NationStates Jolt Archive

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4737940.stm
US President George W Bush says he will veto any law blocking a deal giving an Arab company control of six US ports.So does Bush have a backbone and is standing up to these ridiculous accusations that the UAE and its companies harbours terrorists OR is he simply bowing to his corporate masters in the Middle East? I'd like to believe the former, but I think I might be too much of cynic for my own good.

This is probably the one Bush policy with which I'd agree.

Fortunately, many republicans disagree with Bush.

I hope he does successfuly veto any attempt to block the UAE company from running the ports. It will help the Democrats in the mid term elections. Go Bush! Fuck things up badly enough so that nobody like you ever gets into office again!

Fortunately, many republicans disagree with Bush.Fortunately? You think Bush is wrong, or think this might create a rift in the GOP?

I hope he does successfuly veto any attempt to block the UAE company from running the ports. It will help the Democrats in the mid term elections. Go Bush! Fuck things up badly enough so that nobody like you ever gets into office again!Why would it fuck things up? The British government allowed the takeover of P&O to go ahead. I don't think it ever seriously thought of blocking the move either.

Why would it fuck things up? The British government allowed the takeover of P&O to go ahead. I don't think it ever seriously thought of blocking the move either.
1) It looks bad to let a company based in a nation that was a money laundering site for Al Qaeda and the home of two of the 9/11 hijackers take over the weakest link in our national security. That's a very exploitable weakness in Bush's "tough on terrorism" platform. And that platform is all he's had going for him lately.

2) In a region loaded with Muslim extremists the odds of one of them getting a job for this company and relocating to the US in order to facilitate some kind of attack is probably pretty high. If one of our ports is exploited in an Al Qaeda attack Bush will be blamed.

Im a dickhead. I hate Bush (I didnt vote for the bastard, and I talked my girlfriend out of voting for him too, which she now thanks me for). And I hate Arabs. Face it, I suck. But I have strong opinions...but on this one Im Flip-Flopping like a muppet. I want to hate arabs, but I have to recognise that the chaps in the UAE have backed us about as well as anyone. And im All for a free market. Right now, I think that if paranoid Bush is willing to trust our ports to these towelheads, they must be OUR towelheads..I have to trust them too

cant make decision on my own...must listen to rush limbaugh first before i have an opinion...

seriously, i think bush is full of crap again, this would be the first time he used his veto ever and he didnt even veto the unconstitutional campaign finance reform.

I call shenanigans. Bush hasn't vetoed anything yet, he's not gonna start now.

i was listening to a piece on npr this morning. came in in the middle of course

but the man was saying that no matter who manages the port, the coastguard and the US customs service still maintain inspections and review manifests. no matter who manages the port, its manned by US citizens who arent going to be helping anyone smuggle in wmd.

the guys at the top dont matter as much as the guys at the bottom do when it comes to keeping bad things out of the US.

its not like its a new company taking over, its been a foreign company, now that company is being bought by a company in the UAE. he also mentioned that 90% of west coast ports are managed by foreign firms. no one is screaming over that. i dont know why we allow foreign companies to manage our ports but that the UAE is getting involved doesnt make it suddenly more wrong.


it made alot of sense.

I wish he'd figured out how to veto a few things before now.

The 'buy American' part of me would prefer to see the sale stopped. The idea that a foreign nation could control our shipping industry is a little unsettling. But I believe that Dubai is just taking over from another foreign firm that now owns the port services. So, in all probability, nothing much will change.

i was listening to a piece on npr this morning. came in in the middle of course

but the man was saying that no matter who manages the port, the coastguard and the US customs service still maintain inspections and review manifests. no matter who manages the port, its manned by US citizens who arent going to be helping anyone smuggle in wmd.

the guys at the top dont matter as much as the guys at the bottom do when it comes to keeping bad things out of the US.

its not like its a new company taking over, its been a foreign company, now that company is being bought by a company in the UAE. he also mentioned that 90% of west coast ports are managed by foreign firms. no one is screaming over that. i dont know why we allow foreign companies to manage our ports but that the UAE is getting involved doesnt make it suddenly more wrong.


it made alot of sense.

Hooray! Sense!

As far as I'm concerned, NO foreign entity should have control of major US ports.

Of course, that didn't stop COSCO (Communist Chinese) from buying that Naval base in Cali during the Clinton admin, so why should I be suprised that Bush is selling out to the Oil Sheiks?

Peh. Republocrats.

Not even in our most Free Market Radicalisim would Libertarians sell off National Security Assets to Foreign concerns.

The funny thing is: the backpeddaling has already started (http://msnbc.msn.com/id/11494815/)

Suddenly the administration is playing the "we didn't know" card. I wonder if that veto is coming now?

Whether opposing Arabs or abetting, it seems that everyone always hates Bush. :rolleyes:

Whether opposing Arabs or abetting, it seems that everyone always hates Bush. :rolleyes:

Well, there's soooooo many things to hate. The guy just makes it so damn easy one hardly has to really try. On the other hand, liking him is rather difficult, and requires a rather large departure from "the reality based community" ;)

Whether opposing Arabs or abetting, it seems that everyone always hates Bush. :rolleyes:yes, i think with this his chances for reelection have gone down greatly.

yes, i think with this his chances for reelection have gone down greatly.
I'd say that his chances of getting re-elected are exactly 0.

This is probably the one Bush policy with which I'd agree.
Same here. Sercurity is remains with the US, so problem there. He was right when he said why should a company from the middle east be judged differently than a country from a different part of world? This is a good olive branch towards Arab nations(which is much needed)

1) It looks bad to let a company based in a nation that was a money laundering site for Al Qaeda and the home of two of the 9/11 hijackers take over the weakest link in our national security. That's a very exploitable weakness in Bush's "tough on terrorism" platform. And that platform is all he's had going for him lately.

2) In a region loaded with Muslim extremists the odds of one of them getting a job for this company and relocating to the US in order to facilitate some kind of attack is probably pretty high. If one of our ports is exploited in an Al Qaeda attack Bush will be blamed.

As far as I am aware the only links dubai had to 9/11 are that ONE of the hijackers was from there and they had Dubai bank accounts. That REALLY does not amount to the state sponsoring terrorism.

Just because the REGION may have extremists in does not mean that the company is run by them.

Why do people assume that just because a company is based in the middle east that it is automatically going to want to destabilise the west? Bear in mind that Dubai is quite a progressive nation and DEPENDS on the west liking it so that its tourism industry does not go tits-up.

I call shenanigans. Bush hasn't vetoed anything yet, he's not gonna start now.
The thing is, he's never had to. Every time he's threatened the veto, the Republican leadership in Congress has rolled over for him and given him what he wants. But I suspect the Republicans in Congress are looking at Bush's consistent 40% approval ratings, looking at the polling on this issue, looking at the polls that show the public favors the Democrats over the Republicans on generic Congressional ballots by 12 points, and are about to tell Bush that it's time he took one for the team, that if he wants this to go through, then dammit he's going to have to use the veto to do it. I really don't see Congress rolling on this, not in what's looking to be a bad election year for Republicans.

As far as I am aware the only links dubai had to 9/11 are that ONE of the hijackers was from there and they had Dubai bank accounts. That REALLY does not amount to the state sponsoring terrorism.

Just because the REGION may have extremists in does not mean that the company is run by them.

Why do people assume that just because a company is based in the middle east that it is automatically going to want to destabilise the west? Bear in mind that Dubai is quite a progressive nation and DEPENDS on the west liking it so that its tourism industry does not go tits-up.
This isn't just a company based in the Middle East--this is a company owned by the government of the UAE. Now I will admit that I didn't know the British ran the ports before, so I wasn't concerned before--I am now, even if the British were to maintain control, and even though it was a private company doing it as opposed to a state company. Some things you shouldn't outsource, and port security is one of them.

And you especially shouldn't outsource to a company owned by a foreign government who may be friendly now, but cannot be guaranteed to always remain so.

As far as I am aware the only links dubai had to 9/11 are that ONE of the hijackers was from there and they had Dubai bank accounts. That REALLY does not amount to the state sponsoring terrorism.

Just because the REGION may have extremists in does not mean that the company is run by them.

Why do people assume that just because a company is based in the middle east that it is automatically going to want to destabilise the west? Bear in mind that Dubai is quite a progressive nation and DEPENDS on the west liking it so that its tourism industry does not go tits-up.

Yes, well as far as Congress is concerned, they are EXTREMELY curious as to why the Administration failed to follow the law.

You see, there are differences in the investigations required for questions of direct investment when the company is owned by a foreign government. Specifically: (http://www.treasury.gov/offices/international-affairs/exon-florio/)


Amendments. Section 837(a) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1993, called the "Byrd Amendment," amended Section 721 of the Defense Production Act (the "Exon-Florio provision"). It requires an investigation in cases where:

o the acquirer is controlled by or acting on behalf of a foreign government; and
o the acquisition "could result in control of a person engaged in interstate commerce in the U.S. that could affect the national security of the U.S."


Clearly this deal meets both criteria and so should trigger a full 45-day investigation.

The Administration, however“could not say why a 45-day investigation did not occur.” (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/22/politics/22port.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1140636306-/DIH3Mft6LaqY+7h/RRVIQ)


Now, I realize that following the law isn't a really big thing for this administration, but some members of Congress seem to be getting tired of it. Especially those Republicans who sell themselves as being "strong on defense and security" and will have to answer to the voters about this sale.

I call shenanigans. Bush hasn't vetoed anything yet, he's not gonna start now.
:D

Well, both, with his motive being more towards the second than the first.

Yes, well as far as Congress is concerned, they are EXTREMELY curious as to why the Administration failed to follow the law.

You see, there are differences in the investigations required for questions of direct investment when the company is owned by a foreign government. Specifically: (http://www.treasury.gov/offices/international-affairs/exon-florio/)



Clearly this deal meets both criteria and so should trigger a full 45-day investigation.

The Administration, however“could not say why a 45-day investigation did not occur.” (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/22/politics/22port.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1140636306-/DIH3Mft6LaqY+7h/RRVIQ)


Now, I realize that following the law isn't a really big thing for this administration, but some members of Congress seem to be getting tired of it. Especially those Republicans who sell themselves as being "strong on defense and security" and will have to answer to the voters about this sale.
Good post. *bows*

As little as my input means on this subject (and many others):
Don't think for a second that Bush's interests ever sway from corporate directive. That's the mistake too many people make.

yes, i think with this his chances for reelection have gone down greatly.
With his second election his chances for reelection disappeared. It's the law, you can't be prez more than twice in a row.

I try to post about this but all that enters my head are naughty words about our president.

How is this even an argument? How could anyone possibly support this?

As far as I am aware the only links dubai had to 9/11 are that ONE of the hijackers was from there and they had Dubai bank accounts. That REALLY does not amount to the state sponsoring terrorism.

Just because the REGION may have extremists in does not mean that the company is run by them.

Why do people assume that just because a company is based in the middle east that it is automatically going to want to destabilise the west? Bear in mind that Dubai is quite a progressive nation and DEPENDS on the west liking it so that its tourism industry does not go tits-up.
Two came from the UAE. Dubai is part of the UAE.
Al Qaeda moved money through the UAE and the UAE failed to cooperate in tracking down Bin Laden's accounts.

http://www.democrats.com/uae-ports

Also where do companies tend to hire from? Their region, mostly. Only people with specific skills and talents that aren't available locally are likely to be imported. Now this company takes over US ports and will likely transfer some of it's people there to oversee it's interests. Many of those will be UAE citizens. Some of those may be Al Qaeda sympathizers.

Also where do companies tend to hire from? Their region, mostly. Only people with specific skills and talents that aren't available locally are likely to be imported. Now this company takes over US ports and will likely transfer some of it's people there to oversee it's interests. Many of those will be UAE citizens. Some of those may be Al Qaeda sympathizers.

Not really...usually, foreign companies will hire from the region they are in for both economic and PR reasons; given the sentiment in the US it is likely that they will retain current workers rather than import them. It simply isn't worth the conflict.

I support this deal 100%. If they can do an equal or better job and their deal is superior to any other bid, allow them to buy it. After all, the UAE has a vested interest in not attacking the US.

Not really...usually, foreign companies will hire from the region they are in for both economic and PR reasons; given the sentiment in the US it is likely that they will retain current workers rather than import them. It simply isn't worth the conflict.

I support this deal 100%. If they can do an equal or better job and their deal is superior to any other bid, allow them to buy it. After all, the UAE has a vested interest in not attacking the US.
I'm not so much worried about the UAE as I am about them bringing some employees to our ports from the region. Among those employees may be some Al Qaeda sympathizers or agents who may assist in bringing WMD or just plain explosives into our nation through our ports.

I'm not so much worried about the UAE as I am about them bringing some employees to our ports from the region. Among those employees may be some Al Qaeda sympathizers or agents who may assist in bringing WMD or just plain explosives into our nation through our ports.
Which isn't all that hard to do, as things stand now. Our ports should be the number one priority for Homeland Security since it is one of our weakest links and a prime target to be exploited.

Two came from the UAE. Dubai is part of the UAE.
Al Qaeda moved money through the UAE and the UAE failed to cooperate in tracking down Bin Laden's accounts.

http://www.democrats.com/uae-ports

Also where do companies tend to hire from? Their region, mostly. Only people with specific skills and talents that aren't available locally are likely to be imported. Now this company takes over US ports and will likely transfer some of it's people there to oversee it's interests. Many of those will be UAE citizens. Some of those may be Al Qaeda sympathizers.
Funny how no one in favor of this move is mentioning that the CIA missed a chance to launch a missile at Bin Laden because he was hanging out with half the royal family of the UAE (http://in.rediff.com/news/2004/mar/25osama.htm). And remember--this is no ordinary company; it's owned by the UAE government.

Funny how no one in favor of this move is mentioning that the CIA missed a chance to launch a missile at Bin Laden because he was hanging out with half the royal family of the UAE (http://in.rediff.com/news/2004/mar/25osama.htm). And remember--this is no ordinary company; it's owned by the UAE government.


Yep. I put a thread up here somewhere that pointed to Tenents testimony on that subject.


Oh yes, and another odd thing: Just last month GW Appointed a senior person from that very same company to the position that would now have to oversee it! (http://www.dpiterminals.com/fullnews.asp?NewsID=39)

How do you spell "conflict of interest" again?


Now, we all know about GW's penchant for cronyism, which begs the question: Did he know this guy before appointing him? And if so, what was the relationship? And does that relationship extend to the company as a whole?

Hmmm, a lot of people seem to be missing the point that the port operations are owned by a British company which has been taken over by DP World. Preventing DP world come aquiring these assets IS state seizure of private property. As the previous owner no longer exists. People also seem to think that port security operations are being privately run, which they are not, it is quite simply the comercial operations. Customs is still being run by US Customs. And that DP world has agreed to mandatory inspections of shipping that enters their ports by the Coast Guard.

If the the US government is so concerned by DP World and UAE, and their links to terrorism, then why not invade them and have done with it?

I was floored when I heard about this. It’s almost like the US Gov is begging someone to smuggle in WMD’s through these ports to restart the War on Terror for them. I can’t believe they could be so stupid. Oh wait, after remembering who we are dealing with, I believe. Other than making great new story lines for the next season of 24, for Jack Bauer to save America from itself, I can’t see much profit in this.

Sure the United Arab Emirates have a lot of fingerprints on militant Islamic movements and terrorism, including 9-11, but why wouldn’t you want them controlling major US ports, through a government controlled corporation. It’s not like having people linked to terrorism controlling your ports in any way diminishes your ability to keep out WMD’s or terrorist cells from smuggling themselves into the country. Really, hasn’t New Orleans suffered enough from US government incompetence already? While they’re at it, maybe they should have North Korea and Iran bid on controlling the US atomic commission. I think that they feel a bit left out.

The Republican House leaders of the Senate and Congress have both rebelled against Bush and are putting through some fast tracked legislation to block the contracting out of port management by Bush’s business friends in the UAE. Despite having both Republican houses against him, Bush says that he will pull out the Veto against any legislation blocking him. Even the US new networks that treat the Bush administration with kid gloves aren’t backing him on this one.

With all the blood and oil backing up in his closet, I don’t think Bush would be wise to defy the Republican Party on this. Bush has had a hand in so much incompetence and outright lies that it would be a very simple thing to impeach his regime on any number of misdeeds. Bush is kidding himself if he thinks he can openly defy the people who are pulling all the strings for him in Congress and in the Senate.

The Bruce

Hmmm, a lot of people seem to be missing the point that the port operations are owned by a British company which has been taken over by DP World. Preventing DP world come aquiring these assets IS state seizure of private property. As the previous owner no longer exists. People also seem to think that port security operations are being privately run, which they are not, it is quite simply the comercial operations. Customs is still being run by US Customs. And that DP world has agreed to mandatory inspections of shipping that enters their ports by the Coast Guard.

If the the US government is so concerned by DP World and UAE, and their links to terrorism, then why not invade them and have done with it?
I think it might be a better idea to have ports which are secure than to go around invading at will. Maybe when the Coast Guard has the necessary funds to do it's job, people will be less horrified at this idea of the UAE taking over the ports.

I hope he does successfuly veto any attempt to block the UAE company from running the ports. It will help the Democrats in the mid term elections. Go Bush! Fuck things up badly enough so that nobody like you ever gets into office again!

Yea considering Port Security is still going to be done by the US and the longshoremen have nothing to fear about their jobs. All that is changing is who pays them.

i was listening to a piece on npr this morning. came in in the middle of course

but the man was saying that no matter who manages the port, the coastguard and the US customs service still maintain inspections and review manifests. no matter who manages the port, its manned by US citizens who arent going to be helping anyone smuggle in wmd.

the guys at the top dont matter as much as the guys at the bottom do when it comes to keeping bad things out of the US.

its not like its a new company taking over, its been a foreign company, now that company is being bought by a company in the UAE. he also mentioned that 90% of west coast ports are managed by foreign firms. no one is screaming over that. i dont know why we allow foreign companies to manage our ports but that the UAE is getting involved doesnt make it suddenly more wrong.


it made alot of sense.

100% accurate. Thanks Ashmoria

The funny thing is: the backpeddaling has already started (http://msnbc.msn.com/id/11494815/)

Suddenly the administration is playing the "we didn't know" card. I wonder if that veto is coming now?

Actually, this is accurate. They don't control sales. They find out about it after its a done deal.

I also love this little bit of news: What about those fighters we sold to the U.A.E.? No one made a fuss over that either.

yes, i think with this his chances for reelection have gone down greatly.

I hope you know that he cannot run again.

As far as I am aware the only links dubai had to 9/11 are that ONE of the hijackers was from there and they had Dubai bank accounts. That REALLY does not amount to the state sponsoring terrorism.

Just because the REGION may have extremists in does not mean that the company is run by them.

Why do people assume that just because a company is based in the middle east that it is automatically going to want to destabilise the west? Bear in mind that Dubai is quite a progressive nation and DEPENDS on the west liking it so that its tourism industry does not go tits-up.

Because most of the people are class A idiots who have no idea what the hell they are talking about.

Hmmm, a lot of people seem to be missing the point that the port operations are owned by a British company which has been taken over by DP World. Preventing DP world come aquiring these assets IS state seizure of private property. As the previous owner no longer exists. People also seem to think that port security operations are being privately run, which they are not, it is quite simply the comercial operations. Customs is still being run by US Customs. And that DP world has agreed to mandatory inspections of shipping that enters their ports by the Coast Guard.

If the the US government is so concerned by DP World and UAE, and their links to terrorism, then why not invade them and have done with it?
Fuck invading them. Nation building sucks. I propose that from now on when the USA has a problem with another country we just bomb the hell out of them and leave. Nuke them if we're really annoyed.

Ya know? I heard something very interesting on the radio!

Why pay billions for a port just to blow it up when you could've blown it up then buy it on the cheap?

People here really need to get a brain because it is obvious that no one is thinking.

1) It looks bad to let a company based in a nation that was a money laundering site for Al Qaeda and the home of two of the 9/11 hijackers take over the weakest link in our national security. That's a very exploitable weakness in Bush's "tough on terrorism" platform. And that platform is all he's had going for him lately.

2) In a region loaded with Muslim extremists the odds of one of them getting a job for this company and relocating to the US in order to facilitate some kind of attack is probably pretty high. If one of our ports is exploited in an Al Qaeda attack Bush will be blamed.

1) Britain was also the home of someone planning a terrorist attack, i.e. Richard Reid, the shoe bomber. Good thing the UK was never involved in US ports!...oh, wait...As to the money laundering thing: Some people in one country helped Al-Qaeda, so everyone and everything associated with that country are now a security threat?

2) This objection would make sense if the UAE were handling port security, instead of the Coast Guard and DHS.

Ya know? I heard something very interesting on the radio!

Why pay billions for a port just to blow it up when you could've blown it up then buy it on the cheap?

People here really need to get a brain because it is obvious that no one is thinking.

Because then you would have to spend billions rebuilding the port....

I'm a Bush supporter, but I hope the Congress can get a veto override on this bullshit.

People here really need to get a brain because it is obvious that no one is thinking.
Speak for yourself, buddy. The only reasons why I don't mind this switch was that I realized that Dubai PA has no connections to terrorism, nor do they want to further the terrorist agenda. Also, if we oppose the deal just because they're arab, that will just make the arab nations hate us even more, if that's possible.

This isn't just a company based in the Middle East--this is a company owned by the government of the UAE. Now I will admit that I didn't know the British ran the ports before, so I wasn't concerned before--I am now, even if the British were to maintain control, and even though it was a private company doing it as opposed to a state company. Some things you shouldn't outsource, and port security is one of them.
And you especially shouldn't outsource to a company owned by a foreign government who may be friendly now, but cannot be guaranteed to always remain so.

True, but no one is outsourcing port security. The company involved will be paper-pushing existing contracts between the people who are actually doing the work of loading and unloading ships. Once again, port security is handled by the Coast Guard and the DHS.

Because then you would have to spend billions rebuilding the port....

But then, your still wasting money by blowing up the port. There's no profit in it.

The only reasons why I don't mind this switch was that I realized that Dubai PA has no connections to terrorism, nor do they want to further the terrorist agenda. Also, if we oppose the deal just because they're arab, that will just make the arab nations hate us even more, if that's possible.

I agree with you 100%

But then, your still wasting money by blowing up the port. There's no profit in it.

The idea is that people that would support flying planes into buildings to hurt your enemies might not be so concerned with profit.

Hey guys, if the deal's gone through already Congress really can't do anything about it
To pass a law now would be ex post facto

I agree with you 100%
That's a first :D ! *hands Corny a cookie* wait, didn't we agree on the dropping of the nukes a while back?

Yes, well as far as Congress is concerned, they are EXTREMELY curious as to why the Administration failed to follow the law.

You see, there are differences in the investigations required for questions of direct investment when the company is owned by a foreign government. Specifically: (http://www.treasury.gov/offices/international-affairs/exon-florio/)

Amendments. Section 837(a) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1993, called the "Byrd Amendment," amended Section 721 of the Defense Production Act (the "Exon-Florio provision"). It requires an investigation in cases where:
o the acquirer is controlled by or acting on behalf of a foreign government; and
o the acquisition "could result in control of a person engaged in interstate commerce in the U.S. that could affect the national security of the U.S."


Clearly this deal meets both criteria and so should trigger a full 45-day investigation.


No. Managing a port does not clearly effect national security, if the government is the sole agency managing security at the port. Once again, the Coast Guard and the DHS run security at the ports.

The idea is that people that would support flying planes into buildings to hurt your enemies might not be so concerned with profit.

No but terrorists do consider bottom lines when it suits them. Port deals is a good money maker and it'll let them get much needed money to continue their actions.

However, this company, as far as I know, isn't connected to terrorism and has other port deals as well. This is only dealing with port operations and I have no problems with it since it is just that.

Two came from the UAE. Dubai is part of the UAE.
Al Qaeda moved money through the UAE and the UAE failed to cooperate in tracking down Bin Laden's accounts.

http://www.democrats.com/uae-ports

Also where do companies tend to hire from? Their region, mostly. Only people with specific skills and talents that aren't available locally are likely to be imported. Now this company takes over US ports and will likely transfer some of it's people there to oversee it's interests. Many of those will be UAE citizens. Some of those may be Al Qaeda sympathizers.

The Swiss also refuse to hand over financial records at the prompting of foreign powers. They must be ebil.
Al-Qaeda moved people and money through Maine and Florida, too. Better keep those folks away from the ports.
The UAE company merely bought the company that currently runs the ports. The only people who might come over will be 2 or 3 guys in suits who are far more concerned with profits than with planning attacks that would disrupt trade relations with the US.

1) Britain was also the home of someone planning a terrorist attack, i.e. Richard Reid, the shoe bomber. Good thing the UK was never involved in US ports!...oh, wait...As to the money laundering thing: Some people in one country helped Al-Qaeda, so everyone and everything associated with that country are now a security threat?
I don't recall Boston being bombed flat over some cretin funding Sinn Fein, so I suppose this sort of attitude only cuts one way.

I saw a story in the Atlanta paper today. Jimmy Carter has praised GWB for the Dubai port deal. I've changed my mind. If Jimmy Carter, the man who never met either a dictator or terroist he didn't like, is for the deal, then it's a bad idea.

I'm not so much worried about the UAE as I am about them bringing some employees to our ports from the region. Among those employees may be some Al Qaeda sympathizers or agents who may assist in bringing WMD or just plain explosives into our nation through our ports.

The company that owns it is the fourth largest in the world; I don't think they'd throw away their reputation or that of the UAE just to smuggle in terrorists. Besides, from a strictly PR standpoint it would be a bad move to hire Arabic workers to replace US ones.

Funny how no one in favor of this move is mentioning that the CIA missed a chance to launch a missile at Bin Laden because he was hanging out with half the royal family of the UAE (http://in.rediff.com/news/2004/mar/25osama.htm). And remember--this is no ordinary company; it's owned by the UAE government.

Your linked article does not state when or how they were associating. Just because some members of the UAE royal family were seen with him does not make them terrorists or even sympathetic to them. I have associated with people who I later found out were rapists. Does that make me sympathetic to rapists?

Your linked article does not state when or how they were associating. Just because some members of the UAE royal family were seen with him does not make them terrorists or even sympathetic to them. I have associated with people who I later found out were rapists. Does that make me sympathetic to rapists?

No of course not.

But hey, if a possible meeting between an Iraqi intelligence person and an al qaeda senior official was good enough for this administration to paint Saddam as a supporter of Osama in the leadup to war.... well then at the very least I think it is fair for Congress to want to get some more information from the Intelligence community on how deep this PERSONAL relationship between the royal family of the UAE and BinLaden was.

It is called "due dilligence", and it is SUPPOSED to be what Congress must perform. And it is part of why the law REQUIRES investigation of transactions like this.


And that is, after all, what Congress is asking for. Details of the legally required investigation to approve this transaction. They are being told that they don't need to know.... that it's all a big secret.

Frankly, the administration is ruling like a kingdom - keeping his council in the dark and making major decisions in secret. That is NOT how the country is supposed to work. Three seperate but equal branches to provide checks and balances remember?

Oh, and I put the link to the transcript of Tenent's testimony here (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=470200)

Seems that they were visiting at one of the terrorist training camps, and the CIA elected not to bomb it as they were not 100% positive that Osama was staying inside the camp, and they didn't want to miss him but take out the royals.

No of course not.

But hey, if a possible meeting between an Iraqi intelligence person and an al qaeda senior official was good enough for this administration to paint Saddam as a supporter of Osama in the leadup to war.... well then at the very least I think it is fair for Congress to want to get some more information from the Intelligence community on how deep this PERSONAL relationship between the royal family of the UAE and BinLaden was.

It is called "due dilligence", and it is SUPPOSED to be what Congress must perform. And it is part of why the law REQUIRES investigation of transactions like this.

You are making several assumptions here.

1) That Republican spin is as valuable as logic. This has nothing to do with Iraq, terrorists, or relations between different families of Arab monarchs. IIRC Bin Laden himself is Saudi royalty, and if royalty in the Middle East is anything like European royalty, they are probably related. So what? Does that mean the FBI should spy on Timothy McVeigh's mother?

2) Congress hasn't done its job. The law you posted earlier involves national security. Since port security is still in the hands of the Coast Guard and DHS, this is a moot point. Security is as tight as ever. Since there's no change, what is congress supposed to investigate?

Oh, and I put the link to the transcript of Tenent's testimony here (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=470200)

Seems that they were visiting at one of the terrorist training camps, and the CIA elected not to bomb it as they were not 100% positive that Osama was staying inside the camp, and they didn't want to miss him but take out the royals.

So, some members of the UAE royal family might have been at a camp that Bin Laden may or may have not been inside, that may or may not have been dismantled at the time.

That's a really strong link from Al-Qaeda to the people who are directly in charge of Dubai Ports World.:rolleyes:

[x] protecting the interests of a few UAE business men.
Don't need to think a single second about it - definitely this :rolleyes:

I hope he does successfuly veto any attempt to block the UAE company from running the ports. It will help the Democrats in the mid term elections. Go Bush! Fuck things up badly enough so that nobody like you ever gets into office again!
He's already fucked up lots of things really badly... it's the only thing he's actually good at.

So, some members of the UAE royal family might have been at a camp that Bin Laden may or may have not been inside, that may or may not have been dismantled at the time.

That's a really strong link from Al-Qaeda to the people who are directly in charge of Dubai Ports World.:rolleyes:

I never said it was strong. But it is at least as strong as the link cited as part of a reason to go to war. Pretending that it is immaterial to this instance is a fatuous whitewash.

Oh yes, and please reread the clauses in the law:

Clause 1)
o the acquirer is controlled by or acting on behalf of a foreign government;

Certainly applies.

Clause 2)

o the acquisition "could result in control of a person engaged in interstate commerce in the U.S. that could affect the national security of the U.S."

Clearly, having the control of port management, facilities, and employee hiring meets the criteria of "could affect the national security".

All the Congress is acting for is the required investigation. The word from Chertoff was that it was all too secret for them to know about.

What is the administration afraid of? If the company is clean, do the 45 day investigation and satisfy the questions! Then the sale proceeds and everyone is happy.

Why are they (and you) so adamant that an investigation is unwarranted?

I might've missed it or something, i apologize if that's the case ...

*ahem*

http://www.bradenton.com/mld/bradenton/news/politics/13922695.htm

Dubai company set to run U.S. ports has ties to administration
BY MICHAEL MCAULIFF
New York Daily News
WASHINGTON - The Dubai firm that won Bush administration backing to run six U.S. ports has at least two ties to the White House.
One is Treasury Secretary John Snow, whose department heads the federal panel that signed off on the $6.8 billion sale of an English company to government-owned Dubai Ports World - giving it control of Manhattan's cruise ship terminal and Newark's container port.
Snow was chairman of the CSX rail firm that sold its own international port operations to DP World for $1.15 billion in 2004, the year after Snow left for President Bush's cabinet.
The other connection is David Sanborn, who runs DP World's European and Latin American operations and who was tapped by Bush last month to head the U.S. Maritime Administration.
The ties raised more concerns about the decision to give port control to a company owned by a nation linked to the Sept. 11 hijackers.
"The more you look at this deal, the more the deal is called into question," said Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., who said the deal was rubber-stamped in advance - even before DP World formally agreed to buy London's P&O port company.
Besides operations in New York and Jersey, Dubai would also run port facilities in Philadelphia, New Orleans, Baltimore and Miami.
The political fallout over the deal only grows.
"It's particularly troubling that the United States would turn over its port security not only to a foreign company, but a state-owned one," said western New York's Rep. Tom Reynolds, chairman of the National Republican Campaign Committee. Reynolds is responsible for helping Republicans keep their majority in the House.
Snow's Treasury Department runs the Committee on Foreign Investment in the U.S., which includes 11 other agencies.
"It always raises flags" when administration officials have ties to a firm, Rep. Vito Fossella, R-N.Y., said, but insisted that stopping the deal was more important.
The New York Daily News has learned that lawmakers also want to know if a detailed 45-day investigation should have been conducted instead of one that lasted no more than 25 days.
According to a 1993 congressional measure, the longer review is mandated when the company is owned by a foreign government and the purchase "could result in control of a person engaged in interstate commerce in the U.S. that could affect the national security of the U.S."
Congressional sources said the president has until March 2 to trigger that closer look.
"The most important thing is for someone to explain how this is consistent with our national security," Fossella said.

---
It also should be noted ....

http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/02/23/news/assess.php
...
The administration's core problem at the ports, most experts agree, is how long it has taken for the U.S. government to set and enforce new security standards and provide the technology to look inside the millions of containers that flow through them.

The newly created U.S. Customs and Border Protection Agency, for example, requires that cargo ships arriving in the United States must send, electronically, lists of what is put in containers headed for U.S. ports. But only 4 or 5 percent of those containers are actually inspected.

There is virtually no standard for how containers are sealed, or for certifying the identities of thousands of drivers who come into the ports to pick them up. If a nuclear weapon is put inside a container - the real fear here, but one that politicians do not want to discuss explicitly - "it will probably happen when some truck driver is paid off to take a long lunch, before he even gets near a terminal," Flynn said.
...


Food for thought ... munchie, minchie.