrorism," “the Democrats are not opposed to the illegal occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan. Nor are they opposed to the militarization of civilian institutions, as evidenced by their 1996 initiative to repeal the Posse Comitatus Act. Moreover, their perspective and understanding of 9/11 and the 'war on terrorism' is broadly similar to that of the Republicans.” The leading Democrats also have no qualms about world oil conquest or globalization.

Indeed, it is the Democrats who are screaming the loudest for more homeland security, more domestic militarization (of everything from airports to emergency response, to railways and the ports), and even more of a police state within US borders. It is a page out of the John Kerry-John Edwards presidential campaign, during which the candidates incessantly railed Bush for failing to provide “port security."

There is no finer an example of how the Democratic Party really works than Joe Biden, one of many Washington officials who met with the Pakistan ISI Chief (and Al-Qaeda-ISI-US go-between) Lt. General Mahmoud Ahmad before and on 9/11 (and has not addressed or clarified what happened in these meetings). Biden, a leading advocate of “bombing the hell” out of Afghanistan, and a supporter of US force in the Middle East is among many Democrats calling for an “investigation” of the port deal with “our Arab friends."

A cynical view goes like this: the Democrats probably have no real problem with the UAE (a key Middle East “war on terrorism” ally, and major oil supplier). They probably have no real problem with DP World, or even the idea of outsourcing US ports. They certainly could not have any real issues about foreign investment in the US (a staple of multinational globalization). What they are doing is playing political football with “terrorism," in an election year. In other words, in exchange for a deal, and a piece of the action (“congressional involvement”), the Democratic faction will likely stop barking.

Anti-Iran Propaganda

Another red flag is the propaganda linking of the Dubai/port story to Iran, in preparation for future military hostilities with “terrorist nation” Iran.

Mainstream media has been quick to note that Pakistani nuclear terrorist A.Q. Khan met with Iranian officials in Dubai (a major transshipment point). Watch for the Iran-“terror” connections to become increasingly prominent as the Middle East crisis worsens.

Business and Treason as Usual for the Empire

Those who are railing about the administration’s apparent hypocrisy (such as Paul Krugman) and the many groups pointing out how the entire reaction has been violently racist (American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee of New York, Arab American Institute, etc.) are correct. But they miss the larger points.

In defending the deal, Bush combatively warned, “After careful review by our government, I believe the transaction ought to go forward. 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.” Bush may have unintentionally told the truth.

The DP World deal is, on the surface, no different than untold numbers of transactions that take place on a daily basis at the highest levels of power, where morals and ethics are selective or moot, and laws have little or no bearing.

The fact that the United States does business with criminals, and nations with real and alleged ties to “terrorism” (of which the United Arab Emirates is just one of many) is thoroughly unremarkable. It's the norm in a world economy that is built upon the maintenance, control and guided use of criminal money flows. Enron, AIG, the Carlyle Group, and Halliburton are not atypical examples.

A glance at the board of directors of any typical Fortune 500 company is all that is required to understand how business is really done, and the members of the New World Order who really run things. For example, the financial ties between the Saudi royal family and Wall Street is in the billions. Saudi Prince Alaweed is the largest single shareholder of Citigroup, where he sits atop its board alongside former CIA director John Deutch and Roberto Hernandez, who has been exposed as one of the largest drug money launderers in the Western hemisphere.

Contrary to news analysis praising his “nuanced diplomacy” (he isn’t capable of that), Bush actually told the truth about how US elites, like his own ruthless family, do business. And it has nothing to do with “security," justice, or legality. At that level, such concepts are just that: jokes.

The UAE, Oil, and Geostrategy

How the DP World/port story highlights the reality of world energy depletion, Peak Oil and Gas, is both obvious and unaddressed.

An overture to the United Arab Emirates is no surprise. The relationship between the US and the UAE is longstanding -- with unquestioned bipartisan support in Washington. It is a major oil supplier and home to some 8 percent of the world oil supply, a key Middle East geostrategic political ally, a major donor to Bush. A strategy involving the UAE is a component of the still-secret Dick Cheney Energy Task Force.

It is also a nexus for money laundering, and it is linked (in both real and bogus ways) to Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda. A series of reports in 2001, by Le Figaro, Radio France International, and the Guardian, placed Osama bin Laden in a Dubai hospital in July of 2001, where he met with two CIA officers as well as members of the Saudi royal family, and Prince Turki, the head of Saudi intelligence.

The Bush administration cannot and will not offend any “friendly” government that serves key functions. Seen through the eyes of a Bush regime that knows that the jig is up, a major deal for US ports, the outsourcing of chunks of the US homeland, is a small price to pay to maintain its relationship with the UAE.

DP World itself is, on paper, a purely commercial enterprise, with the UAE government having no involvement in day-to-day operations.

If DP World does not get a free pass, the upcoming congressional “hearings” may still result in a negotiated deal, after the Democrats are done batting the political football around for show. DP World has hired the despicable Bob Dole to plead its case in Congress.

Potential for False Flag Operation

If there is a possible hidden agenda exposed by the DP World story, it is in the potential for US ports to be used as part of a false flag operation, or a “new 9/11," with “failed port security” serving as a component.

The false flag operation is one in which the perpetrator supplies its own enemy. Nothing better exemplifies this type of event than 9/11. False flag operations have also been the staple of post-9/11, from the Bali bombings to Madrid to London 7/7, likely orchestrated by Anglo-American intelligence, and blamed on “Arab terrorists."

In blasting the administration, Senator Carl Levin (D-Michigan), asked, “Is there not one agency in this government that believes this takeover could affect the national security of the United States?” Not in the way he suggests, and only under certain conditions.

The threat is not, as the shrill Democrats deceptively or stupidly insist, a potential exterior attack delivered by “Arabs," but another interior operation planned from within Washington, with bipartisan support.

This returns us to the central issue: that the 9/11 event was not an “outside” attack, and that the “war on terrorism” is a fabrication. There is more than ample documentation that al-Qaeda, and “Islamic terrorism” are creations of the CIA, and that these “terrorists” function as guided US military intelligence assets and propaganda vehicles in false flag operations, the largest of which was 9/11.

As Mike Ruppert notes in Crossing the Rubicon, “the movements and activities of Osama bin Laden and his family are desired outcomes, rather than the effects of collective stupidity." Any real or imagined “terror” event, including any discussion of the port controversy, must be viewed from this perspective. All of the propaganda smoke must be brushed aside.

Who Actually Runs Port Security?

What much of the mainstream coverage of the port controversy downplays, or entirely ignores, is the fact that companies that own and manage US ports have no control over security issues at US ports. DPW and the United Arab Emirates would, therefore, have no control over security. Who does?

In fact, US port security is managed by US Homeland Security, and the office of Michael Chertoff, in conjunction with the Coast Guard, local police and US Customs. In other words, the Bush administration is ultimately in charge of the ports.

What about the vaunted Committee on Foreign Investment charged with oversight? Members of Congress are calling on this body to do something. It is a multi-agency arm of the Bush administration, headed by the US Treasury Department, with chairmanship shared with, among others, the Secretaries of State (Condoleeza Rice), Defense (Rumsfeld), Commerce (Carlos Guiterrez), the Attorney General (Alberto Gonzales) and the Department of Homeland Security (Chertoff). In other words, the Bush administration is also in charge of managing and monitoring foreign investment in the US.

If there is a genuine threat, it will come from the wolves guarding the hen house -- the Bush administration. Having the ports operated by Dubai, but with security controlled by Homeland Security, is an ideal arrangement that ensures control for a false flag operation, as well as a convenient built-in scapegoat -- “Arab terrorists running our ports."

It is interesting to speculate about the possibility that a planned false flag operation, perhaps involving these specific DPW-designated ports is, or was, in the works. Perhaps the entire controversy we are witnessing now is fallout from this operation being blown, for whatever reason, at inception. But this is pure speculation.

While the actual details of the port deal have not been revealed, and there is currently no evidence supporting any “terrorism” scenario, the ongoing threat posed by the desperate Bush cabal, as well as increasingly strident neoliberals and Democrats, must be understood clearly -- distractions, political smoke, and propaganda notwithstanding.