NationStates Jolt Archive

Bush really has no idea as to what his Administration is doing. There have been speculation and conspiracy theories in the past that argue that Bush is just a puppet or that his Administration was planned well before 2000 to further the neocon PNAC agenda. This just gives more grounds for that:

WASHINGTON - 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.

Bush wasn't told about the port ownership swap until after it was approved. Now he's defending it vehemently saying he'll veto any action that will oppose the deal, even though he had no idea the deal was even going to take place until after it was approved. Who's really president? Cheney? Rove? Bush 41? Your guess is as good as mine. One thing's for sure though, it isn't Dubya.

link: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11494815/

1) Only PORT OPERATIONS are being handed over.

2) US will still be doing port security

3) Longshoremen will still have their jobs.

4) the only thing changing is who pays them.

5) The President doesn't get involved in all of this. He only hears about it AFTER the deal is done.

6) I honestly don't care and if he vetos the bill that is probably going to pass Congress, Congress will probably override the veto and thus end our free market society.

1) Only PORT OPERATIONS are being handed over.

2) US will still be doing port security

3) Longshoremen will still have their jobs.

4) the only thing changing is who pays them.

5) The President doesn't get involved in all of this. He only hears about it AFTER the deal is done.

6) I honestly don't care and if he vetos the bill that is probably going to pass Congress, Congress will probably override the veto and thus end our free market society.
You missed the entire point, except for #5 there. Besides, can you justify this in any way? Wouldn't it make sense to at least tell him about it? After all, he is president, right?

You missed the entire point, except for #5 there. Besides, can you justify this in any way? Wouldn't it make sense to at least tell him about it? After all, he is president, right?

Why should the President get involved in a private transaction?

You missed the entire point, except for #5 there. Besides, can you justify this in any way? Wouldn't it make sense to at least tell him about it? After all, he is president, right?
In theory he's president, in practice he would seem to be a glove puppet with ceheny's hand up his arse.

Why should the President get involved in a private transaction?
Because it involves handing over jurisdiction of US ports to terrorists.

Why should the President get involved in a private transaction?
He doesn't necissarily have to get involved. I said nothing about him getting involved, merely him being informed of what's going to happen.

Because it involves handing over jurisdiction of US ports to terrorists.
how do you know they're terrorists? because it's an Arab-based company?

Because it involves handing over jurisdiction of US ports to terrorists.

Prove that they are connected with terrorists.

He doesn't necissarily have to get involved. I said nothing about him getting involved, merely him being informed of what's going to happen.

On a private transaction?

On a private transaction?
Why not? It does have a possiblility of affecting national security. It's a major transaction that, as president, he should be notified. Perhaps it had been a private transaction with a company that had proven ties to terrorists. Should he still not be notified then?

Why not? It does have a possiblility of affecting national security. It's a major transaction that, as president, he should be notified. Perhaps it had been a private transaction with a company that had proven ties to terrorists. Should he still not be notified then?

If it had proven ties then the deal would not go forward. As to the transaction, the ports were already owned by a different foreign corporation.

I do see your point though and I do believe he should've been informed.

Because it involves handing over jurisdiction of US ports to terrorists.
All Muslims have become terrorists? That's news to me.

All Muslims have become terrorists? That's news to me.
I thought you lived in the states? Muslims are terrorists. All of them, even Richard Thompson.

As far as I know, ports are probably one of the easiest ways to get a WMD into the country. They scan what, maybe 3-5%(That's the figure I've heard, correct me if I'm wrong) of crates? Just ship one to a warehouse in a major area, and BOOM! I'd say it's pretty important, even if it is a trustworthy company.

I thought you lived in the states? Muslims are terrorists. All of them, even Richard Thompson.

Ok, I hope this is sarcasm because if it isn't then you are an idiot.

I think it is. It "sounds" like sarcasm to me.

for one thing, prove they're terrorists, saying that they're definitely terrorists seems a bit discrimatory to me. Also, whether he's actively president or not, do you know how much shit dubya(or whoever effectively runs the country) would have to deal with if he were informed of every transaction of this sort that took place? you can't expect him to get involved in every private transaction like that. I don't see why this is such a big deal.

This is starting to appear as walking the fine line between a gesture of trust and leaving the gate unlocked in a bad neighbourhood. It may be entirely innocent altogether, but it looks too good to be true for both the supposed terrorist inroads to the continent, and also to those who would insist that all muslims are terrorists. Either way there are going to be a million I Told You Sos coming out of this.

This is starting to appear as walking the fine line between a gesture of trust and leaving the gate unlocked in a bad neighbourhood. It may be entirely innocent altogether, but it looks too good to be true for both the supposed terrorist inroads to the continent, and also to those who would insist that all muslims are terrorists. Either way there are going to be a million I Told You Sos coming out of this.

Despite the fact that there are more ways to get into the country than via the ports? Canada and Mexico they can get in from ya know!

for one thing, prove they're terrorists, saying that they're definitely terrorists seems a bit discrimatory to me. Also, whether he's actively president or not, do you know how much shit dubya(or whoever effectively runs the country) would have to deal with if he were informed of every transaction of this sort that took place? you can't expect him to get involved in every private transaction like that. I don't see why this is such a big deal.
Maybe I'm missing something, but ceding control of six ports to foreign powers may be a slight breach of sovereignity.

Corneliu, yes it was sarcasm. I'd assumed from the Simpsons that Americans could grasp irony. Obviously I was mistaken.

Maybe I'm missing something, but ceding control of six ports to foreign powers may be a slight breach of sovereignity.

Corneliu, yes it was sarcasm. I'd assumed from the Simpsons that Americans could grasp irony. Obviously I was mistaken.Globalisation is a breach of sovereignty, period.

Maybe I'm missing something, but ceding control of six ports to foreign powers may be a slight breach of sovereignity.

Corneliu, yes it was sarcasm. I'd assumed from the Simpsons that Americans could grasp irony. Obviously I was mistaken.

A British corporation already manages the ports.

What he said. What makes a company from the UAE different from the U.K.?

What he said. What makes a company from the UAE different from the U.K.?
A British company won't be run by members of a religion dubya has been villifying since 2001.

A British company won't be run by members of a religion dubya has been villifying since 2001.

And that makes it a bad company how? From what I've heard, this company has a great track record all over the world.

DP World is the third largest ports company in the world. Why do people think that it would want to ruin its reputation and ability to operate in western countries by being active or even complicit in terrorist activities?

Maybe I'm missing something, but ceding control of six ports to foreign powers may be a slight breach of sovereignity.

Sorry but no it doesn't breach Sovereignity. Not really anyway since these ports were already under ownership of a different foreign company.

Corneliu, yes it was sarcasm. I'd assumed from the Simpsons that Americans could grasp irony. Obviously I was mistaken.

I do not watch the simpsons. I prefer to watch better quality Televisionn than that garbage.

But Infinite Dunes, the Muslims are all EVIL! There's no such thing as a good person from the Middle East.[/sarcasm]

DP World is the third largest ports company in the world. Why do people think that it would want to ruin its reputation and ability to operate in western countries by being active or even complicit in terrorist activities?

Actually, they'll be the fourth. Not the third.

Actually, they'll be the fourth. Not the third.I blame the media. All the news I've looked at as said they will be third with P&O. Even the sites that suggested that letting DP World own the ports would open up American cities to possibility of nuclear terrorist strikes capable of distroying all of New York.

edit: P&O was 4th, DP World was 7th, but now it will be 3rd.

And that makes it a bad company how? From what I've heard, this company has a great track record all over the world.
It doesn't make it a bad company, but in dubya land, all muslims are evil.

This is Dubai we're talking about, home of "The World", the Burj Dubai tower, and thousands of Eastern European prostitutes. Calling these people Muslim fundamentalists would be like calling a Las Vegas casino owner a Christian fundamentalist. It's not as if these people are doing much more than top level management anyway, there'll probably only be a handful of arabs at these ports.

It doesn't make it a bad company, but in dubya land, all muslims are evil.

Oh how the ignorant stay in the wood work.

It doesn't make it a bad company, but in dubya land, all muslims are evil.

But Dubya's supporting this move. Are you trying to say he's a hypocrite? Is so, just come out and say it. No one's going to kill you for it. I agree that he is.

Oh how the ignorant stay in the wood work.
Bush has been spouting this shit whenever he speaks about terrorists, yet is handing over American ports to a UAE company. If he can't be bothered with trying to be consistent, why should I?

Uberpenguin: calling him a hypocrite would be giving him undue credit.

Bush has been spouting this shit whenever he speaks about terrorists, yet is handing over American ports to a UAE company. If he can't be bothered with trying to be consistent, why should I?

Not once did he say that all muslims were terrorists. So now that we have totally blown your talking points sky high, tell me precisely what is wrong with this deal.

As far as I can see, judging from reports, there's nothing wrong with this deal.

Bush has been spouting this shit whenever he speaks about terrorists, yet is handing over American ports to a UAE company. If he can't be bothered with trying to be consistent, why should I.

I don't recall Bush ever saying all Muslims are evil...perhaps you could provide some proof?

If a company can do the job as well or better than any other and offers the best deal for their services, then there is no reason not to take it.

The free market should determine who gets the deals, not the desires of vote-grubbing Congressmen who think intervening makes them look "tough on terrorism" when in reality it's just a sign of their anti-Islamic and anti-free market bias.

Bush really has no idea as to what his Administration is doing. There have been speculation and conspiracy theories in the past that argue that Bush is just a puppet or that his Administration was planned well before 2000 to further the neocon PNAC agenda. This just gives more grounds for that:



Bush wasn't told about the port ownership swap until after it was approved. Now he's defending it vehemently saying he'll veto any action that will oppose the deal, even though he had no idea the deal was even going to take place until after it was approved. Who's really president? Cheney? Rove? Bush 41? Your guess is as good as mine. One thing's for sure though, it isn't Dubya.

link: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11494815/


You really are a dumb partisan. The Administration isn't selling the ports. The government isn't doing it either. The ports were already owned by a foreign firm. (A British one in this case.) The British company that owned them was bought out by Dubai Ports.

Of course the facts haven't stopped you from making a total ass of yourself and making it look like the evil Republicans are doing this. PLease go away if you are too dumb to actually research the topics you post on.

Why should the President get involved in a private transaction?


...i dont know...maybe...because he is the president of the united states of america.....?? :headbang:

...i dont know...maybe...because he is the president of the united states of america.....?? :headbang:

So he should be involved in EVERY private transaction?

I don't recall Bush ever saying all Muslims are evil...perhaps you could provide some proof?

If a company can do the job as well or better than any other and offers the best deal for their services, then there is no reason not to take it.

The free market should determine who gets the deals, not the desires of vote-grubbing Congressmen who think intervening makes them look "tough on terrorism" when in reality it's just a sign of their anti-Islamic and anti-free market bias.
Neocons have no business bitching about anti Islamism. You're right about that much.

Neocons have no business bitching about anti Islamism. You're right about that much.

And they're the ones who whine the loudest...

And they're the ones who whine the loudest...
They're certainly the first to run screaming to a moderator on this board, I've noticed.

They're certainly the first to run screaming to a moderator on this board, I've noticed.

Oh yeah...there's been more than one instance of them doing things like that. Of course, there have been posters on the left that were just as crazy (Lyric comes to mind), but that just doesn't seem as common.

Oh yeah...there's been more than one instance of them doing things like that. Of course, there have been posters on the left that were just as crazy (Lyric comes to mind), but that just doesn't seem as common.
It is an odd and strange situation.

You really are a dumb partisan. The Administration isn't selling the ports. The government isn't doing it either. The ports were already owned by a foreign firm. (A British one in this case.) The British company that owned them was bought out by Dubai Ports.

Of course the facts haven't stopped you from making a total ass of yourself and making it look like the evil Republicans are doing this. PLease go away if you are too dumb to actually research the topics you post on.
You are also a dumb partisan. Please try not to flame, as you missed the entire point.

You are also a dumb partisan. Please try not to flame, as you missed the entire point.
How am I being partisan? I'm against this sale when the rest of my party is for it. That is hardly being partisan.

Besides, how would Bush know about this move? There are thousands of such transactions between international corporations a month. The President doesn't individually approve each one.

Besides, how would Bush know about this move? There are thousands of such transactions between international corporations a month. The President doesn't individually approve each one.

It was only a $6.8 billion dollar deal; given that international direct investment is well over $2.4 trillion per year (just investment, not trade) it seems virtually impossible that Bush would be directly informed of it.

It was only a $6.8 billion dollar deal; given that international direct investment is well over $2.4 trillion per year (just investment, not trade) it seems virtually impossible that Bush would be directly informed of it.
How much would it have to pay before he had to be informed?

How much would it have to pay before he had to be informed?

He doesn't have to be informed about deals like this period.

He doesn't have to be informed about deals like this period.
As the CEO of America, surely somebody would mention it? I'd imagine that a lot of trade goes through those ports, after all.

How much would it have to pay before he had to be informed?

It would have to be huge; even the $100 billion plus merger between AOL and Time Warner in 2000 didn't get a comment from former president Clinton, and the merger mania of the 1980's recieved little mention from former president Reagan.

This is a private-sector business deal, so the president usually doesn't know much about it since the paperwork is handled by various federal agencies and not the executive branch. Even most government contracting is handled by agencies with the president having no involvement in the matter at all.

It does seem a bit odd (given the fuss about evil jihadists and the current adventure in the middle east at the moment) that nobody thought to mention it, though.

Not to mention the huge impact on national security it would have if an untrustworthy company got it.

It would have to be huge; even the $100 billion plus merger between AOL and Time Warner in 2000 didn't get a comment from former president Clinton, and the merger mania of the 1980's recieved little mention from former president Reagan.

This is a private-sector business deal, so the president usually doesn't know much about it since the paperwork is handled by various federal agencies and not the executive branch. Even most government contracting is handled by agencies with the president having no involvement in the matter at all.The net worth doesn't really matter here. Since it involved the 4th and 7th largest port operators in the world and 6 US ports I think perhaps he should have been notified.

Think how much trade runs through these ports, not just how much they are worth.

It does seem a bit odd (given the fuss about evil jihadists and the current adventure in the middle east at the moment) that nobody thought to mention it, though.

There's a bureaucratic culture in the federal government (or in any large body, really) that results in many deals, regulations, etc. being processed without the people at the top being informed beyond a cursory degree to meet whatever guidelines are set out...if every deal were to be reviewed by the President or department heads, it would take years to certify every one and many would never get through, and that would be quite terrible for the economy.

"Neglecting" to inform the top-rung agency heads and advisors beyond a minimal level usually maximizes the amount of work that can be done...it's a means of increasing efficency in a giant organization like the government.

The net worth doesn't really matter here. Since it involved the 4th and 7th largest port operators in the world and 6 US ports I think perhaps he should have been notified Think how much trade runs through these ports, not just how much they are worth.

Well, that's usually not figured in because transferring ownership doesn't give the owner the authority to close the port to commerce; if they were to do that it could easily be reopened by the government due to a number of legal and contractual violations.

As the CEO of America, surely somebody would mention it? I'd imagine that a lot of trade goes through those ports, after all.

Considering that alot of them are the busiest ports around, yea your right about the amount of trade. However, the ports are not owned by the US Government. If they were then yea, the Administration would've been notified. However these are not owned by the government so... no he doesn't have to be notified.

Well, that's usually not figured in because transferring ownership doesn't give the owner the authority to close the port to commerce; if they were to do that it could easily be reopened by the government due to a number of legal and contractual violations.
Okay, say I'm a trillionaire (I'm not sure one exists yet), and I like to blow up ports as a hobby. Would it not be a good idea to block me from aquiring the ownership of the port?

Hypothetical and irrelevant. :D

Okay, say I'm a trillionaire (I'm not sure one exists yet), and I like to blow up ports as a hobby. Would it not be a good idea to block me from aquiring the ownership of the port?

Hypothetical and irrelevant. :D


Well, if you're a trillionaire, I'm sure we could charge you the difference and let you blow them up for fun...:p

Oh, and there are trillionaires...one trillion Zimbabwean shillings are equal to $40,000,000 USD. The funniest thing is that Somalia's currency is worth 25 times more than Zimbabwe's and they don't even have a government...

Considering that alot of them are the busiest ports around, yea your right about the amount of trade. However, the ports are not owned by the US Government. If they were then yea, the Administration would've been notified. However these are not owned by the government so... no he doesn't have to be notified.
You'd think he should still be notified, what with all the hype about national security. It would make sense to notify the President about any change in port management.

You'd think he should still be notified, what with all the hype about national security. It would make sense to notify the President about any change in port management.

I'm surprised national security is even being dragged into this since the Coast Guard and the DHS is still doing Port Security. That will not change.

You'd think he should still be notified, what with all the hype about national security. It would make sense to notify the President about any change in port management.
It doesn't change the security situation as the company that buys the port isn't in charge of security. THe USCG still has that job. There is no major need for the POTUS to be involved.

Your comments on this topic definitely show your lack of understanding of the business world and the Presiden'ts role in it.

It doesn't change the security situation as the company that buys the port isn't in charge of security. THe USCG still has that job. There is no major need for the POTUS to be involved.

Your comments on this topic definitely show your lack of understanding of the business world and the Presiden'ts role in it.
Alright. You are missing my point, and Corneliu, you're missing it again. I never said the President had to be involved. Contrary to your bigoted opinion, I am well aware that the USCG still has control over port security, and I am actually in favor of this switch, if you would actually read some of my other posts. I never said this shouldn't go forward. I am merely saying, that it makes sense for someone to tell Bush "hey, six ports are going to be under new ownership." Obviously, the Administration, the people who approved the deal, didn't think it was necissary to simple inform the President. Clear? Good.

Why should the President get involved in a private transaction?
Because there is federal involvement.

Alright. You are missing my point, and Corneliu, you're missing it again. I never said the President had to be involved. Contrary to your bigoted opinion, I am well aware that the USCG still has control over port security, and I am actually in favor of this switch, if you would actually read some of my other posts. I never said this shouldn't go forward. I am merely saying, that it makes sense for someone to tell Bush "hey, six ports are going to be under new ownership." Obviously, the Administration, the people who approved the deal, didn't think it was necissary to simple inform the President. Clear? Good.

Yes it is clear but I guess you are missing the point that this is a private transaction between private companies for the most part. As long as the companies in question have no ties to terror then I don't care if the President is notified or not.

Because there is federal involvement.

Actually, beauracracy is involved. President Bush doesn't have to be notified till after the deal is done. I believe that is how things work when your dealing with this type of transaction.

Yes it is clear but I guess you are missing the point that this is a private transaction between private companies for the most part. As long as the companies in question have no ties to terror then I don't care if the President is notified or not.
Yeah, so let me be a little more specific: The article states that his Administration approved of the deal, thus Bush, the President, is not part of his Administration. Does that make sense?

Yeah, so let me be a little more specific: The article states that his Administration approved of the deal, thus Bush, the President, is not part of his Administration. Does that make sense?

Since various cabinet posts are involved, yea the article is correct that the administration approved it. However, they do not need the President's ok to approve of the deal.

When Bush became aware of it, he asked the cabinet if they were comfortable with it and they said they were.

I'm still wondering though what superiors your talking about though.

Since various cabinet posts are involved, yea the article is correct that the administration approved it. However, they do not need the President's ok to approve of the deal.

When Bush became aware of it, he asked the cabinet if they were comfortable with it and they said they were.

I'm still wondering though what superiors your talking about though.
I didn't even say Bush had to approve it. For the third, or fourth time--I've lost track--they just should've informed him.

The "superiors" are the people who are really making the American policy and calling the shots, as expressed here.

I didn't even say Bush had to approve it. For the third, or fourth time--I've lost track--they just should've informed him.

Should maybe yea, I could agree there but frankly, I don't care.

The "superiors" are the people who are really making the American policy and calling the shots, as expressed here.

I would love to know who they are. Until then, I'll chalk it up to massive conspiracy theory that has no weight whatsoever.

I would love to know who they are. Until then, I'll chalk it up to massive conspiracy theory that has no weight whatsoever.
I guess, just by being a moderate conservative, no conscious fault of your own, it'd be hard for you to see that Bush just acts like a puppet. Remember that "radio device" in his jacket that was waived off as a "badly tailored suit"? Sounds to me like bullshit. Anyways, the people I'm talking about are people like Karl Rove, Rumsfeld, better yet, just look at the people on this list (http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm). I'm not saying this is the case, just a rather strong possibility.

I guess, just by being a moderate conservative, no conscious fault of your own, it'd be hard for you to see that Bush just acts like a puppet. Remember that "radio device" in his jacket that was waived off as a "badly tailored suit"? Sounds to me like bullshit.

That's because it was his SPINE!!! Geez... this was already proven already.

Anyways, the people I'm talking about are people like Karl Rove, Rumsfeld, better yet, just look at the people on this list (http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm). I'm not saying this is the case, just a rather strong possibility.

This does not prove your point Achtung.

That's because it was his SPINE!!! Geez... this was already proven already.

His spine has a little cross bar at the top? I'm not gonig to try to find the link, but look at the picture closer and adjust the contrast. See? Besides, that's not the main point here and I'm weary of this fruitless arguing. We both know no one is going to change our minds. Does that ever happen on General? :p
This does not prove your point Achtung.
Didn't I just explicitly say I'm not trying to prove a point?

His spine has a little cross bar at the top? I'm not gonig to try to find the link, but look at the picture closer and adjust the contrast. See? Besides, that's not the main point here and I'm weary of this fruitless arguing. We both know no one is going to change our minds. Does that ever happen on General? :p

No but everyone pretty much knows it was his spine. Even the Democrats didn't press the issue on it and if anyone would, they would. And as far as I know, no minds have been changed in this freakin forum.

Didn't I just explicitly say I'm not trying to prove a point?

Just giving you a hard time :)

Friends?